DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on July 01, 2008, 02:01:00 AM
-
I'm getting fed up with Obama already, not a good sign. He's rebuked Wes Clarke for pointing out that McSame has practically no experience in the conduct of foreign relations, and that getting shot down and captured is NOT evidence of any innate ability to carry out the duties of a President. He's rebuked MoveOn.org for its "General Betray Us" ad. And he's starting to wave the flag like it was a talisman, forgetting that, as Samuel Johnson once famously said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
If you give the people the choice between a real fascist and a fake, they'll take the real fascist. People hate fakes. The fakery indicates a contempt for their intelligence.
-
Look more carefully at what Obama said: he did not mention Clark by name, nor did he say that riding in a flighter plane and getting shot down does qualify one for the presidency.
I don't recall Obama saying anything that sounded Fascist.
In the primary, you must speak to the base of the Party so as to get the nomination.
In the general election, you must speak to the entire electorate.
In Canada, the PM is always elected by the Parliament and is in general agreement with the Parliament and the electorate.
Here in the US, government is structured in such a way as to prevent consensus.
-
<<Look more carefully at what Obama said: he did not mention Clark by name, nor did he say that riding in a flighter plane and getting shot down does qualify one for the presidency.>>
XO, a lot of Obama's candidacy is necessarily based on innuendo. He CAN'T say expressly what he's gonna do. For example, I believe I know what "CHANGE" means and even if Obama didn't spell it out, I'll be very happy if certain changes occur and very unhappy if they don't. Most of us know the changes to expect from an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress and will feel cheated if our expectations aren't met. (including non-citizens and non-participants like me, who have a lot of hopes and dreams invested whether we can vote or not)
But innuendo is a two-edged sword. By speaking as he did, immediately following Clark's remarks, there is no doubt in listeners' minds what his real target was - - Clark - - or what his message was - - McSame's war record is sacrosanct, don't go there. This is total bullshit. War records are sacrosanct only for Republicreeps. How sacrosanct was Kerry's? If you're going after McCain, you gotta go after him the same way the creeps went after Kerry, no holds barred. That means, He was NOT tortured, he betrayed his country, he made radio broadcasts for the Vietnamese (some of which are undoubtedly available somewhere on tape,) he got special treatment from his captors etc. You can even draw a fantastic analogy in the character issue, from betraying his country and his fellow POWs in Viet Nam to betraying his constituents and his oath of office as a charter member of the Keating Five.
Now I don't expect to have Obama do this personally, of course, he has plenty of surrogates to do it for him, including Army men like Clark. But when a surrogate is good enough to do his dirty work for him, to the delight of many of his followers, it is axiomatic that both the surrogate and the delighted followers are going to be pissed off by rebukes for good service done. Unless you're lucky enough to have a thick-skinned surrogate like Clark, who returned to the attack even after Obama "rebuked" him. Maybe these two have an understanding. Too bad the rest of the fans can't be privy to it, it might diffuse some of the anger and disappointment.
-
I have to say, this morning when I read that he allegedly is going to expand faith based initiatives, I felt like I had been had.
I'm feeling the old disillusionment settling over me. Unless he comes out with something that shows him to be the thoughtful person that I thought he was, I'm going to throw a total hissy fit.
Not only that, I'm really pissed at the Clintons, who I feel are still running. It seems like all those DLC'ers are stirring up trouble for Obama. Lieberman and Clark.
-
I have to say, this morning when I read that he allegedly is going to expand faith based initiatives, I felt like I had been had.
Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Original Article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqqqF79sCN4HSE6uVrPQVBQpYZVwD91L5MH01)
-
I have to say, this morning when I read that he allegedly is going to expand faith based initiatives, I felt like I had been had.
Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Original Article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqqqF79sCN4HSE6uVrPQVBQpYZVwD91L5MH01)
Clarification:
I felt I had been had by the Obama Campaign, sir.
