Easy to Be Hard....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Lefties managed to kill off a good 80-100 million third world peasants in the various workers manifestations of a "Worker's Paradise" that they established around the globe last century. Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al - remember those guys? Terror Famine, Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward - never aquainted oneself with these Great Moments in Leftism? Such innocence...

 

And you forgot to mention they were all ATHEISTS.

[Alpinfox]

Like I've said at least twice before:

If Gore had won the election... The Repubes would be anti-war and the Democrasses would be pro-war.

 

Bullshit.

 

Kosovo

 

Kosovo wasn't/ain't Iraq.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Kosovo wasn't/ain't Iraq.

 

You miss the point. Think "political role reversal".

[JayB]

Like I've said at least twice before:

If Gore had won the election in 2000 and had been in office when 9/11 happened, and had he done exactly what Bush did in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, all roles would be reversed:

The Repubes would be anti-war and the Democrasses would be pro-war.

 

And before all you liberal hippies make that smug comment that Gore would have never, let me just tell you ahead of time to save it and STFU.

 

 

 

Too bad we missed out on the spectacle of the usual suspects pontificating about Bob Dole's imperial designs on Kosovo, how it was all about the oil, etc, etc. That would have been killer..

 

 

[Alpinfox]

YOU miss the point. I, for one, would not have supported invading Iraq no matter who was president. I wasn't too keen on the use of military force in Kosovo either, but at least there we had a humanitarian mission and the support of the UN with little/no ulterior motive (that I am aware of anyway). I didn't support Clinton's air strikes of pharmaceutical factories in Sudan either.

 

So your insinuation that political affiliation colors support of military action is incorrect, at least in my case.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I wasn't too keen on the use of military force in Kosovo either,

 

Gee, you weren't "too keen". Isn't that special. You also weren't vociferously criticizing Clinton to the degree you do so w/r/t to Bush's policies, now were you? Seems the intensity of your indignation is directly proportional to partisan politics.

 

but at least there we had a humanitarian mission and the support of the UN with little/no ulterior motive

 

Ah, but how often do we hear that there is "no threat from Iraq", implying "no national security" issue. One would conclude that this would be a litmus test for those making the argument w/r/t the necessary conditions for the use of military force. But you say there was "no ulterior motive" w/r/t Kosovo, just a "humanitarian mission". Meaning "no national security issue". That's the first point of hypocrisy. Then, when those who argue that the current mission in Iraq is a "humanitarian issue", that is shot down as a legitimate reason for our presence - "the Iraqis need to take care of their own problems". But, in Kosovo, a "humanitarian mission" was justification for the use of force. That's the second point of hypocrisy.

[klenke]

Paul don't be an idiot Gore would never have invaded Afganistan or Iraq.

[cj001f]

I guess the message is that it's okay to eliminate 80-100 million people so long as the slaughter is accompanied by the appropriate rhetoric. Amazing stuff - it's still okay to talk fondly about Mao et all, but the CEO of Walmart is the devil incarnate.

 

As opposed to those great rulers of the right? Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, various African dictators - it's ok to imprison and bully minorities, not to mention the populace at large, as long as it's in the name of law and order, right?

[Alpinfox]

I wasn't too keen on the use of military force in Kosovo either,

 

You also weren't vociferously criticizing Clinton to the degree you do so w/r/t to Bush's policies, now were you? Seems the intensity of your indignation is directly proportional to partisan politics.

 

As for your smart-ass comment about my use of the word "keen".

 

I did criticize Clinton, but I assume by "you" you mean "Democrats" or "Liberals" or something. I think had Clinton invaded Sudan you would have heard just as much yelling and griping as you have seen re:Iraq. Since it was a surgical strike type operation, by the time the public knew about it, it was over. That's quite a bit different than dragging the country and hundreds of thousands of American troops into a multi-year long war, killing tens-of-thousands of civilians, toppling a government, costing the US trillions of dollars, tarnishing our world image, etc.

 

but at least there we had a humanitarian mission and the support of the UN with little/no ulterior motive

 

Ah, but how often do we hear that there is "no threat from Iraq", implying "no national security" issue. One would conclude that this would be a litmus test for those making the argument w/r/t the necessary conditions for the use of military force. But you say there was "no ulterior motive" w/r/t Kosovo, just a "humanitarian mission". Meaning "no national security issue". That's the first point of hypocrisy. Then, when those who argue that the current mission in Iraq is a "humanitarian issue", that is shot down as a legitimate reason for our presence - "the Iraqis need to take care of their own problems". But, in Kosovo, a "humanitarian mission" was justification for the use of force. That's the second point of hypocrisy.

