Is the Republican party done for? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-14-2008, 11:10 AM

The_Jazz, you can call it "editing games", or you can argue against each of my points. In 1964, our government still saw the need to fake the Gulf of Tonkin attack to justify escalation of the Vietnam war. In 2003, all that was required was a slide presentation of phony intelligence before the UN....

Do you deny that Obama's foreign policy is positioned to the right of Eisenhower's, and can you explain how it is that "the most liberal US senator" is "left thinking" if he declares that

Quote:

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked
or imminently threatened.

...because "Reagan did it"?

or...after a huge era of increasing military spending, the "liberal" advocates for increasing ground forces by 92,000.....

You neglected to respond to my assessment of how the "centrist left" voting majority has used the power of the vote, compared to Europeans, these last 50 years.....

The_Jazz · 05-14-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The_Jazz, you can call it "editing games", or you can argue against each of my points. In 1964, our government still saw the need to fake the Gulf of Tonkin attack to justify escalation of the Vietnam war. In 2003, all that was required was a slide presentation of phony intelligence before the UN....

Each of your points? You didn't make any. That was MY point. The Washington Doctrine was thrown out before either of us was born - and I have a fairly good idea how old you are. We stopped being an isolationist state c. 1939. Roosevelt buried the Washington Doctrine. Truman heaped NATO on its grave. Eisenhower went door to door dressed as it for 8 Halloweens in a row.

In other words, the Washington Doctrine of avoiding entangling alliances has been roundly ignored for about 70 years. We stood beside Great Britain while they invaded the Fauklands. How many American troops were there? We stood by Israel last summer while they fought Hezbollah. How many American troops were there? The US historically intervenes when it is convenient to the US, not because they are beholden to Israel. I doubt you can find a single conflict where American and Israeli troops have fought shoulder-to-shoulder.

The Gulf of Tonkin and Enduring Freedom have little to do Obama's foreign policy unless you presuppose that he is going to commit illegal acts while in office. So I'll just go ahead and say it:

YOU THINK OBAMA IS A FUTURE WAR CRIMINAL.

The elephant's in the room now. It's over there. Let's talk about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Do you deny that Obama's foreign policy is positioned to the right of Eisenhower's, and can you explain how it is that "the most liberal US senator" is "left thinking" if he declares that

Is it to the right of Eisenhower? Sure, why not? What you didn't understand is that I don't think that it's at all relevant. Hey, Obama's to the left of Millard Filmore! And to the right of Jackson! But he's left of Johnson - Andrew, that is - on .... who the hell cares.

Let's see... what's the name of the doctrine that Obama is following here? It's right on the tip of my tongue... Do you know? I really wonder.

If you need a hint go here.

I think that pretty much puts Obama to neither the right nor left of Eisenhower, but right smack dab on top, not that it matters. What matters is that the man is being consistent with 50+ years of foreign policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...because "Reagan did it"?

or...after a huge era of increasing military spending, the "liberal" advocates for increasing ground forces by 92,000.....

You neglected to respond to my assessment of how the "centrist left" voting majority has used the power of the vote, compared to Europeans, these last 50 years.....

Sorry, I missed this part since I think we were cross-posting. It wasn't intentional.

The centrist left in the US has consistently voted against class interest for 50 years, if not longer. The reason? The vast majority of centrist left voters have cast their ballots based on single social issues rather than what's best for them. And "centrist left" in the US does not mean what it does in Europe since the two party system makes identifying which candidates represent what ideology much harder to identify. The lower middle class has been effectively marginalizing themselves for 20+ years because they back candidates that are socially AND economically conservative because the voters see the social issues as paramount to the economic ones. It's been a long bizarre road, but it looks like the journey might be winding down a bit.

And that, my friend, is the reason for my point way back in Post #23 that masses have been known to cross party lines and vote for the other side's candidate. Reagan was just the most recent example. It happened for FDR and Grant before him. Is it going to happen to Obama? I'm not saying that at all - just that it's a larger possibility than I've seen it before.

robot_parade · 05-14-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Short answer: No

Long answer: Election swings in the US seem to be based not on policy but perception of culpability. It was only a short time ago that democrats were switching parties like rats leaving a sinking ship, now I will expect to see some Republicans doing the same thing. After years of Democrats stinking up the house, and some wackiness of Bill Clintons early years, the swing voters thought the Republicans could fix it. The problem for the republicans seems to be they took tha as a true change in the countries thought processes to the right and instead of fixing what the people wanted them to fix, they just added their own shenanigans. So now you get voters, many who never saw democrat shenanigans in full force, who swing to the democrats to ‘fix’ it. Only they won’t fix it either, many will assume, wrongly, that the country is more left, and suddenly the republicans will look good again to those voters.

Its like the circle of life only with more graft and less dung beetles.

Yep, that's exactly the cycle we've been going through for awhile now. What I'm asking about is the sort of change where the political parties drastically change composition, or splitting into a three-party system. I'm not sure that that is what will happen this time, but it's interesting to contemplate. Would we be better off with more (viable) political parties?

Willravel · 05-14-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obama

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked
or imminently threatened.

This is certainly pandering. It doesn't fit with his policies in Illinois, nor most of the other things he's said regarding foreign policy. Every time he has mentioned an interest in diplomacy with Iran, even when all the other candidates stand shocked, he has made it clear that he will not be another Reagan or Bush. Obama is not a chickenhawk.

