Losing end of an argument? Hardly. Care for some opinions? Gladly.
Absolutely, yes, I would prefer the Clintons back in charge. ALL politicians are corrupt by nature. You can't get things done in Washington without compromising your values. Yes the Clintons made a few bad mistakes: David Koresh, Ilyan Gonzalez, (forgive my spelling) and the bombing of the asprin factory spring immediately to mind. I for one don't even consider Bill's extramarital affairs the sign of a bad leader. We elected him to run the BUSINESS of the nation, not to serve as the Pope. The rest of the world laughed at us for taking this private issue so seriously. Some women are attracted to powerful men. This has always been the case. This is an issue that should remain private between husband and wife.
And let's not get into the sin of Clinton's lying under oath, because the "Scooter" Libby incident proves that the current president has very different beliefs regarding what consitutes breaking the law than does the average jury. One issue involved private marital relations. The other involved a breach of national security. Which issue affects our nation more?
AT least the Clintons didn't surround themselves ENTIRELY with self-serving "yes men." At least when Clinton was in office property values rose and the economy as a whole was stronger. (In his younger days, whenever GWB headed a private company, he managed to run it into the ground.) Working middle class people have historically done better when a Democrat is in the White House, unless, of course, you happen to be a trust fund baby.
And at least both of the Clintons can actually PRONOUNCE the word "nuclear" correctly. Care for more opinions on this subject? Read on.
You can't use the tragic events of 9/11 to justify invading a country that MAY become a threat with no credible evidence that it IS a threat TODAY. You can't hide behind the fact that Saddam was an evil dictator, and that the the citizens of Iraq would prefer a democracy, because there are at LEAST a dozen other nations of which this can be said. (Have you taken a look at some of the dictators of Africa's nations lately?) This administration was not interested in "doing the right thing" by the Iraqi people when they invaded. This is not a holy war to promote justice and democracy in the Middle East.
We KNEW with absoulte CERTAINTY that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons, yet we did not invade, nor did we divest in companies doing business with Kim Jong Il, a cruel dictator if ever there was one, and equally as big a maniac as Sadaam. Why? There's no OIL in North Korea, and besides there are too many Americans alive who remember the failure of the Korean War over 50 years ago when "Communists" were the faceless enemy rather than "Terrorists."
If you think that this war has ANYTHING to do with something other than controling the world's second-largest oil reserve, then you've truly bought this administration's lie...hook, line and sinker.
The way to end terrorism is to STARVE the source that supports terrorists through economic divestiture. Discontinue support for financial concerns who invest in countries that harbor terrorists. If you have a 401K plan, for example, find out which companies profit from your monthly investment, and if these companies do business in countries that harbor terrorists, DIVEST YOURSELF of that account. Find out where and with whom your personal banking institution does business. If it invests in companies that do business with terrorist harboring nations, take your money out of that institution. If enough people took the time to FOLLOW THEIR OWN MONEY, learning what it is being used to fund, these nations would get the message, QUICKLY, and organized terrorism would die in short order. This tactic ultimately worked in South Africa 20 years ago with apartheid, as you may recall.
Of course, to make divestiture REALLY WORK, it's best to have the support of other nations who also do business with states that sponsor and harbor terrorists. On September 11th, 2001, the entire world was aghast. We had the empathy of the entire planet. Senseless tragedy on this scale elicits support from many quarters. The Bush administration had a golden, once-in-a-century opprtunity to line up support from the world community in order to give divestiture in state sponsored terrorism TEETH.
Instead, this administration immediately started making plans to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein and steal the oil. (Does the word Halliburton mean much to you?) The White House ordered Colin Powell to the United Nations where, like a dutiful soldier, he repeated a string of half-truths and outright lies regarding Iraq's supposed stockpile of WMDs, that left the General Assembly scratching their collective heads in disbelief at the audacity of this completely bogus "intelligence." The world at large didn't buy it, and the few countries that agreed to support this war with troops did so under great pressure from the U.S.
Meanwhile, so far as anybody knows, Ossama Bin Laden still walks the earth unharmed.
And before you start calling me some sort of "traitor" by suggesting that I don't support our troops, let me assure you that I support them SO PASSIONATELY that I believe they should be brought home before one more of them dies or loses a limb fighting a war that everyone KNOWS is ultimately unwinable and is being fought in order to protect the wealth of the Bush family and their eilite friends. You can't use an army to fight a conventional war against an enemy that HAS NO ARMY.
If you, yourself, TRULY endorse the progress and objective of this war, and don't think that our country and the world as a whole would benefit from a new administration, and TRULY think that continued occupation will protect the U.S. and bring political and economic feedom to the beseiged people of Iraq, you should be willing to risk your own life and possibly die for it, like the thousands of young Americans in combat today, and the TENS of thousands of innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire...more deaths than Sadaam Hussein ever exacted on his own people.
