Can we nominate this guy for President?
"Terrorism is something we can live with" Oliver Stone
Patty Murray (Democrat) publically praised Osama Bin Laden and suggested that the US would get a better reputation in the international community by following his example.
Senator Kerry (Democrat) wrote "The New Soldier", and if you want to hear all the arguments against the conflict in Iraq, read it. Just change "vietnam" to Iraq and you'll be set. freekerrybook.org/documen...OS_000.PDF
The list of failings of the Democrat party in the areas of defense and foreign policy (Jimmy Carter was a COMPLETE disaster, not supporting the Shaw, etc) are numerous.
So the guy can call Bush a liar, fine by me. What he cannot do is turn the Democrat party into a viable alternative to the Republican party in areas of national defense and foreign policy.
As far as the "eroding the constitution" bullspit, if Congress passes it, and the president signs it, then the SUPREME COURT can determine the constitutionality of it, just like they are doing with the PATRIOT ACT.
Jimro
The list of failings of the Democrat party in the areas of defense and foreign policy (Jimmy Carter was a COMPLETE disaster, not supporting the Shah, etc) are numerous.
With respect to Jimmy Carter, whether or not he publicly supported Reza Shah, he was on his way out. Many Iranians viewed his regime as being oppressive and it didn't help that the Americans (and British, and to an extent the Russians) were supporting him and his father (who was heavily helped in his coup of the Safavid dynasty by the British) before him, all the time. The CIA, under the guise of "saving" countries from communism, was also helping to overthrow and exile ministers of popular public sentiment (Mossadeq is one that comes to mind in Iran) or just assassinating them.
The next big problem with Iran also came from the fact that the mullahs basically muscled the nascent communist government out after the Shah left and used the Shah coming to the US as an incitement for war (So what if he's being treated for cancer? See? He was a puppet all along! Etc. etc.)
For people who claimed to be harbringers of democracy, our record in the Middle East and in other places in terms of "our mission" (may as well put it in quotes because it's not exactly my mission :p) isn't exactly stellar, whether our Democrat or Republican.
That, and Carter was not equipped to be a major foreign policy president, nor was he ever intending to be, and he stressed that during his campaigns and during the beginning of his presidency ("Peanut Farmer"? Grassroots campaign?). If people didn't like that, they wouldn't have voted for him. But they did - part of his appeal (aside from not being involved in Watergate) was that he would solve our problems. Not Iran's problems. Our problems, which, in the 1970's were quite numerous with economic and oil slumps, and unemployment and disco and the public's distrust of government due to Watergate and Vietnam. To say he was a total disaster in foreign policy ignores all that happened in the 1970's.
So, imagine you're Jimmy Carter. Which is more important - use your resources trying to get your own country out of a near-decade-long economic slump and restore their faith in the government, or use them supporting a foreign power who may or may not be a totally reliable "figure of democracy" and who may have had a hand in causing your economic slump to begin with with the oil embargo (and would later he a problem with Ollie North)?
Cooki,
"Military affairs are the utmost importance to the survival of the state" Sun Tzu. Read and then reread "The Art of War".
The Shah was the best of a bad lot in the middle east. The consequence of not supporting him has given the US a reputation for fickle support. "Sure the guns and money come now, but not after the next election when someone else is in power."
However, as far as "bringers of democracy", we have a better record in Europe than in Africa or Asia.
Not only did Carter fail to support the Shah, he failed to get back the embassy hostages. It took the election of Ronald Reagan to do that.
When a Democrat is president the standard response to terrorism has been to cut and run or send a token "show of force" such as cruise missiles or sporadic bombing. The lesson terrorists learned was that they could strike with relative impunity.
The consequences of Jimmy Carters failures as a president resound today just like Trumans failures during the Korean war. North Korea is still here over five decades later causing trouble, and Iran is still a thorn in our side.
Jimmy Carter should have realized that the bulk of "American Problems" he faced were a result of international problems that needed his attention.
Jimro
If I gave half a rats behind I could find just as many stupid comments on the republican side. Probably from Bush ALONE.
~Rico
Quote:
When a Democrat is president the standard response to terrorism has been to cut and run or send a token "show of force" such as cruise missiles or sporadic bombing.
Right, and the standard Republican response thus far has been "Enter a country, mess it up, leave without cleaning up and let the people we wanted to take out in the first place right back in." At least they're nice and considerate about bringing american lives right to the terrorists for easier taking. Saves the jihadists travel fare.
Quote:
The lesson terrorists learned was that they could strike with relative impunity.
What, and the Bush administration has changed their stance by half-assing their way through Afghanistan and going out on an ill-advised trip of vengence to a country that had been defanged over a decade ago?
