[PaperNotes]

Obama, yet another moron who peace comes from unity and appeasement, rather than taking a strong stance against ideologies that are against liberty.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4923423.story

[Dork.]

Is any situation where the US does not act unilaterally appeasement, then? Do we relinquish our sovereignty every time we cooperate with another government?

I think John Bolton, the author of this piece, is misinterpreting Obama here. You remember Bolton, right? Bush's choice for UN ambassador, who before he was appointed famously said:

"There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton said a decade ago on a panel of the World Federalist Association. "If the U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

(Note that the UN does have its' own problems which Bolton was referring to at the time, particularly with dictators and corrupt governments promoting their own petty interests over the spirit of the UN Charter. But the quote nicely sums up his attitude, I think.)

Walls spring up because of differences. Walls get torn down when those differences no longer matter due to changing circumstances. Of course the Berlin Wall didn't come down because we all sang Kumbaya -- it came down because the "Free World" stood united against Communism, which as it was practiced in the USSR was destined to fail. But it still required the cooperation of the "Free World", even if the U.S. and Mr. Reagan was in the lead. But they didn't follow simply because Mr. Reagan was a charming fellow with nice hair, they followed because he convinced them it was in their best interests to do so.

Obama seems to be against American Unilateralism for its own sake, but for American leadership. I'll take that over the standard set by Bush (and Bolton) any day.

[PaperNotes]

Of course the Berlin Wall didn't come down because we all sang Kumbaya -- it came down because the "Free World" stood united against Communism, which as it was practiced in the USSR was destined to fail. But it still required the cooperation of the "Free World", even if the U.S. and Mr. Reagan was in the lead.

Thing is the "Free World" didn't just take a stand against it. It had to fight proxy wars and channel millions of dollars in propaganda against it (because the commies did the same, and even worse to their own people). That's very far from Obama's "Let's talk" position. When you take that position you basically send out the idea that it is OK to be a dictator, or a theocrat or a head of a terrorist group because the US president will talk to you. That's not the message you want to send out if you want to make the future a better place because it encourages movements like those to grow and grab power if they can.

Obama seems to be against American Unilateralism for its own sake, but for American leadership. I'll take that over the standard set by Bush (and Bolton) any day.

Bush isn't unilateral (who the hell came up with this and had the power and influence to spread this idea?????). The US has had a coalition of 27 countries (now reduced to 10) in Iraq and is currently very successful at rebuilding the country since the surge. We even have The Awakening movement in Iraq which is an indigenous militia against al-Qaeda and interference from Iran. The Iraqi government this week gave Obama a war welcome and saluted him, but they also asked for US troops not to leave until the country could handle their security on their own, which is McCain's position.

[Captain Obvious]

That whole speech was crap. It bled of his naivete and he was a schmuck to do a self comparison of himself to the "other Americans" who had spoken there before him. Obama's whole speech was empty and nonsensical. It was nothing like the speeches of Kennedy and Reagan who actually had a message of direction and policy.

If he actually had said something of gravity or depth in this speech even if it amounted to a policy of appeasement then it would be worth discussing. As it stands it was just more smoke and mirrors to fool the uneducated and easily gullible masses.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Thing is the "Free World" didn't just take a stand against it. It had to fight proxy wars and channel millions of dollars in propaganda against it (because the commies did the same, and even worse to their own people). That's very far from Obama's "Let's talk" position. When you take that position you basically send out the idea that it is OK to be a dictator, or a theocrat or a head of a terrorist group because the US president will talk to you. That's not the message you want to send out if you want to make the future a better place because it encourages movements like those to grow and grab power if they can.

Ahh, you're misreading his speech, too. Obama is talking less about talking with our enemies and more about talking with our allies. We don't do a good job at that currently. And actually, he talks about the fact that as time goes on and divisions heal, people who were our enemies before could be our allies in the future, so we should not be in the business of building walls when they are no longer necessary.

Bush isn't unilateral (who the hell came up with this and had the power and influence to spread this idea?????). The US has had a coalition of 27 countries (now reduced to 10) in Iraq and is currently very successful at rebuilding the country since the surge. We even have The Awakening movement in Iraq which is an indigenous militia against al-Qaeda and interference from Iran. The Iraqi government this week gave Obama a war welcome and saluted him, but they also asked for US troops not to leave until the country could handle their security on their own, which is McCain's position.

