It's a shame that life isn't a Tom Clancy novel really. I get the impression that people expected/wanted to see on the news that Sam Fisher had found Osama hiding in a cave, along with a stash of suitcase nukes and tons of heroin and other drugs. Unfortunately real life is a bit more complicated.
Tom Clancy novels are sooooo much more sexy though.
Mercenaries devise a scheme to take over a generic industrial compound for ransom under the watchful eye of corrupt US diplomats. The plot twists when the Mercenaries hijack a shipment of nuclear warheads even after their demands are met, unless a rookie CIA agent eager to prove his worth can overcome his brooding self-doubt and stop the Mercenaries once and for all. The movie ends with a mildly comical and/or ironic scene in which the Mercenaries blow up or go to prison. Another satisfying tale of political intrigue and personal redemption closes, and we all walk away from this movie a little wiser.
It's a shame that life isn't a Tom Clancy novel really. I get the impression that people expected/wanted to see on the news that Sam Fisher had found Osama hiding in a cave, along with a stash of suitcase nukes and tons of heroin and other drugs. Unfortunately real life is a bit more complicated.
Tom Clancy novels are sooooo much more sexy though.
Which is pretty much what people wanted. A couple of sexy wars, with Marines going "hooah" and plenty of big bangs (and low Coalition casualities of course.) Throw in a fight of good against "evil" and modern editing with 24 hour coverage and there you go. And it worked for a bit. After "Mission Accomplished" though, things went a bit tits-up.
Right now, the only feasible way that I can see us going into Iran is if the "olol Star Wars" scenario comes to fruition. The scenario is this:
Some group attacks the US in late summer/early fall, maybe on the anniversary of 9/11. It doesn't really matter who it is, so long as the administration can connect it to Iran (whether or not there's any truth to that connection is irrelevant).
The administration then convinces the now mostly-unified public (there are always those who are truly anti-war) that we must go to war against Iran. The draft is reinstated to make up for our depleated forces. War is declared 30-45 days after the terrorist attack.
Politically, the neo-cons keep the executive branch. Either Bush goes the Palpatine route and tries to hold onto the presidency in the time of an emergency, or another neo-con (I'm thinking Rudy) wins the office. The Patriot Act is strengthened as a result of the administration "not having the proper tools to protect the people."
The younglings are killed. Oh, wait....
The way things stand now, there's no way we go to war against Iran. There's nothing to gain from it other than further alienating ourselves from the rest of the world. Furthermore, it would be political suicide for the neo-cons. No, they'll wait until the people feel that a war would be justified.
It's like the administration in general deserves to be respected/listened to, regardless of who actually holds that position?
Exactly.
(this post will be met with a myriad of responses which basically boil down to "question everything lozl")
I just upgraded you from dumbass to retard.
It is your duty as a patriot to question the actions of your goverment. You, as a citizen, are the final check and balance - welcome to the fourth branch of government.
Fuck you. I think that authority should be respected, up to a point. We crossed that point with the current Admin a long time ago.
Then vote them out of office. That's the beauty and freedom involved with Democracy. You also have the right to speak out against people and policies you disagree with. But what you do not have the right to do is refuse your countries call for help if it comes, no matter what the conditions of that call are.
You would fight in a war that you believe to be unjustified because the administration tells you too?
You're a dumbass and you're probably the only person here who doesn't know why you're a dumbass.
:rolleyes:
Realize that I'm pretty much the only person on my side of the table at this point, and I've argued my view without personally insulting any of you. It would be nice if you could possibly do the same (but I doubt that's possible).
Oh, to answer your question: Yes, I would, because I BELIEVE in the law and the price that comes for the numerous freedoms I enjoy. I fail to see how that's idiotic on any level.
It is your duty as a patriot to question the actions of your goverment. You, as a citizen, are the final check and balance - welcome to the fourth branch of government.