The_Jazz · 05-15-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is certainly pandering. It doesn't fit with his policies in Illinois, nor most of the other things he's said regarding foreign policy. Every time he has mentioned an interest in diplomacy with Iran, even when all the other candidates stand shocked, he has made it clear that he will not be another Reagan or Bush. Obama is not a chickenhawk.

It's...

the...

Eisenhower...

Doctrine....

Any sitting president that ignores it is going to be seen as inconsistent and weak. What he's said is that if someone attacks us (or our vital interests) or is about to attack the same, he will use force.

Any more than that is your own creation and the above is entirely consistent with his previous statements on foreign policy.

Ustwo · 05-15-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What if Ron Paul, who has garnered maddeningly religious support, had run Libertarian? He's gotten over 1m votes in the primary already. That doesn't include Democrats who would likely vote for him if Hillary ran. I may not agree with Dr. Paul, but I'm well aware that he's quite charismatic and is the very model of libertarian leadership.
.

Ron Paul's problem is that I'm going to guess 80% of his 'supporters' don't even know what libertarianism is. He seemed to attract a large contingent of lunatic fringe people, conspiracy nuts (why I'm not sure), and 'Dude they want to legalize pot man!' types.

This is the curse of libertarians in general as the public thinks in issues not philosophy.

ratbastid · 05-15-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This is the curse of libertarians in general as the public thinks in issues not philosophy.

That's well said. I'd say that's the curse of politics in general. That and, the public, with the help of the media, gets confused about what's an issue and what's (for want of a better term) a distraction.

ottopilot · 05-15-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is certainly pandering. It doesn't fit with his policies in Illinois, nor most of the other things he's said regarding foreign policy. Every time he has mentioned an interest in diplomacy with Iran, even when all the other candidates stand shocked, he has made it clear that he will not be another Reagan or Bush. Obama is not a chickenhawk.

will, couldn't the context have been about responding to some open aggression? The response would be part of his constitutional duties.

roachboy · 05-15-2008, 07:22 AM

given that politics in the states is a consumer choice affair, given that the "strategists" have decided that the american volk is fundamentally centrist and ideology-free, given that on the basis of this "assessment" both parties scramble to be fundamentally ideology-free while maintaining the option of shifting to the center or right as tactical needs require it, and given that one of the results of this process of draining content, draining positions and substituting tactics has been the development of the single party state with two right wings that we currently endure, it seems unlikely that the republicans are cooked--even as by ANY rational standard, given (say) the war in iraq if nothing else, they should be thoroughly, absolutely and irretrievably cooked. but you'll see the party whose politics is centered on the phrase "personal responsibility" making distinctions between the bush administration and itself and assuming that somehow, against all reason, folk will believe them. and the sick thing is that maybe they will believe them.

there is something deeply deeply wrong with this short-attention span theater that american politics has become--i think it makes it almost impossible for large-scale system adjustments to be raised coherently as problems much less carried out--think maybe adjusting the way the educational system operates so that the class structure it generates mirrors more closely the class structure that is profiled through the labor pool---not likely. take the dependence of the american economy on massive, obscene military expenditures as the keynesian underpinning of the hallucinated world of neoliberalism--not likely.

we'll see what happens.
but no, i don't think the republicans are really cooked.
but they should be.

Willravel · 05-15-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

will, couldn't the context have been about responding to some open aggression? The response would be part of his constitutional duties.

He was being intentionally overtly aggressive to pander to dumb people who think we're always in danger. Normally, he would explain that it's bad policy to shoot first and ask questions later, especially unilaterally (as unilateral action usually means that none of our allies agree with us, as with Iraq).

The_Jazz · 05-15-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He was being intentionally overtly aggressive to pander to dumb people who think we're always in danger. Normally, he would explain that it's bad policy to shoot first and ask questions later, especially unilaterally (as unilateral action usually means that none of our allies agree with us, as with Iraq).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

It's...

the...

Eisenhower...

Doctrine....

Any sitting president that ignores it is going to be seen as inconsistent and weak. What he's said is that if someone attacks us (or our vital interests) or is about to attack the same, he will use force.

Any more than that is your own creation and the above is entirely consistent with his previous statements on foreign policy.

Unilateral action means that we're acting alone, not that our allies agree with us or not. In some cases we might discuss with our allies, but not necessarily. If we get intelligence that OBL is in a certain place at a certain time to discuss attacking a US warship (a la the Cole), we're not going to consult the French or British before acting. Nor should we.

You're the one turning Obama into a chickenhawk or war monger or whatever banner you're trying to pin on him. This is a statement perfectly consistent with his previous foreign policy statements as well as the long-standing foreign policy of the nation. He's saying that he, at this time, has no intentions of creating the Obama Doctrine, whatever that may be.

Willravel · 05-15-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Unilateral action means that we're acting alone, not that our allies agree with us or not.

I'll start after WWII:
Vietnam: The US unilaterally moves to help the South Vietnamese. Everyone else disagrees
Bay of Pigs: US unilaterally invades part of Cuba against the advice of all our allies and we have our asses handed to us.
Iraq: The US unilaterally (the coalition doesn't count) invades Iraq to the chagrin of the international community.