First, just because we have a handful allies doesn't mean that our actions in Iraq are not unilateral. Compare the support this time around to the level of support we had during the first Gulf War. Am I disparaging the "Coalition of the Willing"? Yes. During the first Gulf war, during the Cold War, during the past two World Wars, we were able to have a united front against the enemy because we found common ground and shared interests with our allies. Many allies did not agree 100% with us, but they went along with us because of the level of leadership we provided. Why couldn't we do it to the same extent this time around? Partly, because folks file Bush and Bolton thought we didn't need to. They think leadership is saying drek like "If you're not with us, you're against us." The "Coalition of the Willing" was more like the "Coalition of governments who didn't question American policy". And that's no way to build a foreign policy that works.

Second, you're getting confused here. The surge has nothing to do with this. It may have been necessary given the conditions on the ground, but it has nothing to do with how and why we entered Iraq in the first place, and whether we should have been able to gain a wider range of international support.

Remember Afghanistan? They're the country that harbored the folks who actually attacked us. And notice how little criticism there is of our actions there compared to Iraq? There's a reason for that.


(Incidentally, nobody has yet posted a transcript of the speech, to read the man's own words; I found one here.

[BRussell]

I support Obama because he believes in talking to the terrorists who want to kill us. If only we would sit down, have an iced tea, maybe play a game or two of Super Monkey Ball, we could all just get along. George Bush and John McCain want to be mean to the terrorists. Well, the terrorists just want to be loved, and Obama understands this.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I support Obama because he believes in talking to the terrorists who want to kill us. If only we would sit down, have an iced tea, maybe play a game or two of Super Monkey Ball, we could all just get along. George Bush and John McCain want to be mean to the terrorists. Well, the terrorists just want to be loved, and Obama understands this.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

But the quote nicely sums up his attitude, I think.)

Yup, a realist.

I'm actually kind of looking forward to an Obama Presidency, especially in light of the fact that there's no viable alternative.

So we'll get 4 or 8 years of speeches full of empty platitudes, bumpersticker slogans, pandering to whichever audience he happens to be lecturing to- and (hopefully) not much else.

If he's away a lot preaching to foreign crowds left over after free concerts, it's that much less time he'll be stateside dicking anything up.

Lack of any real substance could possibly translate to a bit of a Bill Clinton style: 'stay the hell out of the way, chase interns around or something, make an empty speech now and then to appease the political hacks, and just sit back and take credit for anything good that happens.' Which, quite frankly, is all I want from most politicians, it's all they're actually good for.

[PaperNotes]

[QUOTE=Dork.;3698535]Ahh, you're misreading his speech, too. Obama is talking less about talking with our enemies and more about talking with our allies. We don't do a good job at that currently.QUOTE]

I have to disagree with that, which is also part of Obama's campaign that "America is hated the world over.". That's complete nonsense and only one part of an extreme liberal lie (hell, people like that compare a simpleton like Bush to a certain Austrian born German leader who ordered babies to be made into soap!).

Europe hasn't been so close to the US in any recent history. France elected a leader who wanted to be close to Bush (after France's oil companies were caught red handed bought off by Saddam in order for France to vote against the invasion of Iraq). Italy has re-elected the very pro-American Berlusconi even though he's a megalomaniac. Britain has always stood shoulder to shoulder. Asia is prospering more and more from American created jobs. I mean, if there's a rift it sure is an invisible one!

This Obama guy comes across more and more as nothing but engineered, like a glossy packet of potato chips that has more air in it than chips. If he wants to say stupid things or spew propaganda, he should do so naturally and honestly like Bush does. Everything about him seems to be about making America "look" hated while extending an olive branch to every trouble making regime the world over. If he took office there would be two outcomes. 1. He would turn his back on everything he said and just carried on what McCain would have done. 2. The world would become a worser place, with totalitarian characters and terrorist groups thinking they will be given a seat at any meeting table if they cause enough trouble.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I have to disagree with that, which is also part of Obama's campaign that "America is hated the world over.". That's complete nonsense and only one part of an extreme liberal lie (hell, people like that compare a simpleton like Bush to a certain Austrian born German leader who ordered babies to be made into soap!).

The ignorance is strong with you.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

The ignorance is strong with you.

Nope. I'm not accepting that so you can have it back.

This made me crack up.....



I mean, how much stronger do you want them Obama? Any closer from what it is now would mean sex between leaders of the US and UK!

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Nope. I'm not accepting that so you can have it back.

This made me crack up.....



