World War III

jdhdiggs

In the end, doesn't it come down to this: Either you believe that this is a war between the Western civilization and Radical Islam or not. If you think it is war, you can not but help support Isreal and criticize Bush for not doing enough. If you don't think it's war, then it is your perragative to support the radical Islamacists (sp). Just don't get mad when the people who do believe we are at war speak out against you.

Demiurge

aaharvel wrote:

Democrats have evolved (or devolved depending on your POV) but at least they haven't taken the road of Republicans and Conservatives.

Yeah, they sure have. Karl Marx would be proud.

aaharvel wrote:

But of course we can't fault for Conservatives for anything. After all, they're not the ones in power, they're not the ones that pass the laws. :rolleyes:

Sure we can, Bush isn't my favorite on a few issues, but I'm just glad we had him during 9/11 and on this war on terror as opposed to Al Gore or John Kerry.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are liberals first and americans second.

I supported Clinton's military actions, and oddly enough so did the liberals. The fatal flaw Bush has is that he's not a democrat, which is funny because on spending you could have fooled me.

The republicans of today are like democrats save for their social viewpoints, but even that is waning. I don't like it myself as they're a constant disappointment. That shows you where the left is.

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

In the end, doesn't it come down to this: Either you believe that this is a war between the Western civilization and Radical Islam or not. If you think it is war, you can not but help support Isreal and criticize Bush for not doing enough. If you don't think it's war, then it is your perragative to support the radical Islamacists (sp). Just don't get mad when the people who do believe we are at war speak out against you.

I think Bush is doing a good job with this. i think he's doing all he can. Remember, we're fighting in two other countries right now. We can't be a referee to everyone at all times, doesn't work that way.

aaharvel

Demiurge wrote:

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are liberals first and americans second.

I was always taught being an American was not defined by politics.

Demiurge wrote:

The fatal flaw Bush has is that he's not a democrat, which is funny because on spending you could have fooled me.

You see? Neo-con.

Demiurge wrote:

The republicans of today are like democrats save for their social viewpoints, but even that is waning. I don't like it myself as they're a constant disappointment.

You see? Neo-cons.



Look the term up in the dictionary if you like. It's there. ;~)

jdhdiggs

aaharvel wrote:

Neo-con. Meaning new conservative. Yes, it started around the Reagan era.

It used to mean a liberal who expressed conservative views, such as Zell Miller. But it's evolved into someone who leans towards social authoritianism in the name of morals and religion, white protestant. No, it's not facism. Far from it, but the roots of both are very similar. One needs to look no further than Terri Schiavo and the NSA spy controversy. Small government?

Also, instead of saving money (true conservatives), money is instead spent, but not funneled back into the social system itself. Wanna know why our roads, public schools, etc. are under-funded? There ya' go. Tax-cuts for the rich, trickle down economics. One of Steve Forbes retarded economic ideas. Also, unlike traditional conservatives, and like liberals, conservatives tend to second-hand spend. But again, instead of investing in social programs that aid the lower and middle class, those same funds instead go to tax cuts, trickle-down, without putting money back into the actual social system they run.

On the other hand, you have socialism. Communism, which is just as bad.
Imo Socialism is noble in theory but terrible in practice.

Oh and regarding Lincoln, you're right. Afterall, Hitler didn't exterminate the Jews. He freed them from slavery. lol

<a href="http://photobucket.com&quot; target="_blank"><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j101/aaharvel/120px-Cowbell2.gif&quot; border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

Nice edit

Gotcha, you defined Neo-con as I understand it. Some have used it as anyone viewing that the fedral government should reduce it's size, power, and oversight claiming that those protected by the government would be abused. This I can not tolerate. The morality police, they should be shot and should not represent true conservatives who should, IMHO, believe that every individual has the right to do whatever they want until it interferes with another individuals rights as laid down by the constitution. Beyond that, stay out of it.

Underfunded programs? A lot of those programs should not exist in the first place. Show me in the constitution where education had to be provided? Healthcare? The governments responsibilities were to regulate interstate trade and protect the sovereignty of the states. Not much else... The states should be governing themselves, no the feds.

Trickle down has as many supporters as detractors. Claiming it doesn't work is as crazy as saying it works as well as Rush claims. The results are somewhere in between. Personally, I would rather have the smart guy who earned his money (whether it be through hard work, ingenuity or theft) than the government who only gets funds through theft. Besides, when you only tax the rich and there are tax cuts, who gets them?