Troy...
Educate yourself just a little bit, please. Read Tommy Franks autobiography "American Soldier" for a small dose of reality on the military situation in Iraq and Afganistan.
Jimro
What, and the Bush administration has changed their stance by half-assing their way through Afghanistan and going out on an ill-advised trip of vengence to a country that had been defanged over a decade ago?
Don't forget the part about how Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who dared bring up the notion of a post-Saddam strategy.
Quote:
Educate yourself just a little bit, please.
I'm educated just fine. It's the neocon dunderheads that seem to have advanced learning disabilities. Now please address my concerns about how you think the current Republican administration has a better success rate than the previous Democrat ones.
I suppose you've noticed by now that I've abandoned civility in my arguements. It's because I do not respect you, just as I do not respect anybody who'd support the party who's trampling the US Constitution.
Quote:
"Terrorism is something we can live with" Oliver Stone
Well since the only other option is mind-reading police to stop the terrorists before they strike, or a long term cultural movement, sounds about right.
Quote:
Patty Murray (Democrat) publically praised Osama Bin Laden and suggested that the US would get a better reputation in the international community by following his example.
You've quoted ONE Democrat to praise a terrorist, and misrepresented her quote at that.
Quote:
Sen. Patty Murray intended to be provocative when she told a group of high school students terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers.
"We haven't done that," Murray said. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"
So, this is like my example of calling a pro-employment movement Hitlerism. You're implying that she supported terrorism by praising a different thing that Al Quaeda did (though I'm not so sure her statement is accurate). However her point that domestic help would do A LOT more to stop terrorists (while being cheaper) is very strong.
Even more valuable than domestic help would be the cultural seeds. The only way to stop terrorism is to liberalize conservative cultures.
As I said before the war started, this has been the neocons' intention. WMDs, even if Saddam had them (most of us, including me, thought he did, since the US gave him some) were an excuse, which I'm sure almost anybody realizes now. The goal was the thing Bush and other Republicans USED to denounce: cultural engineering. I do respect you (I'm not sure if you saw my response when you left), which is why I wonder why you support Bush, and ask what your opinion is on cultural engineering at gunpoint.
Their folly was blind faith in the patriotic idea that democracy would bring it. You and I both agree that democracy is only a tyranny of the majority. What we see now is a minority Sunni population that knows it and a religious civil war.
Al Qaeda's support was being choked out before 9-11 because they'd turned their hate and violence on other muslims that didn't agree with them. The government has since publicized every loser who even thought about terrorism to show that they were doing something, and in general done every thing it could do to energize Al-Qaeda recruitment and publicity. This is a symbiotic relationship.
Quote:
Senator Kerry (Democrat) wrote "The New Soldier", and if you want to hear all the arguments against the conflict in Iraq, read it. Just change "vietnam" to Iraq and you'll be set. freekerrybook.org/documen...OS_000.PDF
Point?
Quote:
As far as the "eroding the constitution" bullspit, if Congress passes it, and the president signs it, then the SUPREME COURT can determine the constitutionality of it, just like they are doing with the PATRIOT ACT.
The supreme court is not infallible. What is your opinion of the constitutionality of denying habeas corpus?
Quote:
Not only did Carter fail to support the Shah, he failed to get back the embassy hostages. It took the election of Ronald Reagan to do that.
On inauguration day. Yes, Reagan really did a lot. If he WAS responsible, then I'd say that would say some rather evil things about the people involved with Reagan. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.
You go on to deride Carter (who I respect) and Truman for getting out of wars as an attack at their entire party. But isn't that what Nixon ran on? That's just stereotyping. Maybe we should talk about McCarthy too? Party can be something to consider, but people are individuals. Let's not turn the whole thing into prejudice and stereotyping.
Troy,
Quote:
I suppose you've noticed by now that I've abandoned civility in my arguements. It's because I do not respect you, just as I do not respect anybody who'd support the party who's trampling the US Constitution.
And I suppose that the anti second ammendment efforts by the democrats are any better? By your own statement you cannot support "dunderhead neocons" OR Democrats. Like I stated before, EDUCATE YOURSELF, your platitudes demonstrate a shallow understanding of politics and history. The issues are simply more complex than "trampling the constitution".
As far as the success rate of the Clinton administration being successful in stopping terrorists? So far the body count of Al Quaeda's leadership ALONE supports the Bush administration as being more effective.
Cycle, reference please? Tommy Franks included a post Saddam strategy in his four point plan, and he wasn't "fired"...