I mean, how much stronger do you want them Obama? Any closer from what it is now would mean sex between leaders of the US and UK!

Oh...the UK is "the world"...my bad.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Oh...the UK is "the world"...my bad.

I really want Mr T to flog you with some chains now.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I really want Mr T to flog you with some chains now.

I don't care about your sexual fantasies.

Frankly, I don't understand why you use an Orwell quote for your sig. Do you even understand Orwell?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

I don't care about your sexual fantasies.

I'm Obama. You have to care otherwise you're not part of the Brave New World I want to create. My wife will force you to care.

[Dork.]

Yup. Sarkozy is behind this war in Iraq 100%.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday said Iraq's road to recovery begins with a clear timetable for the pullout of foreign troops as he outlined an assertive role for France in world hotspots.

Making his first major foreign policy speech since taking office earlier this year, Sarkozy recalled that France had opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 but that it was now ready to help the international community find a political solution.

"A clear horizon must be defined concerning the withdrawal of foreign troops," Sarkozy said in the address to French ambassadors from 180 countries.

So is Italy:

Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, yesterday announced that he would begin withdrawing his country's troops from Iraq in September under pressure from public opinion.

At least Britain is in our corner.... Wait, didn't they elect someone who isn't Tony Blair?

Gordon Brown today paved the way for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, promising a "fundamental change" of mission in the first half of 2009.

Europe has never been closer to the US, it's all clear now! And the places that have elected more Conservative governments have done it just because they like Bush, and not at all because of conditions in their own country. This only makes sense, since the world revolves around America, the last remaining Superpower. (F*ck Yeah!)

[Horsepoo!!!]

...

[PaperNotes]

Linking to China Daily and The Guardian is really not called for

Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Brown have all supported the Iraq invasion BEFORE the surge. Now that the surge (which was pushed through by people like McCain) has been largely successful, it is safe for all three leaders to talk about withdrawals. Sarkozy and Berlusconi have it easy talking like that. It appeases the public AND how many troops do they have between them?

Exactly.

As for Brown, he has only signaled a strategic shift that isn't set in stone. And the Conservative leader David Cameron who is likely to win the next election warned against "making premature announcements about troop withdrawals which cannot be met".

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Linking to China Daily and The Guardian is really not called for

Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Brown have all supported the Iraq invasion BEFORE the surge. Now that the surge (which was pushed through by people like McCain) has been largely successful, it is safe for all three leaders to talk about withdrawals. Sarkozy and Berlusconi have it easy talking like that. It appeases the public AND how many troops do they have between them?

Exactly.

As for Brown, he has only signaled a strategic shift that isn't set in stone. And the Conservative leader David Cameron who is likely to win the next election warned against "making premature announcements about troop withdrawals which cannot be met".

Liking them blinders?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I have to disagree with that, which is also part of Obama's campaign that "America is hated the world over.". That's complete nonsense and only one part of an extreme liberal lie (hell, people like that compare a simpleton like Bush to a certain Austrian born German leader who ordered babies to be made into soap!).

If you don't think America is hated (perhaps hated is a bit strong, but certianly not well liked), than I would encourage you to travel. Being an American living abroad and traveling quite a bit I can tell you, it's uncomfortable. I take crap constantly, from friends, from complete strangers, from the media, and on and on. Some of it lighthearted, some of it rather harsh. People seem to think the nicest thing they can say to me it "you're not like most American's," or perhaps "I always assumed you were Canadian." These are truly seen as complimentary statements for which I am expected to express gratitude.

It's not easy out here.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

If you don't think America is hated (perhaps hated is a bit strong, but certianly not well liked), than I would encourage you to travel.

I've been traveling non stop for six years. Before that I was the most cliché type of Left winger one could ever come across. Every ****ing opinion that came out of my mouth was just me repeating some sh it that the BBC or Hollywood shoveled into my mind. It was the traveling around and seeing the world that brought me to the centre (more exact, the libertarian centre-right). Why? Because I saw that everything I was made to believe about the Left or anti-Americanism was a big fat lie. The Left have hijacked words like liberal and progressive for propaganda purposes alone. I saw that wherever they asserted power in the world there was no liberalism or progress. It was the centre-right governments who were freeing people up and opening trade.

Being an American living abroad and traveling quite a bit I can tell you, it's uncomfortable. I take crap constantly, from friends, from complete strangers, from the media, and on and on.