ND13

I just wanted to be the 400th poster:D

jdhdiggs

aaharvel wrote:

I think Bush is doing a good job with this. i think he's doing all he can. Remember, we're fighting in two other countries right now. We can't be a referee to everyone at all times, doesn't work that way.

Actually, that's what are military is supposed to be able to do: Handle any two regional theaters in any conventional (non-nuclear) conflict. Iraq/Afghanistan is only 1 theater of operation. So we should (in theory) be able to eliminate South Korea, Syria, and Iran at the same time as cleaning up Afghanistan and Iraq.

Instead of invading, we could also put pressure on them threatoning military action (see JFK and Reagon) instead of appeasing them (See Sharon, Clinton)

Anyway, I have to get some work today. Have fun!

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

Actually, that's what are military is supposed to be able to do: Handle any two regional theaters in any conventional (non-nuclear) conflict. Iraq/Afghanistan is only 1 theater of operation.

Anyway, I have to get some work today. Have fun!

Tell that to the service men and women who are doing their 3rd tour of duty.

Ok later brother. :cool:

Demiurge

aaharvel wrote:

Neo-con. Meaning new conservative. Yes, it started around the Reagan era.

Actually it started in the 60s, but liberals keep reinventing the term everytime there's some percieved evolution of conservative thought or a backlash of liberalism. Call it whatever you want.

aaharvel wrote:

It used to mean a liberal who expressed conservative views, such as Zell Miller. But it's evolved into someone who leans towards social authoritianism in the name of morals and religion, white protestant. No, it's not facism. Far from it, but the roots of both are very similar. One needs to look no further than Terri Schiavo and the NSA spy controversy. Small government?

This is wrong too. It was a movement, if anything, that sought to express conservative values. A backlash against the liberal who started pushing their social and cultural agendas. Democrat and liberal aren't mutually exclusive terms anymore. It's no longer the party of the working man. It's an ideology completely unto itself.

You can just call me a conservative because neo this and that is just a confusion of the bottom line.

aaharvel wrote:

Also, instead of saving money (true conservatives), money is instead spent, but not funneled back into the social system itself. Wanna know why our roads, public schools, etc. are under-funded? There ya' go. Tax-cuts for the rich, trickle down economics. One of Steve Forbes retarded economic ideas. Also, unlike traditional conservatives, and like liberals, conservatives tend to second-hand spend. But again, instead of investing in social programs that aid the lower and middle class, those same funds instead go to tax cuts, trickle-down, without putting money back into the actual social system they run.

I don't even know where to start with this. Liberals are all about the social programs. They want to take the most money from the person earning the most, and let the rest live off of the government teet ('the rich'). Which in turn is placing the burden of these social programs on 'the rich'. You'd be surprised what is considered rich. The people paying all of the taxes aren't the ones living in mansions up in Nantucket. They aren't the social elite. They're not the Ted Kennedy's and Theresa Heinz-Kerry's of the world. It's the guy who busted his **** to put himself through medical school.

You talk about trickle down. What, it doesn't work? Everyone is born rich? The majority of the time it doesn't work that way. People take risks, and make sacrafices, and then get punished for being sucessful. If they want to be philanthropic it should never be government mandated. If you're living in the ghetto $8,000 - 20" Dubs on your hooptie might not be the best investment.

aaharvel wrote:

On the other hand, you have socialism. Communism, which is just as bad.
Imo Socialism is noble in theory but terrible in practice.

Liberalism & socialism are the same damn thing these days. Hell, aren't you supporting my boy wonder Wisconsin Senator in his bid for Socialized Medicine? Working GREAT in Canada.

PhantomOG

jdhdiggs wrote:

So we should (in theory) be able to eliminate South Korea, Syria, and Iran at the same time as cleaning up Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think you have north and south mixed up...

aaharvel

Demiurge wrote:

Actually it started in the 60s, but liberals keep reinventing the term everytime there's some percieved evolution of conservative thought or a backlash of liberalism. Call it whatever you want.

This is wrong too. It was a movement, if anything, that sought to express conservative values. A backlash against the liberal who started pushing their social and cultural agendas. Democrat and liberal aren't mutually exclusive terms anymore. It's no longer the party of the working man. It's an ideology completely unto itself.

Regarding your senator from Wisconsin, Nope I don't agree. if medicine was entirely socialized as in Canada the quality would go down. But I also believe that a nation that stands for democracy also has at least some responsibility to it's people. By law? No. By ideals? