McCain and Obama

[Tube60]

When the US is no longer seen as a hegemon, attempting to spread "Americanism" to every corner of the globe the threat of Jihad will diminish if not vanish.

That may be true, but remember that the likes of Al Quaida et al have made it their vow to destroy Western civilization and create a worldwide Islamic caliphate. They may change their minds if they perceive a diminished threat, but is that a risk we can afford to make?

 

[Scumurculum]

That may be true, but remember that the likes of Al Quaida et al have made it their vow to destroy Western civilization and create a worldwide Islamic caliphate. They may change their minds if they perceive a diminished threat, but is that a risk we can afford to make?

I think the point risabet is trying to make is that if you really want to deal with the islamist terrorist issue, you need to work with other countries, not despite them.

Any objective observer can see that unilateralism has not helped one single bit.

 

[HsvToolFool]

Multinational force in Iraq

International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan

Undeniably, most of the free West has returned to a state
of denial regarding Islamic extremism. We were serious
about the threat for maybe 6 months.

The inevitable result of this lost focus are silly debates over
non-torture interrogation techniques like humiliation,
water-boarding, and sleep deprivation. Giving enemy
prisoners of war full rights and access to our legal system
as if they were citizens. Baseless accusations of bullying
and hegemony directed at the one nation which defends
not only its citizens, but most of Europe and the Pacific
Rim.

 

[VanDaRo]

The inevitable result of this lost focus are silly debates over
non-torture interrogation techniques like humiliation,
water-boarding, and sleep deprivation. Giving enemy
prisoners of war full rights and access to our legal system
as if they were citizens. Baseless accusations of bullying
and hegemony directed at the one nation which defends
not only its citizens, but most of Europe and the Pacific
Rim.

Two problems with this.

1) The Constitution does not make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The Bush administration is mind-blowingly out of touch here and with the Patriot Act.

2) Has it ever occurred to you that the US force-feeding the rest of the world its' version of Democracy is no different than Stalinist Russia spreading Communism ? I'm glad you're okay with your country acting like that...

~VDR

 

[Len44]

I think the point risabet is trying to make is that if you really want to deal with the islamist terrorist issue, you need to work with other countries, not despite them.

Any objective observer can see that unilateralism has not helped one single bit.

Yep! Shrub campaigned in 2000 saying he was against "Nation-building." Yet, this is just what he did (just one of many things about which he lied to the American people).

Test Question: Why DO they hate us so much? What DO they want from us? What if we DID decide not to demand that the rest of the world agree with us on every issue? Or quit picking fights with other countries because our "leader" doesn't like their leader?

Just a thought...

 

[Len44]

So, like (gotta ask) -- are you Huntsville, Alabama guys know each other (besides this site)? Are you all just putting us on? You know, one lucid and articulate, the other postulating wild, crazy ideas typical a right-wing extremist that no one in their right mind could possibly perceive as sensible?

Just wondering. After all, "inquiring minds want to know!"

 

[bahamaman]

Nobody made that silly argument to justify removing
Saddam. Not Bush or any member of his admnistration.
The burden of proof is on you. Post a link to the speech where
Bush, Colin Powell, Rice, or another cabinet member asserted
direct ties between Saddam and 9-11.

I have followed this thread with great interest. I have until now been able to resist the temptation to weigh in, but this quote sent me over the top.

To answer your question, and to irrefutably refute your assertion . . .

On December 9, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted (on Meet the Press) that the mastermind of 9-11, Muhammed Atta, met in Prague with the head of Iraqi intelligence. This assertion could only have been made to create the impression that Iraq and 9-11 were somehow linked. We now know this to be complete rubbish.

 

[bahamaman]

Here is the exact quote:

"CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Now, to be entirely fair, he did not unequivocally state that there was a definitive connection between Iraq and 9-11. But, at the same time, I am certain that he wanted to create an impression in the minds of the American public that such a connection existed. Given that, at that time, 69% of that public believed in the existence of such a connection, it appears that the Bush administration was quite effective in creating a false impression so as to justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

[bahamaman]

Undeniably, most of the free West has returned to a state
of denial regarding Islamic extremism. We were serious
about the threat for maybe 6 months.

The inevitable result of this lost focus are silly debates over
non-torture interrogation techniques like humiliation,
water-boarding, and sleep deprivation.

I would offer the following rebuttal to your assertion that water-boarding is not torture:

"Testifying before a House subcommittee on Nov. 8, 2007, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a former Navy instructor in prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs, explained that he experienced waterboarding while being trained and that he had been involved in the waterboarding of hundreds of other trainees. Mr. Nance said the experience was slow-motion suffocation with water overpowering your gag reflex. Soon, he said, the throat opens and allows pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs." Unless the subject is allowed to expel the water, the result would be death by suffocation."