I have seen a lot more Americans not taking crap. You get what people think they can get away with by the vibes you give them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I was the most cliché type of Left winger one could ever come across. Every ****ing opinion that came out of my mouth was just me repeating some sh it that the BBC or Hollywood shoveled into my mind.

I'm sure no one is surprised by that.

[Chongo]

Peace in our time
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/05/15/...amberlain.aspx

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's not easy out here.

Tell them it's a heavy crown.

After all, they're not really hating Cuba this much are they? I wonder if there's a standard they use to gauge a country in there somewhere... anywhere or if they're just hating because it's fashionable.

[Guy Stone]

Bomb, bomb, bomb,

Bomb Iran.

Bomb Iran-n-n-n...

-John McCain

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Brown have all supported the Iraq invasion BEFORE the surge.

I call bullshit, at least with regards to Sarkozy and Brown. (I can believe that Berlusconi may have supported it initially, but changed his mind due to public opinion, so I spent no time looking it up.) Given what I know about Brown and why he came to power in the UK, I find it hard to believe that Brown ever supported the war. He may have supported the British troops fighting it, but he's eager to pin the whole blame for the war on Blair.

I don't know much about Sarkozy from that time, but his Wikipedia Article indicates he opposed it from the start, and it was a sore point between him and Chirac, who was president at the time (and was also opposed):

Nicolas Sarkozy disapproved of the US-led invasion of Iraq, but was nonetheless critical of the way Jacques Chirac and his foreign minister Dominique de Villepin expressed France's opposition to the war. Talking at the French-American Foundation in Washington, D.C. on 12 September 2006, he denounced what he called the "French arrogance" and said: "It is bad manners to embarrass one's allies or sound like one is taking delight in their troubles."[91] He also added: "We must never again turn our disagreements into a crisis." Jacques Chirac reportedly said in private that Sarkozy's speech was "appalling" and "a shameful act".[91]

Unfortunately, the supporting article is in French, so I can't personally verify that you're full of merde. I will concede, though, that France's position may have had something to do with the Oil-For-Food shenanigans....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Liking them blinders?

Is this all you've got? Seriously. You may not like what others are saying, but argue a point. This wreaks of the typical divisive BS in here where someone you disagree with provides substantive data to back his claim and you pop in with... and... poopbuttstinkyface!

Then, after putting your intellectual prowess on display for the rest of the forum have the audacity to challenge a poster on whether or not he understands a quote in his own auto-sig? Seriously? egadz.

[besson3c]

PaperNotes: where is the appeasement? How are you defining appeasement? What is Obama wanting to give, and to whom?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is this all you've got? Seriously. You may not like what others are saying, but argue a point. This wreaks of the typical divisive BS in here where someone you disagree with provides substantive data to back his claim and you pop in with... and... poopbuttstinkyface!

Don't worry about him. I'm not.

More to the point, anyone who believes anti-Americanism is a recent phenomena or Obama's propaganda that it all starts with Bush (a president who has reigned during the largest amount of global prosperity despite the war on terror and high fuel prices), needs to study the history of anti-Americanism. It goes back even before the birth of the nation and today it mostly comes from Catholic/Latin nations where there has always been a pithy envy of the advancement of Anglo-Saxon Protestant countries. It simply transformed from religious resentment to resentment of freedom and capitalism (after all, many Catholic nations went from subservience to the Church to subservience of Socialist state power).

There will always be envy of successful nations from those who have less freedom and prosperity, not just the US.

Here's a good start:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

And if anyone thinks Obama will be given a free ride if elected, forget about it. He will become hated too just like every politician, if he isn't mocked enough already for being nothing more than the "Morgan Freeman effect" of on stage politics.

McCain gets my nod only because he doesn't hide behind platitude and pretence. He is what he is.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Of course the Berlin Wall didn't come down because we all sang Kumbaya -- it came down because the "Free World" stood united against Communism, which as it was practiced in the USSR was destined to fail. But it still required the cooperation of the "Free World", even if the U.S. and Mr. Reagan was in the lead. But they didn't follow simply because Mr. Reagan was a charming fellow with nice hair, they followed because he convinced them it was in their best interests to do so.

Honestly, I don’t understand how anyone can be naïve enough to believe that communism was brought down by Ronnie Reagan. Do they teach this crap in American schools, or something?

Communism didn’t collapse because of anything the west did, it collapsed because of intrinsic weaknesses in the Soviet system and failures at management level.