-
This whole Obama thing is starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth too. I didn't know about expanding "faith-based" initiatives. Is the whole God-damned country going to hell or what?
-
NoBAMA is moving to the center.
Big surprise?
Yeah sure.
NoBAMA is an extreme left wing liberal.
Even a nice, smoothe talking left wing extremist has to move to the center to be elected.
I notice he is already waffling a bit about Iraq, wearing the American Flag lapel pin.
It's going to get sickening.
NoBAMA will probably get in a pic with some black soldiers and pretend he's a military man!
(http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-ddt.jpg)
-
As I've been saying from the beginning......just another politician. Just happens to speak well, with the use of a teleprompter
-
<<It's going to get sickening.>>
GOING to get?
-
but Michael if you were an American you'd have no choice
you and brass would have to vote for NoBAMA.
just like me
i have no choice but to vote for McCain
you or brass are not gong to vote nader
and believe me NoBAMA knows that.
we're stuck with who we dont want Michael
-
<<but Michael if you were an American you'd have no choice>>
There's always been a choice, CU4, and this election isn't any different in that regard.
You know, reflecting on this a little more, I wasn't really upset when Obama threw the Rev. Wright under the wheels of the bus. I understood, and I think even the good Reverend understood, that some things you have to do just to get elected in America. So maybe I'm over-reacting with this American flag pin BS, this "rebuke" of Gen. Clark, etc. I'm gonna take a couple of pills, a few deep breaths, sit down and just ask myself, do I really want to see John Insane in the White House? Does anybody?
The system has been working like this for a long time. It's not much of a choice but it's more of a choice than the people of Egypt get, or Syria or North Korea. Right now there's an election to fight. There may be problems afterwards, compromises and disappointments, but does anyone who originally supported Obama or even Edwards or Hillary really think that America won't be even worse under a John Insane presidency?
-
but Michael if you were an American you'd have no choice
you and brass would have to vote for NoBAMA.
just like me
i have no choice but to vote for McCain
you or brass are not gong to vote nader
and believe me NoBAMA knows that.
we're stuck with who we dont want Michael
You do KNOW that instead of voting for assclown John Kerry in 2004, I WROTE-IN Howard Dean. Don't you?
I have no problem with doing so again.
-
....and Tee throws a mild hissy when Ginsburg's name is mispelled ::)
-
I corrected you, I don't know if that's a hissy fit though. You seem to be spelling it correctly now, so where's the harm done?
You know, I don't think I've ever corrected anyone's spelling in here before (except for changing baited breath to bated breath for someone simply because the two words have very different meanings) because spelling is just not a big deal when it's ideas that are being debated.
But I felt it was outrageous that Ginsburg was being compared to Clarence Thomas. A judge of the highest judicial calibre, universally admired and respected, approved by a 97-3 vote, being compared as the equivalent of the court clown and buffoon. To a man totally unqualified to sit on that court. And then in addition to the disrespect implied in your post was the further insult of not even spelling her name right. I took that to be either a deliberate insult or the kind of negligent insult with ethnic names where it doesn't matter how you spell it exactly because it's just some fucking Jew anyway, so what's the difference, Ginzburg or Ginsburg or Ginsberg, hell why not just call her Judge Hymie? THAT was why I corrected you - - if you are going to insult her, at least get her name right. She is a woman of great distinction, whether you are smart enough to know that or not.
-
NoBAMA is an extreme left wing liberal.
Even a nice, smoothe talking left wing extremist has to move to the center to be elected.
I notice he is already waffling a bit about Iraq, wearing the American Flag lapel pin.
The unfortunate reality is that the china-shop rule still applies - we broke it, and we've bought it. *No* candidate is going to withdraw our forces immediately, not the Republican, not the Democrat, not the Libertarian, nor the Green.
How we leave and our future course of action may be negotiable - but my money says we'll be stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future, no matter who gets elected.