The funny thing? Our allies were right about each of these. They were massive mistakes and could have been avoided had there been men in power with the common sense to say, "Wait, you think it's a bad idea? Why's that?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

You're the one turning Obama into a chickenhawk or war monger or whatever banner you're trying to pin on him. This is a statement perfectly consistent with his previous foreign policy statements as well as the long-standing foreign policy of the nation. He's saying that he, at this time, has no intentions of creating the Obama Doctrine, whatever that may be.

It is what it is. You can't become president anymore unless you hose off some of the country with testosterone. The reality is, when looking at his history, it's clear that he's more willing than any recent president or candidate to want to seek a peaceful solution. I doubt Barak Obama would have invaded Iraq. Or Vietnam.

The_Jazz · 05-15-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'll start after WWII:
Vietnam: The US unilaterally moves to help the South Vietnamese. Everyone else disagrees
Bay of Pigs: US unilaterally invades part of Cuba against the advice of all our allies and we have our asses handed to us.
Iraq: The US unilaterally (the coalition doesn't count) invades Iraq to the chagrin of the international community.

Here is the definition of unilateral. You need to read it and understand it because you're using it incorrectly.

Vietnam War - South Vietnam dead: ~250,000; wounded: ~1,170,000. US dead: 58,209; 2,000 missing; wounded: 305,000. South Korea dead: 4,900; wounded: 11,000. Australia dead: 520; wounded: 2,400. New Zealand dead: 37; wounded: 187. Those numbers certainly don't look like unilateral action to me. Unilateral would mean that there would be US (and maybe ARVN) numbers exclusively. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was concocted as an excuse to enforce the Eisenhower Doctrin in response to the Domino Theory, which provided that allowing communism (in this case the Chinese brand) would lead to Soviet domination. In 1963-1965, this was a very real concern, especially since the Soviets were in turmoil politically (Khrushchev was ousted in 1964) and it was the height of the space/missle race. It's entirely consistent with the Eisenhower Doctrine, although it expanded it out of the Middle East.

Bay of Pigs - strawman much, will? Tell me exactly how many US troops you think were involved in this little fiasco? If you name any number greater than zero, then you're wrong. CIA operatives/spies don't count since they're not military, and that is what we (and Obama) are talking about, exclusively. Bringin up the Bay of Pigs is completely pointless since it has zero bearing on what we're discussing.

Iraq War - The coalition doesn't count? It's entirely relevant to the argument that you're trying to make. Please explain to me as well as the families of the 176 UK soldiers and 133 other coalition members who died in this war why they don't count. Did the majority of the international community rightfully condemn the US? Yes. Did we act unilaterally? No. Don't try to pretend that we did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The funny thing? Our allies were right about each of these. They were massive mistakes and could have been avoided had there been men in power with the common sense to say, "Wait, you think it's a bad idea? Why's that?"

It is what it is. You can't become president anymore unless you hose off some of the country with testosterone. The reality is, when looking at his history, it's clear that he's more willing than any recent president or candidate to want to seek a peaceful solution. I doubt Barak Obama would have invaded Iraq. Or Vietnam.

Will, your theories don't line up with what actually happened. And Obama didn't say that he wouldn't seek a peaceful solution. He said that he would respond with force IF SOMEONE ATTACKS US OR IS ABOUT TO ATTACK US. He said nothing about unilateral invasions. If he did, please point it out to me. If not, drop it because you're wrong. Look back at the quote and show me where he said anything about invasions. I agree that he most likely would not have invaded Iraq, but you're making huge assumptions and putting words in the man's mouth that he not only didn't say but didn't even come close to saying.

edwhit · 05-18-2008, 05:46 PM

...and the cycle continues.

Time for the dems to wear the pants. What will we think once Obama cracks under the pressure? If it happens in his first term perhaps the people will be disgusted enough that an independent choice will be a real choice. That would make the election year entertaining!

Willravel · 05-18-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Here is the definition of unilateral. You need to read it and understand it because you're using it incorrectly.

"Unilateral" changes when dealing with the US because we've got worshipers. If the US declared war on Mars tomorrow, the UK and Australia (maybe even Spain) would have our backs. Why? Well it has jack to do with Mars, I'll tell you that.

What this means is that "unilateral" for the US means something different. And it's okay to admit that while the dictionary says one thing, reality demonstrates otherwise. Unilateral for the US means that the UN and most of our allies have told us to shut up and sit back down but we and our religious followers aren't listening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Vietnam War

Yes, I'd say that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Bay of Pigs - strawman much, will? Tell me exactly how many US troops you think were involved in this little fiasco? If you name any number greater than zero, then you're wrong. CIA operatives/spies don't count since they're not military, and that is what we (and Obama) are talking about, exclusively. Bringin up the Bay of Pigs is completely pointless since it has zero bearing on what we're discussing.

Seeing as you're so dictionary-happy tonight, I'm surprised you didn't bother to look up "troops" before throwing it at me.
–noun
1. an assemblage of persons or things; company; band.
2. a great number or multitude: A whole troop of children swarmed through the museum.
3. Military. an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.
4. troops, a body of soldiers, police, etc.: Mounted troops quelled the riot.
5. a unit of Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts usually having a maximum of 32 members under the guidance of an adult leader.
6. a herd, flock, or swarm.