This war will almost certainly go down in history as the greatest debacle of the 21st Century. It is a textbook example of a monsterously conceived, ridiculously planned, badly executed disaster on all levels: the product of the unadulterated GREED of a few. Aside from the catastrophic human costs, it has cost our nations' taxpayers (and this is a conservative estimate) over 300 BILLION DOLLARS over the past 5 years. That kind of cash would buy A LOT of healthcare, my good man. Meanwhile, gasoline prices are higher than ever, the economy since the war began can be described as lethargic, charitably, and America's standing among its allies has never been lower.
Once upon a time, the world's people looked upon the United States as a beacon of morality. We once led BY EXAMPLE, and others strove to emulate our democratic principles as a result. We may not see that kind of trust and admiration EVER AGAIN in our lifetimes as a result of this administration's arrogance and dishonesty.
I doubt that "Billary" (to quote your pedestrian rhetoric,) nor any other administration for that matter, will be able to repair the damage that Bush and his minions have exacted over the past 7 years. I doubt that the next THREE administrations will be able to fix things, regardles of which party they belong to.
But given the choice...You BET I'd prefer the Clintons in charge over the village idiot we have now.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
Like many liberals, you see yourself as being so "right" about all the issues that you feel that everyone else is "pedestrian", "mean spirited", and stupid. This entitles you to insult them because their views differ from your "intelligent" and "rational" opinions. Yes, I freely admit that the reason that American troops are involved in the Middle East because it contains an essential commodity-oil. North Korea can be ignored, provided it does not attack its neighbors, because it is of no consequence to any people but its own. However, the WORLD'S economy is tied to oil. Not just America's economy-we at least have large reserves of oil-but many industrialized nations do not. Japan and the Pacific rim economies are totally dependant on imported oil: mainly from the Middle East. With a vicious, aggressive dictator siting astride the whole oil producing region, and the fact that almost everyone(including Clinton, Gore, and Kerry) believed that Saddam had WMD, made him a perceived threat to totally de-stabilize this critical area. Given the fact he had already attacked TWO other oil producing nations, (Iran, Kuwait) and given his support of terrorism, it was reasonable to pre-empt his next attempt to monopolize the region's oil, thus causing massive disruptions in the world's economy. It's terrible that American lives must be lost because of this situation, but imagine the massive loss of life if Saddam had his bloody hand on the world's crucial resource. Extortionate prices for petroleum would disrupt the economies of all industrialized nations. This would mean huge production losses, mass international unemployment, starvation, riots and inevitably, incalculable loss of human lives. A world-wide depression would be the likely result. Who else, but the last superpower could bear this burden?
You choose to see your political opponents in black and white terms. To many liberals, Bush is an evil, stupid, greedy, dictator. While I reviled Clinton's policies, I had no personal hate for him. I saw him as misguided, santimonious, and egotistical. Since he has left office I feel no ill will toward him and I actually kind of like his wit and personality. I DISAGREED with him-- I didn't see him as some kind of Satanic monster! Disagreement doesn't have to include villification and vituperation. This merely POISONS the atmosphere and results in name-calling, not an exchange of ideas.
Please tell me how it is possible to "passionately" (hyperbole*)support the troops without supporting their mission? In other words you don't want them to be hurt, but you hope they are unsuccessful?
"Losing end of an argument? Hardly"
My WHOLE POINT was that you were content to NOT discuss, but merely to fire off insulting remarks.
BTW BUSH didn't lie under oath, Libby allegedly did. Clinton PERSONALLY lied under oath. BIG DIFFERENCE. We can absolutely control only what WE ourselves do. A president who would lie under oath, no matter WHAT the issue, cannot be trusted! And Hillary said it was all a "vast, right wing conspiracy." A calumny she never retracted: even after Bill admitted to the oral sex. Nope, it was all those consevatives that put Monica up to it.
Another thing. Divestiture. In South Africa there was no attempt to conceal Aparthaid. It was possible to get concensus and unity. What nation advertises its support of terrorism? Who has the time to investigate the investments of every company he/she purchases from? And even if consensus WAS reached, many nations would violate divestiture simply to get the oil they so desperately need.
What all this Bush hatred has to do with my original statements attempting to explain the complexity of the internment of the Japanese Americans 65 yearsc ago, I have no clue.
* Characterise my statements as "pedestrian" will ya?
P.S. You really should learn to disagree with someone without resorting to gratuitous insults. It makes for a MUCH more enjoyable, reasonable discussion. I will NOT respond to further posts that engage in abuse.
reply
share
denbeez
16 years ago
I'm sorry you misunderstood the "pedestrian" label. I wasn't characterizing your ideas as pedestrian...Just the "Billary" line. You gotta admit though, "Billary's" about as hip and current as "Bennifer," a Michael Jackson joke, or a Mark Spitz poster. We first heard that "witticism" over 10 years ago. I meant that it's old, and not terribly original, which you already know. No personal offense intended. C'mon...Surely you can do better. That's one we could expect from the Fox News Channel. [Talk about gratutious insults!?!? They're the champs!]
Anyway, to respond to some of your NON-PEDESTRIAN statements one by one...
"North Korea can be ignored, provided it does not attack its neighbors, because it is of no consequence to any people but its own."