-
my money says we'll be stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future, no matter who gets elected.
but the left loons cant stand to hear that
frankly they dont care what happens there
they want AMERICAN DEFEAT
so NoBAMA will play "cat & mouse"
he hammer and shout about what a mess iraq is
but at the same time he knows he wont order any mass rapid exit
-
<<but the left loons cant stand to hear that
<<frankly they dont care what happens there
<<they want AMERICAN DEFEAT>>
If you were standing in a schoolyard, and saw a big Grade Six bully accost a small Grade Two student one-fifth his size, beat the shit out of the kid for no reason at all and steal the candy bar which was the smaller kid's only possession, wouldn't you want to see the big bully's ass kicked?
Sure, I want to see America defeated in Iraq. They have committed terrible crimes there and have no right to be there. What do YOU think should happen to aggressors, murderers, torturers? They should be mobbed by beautiful naked virgins and rewarded with a thousand nights in Paradise? Why on earth should they get away with their crimes and their atrocities? The DESERVE to get their ass kicked, harder than it's ever been kicked before.
-
but the left loons cant stand to hear that
frankly they dont care what happens there
they want AMERICAN DEFEAT
so NoBAMA will play "cat & mouse"
he hammer and shout about what a mess iraq is
but at the same time he knows he wont order any mass rapid exit
Make up your mind, silly person: if they don't care, they dont want defeat.
If the want defeat, then they care what happens.
I don't think you have a clue as to what you think, let alone the left.
===========================
I do not think that most Americans want a defeat in Iraq.
There is not likely to be a victory, because (1) the US cannot win an Iraqi Civil War, and (2) Iran is always going to be one of Iraq's most influential neighbors. Iran is not going to fold its tents, load everything on its camels and plod away to Australia or Antarctica or somewhere else.
Would it be a victory if ExxonMobil sold you gasoline they refined from Iraqi oil at $5.00 a gallon?
Would it be a victory if Iraq paid the US back all the money we psiied away on this useless war?
What do you expect, that Iraq becomes the 51st State and sends contestants to the Miss America and Miss USA pageants?
Are you prepared for the Basra Camels and the Baghdad Hyenas to vie for the World Series?
The war in Iraq was not started by the American people. The people did not vote for this war, not once, not ever.
It was a war planned and engineered by the oligarchy that is profiting from the war: the people who run Halliburton, Brown & Root, Blackwater. They get the profits, no matter who "wins", it is the unfortunate American smalltown military that get to do the dying, they get to come home in body bags, and armless, legless, blind and insane. It is the poor suckered American taxpayers who get to send their buggered dollars over to Iraq where Halliburton can steal them.
Obama will most likely get nearly all the troops out within one term. McCain clearly plans to keep them there, as Imperialist enforcers for every day that he is president.
I am sick of American soldiers, especially guardsmen who never signed up for war duty, coming home dead and maimed. I am sick of paying to support the thieving corrupt oligarchy that onloy needs to wave a flag and hum a few bars of the Star Spangled Banner to get dupes like you to salivate and cheer like you were actually goiung to benefit in any wah at all from this misguided and wrong war.
-
"They DESERVE to get their ass kicked"
Yes they do! and I assure you they will very soon and the others will fall into place.
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc107/gunnyroy911/TehranSolution2.gif)
-
According to Wikipedia, the city of Tehran had a population of about 11 million people at the time of the 2006 census. Your picture of a nuclear explosion over Tehran was colourful and dynamic, but I don't think it really demonstrates what a nuking of the capital would really look like. It really looks like this:
WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES AT THE END OF THE FOLLOWING LINK
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH OR UPSET BY GRAPHIC PHOTOS
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html
I don't think that nuking Tehran is really the solution to any of America's problems. The solution to America's problems is to remove its army of raping, murdering thugs and torturers from Iraq and begin to observe the basic tenets of international law with particular attention to the non-aggression portions of it. There are far too many Americans who glory in death and destruction and revel in the harm that their powerful military forces can inflict on millions of civilians who lack any means of striking back at their tormentors. Images of nuclear warfare which are bright, colourful and dynamic, depicting none of the human suffering which must necessarily attend nuclear warfare are just Satanic devices to blind people to the real harm that their military inflicts all over the world and permit the real rulers of America to continue their attacks on anyone anywhere who cannot hit back.