This was actually a good argument. Unfortunately you've now insulted me twice (on the same page no less) so this is my last response to you.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Mercenaries devise a scheme to take over a generic industrial compound for ransom under the watchful eye of corrupt US diplomats. The plot twists when the Mercenaries hijack a shipment of nuclear warheads even after their demands are met, unless a rookie CIA agent eager to prove his worth can overcome his brooding self-doubt and stop the Mercenaries once and for all. The movie ends with a mildly comical and/or ironic scene in which the Mercenaries blow up or go to prison. Another satisfying tale of political intrigue and personal redemption closes, and we all walk away from this movie a little wiser.
, one of Maddox's better postings. I got a good laugh out of it when I read it originally. He's right on quite a few points.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Actually, what's the name of the philosophy that believes that a good society has to follow a law regardless of whether the law is seen as being morally agreeable? That was Hobbes, right?
Which is pretty much what people wanted. A couple of sexy wars, with Marines going "hooah" and plenty of big bangs (and low Coalition casualities of course.) Throw in a fight of good against "evil" and modern editing with 24 hour coverage and there you go. And it worked for a bit. After "Mission Accomplished" though, things went a bit tits-up.
Exactly.
I think when the admin ran with the "Mission Accomplished" campaign they honestly thought that things were going to turn around in Iraq, unfortunately that was not to be.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Then vote them out of office. That's the beauty and freedom involved with Democracy. You also have the right to speak out against people and policies you disagree with. But what you do not have the right to do is refuse your countries call for help if it comes, no matter what the conditions of that call are.
We don't have a true democracy. Once we elect leaders, we cannot vote them out for 4 years. If the will of the people were actually represented, Bush would have been out of office quite some time ago.
Edit: I'm not saying it's a bad system, or proposing a better one. Hiding behind it as the will of the people is fallacy, though.
Realize that I'm pretty much the only person on my side of the table at this point, and I've argued my view without personally insulting any of you. It would be nice if you could possibly do the same (but I doubt that's possible).
By the way, sticking a roll eyes in your post is an insult. The fact that you were unable to express your derision in words does not make it any less derisive.
Oh, to answer your question: Yes, I would, because I BELIEVE in the law and the price that comes for the numerous freedoms I enjoy. I fail to see how that's idiotic on any level.
An unjustified war would be an illegal war and yet you would be willing to fight an illegal war because of your strong belief in the law. The price you pay for your freedoms is to question everything the government does - not to lay down your life in a war that you believe is unjustified.
Fuck you. I think that authority should be respected, up to a point. We crossed that point with the current Admin a long time ago.
Then vote them out of office. That's the beauty and freedom involved with Democracy. You also have the right to speak out against people and policies you disagree with. But what you do not have the right to do is refuse your countries call for help if it comes, no matter what the conditions of that call are.
People tried voting this administration out of office. More people wanted them in office.
Now far more people want this administration out. Are you suggesting everyone just sucks it up and waits until the next election?
Also, what do you mean "call for help?" Help with what? Whatever the administration decides it wants help with? What it turns out the administration was wrong, do you still have to "help" them even if the rationalization has changed?
Actually, what's the name of the philosophy that believes that a good society has to follow a law regardless of whether the law is seen as being morally agreeable? That was Hobbes, right?
I couldn't say honestly, philosophy is not something I'm well versed in.
I will clarfiy something for those who for some reason see me as a blind follower of the government:
I follow the laws, freedoms, and ideals that the country is built upon. If I were to see men or groups taking action to limit, destroy, or remove those things you can bet that not only would I be questioning the actions of those men, I would be acting against those men.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Actually, what's the name of the philosophy that believes that a good society has to follow a law regardless of whether the law is seen as being morally agreeable? That was Hobbes, right?
I couldn't say honestly, philosophy is not something I'm well versed in.
I will clarfiy something for those who for some reason see me as a blind follower of the government:
I follow the laws, freedoms, and ideals that the country is built upon. If I were to see men or groups taking action to limit, destroy, or remove those things you can bet that not only would I be questioning the actions of those men, I would be acting against those men.