But that could be said for ANY country, including those in the Middle East. By that logic, as long as a nation PROMISES not to attack its neighbors, they should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
We know that many Middle Eastern nations and their leaders have sworn to bring about the destruction of our ally, Israel, and that the Bush administration has played great lip service rationalizing the war on these grounds. But as a history major you CERTAINLY know that Korea has a long and rich history of war with its neighbors, and if one justification for the Iraq War is, as you contend, to protect the economic interests of Japan and our other allies in the Pacific Rim, then it follows that we should have been much more concerned with the actions of Kim Jong Il. Our allies who neighbor Korea won't have much of an economy if they've been attacked by a nuclear weapon. Surely you see this dichotomy?
It is true, as you say, that a number of Democratic leaders speculated about Saddam's development of WMDs, including Clinton when he was in office. However, Clinton did NOT invade Iraq based on the mere POSSIBILITY that we might find weapons there. Placing our troops, not to mention a nation of innocent Iraqis, in harm's way requires LIGITIMATE intelligence that Iraqi WMDs do in fact, exist. That's one helluva gamble with other people's lives to later say, "We were given bad intelligence. Sorry." You can appreciate the skepticism that I, and a huge chunk of humanity, feel regarding the administration's motives.
Many conservatives say, "Well, 9/11 changed everything!" It DIDN'T change the fact that invading a Middle Eastern nation was going to open a huge and destructive can of worms in a region where a dozen religious sects who have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries.
To respond to your assertion that all liberals, think that Bush is "an evil, stupid, greedy, dictator," to use your words, I cannot speak for ALL liberals. I for one don't think that he is "an evil, stupid, greedy, dictator"...Just greedy and stupid. He's proven it enough times without anyone's help. His record as a businessman in the private sector speaks for itself.
Here's how it is is "possible to passionately" (alliteration) support the troops without supporting their mission: By recognizing that they have been placed in the middle of a deadly situation which will ultimately not be resolved in our best interests, and hoping that wiser heads prevail and bring them home quickly (and hopefully quit cutting their long-term medical benefits, as has slowly been the case over the past 4 years.) I respect our soldiers enough to care about the fact they are in an unwinnable situation.
Perhaps you've read "Imperial Life In The Emerald City." Perhaps the greatest mistake the administration made was to disband the Iraqi army, consisting of career soldiers, leaving them jobless in a country which is now fraught with massive unemployment. They, like soldiers everywhere, were loyal FIRST to their country; not Saddam. Most of them have become insurgents. They have guns, know how to use explosives, and inflict real damage.
Another thought: How is it we were able to find Saddam Hussein hiding in a small hole in someone's back yard, yet we can't seem to locate Ossama Bin Laden? Again, perhaps you can appereciate a certain amount of skepticism regarding the administration's motives.
- - - - - -
WILL EDIT THIS POST WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME, Mr. Pie. NOT DONE YET.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
Please read carefully. I said "many liberals" regard Bush as "evil" etc. I am very careful to NOT use "all" or "never" regarding people.
the middle of a deadly situation which will ultimately not be resolved in our best interests, and hoping that wiser heads prevail and bring them home quickly (and hopefully quit cutting their long-term medical benefits, as has slowly been the case over the past 4 years.) I respect our soldiers enough to care about the fact they are in an unwinnable situation.
In YOUR OPINION. You speak as if it were an established fact. What IS our mission? It is to establish a stable, less abusive government in Iraq. How can that NOT be in our best interest? The "surge" was remarkably effective, much to the dismay of some, repeat some, democrats. From the outset Bush said that it was not going to be easy, and would in fact take years. It is a difficult mission; not an impossible mission, and this constant whining to "set a timetable" is counter-productive to establishing a lasting peace. Remember, even without a terrorist insurgency , it took years before we were able to significantly reduce troop levels in Germany and Japan after WWII. Yet the US was remarkably successful in establishing stable, democratic governments in both nations. I recognize that today the task will be more difficult, due in no small part to the impatience of Americans who think every use of American power will lead to "another Vietnam". They would have us get out and leave the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shi-ites* to fight it out among themselves.
ALL WAR is a gamble. Nothing EVER goes strictly according to plan. EVER! When a person joins the military it is with full knowledge that there lives may be put at risk in a place and time not of their choosing. That is their JOB. They have been trained to destroy things and kill people. For this I respect and honor them. Because peace keeping is probably the hardest job of a soldier. They seldom get the gratitude of the folks they help at such grave danger to themselves. A couple examples: In the early 1960's, the UN sent peacekeepers into the Congo. The province of Katanga had rebeled and anarchy was rampant in many other areas as well. Sweden, Burma, Italy, and Ireland sent troops to try to stop the worst excesses of the central govt, Katangese rebels, and a group of looting, pilaging, murdering, raiders called the Simbas. Were the Congolese properly grateful for this effort? Of course not! Every group fired on UN troops and the Simbas even ented up capturing, torturing and ultimately killing a detachment of Italian UN troops. Ever since, the Swedes have been content to build and sell Volvos und Saabs,("Built from jets" like the Saab fighters they sent to the Congo) letting OTHERS handle the peasce keeping chores. The humanitarian mission in Somalia burned the Clinton administration so badly ("Black Hawk Down") that they refused to intervene in Rwanda and a million people died in a senseless genocide that should have been prevented. What nation was criticized for "letting it happen"? I can tell you it sure wasn't FRANCE! And if we HAD helped, I guarantee you our troops would have been attacked and NO ONE in the world would have been grateful. But with great power comes great responsibility.