It's time for sane, normal and decent human beings to take back the public dialogue on issues such as the Middle East from the psychotics and crazies who have clearly been seduced by the ruling class into accepting as "policy" an ever-escalating use of violence with no limits in sight, which now for some people is coming to be seen as an end in itself.
-
Rewarding good behavior
by kos
Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM PDT
So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further:
First of all, obviously Obama is a great candidate who is running a great 50-state race. That much cannot be denied. But he's had a rough couple of weeks.
First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of "leadership". Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution.
Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech.
Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing.
All of a sudden, there was a lot of cowering when, just days ago, we got to read this:
When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don?t do cowering."
Could've fooled me, and maybe he is. Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation.
Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. We're allowed to do that here. But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone. Not for the Democratic Congress, and not for our future Democratic president. When anyone does something I don't care for, I will say so. I've never pulled my punches before, so why start now?
Obama will be fine without my contribution, and he may even still get it before this thing is said and done, but it would be at a time when he has done something positive. That's called rewarding good behavior. And if that opportunity fails to arise because Obama goes on a Sister Souljah'ing rampage, then no worries. Chances are good that the DNC would get the money instead. But at this time, I simply have no desire to reward bad behavior. Some of you don't care about his behavior, or don't think it's bad behavior, or whatever. I didn't ask any of you to follow suit, and don't care whether you do or not. I didn't pull him from the Orange to Blue list. I'm not going to start praising Nader or Barr. I'll still vote for him. Yadda, yadda, yadda. At the end of the day, I'm pretty irrelevant in the whole affair. Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.
Ultimately, he's currently saying that he doesn't need people like me to win this thing, and he's right. He doesn't. If they've got polling or whatnot that says that this is his best path to victory, so much the better. I want him to win big. But when the Obama campaign makes those calculations, they have to realize that they're going to necessarily lose some intensity of support. It's not all upside. And for me, that is reflected in a lack of interest in making that contribution.
That's it. No need to freak out. It is what it is. Others will happily pick up the slack. We're headed toward a massive Democratic wave, and what I decide to do with my money means next to nothing, no matter how much hyperventilating may happen on this site's comments and diaries about it all.
And if for some crazy hard-to-see reason my money actually is important to the Obama campaign, then they can adjust their behavior to get it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544
-
What good behavior has the DNC done ?
-
I don't think that nuking Tehran is really the solution to any of America's problems. The solution to America's problems is to remove its army of raping, murdering thugs and torturers from Iraq and begin to observe the basic tenets of international law with particular attention to the non-aggression portions of it.
But which is more likely to be tried first?
-
<<Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.>>
At this point, hope is the only reason to back Obama. Hope that once elected, he'll turn his back on the centre that he is presently chasing and repudiate the conciliatory moves he is now making towards them. Won't do a whole helluva lot for his integrity, but integrity isn't what we're looking for right now. More important is to put into office a man who is going to restore respect for international law, end U.S. aggression, end the stranglehold of the Israel Lobby and protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. If that can only be accomplished by the betrayal of the centre that he is currently courting, so be it. We hope that the promises we consider to have been made to the electorate with a wink and a nod in the early days of his campaign will be the promises we all understood them to be and will be implemented across the board. The electorate has been lied to and fooled before, it will undoubtedly happen again as well. But right now the Obama campaign is fueled by hope - - hope that he won't sell out, that he WILL make a difference.
