[BlackGriffen]

And holy cow is the endorsement scathing of Bush.

Lone Star Iconoclast (excerpts available here if the server is still overloaded):

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity

2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.
[...]
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.
[...]
Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.
[...]
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

Eeeouch!

BG

[BRussell]

Well they're sure doing a good job of clasting icons.

[zachs]

And they endorsed Bush in 2000.

[rambo47]

Isn't this the paper with a circulation of about 270?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by rambo47:
Isn't this the paper with a circulation of about 270?

I think that's the county where Shrubby keeps his stash.

[LoganCharles]

It's not uncommen for newspapers especially wittle liberal ones to support the democratic party.

That's fine. Just more proof that the Bush administration is not this all encompassing Orwellian dictatorship that the libs like to paint it as.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And holy cow is the endorsement scathing of Bush.

Lone Star Iconoclast (excerpts available here if the server is still overloaded):

Eeeouch!

BG

Here's my answer to the iconolclast.

In the scheme of things bold and beautiful, there comes a time when all of the stars and planets and earthly elements align to provide an opportunity for a farsighted and courageous national leader, if blessed with the resources, to make a paradigm change in world affairs.

THIS is such a time.

George W, Bush seeks NOT to return the United States to a condition of status quo, settling for the continuance of decades long petty conflicts, disagreements that foment more war, more terrorism, more intractable situations and stalemates.

President Bush recognizes this window of opportunity and has taken action to make over this geo-political mess we now look upon.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer ."

And with that thought I assert the genius of George W. Bush will be in maintaining a commitment to a policy which is designed to re-shape a world caught up in petty squabbles and assert a new order which will work in the best interests of all.

Status quo or brave new world?

That is the question. George W. Bush is the answer!

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here's my answer to the iconolclast.

In the scheme of things bold and beautiful, there comes a time when all of the stars and planets and earthly elements align to provide an opportunity for a farsighted and courageous national leader, if blessed with the resources, to make a paradigm change in world affairs.

THIS is such a time.

George W, Bush seeks NOT to return the United States to a condition of status quo, settling for the continuance of decades long petty conflicts, disagreements that foment more war, more terrorism, more intractable situations and stalemates.

President Bush recognizes this window of opportunity and has taken action to make over this geo-political mess we now look upon.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer ."

And with that thought I assert the genius of George W. Bush will be in maintaining a commitment to a policy which is designed to re-shape a world caught up in petty squabbles and assert a new order which will work in the best interests of all.

Status quo or brave new world?

That is the question. George W. Bush is the answer!

You may be correct, this may be what Bush is aiming for. However, thousands of years of human history haven't been kind to powerful men who wish to "reshape the world" and "assert a new order" without the consent of those who haven't been asked if they even want such "reshaping". In fact, these kinds of grand ideas of forcing violent change on everybody else have always ended up being the cause of vast human suffering throughout history.

If this truly is what Bush is aiming at, he will be joining very disturbing company.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
You may be correct, this may be what Bush is aiming for. However, thousands of years of human history haven't been kind to powerful men who wish to "reshape the world" and "assert a new order" without the consent of those who haven't been asked if they even want such "reshaping". In fact, these kinds of grand ideas of forcing violent change on everybody else have always ended up being the cause of vast human suffering throughout history.

If this truly is what Bush is aiming at, he will be joining very disturbing company.

I think it's rather disturbing, that a few think they have the perogative to make such choices for so many, especially in light of the fact that they're trying to deceive the public as to the truth of what their agenda is. It's equally disturbing that, despite the fact that they're already failing, they continue to insist they're on the right track. Obviously, what they're hoping for, come November, is that enough people will have been hypnotized by their incessant repetitions of the same mantra over and over, ad nauseam, to give them the power to carry out their agenda.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
You may be correct, this may be what Bush is aiming for. However, thousands of years of human history haven't been kind to powerful men who wish to "reshape the world" and "assert a new order" without the consent of those who haven't been asked if they even want such "reshaping". In fact, these kinds of grand ideas of forcing violent change on everybody else have always ended up being the cause of vast human suffering throughout history.

If this truly is what Bush is aiming at, he will be joining very disturbing company.

Stalemates and the status quo or a new era of peace and freedoms for every nation in the world? (even the Islamic nations)

No question in my mind.

[OldManMac]

It's not up to us to decide what's right for every nation in the world. We have enough problems of our own to fix.