So basically you're saying that you'll put up with and do what the current administration wants, up until the point of this turning into a godwin, then you're out, right?
It is your duty as a patriot to question the actions of your goverment. You, as a citizen, are the final check and balance - welcome to the fourth branch of government.
This was actually a good argument. Unfortunately you've now insulted me twice (on the same page no less) so this is my last response to you.
You just got upgraded again to self-righteous retard.
I guess I must be really missing out on your nuggets of wisdom.
People tried voting this administration out of office. More people wanted them in office.
Now far more people want this administration out. Are you suggesting everyone just sucks it up and waits until the next election?
Find a politician strong-willed enough to stick their neck out for impeachment and have them run with it. If your congressmen or senators are not representing your views adequately then vote them out of office, or run for office yourself. That's how the system is built.
The system fails because of the weaknesses and the corruption of men, not because of the failings of how the system is built.
Also, what do you mean "call for help?" Help with what? Whatever the administration decides it wants help with? What it turns out the administration was wrong, do you still have to "help" them even if the rationalization has changed?
Yes, because the government should have, and needs to have that power.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Actually, what's the name of the philosophy that believes that a good society has to follow a law regardless of whether the law is seen as being morally agreeable? That was Hobbes, right?
I couldn't say honestly, philosophy is not something I'm well versed in.
I will clarfiy something for those who for some reason see me as a blind follower of the government:
I follow the laws, freedoms, and ideals that the country is built upon. If I were to see men or groups taking action to limit, destroy, or remove those things you can bet that not only would I be questioning the actions of those men, I would be acting against those men.
1. You cannot "follow" freedoms.
2. What happens when they simultaneously remove those freedoms and call upon you to defend their actions? Will you organise an anti-Bush protest in Iraq?
3. If you only question your government when they are openly restricting your freedom, then you have left it too late.
Trust me, this Canadian thinks he is fucking stupid as well. Anyone who doesnt want to fight is welcome up here. We need more workers. And we aren't ultra-patriotic Bigots who drive hummers.(Well at least the large majority of us.)
Also, afghanistan is rather rapidly becoming exactly what it was before NATO went in there. If the US had put its 150,000 troops on the ground there to enforce law and rebuild we would probably be done by now. instead you went off and picked a fight with someone who had nothing to do with it and in so lost wars in both Countries.
Also, true patriotism is doing what is best for your country, not what is best for your leader. Dumbass.
hawkbox on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
People tried voting this administration out of office. More people wanted them in office.
Now far more people want this administration out. Are you suggesting everyone just sucks it up and waits until the next election?
Find a politician strong-willed enough to stick their neck out for impeachment and have them run with it. If your congressmen or senators are not representing your views adequately then vote them out of office, or run for office yourself. That's how the system is built.
And you would follow these weak and corrupt men, no matter what they tried to do?
Fencingsax on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Trust me, this Canadian thinks he is fucking stupid as well. Anyone who doesnt want to fight is welcome up here. We need more workers. And we aren't ultra-patriotic Bigots who drive hummers.(Well at least the large majority of us.)
Also, afghanistan is rather rapidly becoming exactly what it was before NATO went in there. If the US had put its 150,000 troops on the ground there to enforce law and rebuild we would probably be done by now. instead you went off and picked a fight with someone who had nothing to do with it and in so lost wars in both Countries.
Also, true patriotism is doing what is best for your country, not what is best for your leader. Dumbass.
Wow....just wow.
I'm all done here, there are about two people on the other side of the table capable of making an arguement without it being accompanied by an insult, which is totally unnecessary in making a debate.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Agreed Gorak. And Knyte, when you say stupid shit expect to be called a stupid shit. I'm sorry but everyones opinion is not equal. Basically you are saying that your founding fathers were wrong because the leader they didnt agree with told them one thing and they revolted. You really need to use more brain cells in your arguements man.
I'm all done here, there are about two people on the other side of the table capable of making an arguement without it being accompanied by an insult, which is totally unnecessary in making a debate.