1 out of 6 definitions refers to military. I was using #4, in case you were wondering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Will, your theories don't line up with what actually happened. And Obama didn't say that he wouldn't seek a peaceful solution. He said that he would respond with force IF SOMEONE ATTACKS US OR IS ABOUT TO ATTACK US. He said nothing about unilateral invasions. If he did, please point it out to me. If not, drop it because you're wrong. Look back at the quote and show me where he said anything about invasions. I agree that he most likely would not have invaded Iraq, but you're making huge assumptions and putting words in the man's mouth that he not only didn't say but didn't even come close to saying.

Someone "about to attack us" was how we got into Iraq in the first place. I'm surprised people still haven't learned from this. Imminent threat has been used as pretense to be the aggressor in war for thousands of years. It will stop being effective the second people see it for what it really is. But they likely won't.

dc_dux · 05-18-2008, 07:40 PM

Obama's speech in Oct 2002 gave a pretty good overview of his position on going to war.

This was two years before he was in the US Senate... it was weeks before Congress voted on a war resolution.... and it was six months before Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq began...and certainly before Obama had any realistic expectations to be the Democratic nominee six years later:

Quote:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. ....

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars...

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics....

I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength...

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. (he got that right)

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East....and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. (he got that right as well)

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars....

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/0..._state_sen.php

ratbastid · 05-19-2008, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Someone "about to attack us" was how we got into Iraq in the first place. I'm surprised people still haven't learned from this. Imminent threat has been used as pretense to be the aggressor in war for thousands of years. It will stop being effective the second people see it for what it really is. But they likely won't.

History shows no scarcity of so-called "false flag" incidents either. It's been a popular way to whip up domestic military sentiment from ancient Rome to the burning of the Reichstag to the Gulf of Tonkin to, some say, 9/11.

Human beings are easily manipulated. So we have to have people in power who we can trust to have our best interests at heart. Because there IS no objective view, from the level of a citizen. You're told what you're told and it may or may not be the truth. I think that THE single thing that has hurt the GOP is the perception that the current administration lies for its own goals.

The_Jazz · 05-19-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"Unilateral" changes when dealing with the US because we've got worshipers. If the US declared war on Mars tomorrow, the UK and Australia (maybe even Spain) would have our backs. Why? Well it has jack to do with Mars, I'll tell you that.

What this means is that "unilateral" for the US means something different. And it's okay to admit that while the dictionary says one thing, reality demonstrates otherwise. Unilateral for the US means that the UN and most of our allies have told us to shut up and sit back down but we and our religious followers aren't listening.

Then you're not using the word correctly. Sorry. Vietnam was the closest we got to unilateral action. The word "unilateral" means what it means. I've pointed you to the definition. If you want me to budge on the point at all, you need to chose another term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Seeing as you're so dictionary-happy tonight, I'm surprised you didn't bother to look up "troops" before throwing it at me.
–noun
1. an assemblage of persons or things; company; band.
2. a great number or multitude: A whole troop of children swarmed through the museum.
3. Military. an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.
4. troops, a body of soldiers, police, etc.: Mounted troops quelled the riot.
5. a unit of Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts usually having a maximum of 32 members under the guidance of an adult leader.
6. a herd, flock, or swarm.

1 out of 6 definitions refers to military. I was using #4, in case you were wondering.

Zero, will. The answer is zero US military personnel. No troops, truck drivers, cooks, tank mechanics or quartermasters. Oh, I suppose you can count BOTH CIA operatives (yes, there were two Americans on the ground, but neither was in the military) in place at the time, but this was an invasion of Cuba by Cubans. The closest you're going to get to your point is an invasion by proxy, which really doesn't fit your point at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Someone "about to attack us" was how we got into Iraq in the first place. I'm surprised people still haven't learned from this. Imminent threat has been used as pretense to be the aggressor in war for thousands of years. It will stop being effective the second people see it for what it really is. But they likely won't.

So how does this change the fact that you're accusing Obama of something he didn't say? I suppose you'd just be happier if a future President, upon learning of an eminent Canadian invasion, would deny it and arrest those making the reports, like Stalin.

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Then you're not using the word correctly. Sorry.

You don't need to apologize. I forgive you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Vietnam was the closest we got to unilateral action. The word "unilateral" means what it means. I've pointed you to the definition. If you want me to budge on the point at all, you need to chose another term.

Like I said, the US can't act unilaterally. Some countries will back us regardless of whether they agree with us or even if it's in their best interest. That means that the word "unilateral" is meaningless when speaking of the US. It has to shift to compensate.

BTW, I just looked up "unilateralism" and it said:
n.
A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.
Do you really think the US consulted Poland or Romania before invading Iraq? We made the determination, THEN the coalition formed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Zero, will. The answer is zero US military personnel. No troops, truck drivers, cooks, tank mechanics or quartermasters. Oh, I suppose you can count BOTH CIA operatives (yes, there were two Americans on the ground, but neither was in the military) in place at the time, but this was an invasion of Cuba by Cubans. The closest you're going to get to your point is an invasion by proxy, which really doesn't fit your point at all.

I expected better of you. I explained this just fine. You're welcome to look up "troops" to verify. The point was that it was the US didn't consult any of our allies and didn't get any of their support. So it actually fits my point quite well.

The_Jazz · 05-19-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I expected better of you. I explained this just fine. You're welcome to look up "troops" to verify. The point was that it was the US didn't consult any of our allies and didn't get any of their support. So it actually fits my point quite well.

I'll drop the fact that you're using "unilaterally" incorrectly since it looks like neither of us will give on this.