Arrogant attitudes like that will get us exactly the responses we deserve.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
It's not up to us to decide what's right for every nation in the world. We have enough problems of our own to fix.

Arrogant attitudes like that will get us exactly the responses we deserve.

If we can STOP the violence and significantly and positively alter the "bullfrogs" that is and has been going on for years and years, why shouldn't we?

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Stalemates and the status quo or a new era of peace and freedoms for every nation in the world? (even the Islamic nations)

No question in my mind.

Nor in mine, I agree with the principle. But there are lots of ways to go about changing the world. I don't believe breaking out of the status quo and promoting peace and freedom require violent imposition of one's "values" on others.

So far, Bush's approach doesn't look like it is going to stop the violence. Maybe he should have spent that energy trying to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem instead, now there's a problem that requires innovative thinking.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by KarlG:
It's not up to us to decide what's right for every nation in the world. We have enough problems of our own to fix.

Arrogant attitudes like that will get us exactly the responses we deserve.

You know everytime I read one of your weeny liberal posts it makes me feel that much better that I'm a Conservative.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
You know everytime I read one of your weeny liberal posts it makes me feel that much better that I'm a Conservative.

It seems that KarlG would project his own personal limitations on the policies of those who are not so limited in thought or strength.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Nor in mine, I agree with the principle. But there are lots of ways to go about changing the world. I don't believe breaking out of the status quo and promoting peace and freedom require violent imposition of one's "values" on others.

So far, Bush's approach doesn't look like it is going to stop the violence. Maybe he should have spent that energy trying to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem instead, now there's a problem that requires innovative thinking.

There's little innovation needed there.

Once the Palestinians have REAL leadership which is concerned with peace and the welfare of the Palestinian peoples, (and not gilding their own pockets) THAT's when significant progress will be seen in that struggle.

And I will point out, GWB has shown restraint by NOT getting involved there!

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here's my answer to the iconolclast.

In the scheme of things bold and beautiful, there comes a time when all of the stars and planets and earthly elements align to provide an opportunity for a farsighted and courageous national leader, if blessed with the resources, to make a paradigm change in world affairs.

THIS is such a time.

George W, Bush seeks NOT to return the United States to a condition of status quo, settling for the continuance of decades long petty conflicts, disagreements that foment more war, more terrorism, more intractable situations and stalemates.

President Bush recognizes this window of opportunity and has taken action to make over this geo-political mess we now look upon.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer ."

And with that thought I assert the genius of George W. Bush will be in maintaining a commitment to a policy which is designed to re-shape a world caught up in petty squabbles and assert a new order which will work in the best interests of all.

Status quo or brave new world?

That is the question. George W. Bush is the answer!

So what is it that you want?

1) Every nation in the world to become a democracy? I have this hunch the USA can still be attacked by a democracy. I think we have proven that a democracy != non-aggresive. As for terrorism breeding in a democracy. I have 300 acres in south-eastern Oregon. It would make a nice terrorist training camp. But, so does the local flight school.

2) Or do you want the United States of the World? In time that could make the mother of all civil wars and a revolution that would look great on TV.

When I'm with a girl I have a policy. Resolve the small **** as it occurs and we flourish. Or, ignore the little things and watch the explosion at the end. I think the pursual of the Neo-Con agenda in the end would result in the second scenario. And by this I mean if we do manage to have one huge worldwide American nation it would eventually explode. In a nasty ****ing way.


If you were sincere when you first started posting I think it was fun to watch you become a Neo-Con after reading one article. LOLOLOLLOLOLO

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
So what is it that you want?

Peace, dammit, PEACE!

NO ONE ELSE HAS A PLAN THAT HAS THIS SAME HOPE OF DELIVERING PEACE!!!!

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Peace, dammit, PEACE!

NO ONE ELSE HAS A PLAN THAT HAS THIS SAME HOPE OF DELIVERING PEACE!!!!

I would love that too. I would give my own life if that would guarantee peace for the rest of the world. As long as I could have a 6 pack first (and it would have to be Fat Tire)

But, I just honestly can't imagine that our current path would ever lead to worldwide peace. Economics can fix the problem, bombs make it worse. If the entire world had food, sewers, healthcare, and a place to call home a lot less people would be willing to strap a bombs to thier chest.

There is a reason we don't have suicide bombers in America. Even if life sucks we still have to much to live for. This is not the case in some other parts of the world. Sometimes dieing is worth it if you believe it will help your community in the long run.