When you make a dumbass statement, people are going to call you on it.
Dumbass is just short for "You are ill-informed and misguided. Your arguments (such as they are) hold no water and appear to be contradictory." Does that make it any better or are you still going to take your ball and cry off home.
I don't know, Iran seems too sophisticated to likely be caught in a position where the US could muster enough support to start a war with them. They like pushing the envelope, what with the British soldier detainment, and they definately have their hand in the insurgency in Iraq, but they have enough of an self-preservation instinct to make it so real acts of war don't trace back to the top.
The main risk is Bush, Ahmadinejad, or Israel blinking and doing something stupid that pushes it over the edge before the key players can be removed from power and for hostilities to simmer down a bit. While that is a possibility, it is by no means a certainty that things will fall apart like that.
Also, afghanistan is rather rapidly becoming exactly what it was before NATO went in there.
That's because we broke the first rule of international conflict: Don't invade Afghanistan.
Our leaders need to play Risk more often.
Afghanistan is a good place to hold in Risk. If you have it and the Ukraine you can stack up your armies in those places and make it very difficult to punch a hole through.
However, my last game of Risk was degenerate because it resulted in a mexican standoff where no one was willing to be the first one to attack someone else lest they get picked off by their other neighbors, until someone got tired of it and made a suicide offensive.
edit: whoops, I was thinking of the middle east. I guess I fail at board game geopolitics.
It's like the administration in general deserves to be respected/listened to, regardless of who actually holds that position?
Exactly.
(this post will be met with a myriad of responses which basically boil down to "question everything lozl")
No, that logic goes against the very idea that the government was set up to be the servants of the people.
Not to sound rude, but there seems to be this large portion of the American public who, over the time our country has existed, have come to regard the administration and people in office akin to "American Kings" that must be listened to and obeyed without question, instead of the public servants who are supposed to listen to us
Lanz on
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
Well, there is only one thing I can say for this thread:
Actually, what's the name of the philosophy that believes that a good society has to follow a law regardless of whether the law is seen as being morally agreeable? That was Hobbes, right?
I couldn't say honestly, philosophy is not something I'm well versed in.
I will clarfiy something for those who for some reason see me as a blind follower of the government:
I follow the laws, freedoms, and ideals that the country is built upon. If I were to see men or groups taking action to limit, destroy, or remove those things you can bet that not only would I be questioning the actions of those men, I would be acting against those men.
1. You cannot "follow" freedoms.
2. What happens when they simultaneously remove those freedoms and call upon you to defend their actions? Will you organise an anti-Bush protest in Iraq?
3. If you only question your government when they are openly restricting your freedom, then you have left it too late.
This is exactly the question people need to be asking themself. What happens when someone else attacks us? (*cough* Iran). Constitutional rights like habeous corpus have already been dissolved. The Patriot Act would give the president quasi-martial law in any situation deemed a 'national crisis.' This means, specifically, if we are attacked and a state of emergency is declared, the President can do anything he damn well pleases in the name of 'national security'. This includes throwing protestors and draft-dodgers in prison.
What will we do when we no longer have ANY options, because as Gorak says, your right to protest in a state of emergency may already be gone.
It's like the administration in general deserves to be respected/listened to, regardless of who actually holds that position?
Exactly.
(this post will be met with a myriad of responses which basically boil down to "question everything lozl")
No, that logic goes against the very idea that the government was set up to be the servants of the people.
Not to sound rude, but there seems to be this large portion of the American public who, over the time our country has existed, have come to regard the administration and people in office akin to "American Kings" that must be listened to and obeyed without question, instead of the public servants who are supposed to listen tous
So true. Only a nation of complacent followers would allow Bush to dissolve habeus corpus. And we did. Many 'patriots' are traitors to their own country in telling us to simply 'let the President do what he thinks best'.
I can say this...I teach high school, and alot of my boys are very concerned about the possibility of a draft. One day we were talking about it, and I told them that, if a draft happens, I'll drive the bus to Montreal and they're all invited. Then I started to worry if I'd get fired for saying shit like that.