Korea has "a long rich history" of being CONQUERED and occupied; by first China, then Japan. As long as they keep the peace, we should do our best to isolate the problem. The only threat they pose is in regard to Kim's idiotic deire to unite Korea under his blood-drenched meat hooks. The real danger is if we let him think he can do this without severe costs. Surely you aren't afraid he will invade Korea's only direct neighbor China? Or maybe you think he will build an invasion fleet and set sail to attack Japan. There is no "dichotomy" there. We have other, more important issues to handle. That doesn't mean giving them carte blanc. One war at a time, eh?
BTW what killed the Kurds ? Could it be.....WMD? Everyone thought he still had them. Monday morning quarter backing at it's finest!
P.S. For tyhose folks that have the idea that Iraq is Bush's personal war, let me quote Colin Powell's answer to that. While attending a large conference in the UK he was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if the operation in Iraq was an example of "empire building by George Bush", he replied:
"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for is enough to bury those who did not return."
* The censor thinks I'm trying to say the S word.
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
>> P.S. For tyhose folks that have the idea that Iraq is Bush's personal war, let me quote Colin Powell's answer to that. While attending a large conference in the UK he was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if the operation in Iraq was an example of "empire building by George Bush", he replied:
"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for is enough to bury those who did not return."
Gee, Colin Powell said it - so it must be true. Talk about hyperbole... somehow I think he forgot about all the land we "asked for" from the Native Americans after we fought for "freedom" for our settlers and prospectors beyond our borders... or how about the Spanish-American War... or how about the HUGE number of military bases we've set-up and occupied in foreign lands (sometimes with and sometimes without the consent of the country)... or how about... well, it's silly to even continue listing all the ways that statement is ridiculous.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
Give an example from the TWENTIETH CENTURY. Oh wait could it be that you don't HAVE one. BTW we negotiated for the military bases. We didn't conquer them. There was either an economic benefit or security advantage to the host nation for granting them. Spanish American War. Hmmmm. Let's see. That's the one where we annexed Cuba. No, wait. We liberated it. But we did grab the Phillipines. But, we established home rule for them and established a democracy before granting them independance in 1945. And our administration of this nation, after correcting the abuses of Spain, was so bitter that they have been our friends for the last 60 plus years.
I realized when I quoted Powell that there were a few quibbles to made. But, name another nation, which was the dominant military power of it's age, that has shown anywhere NEAR the amazing restraint of the US. Not the Brits, the French, the Spanish, the USSR, the Chinese, the Turks, the Romans. They were all conquerors. Early in our history we DID grab some land that was VERY sparsely settled. The Mexican population of say California, After 200 years of Spanish/Mexican "settlement" was a mere few thousand. The Mexican government ASKED for US settlers to come to Texas because Mexicans would NOT live there. It was only after Santa Anna tried to rule these settlers under his dictatorship that they revolted. I'm not claiming that everything the US has ever done Vis it's neighbors has been right or just. But what standard to you hold the US to.? Perfection?
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
Your comment is so full of inconsistencies, omissions, and errors, that to fully explain it all would require much more time than I possibly have for this, but I'll touch on a few points:
You ask me to give an example from the 20th century, then go on to mention that the Philippines was a colony of the USA until 1945. You somehow fail to mention the Philippine-American War, which grew out of the occupation there after the defeat of the Spanish. It went on for ~4 years (3 of those in the 20th century) before the USA finally secured it's colony. I've been several times to the Philippines, and have Filipino friends - many of whom would strongly disagree with your interpretation of their peaceful and happy history with the USA.
Another omission (obviously helpful to your specious arguments) about the Spanish-American War: the USA gained almost all of Spain's colonies, including the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico (that was a main reason for starting the war). If you don't think that the USA considered these conquests their territory, you have only to look at political commentary from the time. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:10kMiles.JPG
Your naiveté about military bases is overwhelming: so we "negotiated" for all the bases we created in Japan, Germany, Philippines, Guam, Cuba, etc, etc, etc? You're either kidding, being fallacious, or you truly haven't a clue. And I'm not arguing for or against said bases, or about whether it was appropriate to build them, or about current negotiations to keep them - only about the history behind their eventual creation. This is a typical way that the USA extends it's reach (likely to be repeated in Iraq); it's actually quite clever and much more cost-effective than trying to occupy countries as colonies.