I don't agree with that but I can understand it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here's my answer to the iconolclast.

In the scheme of things bold and beautiful, there comes a time when all of the stars and planets and earthly elements align to provide an opportunity for a farsighted and courageous national leader, if blessed with the resources, to make a paradigm change in world affairs.

THIS is such a time.

George W, Bush seeks NOT to return the United States to a condition of status quo, settling for the continuance of decades long petty conflicts, disagreements that foment more war, more terrorism, more intractable situations and stalemates.

President Bush recognizes this window of opportunity and has taken action to make over this geo-political mess we now look upon.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer ."

And with that thought I assert the genius of George W. Bush will be in maintaining a commitment to a policy which is designed to re-shape a world caught up in petty squabbles and assert a new order which will work in the best interests of all.

Status quo or brave new world?

That is the question. George W. Bush is the answer!

You really do sound like you've drank the kool-aid. There's a really big problem with the scenario you paint, though. The problem is that Bush's solution is not new. In fact, it's very very old. We can rattle of the examples if you like, of so called "big men" who tried to violently export their ideals (even if it meant sacrificing their ideals at home): Julius Caesar, Pope Urban (crusades), Napoleon Bonaparte (at least his people were trying to export Democracy at first), Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini etc.

In this case, the best parallel is probably Napoleon (except for the fact that Bush is a very inept general/leader instead of effective like Napoleon was). Napoleon, originally, was trying to export Democracy. Many lionized him for this. Beethoven's "Heroica" was originally written in honor of him. It wasn't until Napoleon openly declared himself emperor that many of his fans turned on him.

All of them had such a vision, and all of them attempted to export their vision violently. Some took longer than others to fail, but they all eventually failed. Are you honestly naive enough to think that George W. Bush is any different?

If you want new ideas for how to run an international order, you have to turn to the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Jesus Christ. Relatively speaking, their ideas are truely new, and still not practiced faithfully by anyone.

It's a pity, really.

I will close with a most apropos quote from Gandhi: "Be the change you want."

BlackGriffen

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
You know everytime I read one of your weeny liberal posts it makes me feel that much better that I'm a Conservative.

You know, every time I read one of your posts...............Oh wait, there's nothing substantive in them, except attacks on others. BTW, I'm glad you're a conservative also, even if your president is acting more like a liberal. LOL!

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It seems that KarlG would project his own personal limitations on the policies of those who are not so limited in thought or strength.

Good one there, Dr. Zimphire. BTW, I'll be late for our session tomorrow. I'm showing a movie, entitled, "How to fool people into thinking you're a conservative, while acting like a liberal," and I need the projector.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You really do sound like you've drank the kool-aid. There's a really big problem with the scenario you paint, though. The problem is that Bush's solution is not new. In fact, it's very very old. We can rattle of the examples if you like, of so called "big men" who tried to violently export their ideals (even if it meant sacrificing their ideals at home): Julius Caesar, Pope Urban (crusades), Napoleon Bonaparte (at least his people were trying to export Democracy at first), Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini etc.

In this case, the best parallel is probably Napoleon (except for the fact that Bush is a very inept general/leader instead of effective like Napoleon was). Napoleon, originally, was trying to export Democracy. Many lionized him for this. Beethoven's "Heroica" was originally written in honor of him. It wasn't until Napoleon openly declared himself emperor that many of his fans turned on him.

All of them had such a vision, and all of them attempted to export their vision violently. Some took longer than others to fail, but they all eventually failed. Are you honestly naive enough to think that George W. Bush is any different?

If you want new ideas for how to run an international order, you have to turn to the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Jesus Christ. Relatively speaking, their ideas are truely new, and still not practiced faithfully by anyone.

It's a pity, really.

I will close with a most apropos quote from Gandhi: "Be the change you want."

BlackGriffen

In a different thread I asked if a really MORAL (mebbe I should have used the word, ethical) world leader could succeed today.

Not only did the consensus of opinion seem to answer, "no," but the responses have kinda dwindled, which says not many people have too much interest in exploring the subject.

In the final analysis if the US were led by MLK, Ghandi or even Jesus Christ himself (None of them would EVER be elected!) I believe it would be necessary for them to make the nation's welfare dependent on the power of LOVE.

Very risky thing to do. I welcome links to support examples of where and how THAT has ever worked. Oh, you already said it hasn't been tried. Ok.