Gorbachev tried to fix the U.S.S.R.’s economy by introducing a half-hearted and half-arsed semi-free market which made the entire soviet system domestically unpopular. He opened the door to decentralisation, which compounded the problem by giving rise to nationalist separation movements as a perceived solution to the economic malaise. He also made massive personal efforts to make sure the U.S.S.R. was no longer perceived as a threat abroad, which would have theoretically allowed him to re-allocate the state’s massive 25 per cent military budget towards fixing the broken economy. Of course, that deprived the Soviet Union of its ideological enemies, which put one of the final nails into the Soviet system’s coffin. The East Germans basically adopted the same flawed perestroika and glasnost policies, which quite logically resulted in the collapse of their own country and that of the Berlin Wall.

Stupid Americans, victims of their own superhero propaganda.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Honestly, I don’t understand how anyone can be naïve enough to believe that communism was brought down by Ronnie Reagan. Do they teach this crap in American schools, or something?

Communism didn’t collapse because of anything the west did, it collapsed because of intrinsic weaknesses in the Soviet system and failures at management level.

Wrong and right. Right on the latter, but wrong on the first. The Soviet Union spent itself silly supporting global communism and spying against the West (and itself). The West for its own part spent just as much on fighting communism, possibly more, but could afford to do so because it had/has an economic system that generated a lot wealth instead of hours long queues for bread.

[Dork.]

With the benefit of 20+ years of history, we can see now that the Soviet Union was destined to fail. But in the moment, that was not entirely clear at all, especially to a generation who had vivid memories of the 50's and 60's. Reagan and Thatcher saw it, crafted their policies in that direction, and got the rest of the world to go along. They deserve credit for seeing that, because at the time it was not at all obvious. (Gorbachev himself deserves some credit, too, although possibly not for reasons he would like.)

But then again, if the thesis of this thread is to be believed, Ronald Reagan was Yet Another Appeaser, since he deigned to talk to the enemy in 1985. In this screed that I linked to, known Liberal wacko Ed Meese castigates Reagan for having the audacity to talk with the leader of the Evil Empire face-to-face at such a critical juncture, and endangering Liberty in the process. How could Reagan hate America so much?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How could Reagan hate America so much?

Reagan was already losing the plot by then and in one speech said that aliens/UFOs could already be with us. The same with Jimmy Carter.

[Dork.]

Whatever.

In the meantime, I got a chance to re-read his speech this morning. And for the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can read appeasement into it. I'm not just saying that's how I interpret the speech, I'm saying that I don't understand how the speech can be interpreted to support a policy of appeasement by anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

Oh, Snap, look what I did, I just personally insulted a whole bunch of people!

Think I'm full of it? Then go read a transcript, (or find one on your own, if you like) and build an argument to support your position. Consider it a personal challenge. Here, I'll go first:

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers – dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.
...
In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

The first paragraph could have been lifted directly from one of Bush's speeches regarding the nature of the new enemy. And Obama is insistent on defeating this enemy, but unlike Bush, he wants to work closely with all our allies to this end, instead of disparaging people who don't go along with him as "unwilling". Yeah, he's an appeaser, all right!

The Appeasement argument is bullshit. What is really being said (and what is the crux of Bolton's argument linked to in the Original Post) is that any bi-lateral cooperation with any other countries, even allies, somehow violates America's sovereignty. America dictating to other countries how to act is OK, and is somehow "leadership". But once concessions are made in the other direction (even to allies), we may as well all raise the white flag. The notion of "appeasement" in this argument is just a way to equate talking with one's allies to talking with the enemy, and is logically false.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Obama, yet another moron who peace comes from unity and appeasement, rather than taking a strong stance against ideologies that are against liberty.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4923423.story

Give it a rest. Just because the man doesn't insist on perpetuating the pig-headed nationalism that escalates global antagonism against us then he's suddenly Neville Chamberlain.

Face it, he IS taking a strong stand against ideologies that threaten liberty--the ones held by authoritarian neo-cons like Bush and their apologists. They use the word "liberty" as a banner without any inkling of what it really means.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Thing is the "Free World" didn't just take a stand against it. It had to fight proxy wars and channel millions of dollars in propaganda against it (because the commies did the same, and even worse to their own people). That's very far from Obama's "Let's talk" position.

Ever hear of Glasnost?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Face it, he IS taking a strong stand against ideologies that threaten liberty--the ones held by authoritarian neo-cons like Bush and their apologists. They use the word "liberty" as a banner without any inkling of what it really means.