But your most inane and offensive comment was "Early in our history we DID grab some land that was VERY sparsely settled." Uh, um, yeah.. sparsely settled. So, would this be your rebuttal to historian David Cesarani stating "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust"? You mention Mexicans, but not Natives - as if their lives and their land doesn't count - I can't even fathom this. Appropriating (or 'asking for', as Powell so nicely puts it) land from them happened continually up until the late 19th century (actually it still happens on a small level - but that's another story), so I guess it doesn't count, huh?
Finally, my initial comment was only in response to the silly quote of Powell. I never read or heard anything which implied it was only about the 20th century (which doesn't matter anyway since it's clear we had colonies well into that century); I was only commenting on the fact that it is patently and provably false. I also didn't attempt to compare American imperialism to other countries, which might be an interesting debate. But after reading your remarks concerning the "few quibbles" to be had with the statement, it's clear you have neither the education nor the objectivity to make it fruitful.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
I checked your link and see that you are right. I didn't know, however that a cartoonist from Philadelphia was in charge of US foreign policy. Just because there were some folks who thought that American "Manifest Destiny" should now expand into the Pacific doesn't mean that it was official US policy. Some folks wanted the US to intervene in the Spanish Civil War; but we didn't. While it's true that we fought a nasty guerilla war in the Phillipines, which lasted about a year & a half (almost all resistance ended when Aginaldo the leader called for an end), when Aguinaldo was captured, in 1901, he was convinced that the US was soon going to liberate his nation and called for his followers to stop fighting. Among the reasons the US did not grant this nation immediate independance was the fact that under the 200 year Spanish rule, the Phillipinos were given virtually no guidance in self-government. In addition, there was the danger that if independance was immediately granted, predator colonial powers like Germany, (Who was creating an empire in the Pacific) or Japan would use the resulting weakness and chaos of the islands as an excuse to add to their domains. In 1907 a Filipino legislature was created and the Phillipines were virtually self-ruling except in foreign affairs. In 1934 an act of Congress granted the nation independance by 1944. The reason this didn't happen was the fears of another colonial nation conquering the island were realized when Japan invaded and made the islands part of their "Co-Prosperity Sphere" in 1941. Thousands of Americans died liberating the country and the Phillipines were given independance almost immediately. In the 1990's the US, unable to NEGOTIATE suitable terms, abandoned Subic Bay Naval Station and Clark Field. Some conquerors! While the relations between the 2 nations was not all "sweetness and light" but you suggest that it was one of bitter hostility. Not the case.
The "genocide" you speak of happened throughout the New World and was basically caused by diseases which the Native Americans of North AND South America had no immunity to. Yes there were incidents-Woundeed Knee etc, but genocide was NEVER US policy. BTW I am 1/4 Leni Lenape, from the Algonquin/Delaware tribal group.
As for Puerto Rico, do you think that it should have been left to become another banana republic like 98% of the rest of the Carribean? Last I heard, the AMERICAN CITIZENS who live there decisively defeated all independance movements. As for Germany and Japan, they attacked the US. Should the US have just cut them loose at the end of the war or is it reasonable that bases be established to administer and protect them. It's interesting that at this time, even though the US occupied West Germany and Japan, their MAIN FEAR was of the Soviets! And the bases there are maintained through mutal agreement/treaty. I suspect that you are, in actuality denbeez. Your posts are abusive like his. You JUST started posting AND you claim to have visited the Phillipines with tons of pals, just like "he" claimed to have visited Russia with all his buddies.
Like many people you tend to apply contempory mores, motives, and standards out of context to the periods being discussed. That cartoon you linked expressed the OPINION of one segment of the population. The reason I suggested using 20th century examples is that prior to this time, US foreign policy was heavily influenced by the "Slave power" which had an expansionist agenda not representative of the greater nation, and afterwards by the recovery from the Civil War and Reconstruction
FYI my best friend growing up was a Filipino boy named Dennis Lanneuvo.
Ps any more cracks from you cally me silly and uneducated results in my not responding to your posts since I am interested in discussion, not trading insults.
reply
share
denbeez
16 years ago
No, no, no, Mr. Pie! I am NOT "m-madel." Just because there are as many as two people in cyberspace who have the audacity to disagree with you, do not automatically assume that they must indeed be one and the same. I suspect MILLIONS would, in fact, find inconsistencies with some of your opinions and historical perspective were they exposed to it.
Leave me out of this one, dude! I quit responding to you because you are clearly a Bush apologist, and I don't have time to continually point out obvious facts to one lone "neocon."
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
The only thing "obvious" about your "facts" is that you are a liberal. Also if you are not m-madel, how did you respond so fast? I posted only an hour ago and there would be no link in your e-mail to tell you about it UNLESS you are indeed m mandel. I'm just stating some suspicious circumstances. You're VERY quick response to this is just one more. Do you check my posts on an hourly basis? And I see that your nasty tone is back just like mandel's. "Two" guys who just can't debate an issue w/o resorting to insulting their opponent because he has the termerity to question their assumptions. On these boards I have debated many liberals over a single thread. One or ten-makes no difference to me. But, I insist they treat me with at least a modecum of respect or I refuse to respond to them. BTW how didja like Hill's 3rd place finish in Iowa?