I didn't mean to say the CONCEPT is new, but when in the past century has anyone tried to use their might and power to settle wars and bring about peace?

Try WWII.

The idea is NOT new. The freedoms and prosperity enjoyed by Europe and Asia are testaments to and evidence of the effectiveness of American power being applied to bring peace and assure freedom for those who were embroiled in smaller wars, and disagreements for years!

France and GB and Germany and Italy and all those guys over there were always at each other over something or other. But since WWII they've all played nicely and theres never been greater harmony among them all.

Look at Japan which was a warrior expansionist nation for years. But since WWII, they've been peaceful, prosperous and free.

The ideals we're trying to export are those of freedom, peace and prosperity. Freedom is GOD's GIFT to mankind. Maybe it is being resisted because people don't understand what freedom is.

Maybe they think NO COUNTRY would ever fight and die for such a thing and not want to take over the vanquished land.

BG, what we want to do is make the world more peaceful, allow the peoples in every land to decide on their own form of government (as long as it isn't one that is based on hatred or vows to destroy another nation), to taste freedom and become more prosperous.

I doubt Dr. King, Ghandi or the Son of God would have a problem with that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Good one there, Dr. Zimphire. BTW, I'll be late for our session tomorrow. I'm showing a movie, entitled, "How to fool people into thinking you're a conservative, while acting like a liberal," and I need the projector.

Hmmm, very interesting. I wasn't aware that others had made the same diagnosis. How many Doctors will it take for you start believing it?

BTW#1 I'm flattered to be considered in such distinguished company as the great Dr. Zimphire!

BTW#2 I'm raising my session fee for you and recommending 2 sessions a week instead of just one.

BTW#3 What makes you doubt my POV?

BTW#4 Why does my political orientation seem to be so troublesome for you?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
I would love that too. I would give my own life if that would guarantee peace for the rest of the world. As long as I could have a 6 pack first (and it would have to be Fat Tire)

But, I just honestly can't imagine that our current path would ever lead to worldwide peace. Economics can fix the problem, bombs make it worse. If the entire world had food, sewers, healthcare, and a place to call home a lot less people would be willing to strap a bombs to thier chest.

There is a reason we don't have suicide bombers in America. Even if life sucks we still have to much to live for. This is not the case in some other parts of the world. Sometimes dieing is worth it if you believe it will help your community in the long run.

I don't agree with that but I can understand it.

See my reply to BG.

WWII proved just such a strategy and I'd guess that the quality of german and japanese homes, healthcare, food and sewers would satisfy even your need for evidence that this path can prove effective.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
You know everytime I read one of your weeny liberal posts it makes me feel that much better that I'm a Conservative.

A conservative who starts a thread about a elderly frail man so you and your fellow neocons could make fun of his frailty and elderly condition..

Is that what conservatism is all about?

Proud of yourself?

Talk about WEENY.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
A conservative who starts a thread about a elderly frail man so you and your fellow neocons could make fun of his frailty and elderly condition..

Is that what conservatism is all about?

Proud of yourself?

Talk about WEENY.

There's that "compassionate conservatism" again!

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Hmmm, very interesting. I wasn't aware that others had made the same diagnosis. How many Doctors will it take for you start believing it?

BTW#1 I'm flattered to be considered in such distinguished company as the great Dr. Zimphire!

BTW#2 I'm raising my session fee for you and recommending 2 sessions a week instead of just one.

BTW#3 What makes you doubt my POV?

BTW#4 Why does my political orientation seem to be so troublesome for you?

#1 No one else has made that "diagnosis." I put Zimph's name there because he has a habit of accusing people of "projecting," when he doesn't have a rebuttal. That's his method for dealing with denial. Obviously, it went over your head.

#2 Very funny

#3 Your POV is straight out of the PNAC playbook, and is, fortunately, a very minor and largely discredited viewpoint. It assumes that we have divine right to impose our visions of democracy and freedom anywhere we want to, just because you think we can (which we can't, but I'll get to that in a minute) and because we should. One of the first fatal flaws in this POV is that the rest of world is not simply going to roll over and let us convert it, whether we want to or not. In the Middle East, we are dealing with a number of different cultures, religions, and beliefs, and, as should be evident in Iraq, many of these beliefs are antithetical to each other, hence the different positions voiced by the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds. These people have distinctly different ideals and aspirations, and they have largely been held together as a nation by force. They haven't changed their views, despite this force (Saddam), yet we naively continue to believe that we can somehow magically convince these people that democracy is the answer. These people have completely different concepts of what freedom is, and they aren't going to change these views overnight, just because we say they should. They have differing beliefs regarding human rights as well, and just because we happen to be "right" about our beliefs doesn't mean they'll accept them either. Many regions in the ME are ruled by tribal lords (Afghanistan), and they're not going to lay down their arms and give up their centuries old rule, without a fight, which brings me to why we can't impose our visions there.