Calling Bush an authoritarian is pretty out of order and skews reality. He's a simpleton. It takes an intellectually cunning person with an extremely powerful persona to be an authoritarian. Calling him an authoritarian (as the Left sometimes does, while praising people like Chavez!)

Can the Left please tell me which they think Bush is? Village idiot cowboy or authoritarian monster? His most vile critics keep switching from one point of view to another (depending on the debate at hand) despite both these caricatures being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ever hear of Glasnost?

Yes, and if you think it was a highlight of Soviet rule then answer why intellectuals and artists were running away from Russia even during that period of the 60s.

I don't think I'll get a good answer for that considering you called Bush an authoritarian leader, despite his low IQ, his small town attitude, him using his power of veto FAR less than Clinton ever did, and he's not exactly clinging on to power now that his term is over.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Yes, and if you think it was a highlight of Soviet rule then answer why intellectuals and artists were running away from Russia even during that period of the 60s.

(Emphasis mine.)
Glasnost was a political period starting in mid-1980s, not 1960s. It lead up to the dissolution of the Soviet block and the reunification of Europe.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

(Emphasis mine.)
Glasnost was a political period starting in mid-1980s, not 1960s. It lead up to the dissolution of the Soviet block and the reunification of Europe.

That is a typo, which should be apparent because I said "even during that period" (any earlier period would not have needed the use of "even"). I use a 3G modem that is so unstable that I can't fix typos quickly all the time.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is this all you've got? Seriously. You may not like what others are saying, but argue a point. This wreaks of the typical divisive BS in here where someone you disagree with provides substantive data to back his claim and you pop in with... and... poopbuttstinkyface!

Then, after putting your intellectual prowess on display for the rest of the forum have the audacity to challenge a poster on whether or not he understands a quote in his own auto-sig? Seriously? egadz.

It's definitely not all I got...if I gave it all I got, you and a whole lot of Americans would be outraged. Do you want to be outraged?

Why are Dork and Helmling the only people in this thread that actually have a head on their shoulders? I wish there were more Dorks and Helmlings in the US.

Helmling is right on the money. The people running the US are cleverly using a facade to push their less-than-ethical agendas. A lot of Americans are falling right into a beautifully devised trap. They're ready to sacrifice all their liberties to make their lives better (somehow sacrificing liberties = better lives...doesn't make any sense to me but it seems to make a whole lot of sense to many Americans).

The US has for a long time been using its superpower to police other nations. I'd have no problem with that if the US was truly good. But looking at the United States' history, you can tell that they are *not* good.

Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Creating false threats (as far as killing its own people and blaming it on 'terrorists') to exert their military powers in other countries (an excuse to take over countries). Producing armaments and disallowing other countries to produce their armaments.

On the surface, the US (at least to US citizens) looks like the "good cop". But the US is *not* the good cop. W Bush almost made it too evident. I can't wait to see what's gonna happen before the end of his term. Another terrorist threat? I'm very curious.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Yes, and if you think it was a highlight of Soviet rule then answer why intellectuals and artists were running away from Russia even during that period of the 60s.

I don't think I'll get a good answer for that considering you called Bush an authoritarian leader, despite his low IQ, his small town attitude, him using his power of veto FAR less than Clinton ever did, and he's not exactly clinging on to power now that his term is over.

Glasnost was in the 80's. I think you've proven my point that conservative ideologies are hopelessly simplistic and misinformed.

I feel compelled, though, to point out how your further comments continue to demonstrate this truth, though. Bush did not use his veto until recently because he had a friendly Congress through the first six years of his term. He has no means by which to cling to power because (thank you 22nd amendment) he is a lame duck and cannot stay in office no matter what. His tenure in the Oval Office has been one of the most remarkably authoritarian in U.S. history for a number of reasons beyond your naive assumptions of what authoritarianism must entail. He has claimed that his executive privilege extends to underlings like Karl Rove; he has conducted his administration's business with absolutely no regard for the transparency that is vital to the democratic process; he has abused a little-thought-of tradition of signing statements to override the checks and balances of our political system; and otherwise interpreted his office as precisely the thing that the founders declared it must never be: an elected kingship.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

I don't care about your sexual fantasies.

Frankly, I don't understand why you use an Orwell quote for your sig. Do you even understand Orwell?

You beat me to this one. He certainly does not understand Orwell.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You beat me to this one. He certainly does not understand Orwell.