What a noble philosophy to be teaching America's youth.
Actually, what's the name of the philosophy that believes that a good society has to follow a law regardless of whether the law is seen as being morally agreeable? That was Hobbes, right?
I couldn't say honestly, philosophy is not something I'm well versed in.
I will clarfiy something for those who for some reason see me as a blind follower of the government:
I follow the laws, freedoms, and ideals that the country is built upon. If I were to see men or groups taking action to limit, destroy, or remove those things you can bet that not only would I be questioning the actions of those men, I would be acting against those men.
They've done tons of shit already. The Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, wiretapping, the shit with stem cell research, hell, I consider his stance against gay marriage against those ideals. You ready to go bomb the White House?
Edit: Sorry if you consider this to have already been said, I just couldn't read any more without saying anything.
Trust me, this Canadian thinks he is fucking stupid as well. Anyone who doesnt want to fight is welcome up here. We need more workers. And we aren't ultra-patriotic Bigots who drive hummers.(Well at least the large majority of us.)
Also, afghanistan is rather rapidly becoming exactly what it was before NATO went in there. If the US had put its 150,000 troops on the ground there to enforce law and rebuild we would probably be done by now. instead you went off and picked a fight with someone who had nothing to do with it and in so lost wars in both Countries.
Also, true patriotism is doing what is best for your country, not what is best for your leader. Dumbass.
Wow....just wow.
I'm all done here, there are about two people on the other side of the table capable of making an arguement without it being accompanied by an insult, which is totally unnecessary in making a debate.
So, about Iran.
We aren't actually going to do it, they're too advanced, there's no reason.
On the degeneration into an anti-Buish argument.
We've had crappy presidents before. If Bush does anything to try to extend for jack anything then he will be forced from office. Bush can't screw this up with such little time. He spent years on the build up for Iraq.
Your feelings towards the current leaders are irrelevant. You either support what the country stands for, or you don't.
Given the country stands for democracy, freedom, independent thought, choice and the government serving the people, it would seem to me that this statement is completely contradictory.
Your feelings towards the current leaders are irrelevant. You either support what the country stands for, or you don't.
Given the country stands for democracy, freedom, independent thought, choice and the government serving the people, it would seem to me that this statement is completely contradictory.
Now that the absurd jingoism is aside: I don't think we're going to go to war with Iran. Not even if there was another terrorist attack (unless it was proven to be orchestrated by Iran, in which case it would be treated as an act of war). No one's that stupid. Not even the current administration.
And before anyone says "actually, the current administration is that stupid," yes, I know they're stupid. I was against the Iraq war from the start, but it didn't surprise me in the least. A war with Iran would be absolutely shocking to me. Congress is threatening to stop funding the war in Iraq if Bush doesn't meet their demands. Now, of course they'll fund it either way, because it's just a political stunt. But even as a political stunt it shows tremendous opposition to Bush's policies, so he would have to be tremendously stupid to try to invade Iran. The country is bigger and more populous than Iraq, and 1) he can't fix up Iraq, 2) the legislative branch is against him, 3) the public is against him, and 4) the world is against him - not that he necessarily cares about that last one.
There are only three things that could cause us to invade Iran. The first is, again, an attack on US soil that was directly linked to Iran, which would be treated as an act of war. The second is Bush being so stupid he thinks it's a good idea, and I'm sorry, but even a mentally retarded five-year-old would have learned his "don't put your hand in the fire" lesson by now. The third is Bush trying to establish himself as a dictator as a few people in here have mentioned, but I'm going to chalk that prediction up to overactive imaginations or too many dystopian novels and action flicks. Guys, if the president of the United States ever became a dictator, it would be with the support of the people. It's not going to happen now unless Bush is A-OK with a good portion of the United States being destroyed as well as the US being weakened both in terms of economics and influence in the world. Whatever you may think of Bush, that's not who he is and that's not what he wants, and I'd be surprised if anyone here other than entropykid honestly thought otherwise.