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
I just saw the little exchange between you and the other poster; seems like some kind of feud between you. Anyway, it spurred me to go back and read some of your previous comments.
You've written many interesting remarks in the past (many I could agree with), but (and I REALLY don't mean this in an offensive way) your constant usage of the term 'liberal' makes you seem a bit like a loony.
Even if we ignore the silly re-inventing of the meaning of the term in the last 25 years for demagogic purposes (I'm sure there are MANY politicians from the past who called themselves liberals that you would admire), I just think it's fruitless to label people (liberal or conservative or whatever) and pretend we know everything about any opinion they might have.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
I use the term "liberal to denote someone with left-leaning views in 2008. I have absolutely no objection to be regarded as a "conservative." These are terms with no extraneous negative meanings, like reactionary or left-winger. In 1861 I would have been a "liberal"by that era's definition, but STILL a Republican.
BTW I'm pretty sure "looney" is a insult too.
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
I meant loony in a joking way, but I could apply it equally to the folks at Fox News throwing around 'liberal' as a derogatory word, just as I could apply it to left-leaning people using 'conservative' or 'neo-con' in the same way.
In any case, I stand by my original comment that it's fruitless and counter-productive to label people.
reply
share
denbeez
16 years ago
I responded because I am amused by some of your statements, Mr. Pie. I check this thread once in a while when there's time, and as at happens my place of employment is closed on Mondays.
I thought the Iowa results were GREAT and I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow in New Hampshire. I never said Hillary Clinton was the only choice for President. I just think that she's a damned sight SMARTER than Bush, and that the economy was in much better shape during most of the '90s.
What the Iowa caucuses made clear is that many are looking for a BRAND NEW CAST OF CHARACTERS to be in charge. I'm certain that Clinton's camp is working overtime to come up with some message other than emphasizing her many years as a Washington "player." Many are obviously sick of that game.
If it ultimately comes down to a series of debates between Obama and Huckabee, I predict it will look a lot like the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. The perception of the American public will be the comparison between a young, dynamic, articulate, intelligent new voice versus a middle-aged, balding evangelical who backs the war. Whether this perception is entirely accurate or not is irrelevant. Nixon had some valid points in 1960, he just LOOKED horrible by comparison.
Sorry, but I just can't see myself supporting a former evangelist minister. Anyone who claims to have a "lock" on the unanswerable mysteries of the universe and human destinty makes me fundamentally uneasy.
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
The odd thing about this discussion is that the more times you reply, the more thoroughly you help prove MY initial assertion - that Colin Powell's statement is untrue for a variety of reasons.
In the first reply, you basically admitted I was right (those 'few quibbles'), but then tried to qualify it: e.g. we only acted imperially before the 20th century, we weren't as bad as the other powers, etc.
In this reply, you don't refute any of my facts; you just try to provide solid justifications for the reasons they occurred. Once again, I wasn't debating why or whether the various 'actions' SHOULD have occurred - I was only stating the fact that they DID. But again you ignore my point and argue about things I specifically stated I wasn't interested in; an obvious sign that you've lost the argument.
But, never one to shy from playing when I've already won, I'll bite anyway:
Philippines:
I never suggested the US/Filipino relationship was one of 'bitter hostility'; what I AM stating (not merely suggesting) is that we're looked upon by most Filipinos as a former colonial occupying power - WHICH WE ARE! Of course, with that occupation came good and bad - but it was an occupation nonetheless. To argue this further is pointless. One other thing: some of your claims about the Philippine-American War are contradicted by the Wikipedia article about it. Now I would never claim to be an expert myself, but I would claim that the people who wrote/edited the article are more expert than you - otherwise I suggest you log-in and correct the errors there.
Native genocide:
I know that the genocide refers to ALL Natives of both continents - it wasn't really germane to my point - just a gut response to the 'sparsely settled' remark. I'm not even going to try to get into a discussion with you about how much Native death was caused purposely by the Europeans/Americans or not, because I don't really think that it's your area of expertise. You wrote 'EARLY in our history we DID grab some land' as if you're unaware of the well-documented history running right up to the 20th century (and, in small measure, until now) of continually guaranteeing certain lands belonged to certain Natives forever, before forcing them off it and grabbing it a short while later. My point being, again, the negation of Powell's statement since the various 'Reservations' are supposed to be sovereign nations controlled by their respective peoples.
Military bases:
Do you really believe that when we decide to pull out of Iraq and keep one or more military bases there, the Iraqis will have a REAL say in the matter? We will give them an offer they CAN'T refuse - under the guise of 'negotiation'. This has happened many times throughout the 19th and 20th century and, alone, negates Powell's statement that we don't 'ask for' anything. If you truly think I'm wrong about this - could you please describe why? Not why we should have the bases, or how it's going to help the freedom of all humanity, but how SPECIFICALLY my assertion is false.