Let me spell out the Bay of Pigs for you, will. The US didn't act. Period. We supported an action by Cuban nationals against the Cuban government, so it does not in any way, shape or form fit your arguement. If it did, then we would also include the support of the muhajadeen in Afganistan in the 80's, the Contras, the Italian and Greek governments in the 50's and the Israelis. Fact: not one single American soldier was involved in the invasion. That fits withing your definition of "troops". The "troops" involved were not American; they were Cuban. They did not represent the United States of America. There were no citizens of the US carrying guns invading Cuba. Is that clear enough for you?

There are two things here - "unilateral" (which I'm going to just drop as being pointless) and "action". In order for there to be "action", the US has to actually act. That means troops sporting the stars and stripes on their shoulders on the ground. Without that, there is no action. The Bay of Pigs is the strawman in your argument and in no way fits.

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 08:23 AM

Here:
Ameri-lateral n.
When the US decides completely on their own and against the stern advice of basically all of their closest allies to commit to a military or covert, pseudo-military action. Usually the US's fan club will join in, despite not being consulted, not being provided with all the evidence/intelligence, and it not being in their best interest. See: US intervention in Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq 2.

As for the Bay of Pigs, I suppose you don't think the US bears any responsibility? Didn't we have a large part in planning and didn't we basically fund the entire thing? This is not dissimilar from how the US used the Mujahideen to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. We trained them, we armed them, we funded them.... but we don't get to think of the US as bearing responsibility?

Tully Mars · 05-19-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'll drop the fact that you're using "unilaterally" incorrectly since it looks like neither of us will give on this.

Let me spell out the Bay of Pigs for you, will. The US didn't act. Period. We supported an action by Cuban nationals against the Cuban government, so it does not in any way, shape or form fit your arguement. If it did, then we would also include the support of the muhajadeen in Afganistan in the 80's, the Contras, the Italian and Greek governments in the 50's and the Israelis. Fact: not one single American soldier was involved in the invasion. That fits withing your definition of "troops". The "troops" involved were not American; they were Cuban. They did not represent the United States of America. There were no citizens of the US carrying guns invading Cuba. Is that clear enough for you?

There are two things here - "unilateral" (which I'm going to just drop as being pointless) and "action". In order for there to be "action", the US has to actually act. That means troops sporting the stars and stripes on their shoulders on the ground. Without that, there is no action. The Bay of Pigs is the strawman in your argument and in no way fits.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical...ay+of+Pigs.htm

I don't think the theory that US troops need to be on the ground sporting a US flag for the US' involvement to be consider "action' holds water. I think we supported, funded, supplied and helped plan the invasion. To me that add up to US action.

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical...ay+of+Pigs.htm

I don't think the theory that US troops need to be on the ground sporting a US flag for the US' involvement to be consider "action' holds water. I think we supported, funded, supplied and helped plan the invasion. To me that add up to US action.

Hallelujah! I thought I was going nuts.

The_Jazz · 05-19-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Here:
Ameri-lateral n.
When the US decides completely on their own and against the stern advice of basically all of their closest allies to commit to a military or covert, pseudo-military action. Usually the US's fan club will join in, despite not being consulted, not being provided with all the evidence/intelligence, and it not being in their best interest. See: US intervention in Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq 2.

I like the new word, but Obama said "unilateral". That said, I don't think there's much more to discuss. Both of us are wearing our pig heads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

As for the Bay of Pigs, I suppose you don't think the US bears any responsibility? Didn't we have a large part in planning and didn't we basically fund the entire thing? This is not dissimilar from how the US used the Mujahideen to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. We trained them, we armed them, we funded them.... but we don't get to think of the US as bearing responsibility?

Responsible? Sure. But that doesn't matter to the topic at hand in the slightest.

And Tully, we may have supported it - and I've conceeded from the beginning that we did - but we weren't involved. If Kennedy had sent the promised air support, that would have been something different, but he didn't. So there we are.

If we want to start a list of proxy fights during the Cold War, I'm all for it, but that's what this was - a proxy fight. Soviets versus US, with various flavors of Cubans doing the heavy lifting. We can talk about the Germans or the Greeks or the Pakistanis and Indians doing the exact same thing, but it boils down to the fact that the two major players in the event had exactly zero troops on the ground.

And, btw, Castro was well into the Soviet sphere of influence by mid-1961. Remember that the Missle Crisis was less than 2 years away when the BoP happened.

To wrap this all up into the neat little package it is, regardless of any US equipment or planning that went into the Bay of Pigs invasion, it wasn't anything that would be described by what will said:

Quote:

Bay of Pigs: US unilaterally invades part of Cuba against the advice of all our allies and we have our asses handed to us.

We didn't invade. We didn't have our asses handed to us. It's a strawman in the overall argument.

Tully Mars · 05-19-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

And Tully, we may have supported it - and I've conceeded from the beginning that we did - but we weren't involved. If Kennedy had sent the promised air support, that would have been something different, but he didn't. So there we are.

I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree here Jazz. For me the support was involvement. And that's just where I think we should leave it.

host · 05-19-2008, 01:34 PM

Yeah...._Jazz, he's sounding like he could commit illegal acts of war....

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/...n/edbrooks.php
Brooks: Obama admires Bush
By David Brooks Published: May 16, 2008

Hezbollah is one of the world's most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon.

Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on "all those who have influence with Hezbollah" to "press them to stand down." Then he declared, "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

That sentence has the whiff of what President Bush described Thursday as appeasement. Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What "Lebanese consensus" can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?