-
<<Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.>>
At this point, hope is the only reason to back Obama. Hope that once elected, he'll turn his back on the centre that he is presently chasing and repudiate the conciliatory moves he is now making towards them. Won't do a whole helluva lot for his integrity, but integrity isn't what we're looking for right now. More important is to put into office a man who is going to restore respect for international law, end U.S. aggression, end the stranglehold of the Israel Lobby and protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. If that can only be accomplished by the betrayal of the centre that he is currently courting, so be it. We hope that the promises we consider to have been made to the electorate with a wink and a nod in the early days of his campaign will be the promises we all understood them to be and will be implemented across the board. The electorate has been lied to and fooled before, it will undoubtedly happen again as well. But right now the Obama campaign is fueled by hope - - hope that he won't sell out, that he WILL make a difference.
I think that you are hopeing that he will sell out , just that it won't be your favoriates he sells out.
Do you really feel that a sellout of one or the other is unavoidable?
Isn't it possible that he means what he says and says what he means?
-
"They DESERVE to get their ass kicked"
Yes they do! and I assure you they will very soon and the others will fall into place.
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc107/gunnyroy911/TehranSolution2.gif)
No, we tried not long after 1979. We used Iraq. We gave your murdering, thug buddy Saddam Hussein support. You don't recall special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand with a big shit-eating grin? They sent thousands of people to their death. Hussein even bombed his own Kurdish people with chemical weapons, but your boy Ronnie Reagan cared more about attacking Iran.
It was a miserable failure. It only distanced the people of Iran and made the extreme right-wing of Iran's position even stronger. And that is all warmongers like you are going to do now.
-
<<I think that you are hopeing that he will sell out , just that it won't be your favoriates he sells out.>>
Well sure, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said it wouldn't do his credibility a whole helluva lot of good.
<<Do you really feel that a sellout of one or the other is unavoidable?>>
Sure, you can't promise Joe to pull out of Iraq right away and promise Bob to stay indefinitely with no end or even timetable in sight and then satisfy the two of them. Joe wants the U.S. out yesterday and Bob wants them not to leave under a cloud of defeat, which means he wants them to stay indefinitely.
<<Isn't it possible that he means what he says and says what he means?>>
It would be possible only if I and a lot of other people misunderstood what he was really saying, read our own wishes into his words. But it was BECAUSE we read those wishes into those words that Barak came as far as he did. I could be wrong, but of course I have to assume I am right. He said what he said about the war becuase he wanted the votes of the people who wanted immediate exit from Iraq. When he promised "change" a lot of people took that as the end of the Israel Lobby's stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy, the end of the war in Iraq and the end of the cult of death and militarism. When he now says how much he respects John Insane, that is going back on his pledge to end the cult of militarism. He CAN'T mean both.
-
You don't recall special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand with a big shit-eating grin? They sent thousands of people to their death. Hussein even bombed his own Kurdish people with chemical weapons, but your boy Ronnie Reagan cared more about attacking Iran.
I guess you don't recall that Iraq invaded Iran in Sept 1980, months before Reagan's election. The war was launched with Carter's blessings.
-
You don't recall special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand with a big shit-eating grin? They sent thousands of people to their death. Hussein even bombed his own Kurdish people with chemical weapons, but your boy Ronnie Reagan cared more about attacking Iran.
I guess you don't recall that Iraq invaded Iran in Sept 1980, months before Reagan's election. The war was launched with Carter's blessings.
So?
The fact that Carter and Reagan supported it makes it somehow less of a miserable failure? That changes the fact that we supported Iraq or that Donnie Rumsfeld was there kissing Saddam's orifices?
-
So?
The fact that Carter and Reagan supported it makes it somehow less of a miserable failure? That changes the fact that we supported Iraq or that Donnie Rumsfeld was there kissing Saddam's orifices?
You seem to want to make this one-sided. We also aided Iran in the war, providing weapons via Israel. Classic triangulation. Keep the two major players in the region busy for a while. Geo-politics in action.