Veckums,
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
That is from Article one, section nine, of the US Constitution. Our founding fathers figured that Habeus Corpus could be suspended as needed for public safety, considering that an act of domestic terrorism fully qualifies as "rebellion" and an act of terrorism by a foreigner qualifies as "invasion", I think that we are in the clear suspending Habeus Corpus for suspects in the war on terror.
Nobody wants another Oklahoma City, nobody wants another 9/11.
As far as the Supreme Court being infallible, I never said they were, but it IS their job to revue the Constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative/executive branches. Just like if Congress doesn't like a Supreme Court decision they have the POWER TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. By design our democratic houses are the most powerful part of government, with power to change the constitution and remove a president.
Jimro
Quote:
And I suppose that the anti second ammendment efforts by the democrats are any better? By your own statement you cannot support "dunderhead neocons" OR Democrats.
I'm a registered independent. I don't respect Democrats either. However, they get to occupy the 'lesser of two evils' space because unlike the Republicans, their goal isn't based entirely on covering their own asses from their committed crimes.
Also, the Democrats seem to be able to comprehend 'tiers of importance', unlike the neocons who would act like stealing a candy bar is the same as genocide so long as it'd benefit their arguement. Case in point: republicans in Lincoln's time suspended Habeas Corpus when literally half the country was actively rebelling against the government with guns and explosives. Now, neocons theorize that there may be terrorists SOMEWHERE in the country, so might as well hold everyone we suspect, torture them and if it turns out they aren't terrorists, we let them go and say "oops, our bad. No restitution." Hey, no consequences!
Open rebellion in a time of war /= suspecting some people of being naughty at us
Quote:
Like I stated before, EDUCATE YOURSELF, your platitudes demonstrate a shallow understanding of politics and history.
And your arguements illustrate a liberal abuse of the 'straw man' fallacy and a general lack of knowledge about anything that Fox News or the Drudge Report hasn't already addressed.
Quote:
The issues are simply more complex than "trampling the constitution".
Yes, certainly. Because it says right there in the documents that founded our country "Feel free to ignore these guidelines if you need to cover your own ass in the event of an unjustifiable war against the boogeyman." Your desire to ignore basic American rights just so you can pretend to feel safe is staggeringly naive and idiotic. Then again, apparently you have lots of company in that regard...
Quote:
As far as the success rate of the Clinton administration being successful in stopping terrorists? So far the body count of Al Quaeda's leadership ALONE supports the Bush administration as being more effective.
So victory is measured in body counts and not a reduction in terrorist attacks around the world? Because from the looks of it, the terrorists are still killing Americans and others around the world. Oh yeah, and forcing our government to undermine our most sacred documents. But it's a good thing we've killed a few of them in passing, because that makes it all BETTER.
Cycle, reference please? Tommy Franks included a post Saddam strategy in his four point plan, and he wasn't "fired"...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500731.html
Quote:
"Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build 'his plan,' which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq up for self-reliance," Batiste said.
In addition, Rumsfeld "refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency," the retired general said. "At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan," Batiste added.
Veckums,
A "straw man" argument is setting up an opponent that isn't there so that you can appear tough on an issue. I am so glad to know that you think terrorists don't exist. Oh wait, they DO exist because you reference them later on...
Make up your mind. This isn't a straw man argument, there ARE terrorists on American soil right now. Not only are there fundamentalist Muslim terror cells, there are terrorists of the homegrown variety KKK, Nation of Islam, pick your racist anti government group.
Since you are so familiar with the Civil War, why don't you explain the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII? Technically the Japanese DID invade Alaska...
Or are you waiting for DailyKos to give you your opinion? Isn't this pointless uncivil behavior fun!
Cycle,
Two two star generals and a colonel...
Tommy Franks was a 4 star AND the CentCom commander who put forth the plan for Iraq... The statements from the top don't jive with the statements of two division commanders.
Jimro
Quote:
Two two star generals and a colonel...
Tommy Franks was a 4 star AND the CentCom commander who put forth the plan for Iraq... The statements from the top don't jive with the statements of two division commanders.
Please clarify your statement. I don't really know where you're going with this.
As for habeas corpus and 9/11, it is rather a stretch to suggest that the suspension of habeas corpus (an inalienable human right) would have had anything to do with the prevention of 9/11. The issue here has more to do with the breakdown of the channels of communication between intelligence agencies than with any so called "inconvenient" right not to suffer unlawful restraint. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Quote:
A "straw man" argument is setting up an opponent that isn't there so that you can appear tough on an issue.
Boy, it's a good thing you found dictionary.com so you could post that definition. Too bad it doesn't make comments like
Quote:
When a Democrat is president the standard response to terrorism has been to cut and run or send a token "show of force" such as cruise missiles or sporadic bombing.