Oh I know exactly why Orwell said what he said against liberal critics during the 30s and 40s. If you knew why then you wouldn't be writing what you have written so far.

I also take note of how you ignored my earlier apology for a typo and continued on a course to ridicule. Don't try to make me look like the dummy here. That sly behaviour is too obvious.

His (Bush's) tenure in the Oval Office has been one of the most remarkably authoritarian in U.S. history for a number of reasons beyond your naive assumptions of what authoritarianism must entail.

Yawn. Yeah millions of Americans are just shaking in their boots at the thought of Bush.

Find me TEN Americans who fear his so called authoritarian rule!

he has conducted his administration's business with absolutely no regard for the transparency that is vital to the democratic process

Not transparent? Then why do so journalists, critics and others think they know almost EVERY LITTLE DETAIL behind every decision his administration has made?

He has no means by which to cling to power because (thank you 22nd amendment) he is a lame duck

an elected kingship

There's the contradiction yet again. Lame duck/village idiot OR authoritarian elected king? Make your mind up or shut up.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Why are Dork and Helmling the only people in this thread that actually have a head on their shoulders?

Because we agree with you.
And don't forget besson3c: he's just like me, except he's Canadian and likes to have sex with robots.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.

Do you realise that the Japanese empire had butchered and starved millions and because of the emperor's refusal to concede defeat and that 10 million or more people were going to DIE within weeks unless Japan was stopped? The attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima came after Japan was bombarded normally for months without result AND warned that the atomic option would be used. The bombing of the two towns resulted in the surrender by the emperor, which allowed the US to deliver aid to the millions of people starving to death or were held in camps. That atomic bombing cost circa 100,000 lives to save over 10 million.

AND it was American dollars that transformed Japan and Germany after the war.

What would have your policy been?

Creating false threats

Here we are. The classic "Islamist terrorism is a false threat" line.

Congrats.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Do you realise that the Japanese empire had butchered and starved millions and because of the emperor's refusal to concede defeat and that 10 million or more people were going to DIE within weeks unless Japan was stopped? The attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima came after Japan was bombarded normally for months without result AND warned that the atomic option would be used. The bombing of the two towns resulted in the surrender by the emperor, which allowed the US to deliver aid to the millions of people starving to death or were held in camps. That atomic bombing cost circa 100,000 lives to save over 10 million.

True or not, it certainly doesn't justify killing hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent japanese civilians. An A-bomb dropped on a deserted island near Japan would have had the same scare effect.

AND it was American dollars that transformed Japan and Germany after the war.

Did the US have any choice? I mean, they destroyed EVERYTHING. "Here's some money to rebuild...now remember, we helped you rebuild, we're friends now."

What would have your policy been?

Here we are. The classic "Islamist terrorism is a false threat" line.

Congrats.

I don't know why I even bother answering any of this.

[CreepDogg]

How is talking to people 'Appeasement'? I actually think this is pretty simple and best expressed by an old adage of wisdom: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Kumbaya to that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That is a typo, which should be apparent because I said "even during that period" (any earlier period would not have needed the use of "even"). I use a 3G modem that is so unstable that I can't fix typos quickly all the time.

Then there is the `that', that period during the 1960s (implying it's one of possibly several during the 1960s), so it doesn't read like a typo to me. In any case, especially if we accept it as a simple typo, your paragraph makes even less sense: Glasnost has nothing to do with intellectuals fleeing from Russia during the 1960s.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Do you realise that the Japanese empire had butchered and starved millions and because of the emperor's refusal to concede defeat and that 10 million or more people were going to DIE within weeks unless Japan was stopped? The attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima came after Japan was bombarded normally for months without result AND warned that the atomic option would be used. The bombing of the two towns resulted in the surrender by the emperor, which allowed the US to deliver aid to the millions of people starving to death or were held in camps. That atomic bombing cost circa 100,000 lives to save over 10 million.

Congrats.

Did YOU know that Japan had already begun exploring surrender through feelers with the Russians? Did YOU know that statements from Truman and Groves both explicitly point toward the real motive behind demonstrating the bomb to be the establishment of ultimate US authority in the post-war period, i.e. cowing the Soviet Union.

History is complicated. Without the kind of simplistic ignorance you're demonstrating, it cannot be reduced to the broad strokes needed to perpetuate the us vs. them, black and white mentality of the right wing ideologues that have drug us into this quagmire of an "endless war" that's not a war at all.