-
You don't recall special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand with a big shit-eating grin? They sent thousands of people to their death. Hussein even bombed his own Kurdish people with chemical weapons, but your boy Ronnie Reagan cared more about attacking Iran.
I guess you don't recall that Iraq invaded Iran in Sept 1980, months before Reagan's election. The war was launched with Carter's blessings.
So?
The fact that Carter and Reagan supported it makes it somehow less of a miserable failure? That changes the fact that we supported Iraq or that Donnie Rumsfeld was there kissing Saddam's orifices?
What was a failure about it?
-
What was a failure about it?
========================
I don't see that profiting from prolonging a war is any sort of moral act.
-
What was a failure about it?
========================
I don't see that profiting from prolonging a war is any sort of moral act.
Good , because nobody profited.
Iran lost a lot of population , Iraq lost a lot of resorces and a bit less manpower.
It was an all around looser.
But the US , in the bleachers , saw sworn enemys kicking each other in the head.
-
So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.
And you claim to be an actual Christian?
Incredible.
-
So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.
And you claim to be an actual Christian?
Incredible.
Innocent?
Which one would it have been good to see win?
If Chamberlan had found a way to get Italy and Germany to fight each other there might have been several more years without fighting for England.
-
So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.
And you claim to be an actual Christian?
Incredible.
Innocent?
Which one would it have been good to see win?
If Chamberlan had found a way to get Italy and Germany to fight each other there might have been several more years without fighting for England.
It never worked like that. The United States Government was furious with Israel for their military aid to Iran. The truth is that we were scared shitless of the possibility of Iran exporting right-wing Shia Revolution to the rest of the Islamic world. Saddam was our man and Iraq was our horse in the race. Israel was duly chastised for shipping military hardware to Iran and it did not last long.
Your analogy is amusing, but sophomoric. Germany all but conquered Italy during the war anyway. It would certainly not have taken "several more years" for an army that defeated Poland and France in a matter of months of actual combat. Furthermore, you're simply avoiding the argument. It was not a question of military or political strategy, it was a question of whether or not Christian ethics support such strategies where countless thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of people lose their lives.
It is a very good question. The strategy you are defending cost a number of Kurdish and Iranian men, women, and children their lives. It sent many Iraqis to Saddam's torture facilities, some of them were even veterans of the war. You may dislike the governments that ruled both nations at the time, but the people who die in wars are almost never the people in power.
While many people in this very forum attack Muslims for not respecting human life, or they attack the liberal-left for not standing against abortion - they turn around and support wholesale slaughter including massive deaths of innocents, even torture. People will not follow you to Christ if you paint Him in the blood of innocents.
-
So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.
And you claim to be an actual Christian?
Incredible.
Innocent?
Which one would it have been good to see win?
If Chamberlan had found a way to get Italy and Germany to fight each other there might have been several more years without fighting for England.
It never worked like that. The United States Government was furious with Israel for their military aid to Iran. The truth is that we were scared shitless of the possibility of Iran exporting right-wing Shia Revolution to the rest of the Islamic world. Saddam was our man and Iraq was our horse in the race. Israel was duly chastised for shipping military hardware to Iran and it did not last long.
Your analogy is amusing, but sophomoric. Germany all but conquered Italy during the war anyway. It would certainly not have taken "several more years" for an army that defeated Poland and France in a matter of months of actual combat. Furthermore, you're simply avoiding the argument. It was not a question of military or political strategy, it was a question of whether or not Christian ethics support such strategies where countless thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of people lose their lives.
It is a very good question. The strategy you are defending cost a number of Kurdish and Iranian men, women, and children their lives. It sent many Iraqis to Saddam's torture facilities, some of them were even veterans of the war. You may dislike the governments that ruled both nations at the time, but the people who die in wars are almost never the people in power.
While many people in this very forum attack Muslims for not respecting human life, or they attack the liberal-left for not standing against abortion - they turn around and support wholesale slaughter including massive deaths of innocents, even torture. People will not follow you to Christ if you paint Him in the blood of innocents.