Our military is not nearly the size and strength that it was even 10 years ago (both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for that). We are stretched thin, globally. In order to even attempt to impose our views, we would need to drastically increase our military strength, and there are two reasons that won't happen. One is simply the logistics of it; we don't have enough troops to accomplish these goals (we're already using reservists in Iraq), and we don't have enough equipment (many of the soldiers are underequipped and the vehicles we have are in poor shape, which allows them to commandeer civilian vehicles, as long as they give a receipt, for reimbursement). Training new toops, purchasing new equipment, and the logistics of putting up bases, mobilization, etc., preclude any increase in available troops for several years to come. The second part of this issue is simply that the public is slowly, but surely, tiring of the war, and isn't going to stand for the additional finances needed to rebuild and expand our armed forces. They don't see the need for our soldiers coming home in body bags, to supposedly expand democracy in the ME. During the 2000 election, only 50% of the elegible voters actually voted, and Bush got 50% of that vote, which means that only 25% of the eligible voters elected him President. I will concede that he has more supporters that didn't vote, but the same can be said of Gore, and the actual vote count is the only issue that matters. That is hardly a mandate, and that's being challenged now, as is evident by many of the recent protests and polls (as accurate as they may or may not be). Even giving his side the edge in the polls, he still hardly has a mandate. Also, Arabs don't really care about GOD GIVEN rights; they've already figured out what their own rights are, according to their beliefs.

#4 Your political orientation "troubles" me for the reasons I've given above, and many more, but the real question should be; why do my poltical opinions trouble you so much. You're the one who attacked me, after Logan Charles threw in his typical one sentence contribution to this thread;
------------------

quote:
Originally posted by LoganCharles:
You know everytime I read one of your weeny liberal posts it makes me feel that much better that I'm a Conservative.
--------------------
qoute:
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It seems that KarlG would project his own personal limitations on the policies of those who are not so limited in thought or strength.

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

Perhaps you should be asking that question of yourself, instead of me.

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Peace, dammit, PEACE!

NO ONE ELSE HAS A PLAN THAT HAS THIS SAME HOPE OF DELIVERING PEACE!!!!

Oh please! Are you paying any attention at all? Everyone else has a plan that has a hope of delivering peace. The UN is the best plan of delivering peace that we have. It's the result of thousands of years of conflict resolution. It's not perfect but it's better than George Bush's alternative. How do I know this? Because hundreds of people have tried to do what Bush is and it NEVER works. Hundreds of leaders have tried to impose their version of the good life on other people for the benefit of those people and for their own benefit. People resist empires as inevitably as rivers flow to the sea.

[itai195]

aberdeen -- Japan, Germany, and Italy were the aggressors in WW2. That might explain why WW2 is a poor example to support your theory.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by rambo47:
Isn't this the paper with a circulation of about 270?

Well last nite and early this morning they had a circulation in the millions if not billions.

It was a story on many American newscasts and around the world.

Plus its a news item all over the interweb.

Actually is's about 450 usually.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
A conservative who starts a thread about a elderly frail man so you and your fellow neocons could make fun of his frailty and elderly condition..

Is that what conservatism is all about?

Proud of yourself?

Talk about WEENY.

I'll remind you that I chided him in a brotherly, neo-con-ial way about making fun of Jimmy Carter's appearance. So, please direct your comments more skillfully.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by zachs:
There's that "compassionate conservatism" again!

Kinda like that tasteful Democratic display of grief at the Paul Wellstone services.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
aberdeen -- Japan, Germany, and Italy were the aggressors in WW2. That might explain why WW2 is a poor example to support your theory.

No, it's not an exact parallel comparison, but the argument for using violence to restore peace and bring about liberty, freedom and prosperity is valid.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I'll remind you that I chided him in a brotherly, neo-con-ial way about making fun of Jimmy Carter's appearance. So, please direct your comments more skillfully.