My identity/abusiveness:
I don't know this person denbeez; I don't think my posts have been particularly abusive - at least not any more than your's have been condescending; I didn't claim to have visited the Philippines with 'buddies' - I've been several times through many parts of S.E.Asia on my own (in fact I'm currently in the process of moving to Indonesia in 6 months); I have Filipino friends who LIVE in the Philippines.
Finally:
>> Like many people you tend to apply contempory mores, motives, and standards out of context to the periods being discussed.
This comment is subjective and meaningless, and could apply to you as easily as to me. I'm sorry if you think this is abusive, but it really sounds like something a high-school teacher would say to dismiss something one of their students said. But I'm certainly either close to your age or older than you, so perhaps if we both started treating each other as peers (and I realize I'm guilty as well), we could avoid both the abuse and condescension.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
You are splitting hairs here.Do you hate the term "land of the free" in the Star Spangled banner because there are people in prison? Or because slavery was instituted by English colonists and their decesendants had to be forced to stop owning people. Can you overlook the million Unionists who died to free them?If you want me to admit that Collin Powell's statement isn't strictly true, I will. I know very well that not every American action was performed out of strictly altruistic motives. That would require an entire nation of Mother Teresas. But the larger truth is that many thousands of Americans have died fighting for the freedom of others and themselves too. But in return the US has asked for very little. Did the US invite military attack on Pearl Harbor in order to justify getting a few bases? Did the US fight communism in Korea and Vietnam and pour in billions to grab their non-existant resources? What Powell is saying is that the US has made enourmous sacrifices in blood and treasure in the name of our own and others' freedom while asking for damned little in return. And your response to this unique contribution to world peace is a QUIBBLE essentially stating "about well a hundred years ago they didn't give the Phillipines instant independance and they were hard on the Native Americans." Good God, is it reasonable to expect poor, landless, people to respect the property rights of a stone-age people who might fish, trap or hunt on millions of acres of land a few times a year? Of course they encroached. If you own land in the US are you prepared to return it to the tribe that lived in the area? I HOPE so! Because I will be a rich Lenape if everyone gives N.J and Delaware back to our tribe. In terms of land grabbing, American hands are very, very clean. The war with Mexico was an abberation caused by the South who wanted to extend slavery so they wouldn't be outvoted in the government dominated by the free North. Which again, is why I stipulated the 20th century. I think you're the kind of guy who would time the minute waltz! Joke.
BTW I think calling someone uneducated is an insult. You, I see, exclude yourself from being taken literally.
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
>> You are splitting hairs here
Sorry, but I don't think I am at all; I don't agree that the things I mentioned were 'quibbles'.
>> Do you hate the term "land of the free" in the Star Spangled banner because there are people in prison?
Of course not, but I don't necessarily believe words just because they're in a song either. Anyone well-educated/traveled knows there are other countries in the world that have more freedoms than in the USA. The main freedom that exists in the US that doesn't exist in most other Western countries is the freedom to own a hand gun (and assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons, etc).
>> ...statement isn't strictly true,
This seems like an oxymoron to me.
>> Did the US fight communism in Korea and Vietnam and pour in billions to grab their non-existant resources?
Do you really think we got involved in these wars merely (or even as the main reason) to fight for the freedom of their respective peoples? Do you really think we get involved in ANY war for purely altruistic motives?
You know, I read that you're a teacher, and I would hope that objectivity would go hand-in-hand with that job, but honestly, you don't seem a very impartial person to me. Have you spent much time traveling outside of the USA? Have you ever lived abroad for a lengthy period of time? I love the USA for many different reasons; but I think I'm quite objective about it's strengths, weaknesses, great deeds, and mistakes because I've spent a lot of time away from it.
>> Which again, is why I stipulated the 20th century.
It doesn't matter if you stipulated this or not. Powell didn't stipulate it in his statement, and neither did many of the thousands of well-educated Europeans (and likely others) who heard or read it, and interpreted it (based on their knowledge of ALL of our history) as another example of a meaningless American platitude. Those kinds of statements make the entire government look silly, whether you realize this or not.
>> BTW I think calling someone uneducated is an insult.
I never said you were uneducated; I implied that I thought your education was lacking in some area(s). And yes, this could be interpreted as an insult - but it also could be true. But maybe the problem is more that you don't REALLY read what I write.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
And apparently you don't "REALLY" read what I wrote. I SAID that the US motives were not pure altruism. But the motives of the American soldiers has usually been to fight for freedom. Our own and that of our allies. Do you believe that American troops go into battle with "Lets die for the Dow Jones and God preserve the military indusrial complex" in their hearts and minds? Powell's statement is valid if not absolutely applicable when you dregdge up every little incident that contradicts it and IGNORE the fact that the US has freed those "well-educated Europeans" that through shortsightedness and fear allowed Hitler to nearly destroy Europe. They can barely muster the interest or concern about events IN EUROPE like the genocide, sorry, "ethnic cleasing" by Serbs.Another example: When A French admiral at a joint naval conference complained about the discussions not being in French, he wanted to know why he was forced to speak English. An American admiral told him, "Because the British, Canadians Aussies and Americans had arraigned it that you don't have to speak German." They RESENT the Americans PRECISELY because they know they NEEDED us.