So much for the assertion that the debate about water-boarding is "silly".

I believe that what you are actually arguing is that the supposed "ends" justify the "means". But, of course, that argument would be similarly specious. First off, it is nearly universally understood that torture generally produces false confessions. Even John McCain understands that. But even if that were incorrect, do you not think that America ought to aspire to re-assert its moral authority in the world? If we lower ourselves by adopting the inhumane tactics of the basest of tin horn dictators around the world, what happens to that "moral authority"? Even more importantly, what should we expect to be the result of our torturing enemy combatants? Will it not irrevocably lead to the torturing of our own soldiers? Do you really want our soldiers' blood on your hands?

I, for one, do not. No, sir.

 

[risabet]

That may be true, but remember that the likes of Al Quaida et al have made it their vow to destroy Western civilization and create a worldwide Islamic caliphate. They may change their minds if they perceive a diminished threat, but is that a risk we can afford to make?

Probably more of a recruiting tagline than a literal goal. The reality is that if someone is willing to die for their cause it will be difficult to stop them. The greater threat to Western Civilization, the US in particular, that I see is to surrender our cherished freedoms, Ben Franklin said it best that "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." That is not to say we should not prepare for it but there is a reasonable response and we certainly haven't seen one from the fear-mongering Bushies.

Regarding the Caliphate, the yearning for a past that never really existed is a common human trait, manifest in this country by a longing for a "simpler time" when movies were in B/W and so was everything else, when the "family" was wholesome and kids were like "the Beaver."

 

[risabet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_IraqBaseless accusations of bullying
and hegemony directed at the one nation which defends
not only its citizens, but most of Europe and the Pacific
Rim.

Maybe it is time for Europe and the Pacific Rim to DEFEND THEMSELVES.

 

[Rich]

Eureka. I honestly didn't see that coming from you, but
now I know exactly who I'm speaking with. All your posts
make perfect sense in this new context.

That's right, Brian. I must be one of those "vile leftists" you are so concerned about. But I guarantee I am whole lot closer to the center than you are. As I said, I vote republican when I think the person is the most qualified for the job. When was the last time you voted for a democrat? I see the world in many shades of gray, not just black and white.

But back to our Joe the Plumber discussion. What I really am is a complete skeptic. I have seen too many of Karl Rove's tactics not to be. What did McCain need after his poor performance in the first two debates and dwindling poll numbers? A knockout punch in the third debate. Then, magically, a couple of days before that debate, in walks Joe the Plumber with his hypothetical story. And McCain uses him throughout the entire debate! Do I smell a rat? Do I think Joe was a republican plant? Absolutely. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for Joe like you do. And lo and behold, what do I see on the news today? Joe the Plumber is now on the campaign trail with John McCain! Very interesting. How coincidental is that?

Tell me, if you and Joe were so concerned about Joe's reputation and privacy, then why did neither of you take McCain out on the carpet for using his story without permission and making an overnight celebrity of him for political purposes? I find it interesting that Joe would do better under Obama's plan than under McCain's, and that Obama didn't publicize Joe's story, McCain did. Yet you and Joe are all up in arms that the Obama camp is examining the truth about Joe after he was used so brazenly by McCain. Give it a rest, already.

Socialists dehumanize "the rich" to justify confiscating as
much of their income and wealth as possible. Ostensibly,
those funds are used to help the "working poor" get by
and better themselves. But it's really all about power and
control.

Conversely, Capitalists dehumanize the poor to justify concentrating the wealth at the top. Ostensibly, those funds are used to the betterment of the country and the wealth will "trickle down" to the poor. But its really all about power and control.

So if a rich socialist politician blunders on his campaign
trail, it's reasonable to demonize a guy who was just
minding his own business in his own yard. Rather than
deal with a silly campaign mistake like a man, it's unleash
the dogs to "tell the truth" about a blue-collar Dad.

Demonize? No. Expose to the light of truth? Yes. I know there are some out there who have probably said some nasty things about Joe, just like some nasty things have been said about Colin Powell by those on the Right, but overall the things that have come out about Joe have been the truth. And that's what we are after in a presidential campaign, right? The truth. The McCain camp has tried to put Joe up as some model of middle class america who can't buy a business because Obama is a socialist. As the facts come out, we have seen that it is all a big sham -- lots of style, no substance (much like McCain's vice presidential pick).

