Yea its that infamous Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt who tryed his best to have us speaking Japanese and or German. Good thing he didn't succeed. And that damn New Deal of his really phucked up the econonmy which had been going great guns thanks to his predecesors Republicans Herbert Hoover and Warren G. Harding. And on a sidenote we can blame FDR for creating an atmosphere for that Jackie Robinson fiasco which ruined baseball too.
I see your point Sodium
. Have an idea man.
I see your point Sodium
Mr. J,
Somehow, these right wingers believe right wing chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. are patriotic yet these guys are willing to commit other people to war today when they dodged it when they had a chance to serve years ago.
Smacks a little bit of hypocrisy, but that's nohting new from the neocons.
Somehow, these right wingers believe right wing chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. are patriotic yet these guys are willing to commit other people to war today when they dodged it when they had a chance to serve years ago.
Smacks a little bit of hypocrisy, but that's nohting new from the neocons.
Wow have a diarrhea problem mudass? Bush's family supported Hitler?
Ain't it amazing how the scumbag democrats are supposed to be the compassionate party, yet could give a s h i t that we are liberating an oppressed nation. Amazing ain't it, nothing like adopting whatever s h i t happens to suit your needs today.
Somehow now Franklin and Roosevelt are left wing scumbags? Interesting how any democrat is now a left wing scumbag? Interesting. Get a clue, Franklin was a moderate in a country full of right wingers, there was no tax and hopelessly waste on the indigent.
Talk about revising history.
Pacifistic liars that alter history to suit there needs,
maybe we should've waited till Hussein had a nuke pointed at your house to invade? Kinda like Europe waited for Hitler to invade before doing anything, or maybe we should've waited for the Japs to attack the continental Us like Al Qaeda has now twice, before actually bombimg them.
Go revise history to folks that will actually believe your nonsense.
Meanwhile eat up.
Ain't it amazing how the scumbag democrats are supposed to be the compassionate party, yet could give a s h i t that we are liberating an oppressed nation. Amazing ain't it, nothing like adopting whatever s h i t happens to suit your needs today.
Somehow now Franklin and Roosevelt are left wing scumbags? Interesting how any democrat is now a left wing scumbag? Interesting. Get a clue, Franklin was a moderate in a country full of right wingers, there was no tax and hopelessly waste on the indigent.
Talk about revising history.
Pacifistic liars that alter history to suit there needs,
maybe we should've waited till Hussein had a nuke pointed at your house to invade? Kinda like Europe waited for Hitler to invade before doing anything, or maybe we should've waited for the Japs to attack the continental Us like Al Qaeda has now twice, before actually bombimg them.
Go revise history to folks that will actually believe your nonsense.
Meanwhile eat up.
Judge, we have a long history of liberation, not imperialism or colonialism. I do not think it fair to assume economic motive when, we are putting up hundreds of billions up front, the payout term is a very, very long one for just an economic motive.
Personally feel the entire area is a cesspool and hardly matters whether we invade or not from their perspective.
However from ours, how long you going to let a guy wave his finger in your face till you take action? He violated 18 UN resolutions, our inaction in the past in places like Somalia and Iran, seem to have given liberties to the shot takers to actually attack us on our own soil. At some point you have to rise up and not seek the path of least resistance. At least in my opinion.
I think it fair to say the people in Iraq will ultimately be better off, I also think it fair to say that the world is marginally a safer place with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Personally feel the entire area is a cesspool and hardly matters whether we invade or not from their perspective.
However from ours, how long you going to let a guy wave his finger in your face till you take action? He violated 18 UN resolutions, our inaction in the past in places like Somalia and Iran, seem to have given liberties to the shot takers to actually attack us on our own soil. At some point you have to rise up and not seek the path of least resistance. At least in my opinion.
I think it fair to say the people in Iraq will ultimately be better off, I also think it fair to say that the world is marginally a safer place with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
SP,I agree that the people of Iraq will in fact be better off.I think it was the right thing to do,just not sure we did it for the right reasons.Hopefully we did.I see alot of oppressive regimes in the world which we tend to ignore.Call me a sceptic.I also realize we can't police the entire world.Not sure where the line should be drawn.
Judge, Charles Krauthammer gave a speach regarding the US future in world affairs. He gave a pretty good argument as to when and why we should draw the line:
"Moreover, democratic globalism is an improvement over realism. What it can teach realism is that the spread of democracy is not just an end but a means, an indispensable means for securing American interests. The reason is simple. Democracies are inherently more friendly to the United States, less belligerent to their neighbors, and generally more inclined to peace. Realists are right that to protect your interests, you often have to go around the world bashing bad guys over the head. But that technique, no matter how satisfying, has its limits. At some point, you have to implant something, something organic and self-developing. And that something is democracy.