Did you feel the comment was directed at you?

Must have a guilt complex.

By the way...you are the most flippy floppy person ever. This I deduce after reading your posts that seem to be all over the spectrum. So you are person of no conviction, confused as all get out, a pot stirrer or what...

do tell.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No, it's not an exact parallel comparison, but the argument for using violence to restore peace and bring about liberty, freedom and prosperity is valid.

If WW2 is your only proof, then I'd say it's a weak case. Meanwhile, there are countless counterexamples.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh please! Are you paying any attention at all? Everyone else has a plan that has a hope of delivering peace. The UN is the best plan of delivering peace that we have. It's the result of thousands of years of conflict resolution. It's not perfect but it's better than George Bush's alternative. How do I know this? Because hundreds of people have tried to do what Bush is and it NEVER works. Hundreds of leaders have tried to impose their version of the good life on other people for the benefit of those people and for their own benefit. People resist empires as inevitably as rivers flow to the sea.

I find it difficult to NOT pay attention to your posts, troll. They always are good for a laugh.

Do you REALLY think in however many years they've been at it the UN has finally, all of a sudden, come up with this NEW way of solving the world's problems, eliminating war, bringing about peace, freedoms and prosperity?

Or would you admit that the UN has serious limitations and still can't stop the Israeli/Palestinian thing? Why didn't the UN IMMEDIATELY or even years ago mount it's own WOT?

Thousands of years went by before a couple of BICYCLE MECHANICS figured out a way for man to fly.

But the Wright Brothers didn't listen to the naysayers and 'wise' critics of their day. They simply did it.

No one ever does ANYTHING until it's done for the first time!

So, if the UN is going to stop terrorism FOR THE FIRST TIME they had better not wait too long.

Is our version of the 'good life' imposed on the French, the Germans, the Japanese? Are they our puppets?

You seem to think we want every country to be like US.

We believe in self-determination, freedom and liberty, peace and prosperity.

Don't you want that for all the peoples of the world?

As soon as you (personally) are willing to give up those rights and pleasures that's when I'll entertain your notion that peoples around the world don't deserve them.

If you read about the battles of WWI you'll see that trench warfare was the norm. It was a dirty, bloody kind of stalemate. (There were probably people like you in those trenches who LIKED that status quo the way you seem to like the one we've got now.)

But when the tank was developed and introduced, it made it possible for the Allies to break out of those trenches and hasten the end of the war. (Yes, the use of greater force hastened the end of hostilities.)

GWB wants to break the dirty bloody stalemates around the world and hasten the end of terrorism.

Why hasn't the UN been able to prevent this mess in the first place?

Why hasn't the UN done anything about terrorism? Why hasn't the UN done anything about OBL?

BECAUSE IT CAN'T!

The UN's effectiveness has been in helping distribute foreign aid and instituting programs and serving as a meeting place for countries to talk.

But looking to the UN for a "solution" is the perfect example of idiocy...doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result.

Face it, because the UN can't act with one strong voice, it has been hampered and stymied into somewhat more than a joke.

It serves a purpose but don't rest your hopes for peace on the UN.

Try again, troll.

The status quo shouldn't be what ANY peace loving person wants.

IT HASN'T WORKED.

[chris v]

Hitler was democratically elected, and consolidated his powers through constitutional means. Fostering democracy throughout the world looks good on paper, but 1. it's logistically impossible, and 2. There's always an unintended consequence to every major international policy directive, especially the ones that muck around in other countries militarily. The cold war was an unintended consequence of our victory in WWII. There is no crystal ball, only rational thinking, and discretion is so often the better part of valor.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Did you feel the comment was directed at you?

Must have a guilt complex.

By the way...you are the most flippy floppy person ever. This I deduce after reading your posts that seem to be all over the spectrum. So you are person of no conviction, confused as all get out, a pot stirrer or what...

do tell.

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
"A conservative who starts a thread about a elderly frail man so you and your fellow neocons could make fun of his frailty and elderly condition.. "

I'm unaware of what might cause you such confusion but I am delighted that you seem to care.