 

The time to intervene for humanitarian reasons in Iraq was during the genocide of Kurds (mid 1980s I think?), not in 2002. There was NO threat to US national security from Iraq in 2002. We had Saddam in a tight little box where he could do no harm.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

as for your smart-ass "keen" comment.

 

Yes, I am using the rhetorical "you". And I am not trying to argue the case for (or against) military intervention in Iraq or Kosovo, but point out where most people (maybe not YOU the person) exhibit profound hypocrisy in their rationalizations for the (lack of) support of various policies.

 

There has so far been no military intervention in either N. Korea or Iran. There are security risks in both countries (- or are there?). I'd like to hope people can start to formulate their positions w/r/t what should be done in those two situations irrespective of who is currently the president. What should we do now? When would military action be justified? Last time I checked there is no oil in N. Korea, but plenty of human suffering. Ulterior motives?

 

Devil's advocate, out...

 

[Alpinfox]

I believe GWB would very much like to invade Iran. The guy is crazy and is on a crusade to "democratize" (read: christianize and open to capitalist markets) the middle east. He would probably do so if he could get the draft up and running.

 

As for Korea, they already have the bomb, so we gotta play nice.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As for Korea, they already have the bomb, so we gotta play nice.

 

If you're looking for a true madman, you'd better pay attention to Kim Jong Il (or however that human Chia-Pet spells his name).

[JayB]

I believe GWB would very much like to invade Iran. The guy is crazy and is on a crusade to "democratize" (read: christianize and open to capitalist markets) the middle east. He would probably do so if he could get the draft up and running.

 

As for Korea, they already have the bomb, so we gotta play nice.

 

The only thing that has preserved the North Korean regime all of these years are the 20,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. One collective yank on the lanyards and Seoul and all of its inhabitants are toast. They have very litttle, if any capacity to hit the US at this point, and when and if they ever get it, they are not about to go mano-y-mano with the US with nukes. I think our doctrine calls for an immediate 100-fold retaliation on any state that launches an ICBM at us.

[Peter_Puget]

I believe GWB would very much like to invade Iran. The guy is crazy and is on a crusade to "democratize" (read: christianize and open to capitalist markets) the middle east. He would probably do so if he could get the draft up and running.

 

As for Korea, they already have the bomb, so we gotta play nice.

 

Of course Alpinfox is joking when he wrote this but for those who might have no ceception of the relative size of some of the various economies of the world I attach this:

 

Comparative GDP

,000,000 omitted

source: cia.gov

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think our doctrine calls for an immediate 100-fold retaliation on any state that launches an ICBM at us.

 

What if N. Korea invades S. Korea again? What if they launch a nuke at S. Korea? What if a dirty bomb goes off in the US, and there is strong evidence (but doubt enough for the ACLU types to wring their hands over) that the source was the N. Korea nuclear weapons program?

 

What if China says that if we retaliate against N. Korea that they will retaliate against us?

 

The pretense for war in Iraq was: WMD + dictator who might use it + imminent threat (weapons could wind up in terrorists' hands). Unless N. Korea is lying, two out of three of these points are certainly TRUE in N. Korea - no debate about this. What should be done about this now, especially if N. Korea attempts nuclear blackmail, or continues in their irrational intransigence?

 

Those are the questions that should be discussed, but instead the Bush-haters continue to spout off about the folly of the "axis of evil speech", and devise ridiculous conspiracy theories - like how he wants to invade Iran and convert the Muslims.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Rod? Check.

Reel? Check.

Trolling tackle? Check.

 

Hook, line, sinker.

 

Thank you.

 

 

PS - You right-wingers can still eat a bag of dicks!

[Squid]

Those are the questions that should be discussed, but instead the Bush-haters continue to spout off about the folly of the "axis of evil speech", and devise ridiculous conspiracy theories - like how he wants to invade Iran and convert the Muslims.

 

KK- I know this is spray, but I'd like you to know I expect better from you. I'm disappointed whenever you dodge the real comments you get here on the board, and construct straw-man arguments to knock down. It appears to me that you choose not to engage contributors to the board on their own arguments, but prefer to attack theoretical positions that 'they' hold. There are plenty of real-live liberals here talking to you- there's no need to invent caricatures of them.

[Squid]

I give up.

[Alpinfox]

I'm sure that part of GWB's motivation for invading the middle east is to "make the world safer", but I believe economics, religion, the unifying/empowering nationalistic effects of war, and personal vendettas play a bigger role.

 

PP, regarding your table, here is another:

 

1 Saudi Arabia

2 Iraq

3 Kuwait

4 United Arab Emirates

5 Iran

6 Venezuela

7 Russia

8 Mexico

9 Libya

10 US

 

top 10 countries in terms of oil reserves.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

I think our doctrine calls for an immediate 100-fold retaliation on any state that launches an ICBM at us.