If Obama believes all this, he's not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He's off in Noam Chomskyland.

That didn't strike me as right....

....That didn't strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.

Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is "not a legitimate political party." Instead, "It's a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn't happen without the support of Iran and Syria."

I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services."

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind ally with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."

Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he's seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.

"The debate we're going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake," he said. "I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder."

<h3>Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: "The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough."</h3>

I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that's primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that "If your opponents are looking for your destruction it's hard to sit across the table from them," but, he continued: "There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations."

<h3>Obama doesn't broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he'd be tougher than the Bush administration.</h3> He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. "This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans," he concluded. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don't have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall."

In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments - about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he's part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.

Quote:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...brooks-an.html

David Brooks and "implacable enemies"
"Hezbollah is one of the world’s most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon." Brooks

***********************************************************************

"Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?" Brooks

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, actually, David, it is the consensus that the Arab League is busy negotiating today.

It is increasingly clear that David Brooks is not an editorial columnist. He is a propagandist for the hard right in this country and in Israel. "Implacable enemies?" "..an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon?" Brooks is not a stupid man. He knows very well that the various Lebanese factions are engaged in a struggle over re-alignment of power in the government that has been in progress for most of a year. He knows that Hizbullah, Amal, the Aounis and others all hold seats in the parliament and are for that reason, in fact, part of the "government of Lebanon" that he writes of just as members of Congress are part of the government here. He knows exceedingly well that todays's "terrorists" are often tomorrow's rulers, (Kenyatta, Begin, Shamir, etc) He knows very well that his factional allies in the Bush Administration and in Israel favor the Siniora Cabinet in Beirut because they are supremely biddable and useful tools. Siniora is so much an instrument of US and Saudi policy that he should be provided a federal judgeship to retire to when when he is finally ejected from office. (Maybe Guam would be a good place. That was suggested for Thieu long ago)

"Implacable terrorist." I suppose that is what the British called Menachem Begin and Begin's hero Michael Collins before they became heads of government.

Brooks understands all this, but he also knows it is his assigned duty to spout rubbish for his pals. pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/op...on&oref=slogin

Quote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136105/output/print
'We are Looking Forward'
Ehud Olmert on prospects for peace and his political future.

Lally Weymouth
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 8:25 PM ET May 8, 2008

....Do you want peace with Syria, and do you think it's obtainable with President Bashar al-Assad?
We are very unhappy with the continued intensive involvement of Syria in the affairs of Lebanon and the lack of a democratic process in electing a new president in Lebanon. We are also unhappy with the continued links between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. [But] the relations between us and Syria have to be reexamined, [as well as] the possibility of making peace. It's not something that can be done publicly. I don't mind that President Assad made an announcement that there will be negotiations, but the actual negotiations ought to be discussed quietly. In principle, we are ready for it if they are.

In order to have a full peace with Israel, would Syria have to break with Iran? Is such a break possible?
Look, I don't know if this is a possibility or how you can describe it in terms of probabilities. But one thing I know, if I don't check it, I will never find out. I think at the end of the day, this will have to be the choice of Syria.

Have there been direct Israel-Syrian talks, or have they all been conducted via the Turks?
I prefer not to go into these details.

Hasn't the United States been apprehensive about Israel-Syria negotiations for some time?
The international and local press . . . [has left] the impression that America does not allow Israel to engage in negotiations with Syria. This is not true. I never heard from my friend George W. Bush any warning or any request not to negotiate with the Syrians. I think that if the Syrians will handle the negotiations with us in an appropriate manner, they will be surprised to see how these negotiations can improve their status with America. My personal view is that no one can be of better help to this process than President Bush. Because any new president in America, if confronted with this issue, will have to wait two years at least until he learns enough and finds the appropriate time to devote to this, while Bush knows, Bush is familiar, and Bush understands. Therefore, if one is interested in a [Syrian-Israeli] process that ultimately leads to a public endorsement by the United States of America, then he has to hurry up. I believe, for reasons that I don't want to go into, that for Syria, the road to Washington must cross Jerusalem. I know what I'm talking about.

Officials in the U.S. government are reportedly concerned that Syria's real price for peace is Lebanon. The U.S. is interested in the survival of the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora.
I know what our expectations are. I know what the Americans' expectations are. I'm not going to do anything which [is in contradiction] to what my understanding of [what] the fundamental interests of the United States are in this part of the world.

So is this a pure deal about the Golan?
I didn't say that. I said that this is an attempt to achieve peace between Israel and Syria. And at the same time, to also make sure that the interests of free, democratic Lebanon are well protected. What the ingredients of peace [are] is something that will have to be discussed. I would not limit it to only one issue. It has to be peace from both sides--no threats or attacks from both sides.

What is your assessment of Assad?
Look, Assad is the president of Syria. He enjoys fairly effective control over his country. And I'm looking forward to negotiating with him.

<h3>What will you do about the situation in Gaza? Your towns keep getting hit by missiles, and weapons keep getting smuggled in from Egypt. Is it getting to the point where you have no other choice but to take action?

I don't like this terminology that you have no choice. You always have a choice.</h3> While we were talking, two Qassam rockets landed in open areas near the regional municipality of Eshkol. Then there were a series of seven rockets shot from Gaza to [the Israeli town of] Sderot....

Quote:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/

....No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm....