As for the draft, I don't think it's going to happen - at least not until we don't need it anymore. For it to happen, the Democrats would have to go along with it. Yes, it would generate more opposition to the war, but more importantly, it would create a backlash against the Democrats - we elect them into office and they thank us with a god damn draft? What possible purpose could this serve? The public is already against the war. The very few Democrats in Congress willing to instate a draft just to rub it in the public's collective face aren't going to get it done, and if they could, they would seriously hurt the Democratic chances for '08 and onwards.
Though if there were a draft, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I do know that one of the few countries without an agreement to ship draft-dodgers back to the US is, unsurprisingly, our good friend France.
Your feelings towards the current leaders are irrelevant. You either support what the country stands for, or you don't.
Given the country stands for democracy, freedom, independent thought, choice and the government serving the people, it would seem to me that this statement is completely contradictory.
"American-style" patriotism is conditional.
You know, like Locke and shit.
It's almost as if the country was founded by people who rebelled against an established political order that failed to perform its duties to the citizenry...
The problem is that there isn't a good enough "in".
I wouldn't think the US would simply wage a war on a country. I dont think the world would stand for it. They will however, "attack certain elements within it" or "free it" from an "evil" dictator etc.
If there were an identifiable rogue element within Iran, or the leadership seemed to be forcing their will on the masses without any public support. Then maybe.
I dont see the US simply waging war on Iran. What would victory look like? Genocide? With Iraq, even anti-war people didnt think Saddam was a nice guy - it was unpopular because of the "way" it was dealt with. Anyone wanting to go to war with Iran will need to wait for an acceptable reason, other that "hey you know what? I'm sick of your shit." *SHOCKANDAWE!*
Posts
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=five_shitty_movies
Which is pretty much what people wanted. A couple of sexy wars, with Marines going "hooah" and plenty of big bangs (and low Coalition casualities of course.) Throw in a fight of good against "evil" and modern editing with 24 hour coverage and there you go. And it worked for a bit. After "Mission Accomplished" though, things went a bit tits-up.
Some group attacks the US in late summer/early fall, maybe on the anniversary of 9/11. It doesn't really matter who it is, so long as the administration can connect it to Iran (whether or not there's any truth to that connection is irrelevant).
The administration then convinces the now mostly-unified public (there are always those who are truly anti-war) that we must go to war against Iran. The draft is reinstated to make up for our depleated forces. War is declared 30-45 days after the terrorist attack.
Politically, the neo-cons keep the executive branch. Either Bush goes the Palpatine route and tries to hold onto the presidency in the time of an emergency, or another neo-con (I'm thinking Rudy) wins the office. The Patriot Act is strengthened as a result of the administration "not having the proper tools to protect the people."
The younglings are killed. Oh, wait....
The way things stand now, there's no way we go to war against Iran. There's nothing to gain from it other than further alienating ourselves from the rest of the world. Furthermore, it would be political suicide for the neo-cons. No, they'll wait until the people feel that a war would be justified.
I just upgraded you from dumbass to retard.
It is your duty as a patriot to question the actions of your goverment. You, as a citizen, are the final check and balance - welcome to the fourth branch of government.
Then vote them out of office. That's the beauty and freedom involved with Democracy. You also have the right to speak out against people and policies you disagree with. But what you do not have the right to do is refuse your countries call for help if it comes, no matter what the conditions of that call are.
:rolleyes:
Realize that I'm pretty much the only person on my side of the table at this point, and I've argued my view without personally insulting any of you. It would be nice if you could possibly do the same (but I doubt that's possible).
Oh, to answer your question: Yes, I would, because I BELIEVE in the law and the price that comes for the numerous freedoms I enjoy. I fail to see how that's idiotic on any level.
This was actually a good argument. Unfortunately you've now insulted me twice (on the same page no less) so this is my last response to you.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Exactly.