 

What if N. Korea invades S. Korea again? What if they launch a nuke at S. Korea? What if a dirty bomb goes off in the US, and there is strong evidence (but doubt enough for the ACLU types to wring their hands over) that the source was the N. Korea nuclear weapons program?

 

What if China says that if we retaliate against N. Korea that they will retaliate against us?

 

The pretense for war in Iraq was: WMD + dictator who might use it + imminent threat (weapons could wind up in terrorists' hands). Unless N. Korea is lying, two out of three of these points are certainly TRUE in N. Korea - no debate about this. What should be done about this now, especially if N. Korea attempts nuclear blackmail, or continues in their irrational intransigence?

 

Those are the questions that should be discussed, but instead the Bush-haters continue to spout off about the folly of the "axis of evil speech", and devise ridiculous conspiracy theories - like how he wants to invade Iran and convert the Muslims.

 

Yeah, and what if a credulous dupe such as yourself gets his knickers in a twist "what-if"-ing after he swallows too much Bush Regime-generated boogeyman propaganda? Surprising that more of you "intelligent" Republiknobgobblers haven't caught on to the fact that your man is pullin' the wool over your eyes and has your back hooves in his high boots. Tsk, tsk, time to wake up!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK- I know this is spray, but I'd like you to know I expect better from you. I'm disappointed whenever you dodge the real comments you get here on the board, and construct straw-man arguments to knock down. It appears to me that you choose not to engage contributors to the board on their own arguments, but prefer to attack theoretical positions that 'they' hold. There are plenty of real-live liberals here talking to you- there's no need to invent caricatures of them.

 

1) email or internet discussion forums are flawed in their inability to provide the 'back and forth' of a conversation. And there are no visual clues, voice inflections, and so on.

 

2) this site is replete with 'caricatures' of the right, Christians, conservatives, etc. To criticize me for supposedly engaging in this is rather ironic. Whenever I attempt a serious give and take with someone, it always seems to lead to the same old cliches: "Bush sucks", "Iraq is a quagmire", "blood for oil". blah blah.

 

3) I don't know what you are referring to with straw man comments, but if it is the post to which you directly replied, then let me clarify. Bush's detractors continually harp on how shitty his policies are, but never espouse any of their own. It is way too easy and convenient to snipe and engage in monday morning quarterbacking. I want to see if anyone has any constructive policy suggestions regarding Iran and N. Korea. So far, there are none. The left is waiting for Bush to "fail" and then attack his policy, whatever it was. I don't see any thought about the issues facing us up front, yet alone how to address them. This is Iraq allover again - what do we do this time?

 

As for the original topic of this thread, you can be damn sure, that the "blame America first crowd", including professors like Churchill, and that seditious lawyer, will be spewing all kinds of rhetoric about how we are to blame for Iran and N. Korea - we made them build the bomb, we made them kill people, we deserve what we get. All of us are, after all, "little Eichmans"...

[Squid]

Thanks for taking the time to reply seriously.

 

You're absoutely right about this forum being inappriopriate for anything more than inventive trolling and name-calling.

 

Spray on.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yeah, and what if a credulous dupe such as yourself gets his knickers in a twist "what-if"-ing after he swallows too much Bush Regime-generated boogeyman propaganda?

 

Listen Richard, I have not bought anything I am told without question, that should be evident even to a dolt as yourself.

 

We must ask questions, then formulate a position. Is it acceptable if N. Korea has nukes? What would the potential consequences be? What should our policy be?

 

Surprising that more of you "intelligent" Republiknobgobblers haven't caught on to the fact...

 

You prove my point in my comments to Squid. You are just a sniper with no ideas of your own, just like the majority of your politically-like-minded ilk. As long as you have no ideas, then don't be surprised when someone else makes the decisions for you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Thanks for taking the time to reply seriously.

 

You're absoutely right about this forum being inappriopriate for anything more than inventive trolling and name-calling.

 

From time to time, there are some decent points from all sides...

[Harkin_Banks]

I believe GWB would very much like to invade Iran. The guy is crazy and is on a crusade to "democratize" (read: christianize and open to capitalist markets) the middle east. He would probably do so if he could get the draft up and running.

 

As for Korea, they already have the bomb, so we gotta play nice.

 

The only thing that has preserved the North Korean regime all of these years are the 20,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. One collective yank on the lanyards and Seoul and all of its inhabitants are toast. They have very litttle, if any capacity to hit the US at this point, and when and if they ever get it, they are not about to go mano-y-mano with the US with nukes. I think our doctrine calls for an immediate 100-fold retaliation on any state that launches an ICBM at us.

 

This is hilarious. Thank god cc.com is here to set the world straight. I didn't realize so many had a finger on the pulse of far east relations in this forum.