Quote:

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pr...ments/2063.cfm

...The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but
I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.....

Whose comments seem more reasonable, and on the mark.... Obama's....or the column critical of David Brooks, writtn by Lt. Col W. Pat Lang, (Retired) Pat Lang is former US Army Special Forces, fluent in Arabic, served as DIA Director of Humint, and as DIA Middle East region DIO, in the early 1990's. Why isn't Pat Lang one of Obama's principle foreign policy advisors.

I know I live in a land with two dominant right wing political parties. The MOST liberal US senate member is running for president. He does not even talk about using military force only as a last resort....instead, he talks about using force specifically in instances not involving self defense. He demonizes the politcal wings of the dominant factions in Palestinian territory and in Lebanon. Lebanon is 35 percent shi'a... Bush backed the billionaire son, al Hariri, of the assassinated Saudi (sunni) billionaire Lebanese prime minister, and the druze leader, Jumblatt....because they are easy to manipulate.

Read the comments about retaliation IN SELF DEFENSE, spoken by Israel's Omert. Pat Lang doesn't agree with his former colleagues, the generals in the pentagon, and he doesn't agree with Obama's rhetoric about who the "terrorists" are....

I live in a land where the MOST liberal US senator positions himself to the right of republican president Eisenhower, to the rignt of retired US Special forces Lt. Col. and ME DIA intelligence chief, Pat Lang, and in his rhetoric....to the right of Israeli prime minister Olmert.

But I'm supposed to take all of your POV's seriously, and I'm supposed to post about the "decline" of the republican party, when there appear to me to be TWO of them, now!

Real "change" and a campaign to bring "unity", would have less of the same ole neocon reflexive militancy, IMO.

The_Jazz · 05-19-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

But I'm supposed to take all of your POV's seriously, and I'm supposed to post about the "decline" of the republican party, when there appear to me to be TWO of them, now!

Reciprocity? We're supposed to take you seriously why?

Two way street, my friend. If you want us to pay attention to you, you have to respect our opinions.

You see a candidate ready to commit war crimes. I see one willing to look at all options.

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 02:52 PM

McCain was talking about nuking Iran. That'd be war crimes.

I do see Obama as the least of all evils this time around.

loquitur · 05-19-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

McCain was talking about nuking Iran.

Really? NUKING Iran? Guess I missed that one........

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 04:34 PM

He sure did. I'll see if I can find the quote.

Hillary even said that she'd nuke Iran if they attacked Israel (it was on Olbermann like a month back).

Tully Mars · 05-19-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He sure did. I'll see if I can find the quote.

Hillary even said that she'd nuke Iran if they attacked Israel (it was on Olbermann like a month back).

I saw that. Not sure she used the term "nuke" but her conversation left me with no doubt what she was talking about.

There's probably a transcript out there somewhere.

Same with McCain.

But really if Iran got the bomb and did in fact "nuke" Israel what would our responsibilities and options be?

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 04:49 PM

We could wipe Iran off the map (I use that phrase ironically) without poisoning the Middle East for a half a century.

Should the highly improbable happened and Iran nukes Israel (thus irradiating the area where they want the Palestinians to live), the UN would move into Israel to help with the cleanup and a coalition of Western nations would bomb Iran into oblivion and then invade to clean up what was left. Dropping nuclear weapons on Iran would likely irradiate areas where Iran has a lot of military, like the Caspian, Persian Gulf, Turkey (our ally), and possibly even the UAE (our ally).

guy44 · 05-19-2008, 05:03 PM

To get back to the OP, of course the Republican Party isn't done for. We live in a two-party country, and it will remain that way for a very long time.

That said, the GOP is in big trouble. Essentially, the Republican coalition begun by Goldwater, raised on Nixon, and matured by Reagan, has been taken to its logical conclusion (i.e. complete and utter ruin brought about by its own hubris) by Bush.

Here's a great article by George Packer about this very thing. Although, as always, I don't agree with everything Packer wrote (he almost completely elides the historically monumental corruption of the Bush era GOP), he does provide a very thorough examination of the evolution of the conservative movement in the United States over the last 45 years.

loquitur · 05-23-2008, 11:44 AM

well, except that Nixon wasn't very conservative.
And there are a lot of people who think Bush II isn't conservative either.
To a degree this depends on how you define "conservative." If you define it by reference to whether it comports with leftish views, then yes, Bush II is conservative - but that's an oppositional definition. If you define it as Burkean in mindset, then no, he's not any kind of conservative. And he is certainly no libertarian.

Willravel · 05-23-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

well, except that Nixon wasn't very conservative.
And there are a lot of people who think Bush II isn't conservative either.
To a degree this depends on how you define "conservative." If you define it by reference to whether it comports with leftish views, then yes, Bush II is conservative - but that's an oppositional definition. If you define it as Burkean in mindset, then no, he's not any kind of conservative. And he is certainly no libertarian.

Psst... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=79207

loquitur · 05-23-2008, 12:34 PM

I'm not sure I agree with your definition either, Will.
But I'm not much of a conservative, so who am I to say?

Willravel · 05-23-2008, 12:46 PM

I'm not a woman, but I can define what a woman is.

The word was meaningless as soon as the media got ahold of it. "Liberal" and "conservative" shouldn't even be used anymore.

loquitur · 05-23-2008, 03:16 PM

well, there is no definable set of characteristics of a conservative like there is of a woman.