But where? The danger of democratic globalism is its universalism, its open-ended commitment to human freedom, its temptation to plant the flag of democracy everywhere. It must learn to say no. And indeed, it does say no. But when it says no to Liberia, or Congo, or Burma, or countenances alliances with authoritarian rulers in places like Pakistan or, for that matter, Russia, it stands accused of hypocrisy. Which is why we must articulate criteria for saying yes.
Where to intervene? Where to bring democracy? Where to nation-build? I propose a single criterion: Where it counts.
Call it democratic realism. And this is its axiom: We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom.
Where does it count? Fifty years ago, Germany and Japan counted. Why? Because they were the seeds of the greatest global threat to freedom in midcentury--fascism--and then were turned, by nation building, into bulwarks against the next great threat to freedom, Soviet communism.
Where does it count today? Where the overthrow of radicalism and the beginnings of democracy can have a decisive effect in the war against the new global threat to freedom, the new existential enemy, the Arab-Islamic totalitarianism that has threatened us in both its secular and religious forms for the quarter-century since the Khomeini revolution of 1979."
"Moreover, democratic globalism is an improvement over realism. What it can teach realism is that the spread of democracy is not just an end but a means, an indispensable means for securing American interests. The reason is simple. Democracies are inherently more friendly to the United States, less belligerent to their neighbors, and generally more inclined to peace. Realists are right that to protect your interests, you often have to go around the world bashing bad guys over the head. But that technique, no matter how satisfying, has its limits. At some point, you have to implant something, something organic and self-developing. And that something is democracy.
But where? The danger of democratic globalism is its universalism, its open-ended commitment to human freedom, its temptation to plant the flag of democracy everywhere. It must learn to say no. And indeed, it does say no. But when it says no to Liberia, or Congo, or Burma, or countenances alliances with authoritarian rulers in places like Pakistan or, for that matter, Russia, it stands accused of hypocrisy. Which is why we must articulate criteria for saying yes.
Where to intervene? Where to bring democracy? Where to nation-build? I propose a single criterion: Where it counts.
Call it democratic realism. And this is its axiom: We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom.
Where does it count? Fifty years ago, Germany and Japan counted. Why? Because they were the seeds of the greatest global threat to freedom in midcentury--fascism--and then were turned, by nation building, into bulwarks against the next great threat to freedom, Soviet communism.
Where does it count today? Where the overthrow of radicalism and the beginnings of democracy can have a decisive effect in the war against the new global threat to freedom, the new existential enemy, the Arab-Islamic totalitarianism that has threatened us in both its secular and religious forms for the quarter-century since the Khomeini revolution of 1979."
Judge,
If we did in Haiti what we did in Iraq, how do you think your pals on the political left would react? Right now, Jesse Jackson and other liberals are complaining about the fact that we went to war in Iraq, but won't do the same thing in Haiti. This is just politics. The minute we did go to war in Haiti, the political left, who claim to be in favor of such a move, would pounce on it and call it a racist, imperialist war. So going to war in Haiti would be a TOTAL no-win scenario for the Bush Administration, even if it were the right thing to do.
If we did in Haiti what we did in Iraq, how do you think your pals on the political left would react? Right now, Jesse Jackson and other liberals are complaining about the fact that we went to war in Iraq, but won't do the same thing in Haiti. This is just politics. The minute we did go to war in Haiti, the political left, who claim to be in favor of such a move, would pounce on it and call it a racist, imperialist war. So going to war in Haiti would be a TOTAL no-win scenario for the Bush Administration, even if it were the right thing to do.
Shotgun,nice post.San Jose,I realize that.I would have an easier time believing our motives were pure in Iraq,if the US intervened on the behalf of people who lived in country where the are no valuable natural resouces.Personally I would like to see the US lean towards isolationism.Stop trying to run the world and fix the problems in our own country.I realize this would be vertually impossible.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Personally I would like to see the US lean towards isolationism.Stop trying to run the world and fix the problems in our own country.I realize this would be vertually impossible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So would I...but when you have entire region in the mid east whos entire culture is to hate the US then eventually act on it,you can't be an isolationist.
I don't know why the hawks did not try to frame the war as the entire thought process in the mid east was a WMD...and that the WMD against terroism is democracy free markets and free speech.
So would I...but when you have entire region in the mid east whos entire culture is to hate the US then eventually act on it,you can't be an isolationist.
I don't know why the hawks did not try to frame the war as the entire thought process in the mid east was a WMD...and that the WMD against terroism is democracy free markets and free speech.