I think all of America is innocent in causeing that fight. Giveing assistance to both sides isn't tipical for us but to quote Henry Kissinger at the time " too bad they can't both loose.". It was a smart policy to make the inevitable turn out to our favor with such small cost for us.
What indeed would have been the smarter, or more moral, policy choice?
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11715 (agrees with you)
-
Rewarding good behavior
by kos
Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM PDT
So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further:
First of all, obviously Obama is a great candidate who is running a great 50-state race. That much cannot be denied. But he's had a rough couple of weeks.
First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of "leadership". Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution.
Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech.
Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing.
All of a sudden, there was a lot of cowering when, just days ago, we got to read this:
When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don?t do cowering."
Could've fooled me, and maybe he is. Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation.
Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. We're allowed to do that here. But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone. Not for the Democratic Congress, and not for our future Democratic president. When anyone does something I don't care for, I will say so. I've never pulled my punches before, so why start now?
Obama will be fine without my contribution, and he may even still get it before this thing is said and done, but it would be at a time when he has done something positive. That's called rewarding good behavior. And if that opportunity fails to arise because Obama goes on a Sister Souljah'ing rampage, then no worries. Chances are good that the DNC would get the money instead. But at this time, I simply have no desire to reward bad behavior. Some of you don't care about his behavior, or don't think it's bad behavior, or whatever. I didn't ask any of you to follow suit, and don't care whether you do or not. I didn't pull him from the Orange to Blue list. I'm not going to start praising Nader or Barr. I'll still vote for him. Yadda, yadda, yadda. At the end of the day, I'm pretty irrelevant in the whole affair. Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.
Ultimately, he's currently saying that he doesn't need people like me to win this thing, and he's right. He doesn't. If they've got polling or whatnot that says that this is his best path to victory, so much the better. I want him to win big. But when the Obama campaign makes those calculations, they have to realize that they're going to necessarily lose some intensity of support. It's not all upside. And for me, that is reflected in a lack of interest in making that contribution.
That's it. No need to freak out. It is what it is. Others will happily pick up the slack. We're headed toward a massive Democratic wave, and what I decide to do with my money means next to nothing, no matter how much hyperventilating may happen on this site's comments and diaries about it all.
And if for some crazy hard-to-see reason my money actually is important to the Obama campaign, then they can adjust their behavior to get it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544
I guess Kos has been reading my diaries. I never dreamed.
-
I think all of America is innocent in causeing that fight. Giveing assistance to both sides isn't tipical for us but to quote Henry Kissinger at the time " too bad they can't both loose.". It was a smart policy to make the inevitable turn out to our favor with such small cost for us.
What indeed would have been the smarter, or more moral, policy choice?
=======================================================
It was not smart. It was unspeakably stupid, just like overthrowing the secular elected government of Mossadeagh was stupid.
The evidence is that the US has been involved in two wars in that area since then.
Kissinger should be taken out and shot for treason. He was and always was been an agent for Rockefeller and ExxonMobil, and nothing he has ever done has benefitted the people of this country. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of others have dies because of his evil manipulative, lying trickery.
The US should have never allowed the sick Shah in the US. He was dying, and everyone knwew that there was no hope to save him. He could have gotten every bit of attention in dozens of places other than the US.
The US should have withdrawn all its people from the Teheran Embassy after the Shah died. They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy, and it was all captured and used extensively by the Revolutionary guides and their buddies. The records of every bit of trickery of the CIA for decades was also there, and captured. Why weren't these items and the staff evacualted from that embassy? Because Kissinger recommended that it all stay there.
Besides being stupid, it was immoral to prolong a war and profit from it.
-
"They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy,..."
Huh?
-
and nothing [Kissinger] has ever done has benefitted [sic] the people of this country.
What are your problems with detente and the SALT treaty?
-
"They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy,..."
