Something about liberals really angers me

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So are you a progressive or a radical?

A radical.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by MrFun
Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?

1) Violence never solves anything.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Unfortunately, there are people who can only understand violence. And to show the limit to those people, violence is the only option.

I would change the phrase "violence never solves anything" to "initiating violence never solves anything".

[Ned]

I don't know who those anti-war protester are, they seem to be pro-radical muslim more than being anti-war. They seem to live in some bizzare, schizophenic world that outsiders cannot comprehend.

But, in my observation, the Democrats (who tend to be liberal) are just as much behind the war as Republicans.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrFun


Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?

1) Violence never solves anything.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.

1) Violence solved Hitler.

2) True of course. Since when is fighting to defending yourself a wrong? Sounds like something an oppressor might want their victims to think.

[Ramo]

They believe that the best way to go about protecting liberties is to strip 'em away from us, and they never put any thought into the future (namely, what happens after Saddam; does anyone truly believe that Kurds would retain, and Shiites would gain, autonomy after Saddam is gone, when we've done absolutely squat for them thus far?).

[Adagio]

Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
Tyrannical by our standards. And yes, I agree it was tyrannical, but it seems many Afghans preferred the Taliban over the Warlords that have taken over the outer regions of the country.

I just saw something in the news last night, that really made me

First they said something about, because of the weather Afghanistan haven't been able to get much food for the last 4 years (might have been more, or less...don't remember exactly). The next thing they said: Afghans were now mad on USA because they had more food some years ago, than they have now!!! Sure, they had more food, back then as the weather didn't "kill" their food, but it's not (only) the Americans fault. So based on this, it seems like they forget to use the brain, or use everything to make USA look bad...

Now lets also say: I haven't checked if it was true what I've heard in the news...

[Hueij]

They seem to live in some bizzare, schizophenic world that outsiders cannot comprehend.

Strange... I feel the same way about conservatives, Republicans, war mongerers and what have you...

[johncmcleod]

Uh, Mr. Fun, didn't you read that I apologized for using the term liberals? I mean opposers to the war. And how can those American-hating Arabs hate us when we gave them so much foreign aid?

[Hobbes]

I oppose war. It's the easy way out, in my opinion. It takes intelligence to work something out peacefully, and that art has been lost, it seems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It also takes two parties.

If I tell you, OK, you can have peace, as long as you let me do whatever I want to you or anyone else, is that ok with you?

Or how about if I just tell you to sod off when you tell me you want to engage in an intelligent dialog?

Both parties have to want "peace" and they both have to want it on mutually acceptable terms.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Uh, Mr. Fun, didn't you read that I apologized for using the term liberals? I mean opposers to the war. And how can those American-hating Arabs hate us when we gave them so much foreign aid?

And how much foreign aid is that?

Once you dig up some specific numbers, remove military aid to their unpopular secular monarchies and emirates.

[Capt Dizle]

I am greatly concerned at the brevity of the previous post!

[monolith94]

Yeah, that's it, liberals are always the shortminded ones…
Cause goodness knows that when the conservatives were in power in the twenties, they didn't install ANY programs that could be considered short sighted at ALL.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Both parties have to want "peace" and they both have to want it on mutually acceptable terms.

Yes, but IMO, the party that doesn't want peace in this instance is the U.S. I think Bush is determined to go to war no matter what, and I believe it is mostly driven by his twin desires to avenge his father's legacy and by the far-right war hawks in his administration who think war is a great way to distract people from their abysmal domestic agenda and ensure reelection in '04. That's why potential dates of the war keep getting pushed ahead...string the people along, then launch at a point where we will still be involved come election time and the folks can go the polls feeling its their civic duty to not rock the boat at a "time like this!"

I oppose the war because I think it is utterly unneccessary. We have kept Saddam contained, successfully, for a decade now. For all the talk, no evidence has been produced to show he has WoMD or that Iraq in any way helped in the September 11th attacks. For pete's sake, Al Queda is an enemy of Saddam, as they loathe all secular governments.

We have no casus belli, we have no mandate for war, and I do not want to see American soldiers getting killed over this nonsense. I don't want to see Iraqi citizens getting bombed. I don't want to see what the massive expenditure will do to our still-weak economy.

I am not opposed to wars that are necessary, but nothing has convinced me yet that this one is as such.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, but IMO, the party that doesn't want peace in this instance is the U.S. I think Bush is determined to go to war no matter what, and I believe it is mostly driven by his twin desires to avenge his father's legacy and by the far-right war hawks in his administration who think war is a great way to distract people from their abysmal domestic agenda and ensure reelection in '04. That's why potential dates of the war keep getting pushed ahead...string the people along, then launch at a point where we will still be involved come election time and the folks can go the polls feeling its their civic duty to not rock the boat at a "time like this!"

I oppose the war because I think it is utterly unneccessary. We have kept Saddam contained, successfully, for a decade now. For all the talk, no evidence has been produced to show he has WoMD or that Iraq in any way helped in the September 11th attacks. For pete's sake, Al Queda is an enemy of Saddam, as they loathe all secular governments.

We have no casus belli, we have no mandate for war, and I do not want to see American soldiers getting killed over this nonsense. I don't want to see Iraqi citizens getting bombed. I don't want to see what the massive expenditure will do to our still-weak economy.