[itai195]

Germany suffered an embarassing defeat in WW1 and a democracy was created. Didn't seem to turn out well. It's not that I don't think everyone deserves democracy, it's that in general they have to choose it and fight for it themselves. That's the meaning of self-determination... it isn't self-determination when your hand is forced.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by chris v:
Hitler was democratically elected, and consolidated his powers through constitutional means. Fostering democracy throughout the world looks good on paper, but 1. it's logistically impossible, and 2. There's always an unintended consequence to every major international policy directive, especially the ones that muck around in other countries militarily. The cold war was an unintended consequence of our victory in WWII. There is no crystal ball, only rational thinking, and discretion is so often the better part of valor.

That's an argument in favor of Patton's wish to continue on to Moscow and defeat Communism, which would have prevented the Cold War.

On the other hand, your line of thought also would argue against ANYONE ever doing ANYTHING!

Fear of unintended consequences can paralyze you into doing nothing.

Business leaders are taught and encouraged to take action rather than sitting around thinking and analyzing. (Google: "Analysis Paralysis")

Which is not to say the President's policy was dreamed up overnight. It was first introduced in 1996 or 97 by a THINK TANK, whose only reason for being is to develop and explore thought by looking at history, innovations, current trends and schools of thought and the works of learned individuals anywhere and everywhere and coming up with their papers and policies.

The people here and elsewhere who attack the PNAC plan should know the intellectual horsepower and research that went into creating it.

Any of the concerns you have were undoubtedly considered by the rationally thinking PNAC team when they drafted the plan.

[itai195]

Because think tanks aren't partisan and they certainly don't have agendas. And theories are certainly unimpeachable. There are a number of reasonable and legitimate criticisms of the PNAC available online, take a look at 'em.

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Face it, because the UN can't act with one strong voice, it has been hampered and stymied into somewhat more than a joke.

Do you know what the UN is??? www.un.org - check it out. Then come back and tell us why the UN can't act with one strong voice! You're repeating the same inane criticisms that many conservatives repeat. They aren't valid, they're just a way of justifying war as peace. You criticise the UN for not doing something it could never do, like speaking with one voice or implementing its decisions and then say, "Look, the UN doesn't work." That's just ridiculous. It's like saying the US is a failure because it hasn't stopped the tides from coming in and going out.

What you are proposing, namely that one state dictate to the others how to be happy hasn't ever worked - not even marginally. The UN system of collective security doesn't work properly either particularly in a unipolar world, but it works a lot better than either Empires or dictatorships do. Those systems lead to colonialism, slavery, a number of colonial wars and two world wars. What we have seen since we adopted collective security is a far side better.

Of course there will always be states like Iraq and the United States that avoid collective security mechanisms and this will of course lead to continued conflict. No one ever expected war to disappear overnight. Collective security is the best system we have been able to come up with so far though. And empirically it has been successful too in avoiding conflict and in resolving some of them. Collective security is the system that prevented a Third World War, it's the system that was responsible for diffusing many tensions including the Cold War. The UN is ultimately just a forum. That is its value. It was never intended to be a neo-state speaking with one voice and having its own army to go around the world solving threats to peace. That has always been the job of the members of the UN. Criticising the UN for the failures of humanity and the failure of individual states is ridiculous.

If the PNAC's idea is better, tell me why an Empire has never brought peace before?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Germany suffered an embarassing defeat in WW1 and a democracy was created. Didn't seem to turn out well. It's not that I don't think everyone deserves democracy, it's that in general they have to choose it and fight for it themselves. That's the meaning of self-determination... it isn't self-determination when your hand is forced.

Germany's defeat wasn't as embarassing as the terms of their surrender which lead to economic woes, which made Adolph popular. (VERY VERY GENERAL SYNOPSIS)

But it was THE GERMAN'S democracy to do with as they themselves directed.

In Iraq they were oppressed by Saddam. We liberated them from Saddam. We want the Iraqi people to FREELY elect whomever they want to lead them as long as it is the will of THEIR people.

We are trying to re-build their infrastructure, create a climate of civil order and peace so that the Iraqis can go about pursuing THEIR own form of happiness.

Once their Government is in place, and they are able to defend themselves from opportunistic "viruses" (alQaeda types) and their public works are working, we are outta there!

Your version of self determination would have Uday and Kootang Hussein oppressing those folks for at least another generation. There was NEVER a chance for an uprising under Saddam. The Husseins would have smelled it out and brutally stomped it out.

I'm not saying we don't have a self-serving interest in Iraq.