Or
Quote:
The consequences of Jimmy Carters failures as a president resound today just like Trumans failures during the Korean war.
go away.
Despite the rampant stupidity and ignoring of history in the latter part of this second straw man statement (There was a stalemate because China got pissy and warned that they'd join in, a situation that would've easily led to an all-Communist Korean peninsula. Not exactly the ideal outcome), you also fail to acknowledge the Republican party's own disasterous failings in the struggle against terror (it's not a war under any circumstances, no matter how much you neocon dunderheads love to bastardize the english language).
How about Reagan's repeating funding and arming of dictatorships and terrorist supporters Iraq and Iran, not to mention General Noriega's dictatorship of Panama? And how did Bin Laden and his group get all their funding and training anyway? Oh yeah, Reagan's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy! And this is all just a single president! Who knows what we could dig up with a trip backwards through history?
Quote:
Since you are so familiar with the Civil War, why don't you explain the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII? Technically the Japanese DID invade Alaska...
We were at war with Japan. That's how you can 'attempt to' justify it. We are not at war right now. War requires an enemy, a physical entity. You cannot wage war against a tactic or a belief. You can only wage war against people. This is not a war. It is a conflict. It is a struggle. It is a fight, but a war it is not (see also: war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty).
We have not been invaded (ie enemy troops are not marching within our borders). We are not in a rebellion. So what other purpose does the suspension of Habeas Corpus serve than to save the current administration from the consequences of their own actions?
Quote:
This isn't a straw man argument, there ARE terrorists on American soil right now. Not only are there fundamentalist Muslim terror cells, there are terrorists of the homegrown variety KKK, Nation of Islam, pick your racist anti government group.
Ah, you neocons and your alarmist tendencies. I bet you had the nitelight going all night so scare off the boogyman. I bet you think that the suspension of Habeas Corpus is your global-scale nitelight, don'cha?
$64,000 question time: if terrorists want to destory the American way of life, why are the Republicans making it easier for them by helping whiteout part of our most scared documents?
I question your patriotism, Jimro. Your thinly-veiled disgust for the principles this country was founded upon makes me wonder whether or not your allegience truly lies with the United States Of America.
Pundit,
Habeus Corpus is not an inalienable right. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from one person to be used by another, and in that sense Habeus Corpus is inalienable. However by article 9 section 1 of the US Constitution it is not an inalienable right.
Castor...
Quote:
Despite the rampant stupidity and ignoring of history in the latter part of this second straw man statement (There was a stalemate because China got pissy and warned that they'd join in, a situation that would've easily led to an all-Communist Korean peninsula. Not exactly the ideal outcome), you also fail to acknowledge the Republican party's own disasterous failings in the struggle against terror (it's not a war under any circumstances, no matter how much you neocon dunderheads love to bastardize the english language).
How about Reagan's repeating funding and arming of dictatorships and terrorist supporters Iraq and Iran, not to mention General Noriega's dictatorship of Panama? And how did Bin Laden and his group get all their funding and training anyway? Oh yeah, Reagan's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy! And this is all just a single president! Who knows what we could dig up with a trip backwards through history?
Nothing like getting a history lesson from a true expert on the subject.... boy you sure told me.
Of course you point out what you think are Straw Man arguments on my part, so I'll further clarify for you.
Democrats cutting and running.
Carter didn't try again after the Desert One fiasco, he let the hostages sit there.
Clinton used cruise missiles against a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan (supposedly targeting terrorists) and Afghanistan, bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade... Would you like me to list more? Or are you proficient enough to bone up on recent history without having someone hold your hand?
As far as Korea;
MacArthur wanted to use nukes to answer Chinese agression, Truman didn't. Had we used nukes the outcome would have been different. Could have escalated into WWIII, but probably not, the Soviets had no reason to get involved other than a token show of support based on ideology. After all, the most support they sent was in the form of Mig jets and pilots to fly them, as well as train N. Koreans. Neither the Soviets nor the Chinese had the strategic capabilities to respond to theater level nukes in Korea.
If you want to learn more about Korea I suggest you educate yourself. Start with Douglas MacArthur and then read up on Matthew B. Ridgway.
Did Reagan really fund jihadists? If you believe that you are more uninformed than I estimated... The bulk of the funding came as a result of Charlie Wilson, a democrat (from the Great State of Texas). If you want to learn more about funding jihadists during the Reagan administration, read "Charlie Wilsons War".