I think when the admin ran with the "Mission Accomplished" campaign they honestly thought that things were going to turn around in Iraq, unfortunately that was not to be.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
We don't have a true democracy. Once we elect leaders, we cannot vote them out for 4 years. If the will of the people were actually represented, Bush would have been out of office quite some time ago.
Edit: I'm not saying it's a bad system, or proposing a better one. Hiding behind it as the will of the people is fallacy, though.
By the way, sticking a roll eyes in your post is an insult. The fact that you were unable to express your derision in words does not make it any less derisive.
An unjustified war would be an illegal war and yet you would be willing to fight an illegal war because of your strong belief in the law. The price you pay for your freedoms is to question everything the government does - not to lay down your life in a war that you believe is unjustified.
People tried voting this administration out of office. More people wanted them in office.
Now far more people want this administration out. Are you suggesting everyone just sucks it up and waits until the next election?
Also, what do you mean "call for help?" Help with what? Whatever the administration decides it wants help with? What it turns out the administration was wrong, do you still have to "help" them even if the rationalization has changed?
I couldn't say honestly, philosophy is not something I'm well versed in.
I will clarfiy something for those who for some reason see me as a blind follower of the government:
I follow the laws, freedoms, and ideals that the country is built upon. If I were to see men or groups taking action to limit, destroy, or remove those things you can bet that not only would I be questioning the actions of those men, I would be acting against those men.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
So basically you're saying that you'll put up with and do what the current administration wants, up until the point of this turning into a godwin, then you're out, right?
You just got upgraded again to self-righteous retard.
I guess I must be really missing out on your nuggets of wisdom.
Find a politician strong-willed enough to stick their neck out for impeachment and have them run with it. If your congressmen or senators are not representing your views adequately then vote them out of office, or run for office yourself. That's how the system is built.
The system fails because of the weaknesses and the corruption of men, not because of the failings of how the system is built.
Yes, because the government should have, and needs to have that power.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
1. You cannot "follow" freedoms.
2. What happens when they simultaneously remove those freedoms and call upon you to defend their actions? Will you organise an anti-Bush protest in Iraq?
3. If you only question your government when they are openly restricting your freedom, then you have left it too late.
Also, afghanistan is rather rapidly becoming exactly what it was before NATO went in there. If the US had put its 150,000 troops on the ground there to enforce law and rebuild we would probably be done by now. instead you went off and picked a fight with someone who had nothing to do with it and in so lost wars in both Countries.
Also, true patriotism is doing what is best for your country, not what is best for your leader. Dumbass.
And you would follow these weak and corrupt men, no matter what they tried to do?
This should not have to be said.
Wow....just wow.
I'm all done here, there are about two people on the other side of the table capable of making an arguement without it being accompanied by an insult, which is totally unnecessary in making a debate.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
That's because we broke the first rule of international conflict: Don't invade Afghanistan.
Our leaders need to play Risk more often.
When you make a dumbass statement, people are going to call you on it.
Dumbass is just short for "You are ill-informed and misguided. Your arguments (such as they are) hold no water and appear to be contradictory." Does that make it any better or are you still going to take your ball and cry off home.
The main risk is Bush, Ahmadinejad, or Israel blinking and doing something stupid that pushes it over the edge before the key players can be removed from power and for hostilities to simmer down a bit. While that is a possibility, it is by no means a certainty that things will fall apart like that.
Afghanistan is a good place to hold in Risk. If you have it and the Ukraine you can stack up your armies in those places and make it very difficult to punch a hole through.
However, my last game of Risk was degenerate because it resulted in a mexican standoff where no one was willing to be the first one to attack someone else lest they get picked off by their other neighbors, until someone got tired of it and made a suicide offensive.
edit: whoops, I was thinking of the middle east. I guess I fail at board game geopolitics.
This is exactly the question people need to be asking themself. What happens when someone else attacks us? (*cough* Iran). Constitutional rights like habeous corpus have already been dissolved. The Patriot Act would give the president quasi-martial law in any situation deemed a 'national crisis.' This means, specifically, if we are attacked and a state of emergency is declared, the President can do anything he damn well pleases in the name of 'national security'. This includes throwing protestors and draft-dodgers in prison.