We do! Having another democracy in the ME? Good. Having access to oil? Necessary. Having peace where there once was a constant threat of war? Good. Having a new trading partner? Good. Eliminating a base for possible future terrorism? GREAT.
Freeing the people from the stranglehold of oppression? Priceless.

EDIT: BTW, I'm reminded that Allawi led an uprising against Saddam in 1996 which was unsuccessful. So what's the problem with helping him start a new government?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
[BWe do! Having another democracy in the ME? Good. Having access to oil? Necessary. Having peace where there once was a constant threat of war? Good. Having a new trading partner? Good. Eliminating a base for possible future terrorism? GREAT.
Freeing the people from the stranglehold of oppression? Priceless. [/B]

Post of the Day.

The truth behind Troll's ranting is that he wishes failure only because failure proves him right.

[itai195]

Germany was a bad example, but it does illustrate that merely having a democracy in place isn't enough. Anyway, your argument basically boils down the situation into a dichotomy where we had to either choose unilateral, preemptive war or the status quo. As has been argued on this forum countless times, that's not a completely realistic depiction of the situation.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Post of the Day.

The truth behind Troll's ranting is that he wishes failure only because failure proves him right.

What are you, a stalker?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
What are you, a stalker?

Yes I am under your wife's bed.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Do you know what the UN is??? www.un.org - check it out. Then come back and tell us why the UN can't act with one strong voice! You're repeating the same inane criticisms that many conservatives repeat. They aren't valid, they're just a way of justifying war as peace. You criticise the UN for not doing something it could never do, like speaking with one voice or implementing its decisions and then say, "Look, the UN doesn't work." That's just ridiculous. It's like saying the US is a failure because it hasn't stopped the tides from coming in and going out.

What you are proposing, namely that one state dictate to the others how to be happy hasn't ever worked - not even marginally. The UN system of collective security doesn't work properly either particularly in a unipolar world, but it works a lot better than either Empires or dictatorships do. Those systems lead to colonialism, slavery, a number of colonial wars and two world wars. What we have seen since we adopted collective security is a far side better.

Of course there will always be states like Iraq and the United States that avoid collective security mechanisms and this will of course lead to continued conflict. No one ever expected war to disappear overnight. Collective security is the best system we have been able to come up with so far though. And empirically it has been successful too in avoiding conflict and in resolving some of them. Collective security is the system that prevented a Third World War, it's the system that was responsible for diffusing many tensions including the Cold War. The UN is ultimately just a forum. That is its value. It was never intended to be a neo-state speaking with one voice and having its own army to go around the world solving threats to peace. That has always been the job of the members of the UN. Criticising the UN for the failures of humanity and the failure of individual states is ridiculous.

If the PNAC's idea is better, tell me why an Empire has never brought peace before?

I'll have to stop laughing at your posts now, as I think they are actually quite sad. Here's why I feel sorry for you.

ME: Why has the UN allowed these worldwide problems to happen?

YOU: "You criticise the UN for not doing something it could never do..."

ME: Then how can the world solve the problems of terrorism and oppression and replace it with peace and freedom?

YOU: "The UN is the best plan of delivering peace that we have."

ME: WWII brought peace and prosperity, freedom and self-determination to the vanquished countries.The US has no plan for creating an "empire."

YOU: "What you are proposing, namely that one state dictate to the others how to be happy hasn't ever worked - not even marginally." "People resist empires as inevitably as rivers flow to the sea."

ME: HUH??? When did I say THAT??? WHO said anything about an EMPIRE other than in jest, except for you?

Have you been OD'ing on Star Wars films?

I wouldn't be surprised if you did. It would make some readers here believe the Empire DID strike back and it scored a direct hit on YOU!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Germany was a bad example, but it does illustrate that merely having a democracy in place isn't enough. Anyway, your argument basically boils down the situation into a dichotomy where we had to either choose unilateral, preemptive war or the status quo. As has been argued on this forum countless times, that's not a completely realistic depiction of the situation.

Not quite.

The November referendum is more like the dichotomy you describe.

Kerry = Slow, diplomatic, multilateral efforts to solve terrorism
(There's no reasoning with al Qaeda)

Bush = Keep Americans safe with a WOT. Keep bad guys on the run and looking over their shoulders. Stave off attacks by a known instigator and madman by toppling his regime, then free his people and rebuild the country. Clean up problem areas throughout the world to eliminate cancerous individuals, groups and regimes to prevent recurrances of problems. Make countries free from terrorism and oppression and then leave.