There is a school of thought that lefties are actually reactionary these days. Anyone can come up with conceptual frameworks to argue anything.

dc_dux · 05-23-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

There is a school of thought that lefties are actually reactionary these days. Anyone can come up with conceptual frameworks to argue anything.

The Rush Limbaugh Academy?

Willravel · 05-23-2008, 03:25 PM

The point I was making in the other thread was:
"Conservative" used to mean something definite. It no longer has that meaning. Therefore, using it is a waste.

05-15-2008, 07:22 AM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	given that politics in the states is a consumer choice affair, given that the "strategists" have decided that the american volk is fundamentally centrist and ideology-free, given that on the basis of this "assessment" both parties scramble to be fundamentally ideology-free while maintaining the option of shifting to the center or right as tactical needs require it, and given that one of the results of this process of draining content, draining positions and substituting tactics has been the development of the single party state with two right wings that we currently endure, it seems unlikely that the republicans are cooked--even as by ANY rational standard, given (say) the war in iraq if nothing else, they should be thoroughly, absolutely and irretrievably cooked. but you'll see the party whose politics is centered on the phrase "personal responsibility" making distinctions between the bush administration and itself and assuming that somehow, against all reason, folk will believe them. and the sick thing is that maybe they will believe them. there is something deeply deeply wrong with this short-attention span theater that american politics has become--i think it makes it almost impossible for large-scale system adjustments to be raised coherently as problems much less carried out--think maybe adjusting the way the educational system operates so that the class structure it generates mirrors more closely the class structure that is profiled through the labor pool---not likely. take the dependence of the american economy on massive, obscene military expenditures as the keynesian underpinning of the hallucinated world of neoliberalism--not likely. we'll see what happens. but no, i don't think the republicans are really cooked. but they should be. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-19-2008, 05:03 PM	#73 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	To get back to the OP, of course the Republican Party isn't done for. We live in a two-party country, and it will remain that way for a very long time. That said, the GOP is in big trouble. Essentially, the Republican coalition begun by Goldwater, raised on Nixon, and matured by Reagan, has been taken to its logical conclusion (i.e. complete and utter ruin brought about by its own hubris) by Bush. Here's a great article by George Packer about this very thing. Although, as always, I don't agree with everything Packer wrote (he almost completely elides the historically monumental corruption of the Bush era GOP), he does provide a very thorough examination of the evolution of the conservative movement in the United States over the last 45 years. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-18-2008, 05:46 PM	#54 (permalink)
edwhit Tilted	...and the cycle continues. Time for the dems to wear the pants. What will we think once Obama cracks under the pressure? If it happens in his first term perhaps the people will be disgusted enough that an independent choice will be a real choice. That would make the election year entertaining!

05-19-2008, 08:23 AM	#61 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Here: Ameri-lateral n. When the US decides completely on their own and against the stern advice of basically all of their closest allies to commit to a military or covert, pseudo-military action. Usually the US's fan club will join in, despite not being consulted, not being provided with all the evidence/intelligence, and it not being in their best interest. See: US intervention in Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq 2. As for the Bay of Pigs, I suppose you don't think the US bears any responsibility? Didn't we have a large part in planning and didn't we basically fund the entire thing? This is not dissimilar from how the US used the Mujahideen to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. We trained them, we armed them, we funded them.... but we don't get to think of the US as bearing responsibility?

05-19-2008, 02:52 PM	#68 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	McCain was talking about nuking Iran. That'd be war crimes. I do see Obama as the least of all evils this time around.

05-19-2008, 04:34 PM	#70 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He sure did. I'll see if I can find the quote. Hillary even said that she'd nuke Iran if they attacked Israel (it was on Olbermann like a month back).

05-19-2008, 04:49 PM	#72 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We could wipe Iran off the map (I use that phrase ironically) without poisoning the Middle East for a half a century. Should the highly improbable happened and Iran nukes Israel (thus irradiating the area where they want the Palestinians to live), the UN would move into Israel to help with the cleanup and a coalition of Western nations would bomb Iran into oblivion and then invade to clean up what was left. Dropping nuclear weapons on Iran would likely irradiate areas where Iran has a lot of military, like the Caspian, Persian Gulf, Turkey (our ally), and possibly even the UAE (our ally).

05-23-2008, 11:44 AM	#74 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	well, except that Nixon wasn't very conservative. And there are a lot of people who think Bush II isn't conservative either. To a degree this depends on how you define "conservative." If you define it by reference to whether it comports with leftish views, then yes, Bush II is conservative - but that's an oppositional definition. If you define it as Burkean in mindset, then no, he's not any kind of conservative. And he is certainly no libertarian.

05-23-2008, 12:34 PM	#76 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm not sure I agree with your definition either, Will. But I'm not much of a conservative, so who am I to say?

05-23-2008, 12:46 PM	#77 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm not a woman, but I can define what a woman is. The word was meaningless as soon as the media got ahold of it. "Liberal" and "conservative" shouldn't even be used anymore.

05-23-2008, 03:16 PM	#78 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	well, there is no definable set of characteristics of a conservative like there is of a woman. There is a school of thought that lefties are actually reactionary these days. Anyone can come up with conceptual frameworks to argue anything.

05-23-2008, 03:25 PM	#80 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The point I was making in the other thread was: "Conservative" used to mean something definite. It no longer has that meaning. Therefore, using it is a waste.