I am not opposed to wars that are necessary, but nothing has convinced me yet that this one is as such.

Just as a test, how do you feel about the UK declaration of war on Germany in 1939?

IMHO, THAT is one war that should have been avoided at all costs.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by orange

Sorry, that's what we should be aiming for. 0 civilian casualties. I wouldn't tolerate anything less from the greatest most advanced fighting force the planet has ever seen.

I think you and Mobius are both going to die from an anger induced health problem. Interestingly there is no helpful input possible from the rest of the world, even if the entire planet decided to follow your every whim they cannot stop being human. Your conditions are designed to keep you furious forever. I wonder what sort of effect all that constant anger is going to have on the world? Probably enough to kill you and someone else as well. If you want to change something, work from the inside out. But perhaps you are happy being unhappy. If so cool, follow your bliss.

[johncmcleod]

Well the again, we didn't require war. We asked them to hand over bin Laden, and they didn't, meaning they harbor terrorists. If we didn't invade them, I think terrorists could do things like that again then go over to Afghanistan. Just my opinion.

This whole thing is kinda funny though. Typical 'poly. A bunch of highly intelligent and opionated people arguing and sometimes being rather nasty to each other (when I mean highly intelligent people, I don't mean myself, I'm only in 9th grade). I swear this is the coolest forum ever.

[johncmcleod]

Oh, and I forgot. We can't go around generalizing certain parties. I am perfectly fine with liberals. If one is a better leader than the other candidate, I'll vote for him. Another problem with people is they vote for whichever party they are. For example my dad votes for the president that's democrat and my mom votes for the one that is republican. Don't say no one else does this, because they do. And in the senate, mostly all the democrats oppose Bush and the republicans are for him. I don't like it. I wish this whole party system thing would be abolished. I also like it much better when we have a president that uis balanced. I don't like it when a pres is too liberal or too conservative.

[chequita guevara]

The difference between Afganistan and Iraq is that one country was an actual threat to the health and lives of Americans and others, while one is a threat only in the minds of the lunatic right.

Interestingly, most of the arguments that people make for attacking Iraq would actually be more validly applied to Pakistan. Pakistan is harboring (albeit unwillingly) terrorists. These terrorists are attacking a neighboring country as well as it's allies. These terrorists were supplied and nutrued by elements of the Pakistani government. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. These weapons could easily fall into the hands of terrorists. Pakistan almost went to war with its neighbor a few months ago.

Clearly if we are going to attack Iraq, we must attack Pakistan also.

[GePap]

As a liberal, sometimes a radical (though not in economic issues), my problem with the Afghanistan campaign is not that we went in, but once in, we haven't done much: little aid is getting through, warlords are figthing again, the Central admins. power extends just to kabul, and now, the US will shift all attention to Iraq.

One British annalyst for the BBC said it best- the soviets had a great first year in Afghanistan. This has only been our first year- how will the next 5 look like? With the way this amin is going- Karzai gets killed, warlords start problems, more attcks on the US- a slow deterrioration- sepcially if the US does nothing to avert possible famine in the next few months- and we are doing very little.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
As a liberal, sometimes a radical (though not in economic issues), my problem with the Afghanistan campaign is not that we went in, but once in, we haven't done much: little aid is getting through, warlords are figthing again, the Central admins. power extends just to kabul, and now, the US will shift all attention to Iraq.

One British annalyst for the BBC said it best- the soviets had a great first year in Afghanistan. This has only been our first year- how will the next 5 look like? With the way this amin is going- Karzai gets killed, warlords start problems, more attcks on the US- a slow deterrioration- sepcially if the US does nothing to avert possible famine in the next few months- and we are doing very little.

GePap, We are still fighting the al Qaida, providing security for Karzai, and training and (equipping?) the new Afghan army. What Afghanistan needs is additional financial support and peacekeeping troops from our allies, such as the Germans. Don't blame American for everything.

[GePap]

Why should the germans, or anyone else send peacekeepers? Were they attacked? Did they pledge to brin security to the region? Do they now state that it is their policy to bring democracy? No, we the US do, not them.

What, our responsibility only aplies to bombing things? Look, if we are serious about Aghanistan being peaceful, then we would send our own troops to do it, not say hey, that's someone elses job'. We do provide security for karzai, which is relatively cheap hing to do, and a bad sign, since it shows his auhority over Afghans is limited. nd aain, if we are seriou, then it is up to us to u or money were our mouth is, and pile i our own money- but we aren't doing that, which means we, not the german or any other European, are failing pour own aim and words.

[Ned]

GePap, Why do you say these things. We invoked NATO to help in the war against terror. Our allies have a legal duty to help. We are not in this war alone. The combined wealth of our allies is equal to our own. They should share the burden equally.

I pick out the Germans, because if they will not commit troops to the war, they certainly should commit resources to the Afghan rebuilding effort.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ethelred


1) Violence solved Hitler.

2) True of course. Since when is fighting to defending yourself a wrong? Sounds like something an oppressor might want their victims to think.

. . . . which is why we should go to our mothers, and demand an explanation on why they tried to teach us such BS.

[Traianvs]

peace to all

*smoke*
hmmm
*smoke*

nah, burn em all i say, who cares bout them anyway, after all, if you control all the media you're free to do whatever ye want anyway!!...