What will we do when we no longer have ANY options, because as Gorak says, your right to protest in a state of emergency may already be gone.
I was actually being facetious. Sort of.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
One has to mobilize forces, which means that we have to have 'peace in Iraq' before a sane military commander allows an assault on Iran.
Lime sane.
They've done tons of shit already. The Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, wiretapping, the shit with stem cell research, hell, I consider his stance against gay marriage against those ideals. You ready to go bomb the White House?
Edit: Sorry if you consider this to have already been said, I just couldn't read any more without saying anything.
Bye.
We aren't actually going to do it, they're too advanced, there's no reason.
On the degeneration into an anti-Buish argument.
We've had crappy presidents before. If Bush does anything to try to extend for jack anything then he will be forced from office. Bush can't screw this up with such little time. He spent years on the build up for Iraq.
Given the country stands for democracy, freedom, independent thought, choice and the government serving the people, it would seem to me that this statement is completely contradictory.
"American-style" patriotism is conditional.
You know, like Locke and shit.
And before anyone says "actually, the current administration is that stupid," yes, I know they're stupid. I was against the Iraq war from the start, but it didn't surprise me in the least. A war with Iran would be absolutely shocking to me. Congress is threatening to stop funding the war in Iraq if Bush doesn't meet their demands. Now, of course they'll fund it either way, because it's just a political stunt. But even as a political stunt it shows tremendous opposition to Bush's policies, so he would have to be tremendously stupid to try to invade Iran. The country is bigger and more populous than Iraq, and 1) he can't fix up Iraq, 2) the legislative branch is against him, 3) the public is against him, and 4) the world is against him - not that he necessarily cares about that last one.
There are only three things that could cause us to invade Iran. The first is, again, an attack on US soil that was directly linked to Iran, which would be treated as an act of war. The second is Bush being so stupid he thinks it's a good idea, and I'm sorry, but even a mentally retarded five-year-old would have learned his "don't put your hand in the fire" lesson by now. The third is Bush trying to establish himself as a dictator as a few people in here have mentioned, but I'm going to chalk that prediction up to overactive imaginations or too many dystopian novels and action flicks. Guys, if the president of the United States ever became a dictator, it would be with the support of the people. It's not going to happen now unless Bush is A-OK with a good portion of the United States being destroyed as well as the US being weakened both in terms of economics and influence in the world. Whatever you may think of Bush, that's not who he is and that's not what he wants, and I'd be surprised if anyone here other than entropykid honestly thought otherwise.
As for the draft, I don't think it's going to happen - at least not until we don't need it anymore. For it to happen, the Democrats would have to go along with it. Yes, it would generate more opposition to the war, but more importantly, it would create a backlash against the Democrats - we elect them into office and they thank us with a god damn draft? What possible purpose could this serve? The public is already against the war. The very few Democrats in Congress willing to instate a draft just to rub it in the public's collective face aren't going to get it done, and if they could, they would seriously hurt the Democratic chances for '08 and onwards.
Though if there were a draft, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I do know that one of the few countries without an agreement to ship draft-dodgers back to the US is, unsurprisingly, our good friend France.
I took the liberty of fixing that for you. Got your back.
It's almost as if the country was founded by people who rebelled against an established political order that failed to perform its duties to the citizenry...
Almost.
I wouldn't think the US would simply wage a war on a country. I dont think the world would stand for it. They will however, "attack certain elements within it" or "free it" from an "evil" dictator etc.
If there were an identifiable rogue element within Iran, or the leadership seemed to be forcing their will on the masses without any public support. Then maybe.
I dont see the US simply waging war on Iran. What would victory look like? Genocide? With Iraq, even anti-war people didnt think Saddam was a nice guy - it was unpopular because of the "way" it was dealt with. Anyone wanting to go to war with Iran will need to wait for an acceptable reason, other that "hey you know what? I'm sick of your shit." *SHOCKANDAWE!*