As far as the war on terror not being a war, just a "conflict", grow up, "neocons" are not "bastardizing" the english language. The generation that fought the "Cold War" (and "hot" wars like Korea and Vietnam) knew that war isn't always as cut and dried as simpletons want it to be. You were quite glib about dictionary.com, so here it is for your reading pleasure;
WAR
1.        a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.        a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.        a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.        active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.        aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.        a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.        armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8.        Cards.
a.        a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
b.        an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9.        Archaic. a battle.
verb (used without object)
10.        to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11.        to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12.        to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
adjective
13.        of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.
And I love this part...
Quote:
$64,000 question time: if terrorists want to destory the American way of life, why are the Republicans making it easier for them by helping whiteout part of our most scared documents?
I question your patriotism, Jimro. Your thinly-veiled disgust for the principles this country was founded upon makes me wonder whether or not your allegience truly lies with the United States Of America.
Hmmmm...maybe you didn't read Article nine, section one of the US Constitution. You have tried to explain that the conditions have not been met, but our elected leadership disagrees with you. Your thinly veiled ignorance on the principles upon which this country was founded makes me wonder whether or not you ever really studied US history.
As far as questioning my patriotism goes, question it all you want. Until you sign on the dotted line and give up the comforts of civilian life so serve, your opinion does not matter.
These words hold special meaning to me, maybe they will inspire you as well.
I,________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
As far as "neocon" goes, I'm NOT a neocon. I am conservative, and by most guaging criteria I'm more paleocon altho I consider myself libertarian based on my stances on drug control (as far as I'm concerned it's a state and local issue and not the Federal governments). I believe that the tenth ammendment to the constitution is the most important, and most trampled on ammendment. I believe in limited but effective government.
There, you shouldn't screw up my political orientation again. If you do then there really is no hope for you, but McDonald's isn't too picky about who they hire, and failing that you could always try Goodwill Industries.
Jimro
I am completely convinced that you are a closed-minded bigot who likes to wrap himself in the flag and burn the Constitution.
Jimro "Frank Burns" McJimjim.
<admin>*sprays the flame retardant*
Cool it down in here, or so help me I'll, ummm, make annoyed faces at you and wag my finger.
Enough of this abandoning civility and in many cases outright flaming. It doesn't make anybody's points stronger and I'll step in if you don't cool it.</admin>
LOOOOOOOOOOTs of party talk going on here but it's not the issue at hand, just a distraction.
Jimro, you have shown that the Constitution allows habeas corpus to be suspended in an emergency (and while I don't consider the 10th amendment the most important, it is important and proably the most violated). But what would be the criteria for restoring it? When the government has suspended it, the results have often been fueled by corruption and bigotry. We can't defeat terrorism. It is an idea, and by the definitions of those who would explout it, broad enough to include almost any crime. A war on terror is a war without end. It's exactly what neocon fascists have wanted, by their own admission. As a libertarian, a label I identify with in a way, what do you believe is required to have habeas corpus in the U.S.?
www.civil-liberties.com/p...incoln.htm
Interestingly, Lincoln used it to imprison his political enemies, just for "discouraging enlistment." FDR used it in racial imprisonment. What the hell will Bush do?
The main point for suspending Habeus Corpus in the US was to emulate the UK and be able to detain high value suspects without having to jump through a three ring circus of judges.
So far there haven't been any imprisonments of political dissidents by "federal goons", nor do I suspect that there will be. I could be wrong on this, and if there are federal goons locking people up for their political views, you can bet I will probably be locked up with them.
Freedom of the press guarantees that any abuse of the suspension of Habeus Corpus will come to light immediately, and Congress has writes and changes laws based on public demand.
I fully expect a Democrat majority in the House post Nov 7, so how long will the Deomcratic party allow the suspension of Habeus Corpus to continue? I'm guessing they won't repeal it right away, no matter how "anti-war" their rhetoric. The same way the Republican majority didn't repeal the AWB and instead waited for the built in "sunset clause" despite their pro 2nd ammendment position.
It is a useful tool for counter terrorism task forces, and just like the Patriot Act we see much less "abuse" than the critics have predicted. Whether this is due to good judges or responsible federal agents is another discussion, but the point is that the Bush administration is not "trampling the constitution" and is currently acting well within the historical norms for a nation in conflict.
The war on terror will continue for quite a while, simply because the consequences of pulling out of it are disastrous. However the massive deployments of US troops will continue to decline as they have been for the last two years until the bulk of deployments are for SF teams working counter insurgency ops with native governments, or limited deployments of troops to support such operations.
When the conflict intensity drops down to minor deployments (less than a BCT) there should be a "restoration" of Habeus Corpus, and if there isn't people should raise hell to Congress.
Jimro