Huh?
============
The State Department had a printing press for printing US currency in the Teheran Embassy. The plates and equipment were captured and were used for many years to produce money for the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian government. Either some of the plates were given to Lebanese in the Bekaa Valley or identical copies were given to them, and for decades, untraceable authentic US currency was printed and spent by Hamas and others.
There is a reason why they have been changing US currency, and that is why.
Kissinger knew this, and did nothing to cause state secrets, currency printing plates and personnel from being evacuated from the Embassy. He treacherously advised Carter that the people and contents should remain in that embassy.
Jimmy Carter was too trusting to think that Kissinger was not an evil ratbastard traitor, and he paid the price, as did we all. He followed Kissinger's advice and was set up for a fall.
Then the Rockefellers, who are heavily into banking, got bumbling old Reagan in power and managed to feast on the Banking crisis, as far less supervision of natural resources and pretty much every regulated corporate activity.
Carter saw an energy crisis coming, and put up solar panels on the Whitehouse and encouraged conservation.
Reagan ripped them off, and did nothing about energy other than to suck up to Big Oil.
-
There is a reason why they have been changing US currency, and that is why.
Money has been changed periodically throughout the history of the country. This is nothing new, and nothing driven by the loss of printing plates. The dollar bill, for example, had 14 major design changes since 1928, and a bunch of minor design changes. The $20 bill - the one most counterfeited - had 19 major design changes since 1928 and a total of 36 changes (both major and minor), an average of one change every 2.22 years. Interestingly enough, the current redesign process was ordered by a judge (http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/28/markets/treasury_ruling/index.htm?postversion=2006112818) due to the ADA - older style paper money is too hard for those with sight impairments to use, since the bills all look very similar.
Jimmy Carter was too trusting to think that Kissinger was not an evil ratbastard traitor, and he paid the price, as did we all. He followed Kissinger's advice and was set up for a fall.
Well, I gotta wonder why Jimmy was smart enough to criticize Kissinger while campaigning against Ford, and all of a sudden got stupid enough to trust him after he was elected. Was he lobotomized or something?
-
"They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy,..."
Huh?
============
The State Department had a printing press for printing US currency in the Teheran Embassy. The plates and equipment were captured and were used for many years to produce money for the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian government. Either some of the plates were given to Lebanese in the Bekaa Valley or identical copies were given to them, and for decades, untraceable authentic US currency was printed and spent by Hamas and others.
There is a reason why they have been changing US currency, and that is why.
Kissinger knew this, and did nothing to cause state secrets, currency printing plates and personnel from being evacuated from the Embassy. He treacherously advised Carter that the people and contents should remain in that embassy.
Jimmy Carter was too trusting to think that Kissinger was not an evil ratbastard traitor, and he paid the price, as did we all. He followed Kissinger's advice and was set up for a fall.
Then the Rockefellers, who are heavily into banking, got bumbling old Reagan in power and managed to feast on the Banking crisis, as far less supervision of natural resources and pretty much every regulated corporate activity.
Carter saw an energy crisis coming, and put up solar panels on the Whitehouse and encouraged conservation.
Reagan ripped them off, and did nothing about energy other than to suck up to Big Oil.
Why would a mint be located in an embassy?
-
Why would a mint be located in an embassy?
Well, actually, the CIA took money printing equipment to many places, so they would have a ready source without having to move the actual money.
-
Why would a mint be located in an embassy?
Well, actually, the CIA took money printing equipment to many places, so they would have a ready source without having to move the actual money.
I bet the treasury department was against it.
That is interesting , is there a link?
-
and nothing [Kissinger] has ever done has benefitted [sic] the people of this country.
What are your problems with detente and the SALT treaty?
The fact that Kissinger could give he go ahead to massive slaughters, murders, genocide, and torture easily outweigh any benefit he ever brought to mankind. I'd be more than happy to turn him over to a war crimes tribunal.