Apparently you are ready to dismiss all the world-changing events of the 20th century in order to nitpick Powell's statement. I ask you how much Phillipine territory do we have? Who "made" us leave the Phillipines? The answer is that we felt responsibility for them after we threw out the Spanish so we tried to prepare them and protect them. No doubt some, like your cartoonist wanted to exploit them on a permanent basis but THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. In fact, the Japanese military commander was told it was useless to try and stir up anti colonial feelings against the Americans because their administration of the islands had been so "enlightened."* Ask your Filipino friends how they felt about Americans after we expelled the Japanese. Or in the 50's when we gave them the help they needed to stop the Huks from overthrowing their ELECTED government. I'm sure that by now the Kuwaitis are just brimming with clever anti-American comments now that they are safe from Saddam.
You want a propagana statement that is patentley untrue? How about the USSR and China claiming to speak for "the peace-loving peoples" of the world for 50 years. Peace lovers like Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
* "The Rising Sun" John Toland.
PS NO one who knows anything about history EVER resorts to an encyclopedia for imformation let alone an on-line one, except maybe to check a date or name.
reply
share
m-madel
16 years ago
>> And apparently you don't "REALLY" read what I wrote. I SAID that the US motives were not pure altruism.
Well... no, I read it very well. But you don't seem to recall what you wrote yourself, which was: "I know very well that not every American action was performed out of strictly altruistic motives."
This implies that you thought SOME American actions WERE performed out of strictly altruistic motives. So perhaps the whole problem here is your command or understanding of linguistics.
>> PS NO one who knows anything about history EVER resorts to an encyclopedia for imformation let alone an on-line one, except maybe to check a date or name.
Perhaps you should 'resort' to it more since your 'history' is flatly wrong in some instances, and HIGHLY subjective in others. Encyclopedias tend to be, by the very fact that they are edited by groups of people, more objective than one person's recitation/interpretation of facts. Every response from you just confirms your intense lack of impartiality.
Since I have no further intention of replying to a narrow-minded, jingoistic 'expert' (I guess that these would be considered insults if you think they're negative qualities and don't apply to yourself), let me just end by saying that it saddens me that you're actually teaching history.
Good luck.
reply
share
MrPie7
16 years ago
What saddens ME is that you think that YOU are fair-minded and impartial. Your understanding of history is so poor that you consult an encyclopedia for information. In just what respect is my information "flatly wrong"? Since I assume you would be falling all over yourself to point it out. Visiting a foriegn country is no substitute for learning the basic history of that nation. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be checking an encyclopedia afterwards to check your facts. So some of the people you met in the Phillipines had reservations about American actions re; their country. Well go to France and visit with THEM a while. From the way they disdain and slander the US you would think that we were the Germans who invaded their nation 3 times instead of the nation who saved them twice. Three times if you consider that but for the American nuclear umbrella and NATO, Stalin would have been touring Paris just like Hitler did in '40. But the Germans are now ok and Euro Disney is a threat to French culture. But I stand by what I have said. And here's one more thing VERY germaine to the issue. The US government prohibited any non-Filipinos from owning farm land. So no plantations like all those "well-educated Europeans" had in Indochina, India, The Dutch East Indies or the Belgian Congo which formed the backbone of most of the EXPLOITIVE European colonies.
I have a problem with linguistics? I don't think so because I'm almost positive that I mentioned in this thread, "jingoistic"* was a favorite word of liberals and applied exclusively to the US and its supporters. Never ONCE have I heard about the "jingoistic" statements of China or Iran. Nooooo. Only Americans. And the word "colony" seems to have you bamboozled. Can you not understand the difference between what the US did in the Phillipines and how France mistreated, robbed, and abused the inhabitants of Southeast Asia so badly that they were forced out by armed resistance? No, they were both "colonies" so they were exactly alike. And in addition, you seem to have a very faulty understanding of the language yourself. You call me a "narrow-minded jigoistic 'expert'" and then state if I think they are "negative qualities" they are insults. Let me ask you; Can you quote me ONE example of calling someone "narrow-minded" or "jingoistic" that WASN'T meant to portray them "negatively." Maybe if I called you a sanctimonious disingenuous hypocrit you would take offense. If you consider these "negative qualities." Your "last" post was nothing but your highly biased opinion. Not one fact.
* If it isn't in this thread I'll hunt it down for you if you are really interested.
reply
share
glenr-5
15 years ago
i really like this film ... oops, it seems i'm on the wrong page
sorry, i thought this was about bad day at black rock!
reply
share
racoom_bs
14 years ago
Just two historians footnoting the past in their own image.
What would history do without historians?
Where'd you get the bugle, Din?
reply
share
fanslayer
8 years ago
You, sir, might be the most intelligent user I've read on imdb. Do you have any suggestions on documentaries about politics, terrorism, bank, etc? I would greatly appreciate it.
I exist.
reply
share