I will always side with the individual, especially where
invasion of privacy abuses are concerned. But not you.

If Joe didn't want to be looked at closely, why was he giving news media interviews on his front lawn the day after the debate? Why didn't he call out the McCain campaign for inappropriately using his story without his permission? Why is he now campaigning for McCain? I think your sympathy for Joe is misplaced.

Nobody made that silly argument to justify removing
Saddam. Not Bush or any member of his admnistration.
The burden of proof is on you. Post a link to the speech where
Bush, Colin Powell, Rice, or another cabinet member asserted
direct ties between Saddam and 9-11.

Are you joking? Well, is a letter from President Bush to the Speaker of the House stating his reasons for going to war good enough for you? Here is the LINK. Please note his second reason, which specifically references "those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

But you are going to say Bush never put up 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq? Even when it is there in plain writing? What a joke! And this doesn't even begin to count the hundreds of times Bush, Cheney, and their operatives brought up 9/11 while discussing the need to invade Iraq. It is crystal clear to anyone whose eyes aren't fogged by partisanship that they intentionally used 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq. But you say us Obama fans gloss over the truth!

The "War on Terror" doesn't mean get Al Qaeda only.

The "War on Terror" is a propaganda term. It is like the "War on Drugs." Drugs and Terror are not real enemies against which you can wage a real war. But it sounds good and patriotic to wage war on those things, so the government makes up these catchy terms to justify their actions.

Two years passed between 9-11 and Iraq.

Right, but two days passed between 9/11 and the time the Bush administration began planning the invasion of Iraq, according to Paul Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz Admits Iraq War Planned Two Days After 9-11

Am I correct to guess you didn't grow up around here? You relocated here from a large urban area, correct?

That is incorrect. I was born and raised just south of here in one of most conservative, racist, redneck little towns in the south. I have lived in Alabama my entire life, except the three years I attended law school. So yes, I know a thing or two about folks with narrow minds who cling to their guns and religions. I have dealt with them my entire life. What's the matter, Brian? Are my viewpoints not "southern" enough for you? I'll take that as a compliment.

Pot to kettle. Don't you live near me? Given our location,
you and I know exactly the opposite is true.

Actually, I find that Huntsville is the most progressive town in Alabama, since most people here these days didn't grow up in Alabama. In fact, I live in a ritzy section of town with a lot of repubs, but I see just as many Obama signs in my neighborhood as I do McCain signs. But that was beside my point anyway; I was referring to the people in this country, not in your immediate neighborhood.

You can't subtract 53% perceived right-bias from 100% to
get 47% perceived left-bias. 53% right-bias + 47% left-bias +
11% no-bias = 111% total, which is clearly wrong.

I can't believe I have to explain this again. You are trying to compare those who think it was biased left to those who think it was biased right, but that is not the proper comparison. You are using this survey to bolster your point that the media is biased to the left. 53% of the respondents agree with you on that issue. 47% of the respondents disagree with you on that issue, or didn't respond to that issue. It doesn't matter if they thought the media was biased right or if they thought it was unbiased. They still disagree with your assessment that it is biased to the left!

The inevitable result of this lost focus are silly debates over
non-torture interrogation techniques like humiliation,
water-boarding, and sleep deprivation. Giving enemy
prisoners of war full rights and access to our legal system
as if they were citizens. Baseless accusations of bullying
and hegemony directed at the one nation which defends
not only its citizens, but most of Europe and the Pacific
Rim.

I can't believe you can sit there and say that waterboarding is not torture with a straight face. Even McCain admits that it is. And all I really want and expect is for prisoners of war to be treated under the terms of the Geneva Convention. Which is International Law and our Moral and Ethical Responsibility! Amazing how Christians and Right Wingers have such strong moral and ethical values when it involves abortion rights or gay rights, but when it comes to war and torture and the Geneva Conventions . . . not so much.

 

[theWB]

manifest in this country by a longing for a "simpler time" when movies were in B/W and so was everything else, when the "family" was wholesome and kids were like "the Beaver.".........

......And Music was played from Vinyl Records.

 

[Rich]

So, like (gotta ask) -- are you Huntsville, Alabama guys know each other (besides this site)? Are you all just putting us on? You know, one lucid and articulate, the other postulating wild, crazy ideas typical a right-wing extremist that no one in their right mind could possibly perceive as sensible?

Just wondering. After all, "inquiring minds want to know!"

We'll never tell! :devil:

 

[HsvToolFool]

By the way, 1.5 years passed between 9-11 and the start
of the Iraq war, not 2 years. Can't believe nobody caught
that error.

On December 9, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted (on Meet the Press) that the mastermind of 9-11, Muhammed Atta, met in Prague with the head of Iraqi intelligence.

I am totally sincere when I say: Thank you so much for
posting an actual refutation with a verifiable quotation
instead of a political meme which took hold due to endless
repetition by partisans on TV. Clearly, my statement that
nobody in the Bush admin made such an argument was
incorrect.

Even so, I think you must agree that during the next two
years leading up to the Iraq war, linking Saddam to 9-11
was not even a minor theme of the justification for regime
change. The Bush admin correctly argued that Saddam
funded terrorism (like Palestinian suicide bombers)
and courted terror groups including Al Qaeda.

The central theme of the arguments for removing Saddam
was his ongoing violations of the Gulf War I cease-fire
agreements (no fly zones), UN resolution violations,
and thwarting the UN weapons inspectors.

Of couse, it's a given that 9-11 changed our priorities
toward state-sponsored terrorism. Top of the list in that
regard was the Taliban and Saddam, closely followed by
Iran and Syria. Military action may be necessary there too,
but hopefully not. Given Iran's economic woes and cultural
unrest, there is a strong chance the theocracy will fall.
A free Iraq and Afghanistan provides a shove in the right
direction.

Maybe it is time for Europe and the Pacific Rim to DEFEND THEMSELVES.

A-frikken-men! Time to stop funding socialist programs
and 2-month paid vacations and pay for your own national
defense.

 

[HsvToolFool]

I believe that what you are actually arguing is that the supposed "ends" justify the "means".

Doing what's necessary to survive is ugly, but it's reality.
Persecuting our defenders rather than the enemy is a
symptom that we're asleep again. We must know when
noble aspirations and ideology are appropriate, and when
such luxuries cannot be afforded.

Even so, I can't imagine using true torture like the VC did
to John McCain. But effective techniques which, barring
accidents, causes no long-term physical harm? Absolutely!
From the quotation you cited, it appears our sailors are
water-boarded as part of their training.

A nuclear detonation in DC puts water-boarding into
proper context. For me, watching raining bodies is enough.

Edit: After a little sleep, here's another attempt to get
my point across. It is silly to debate the ethics of a few
sketchy tax deductions while your house is burning down.

 

[twich54]

......And Music was played from Vinyl Records.

Well I guess I'm mighty simple (thank the Lord) 'cause music is still played from vinyl records at my house !

Leave it to Beaver....ahh those were the days, didn't Beaver or was it his older brother end up with a "brilliant " carrer in Porn ??

 

[Len44]

Even so, I think you must agree that during the next two
years leading up to the Iraq war, linking Saddam to 9-11
was not even a minor theme of the justification for regime
change.

"...not even a minor theme?..." Hell, it was a Major theme:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq [Clearly Nation-Building, something Bush pledged NOT to engage in when he was running for President], as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Of course, the above represent just a couple of the many lies Bush told the citizens of our great Country...

BTW, note that there was only an authorization to use military force -- not an outright, "Go To War" declaration as so many Republicans have claimed. Had their been an actual vote on going to war, it may well not have passed -- so, clever packaging on the part of the Bushys, even tho they are awful people who have directly caused grave harm to our Country.

 

[Kenscollick]

I hope that day is not Tuesday

The day socialism comes to America


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
– Norman Thomas, American socialist

 

[Len44]

The day socialism comes to America


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Hope you're not even suggesting that Obama's election will make this a socialist country...

Couple of thoughts:

Ronald Reagan was once considered quite a liberal.

JFK was certainly a liberal.

Einstein was most certainly a liberal thinker.

Jesus Christ? He was considered a radical liberal. ('Course, this was long before Rush and Rove demonized the term for political and personal gain.)

BTW, how ironic that is was McCain's hero (hell, mine too) Teddy Roosevelt who championed the progressive federal income tax, which all you mega-rich folks also like to demonize (penalizes those who work hard -- like a rich person's labors are somehow so much more worthy than, say, an assembly-line worker's labors).

Even John McCain -- to his credit -- has essentially said that the United States will not "go to hell in a hand-basket" [not his exact words] if Obama is elected President on Tuesday. Same as for McCain (whom I like and admire on a personal level -- but not his campaign), 'cause at least HE'S NOT GEORGE BUSH!!!"

1/20/09 -- The end of an Error!!!:rocker:

May we all go and live in Peace after this election is over, and support the new President. And may no one ever be considered unpatriotic or against our Country in the event disagreements should arise, as happened (and even encouraged) by George Bush and his minions.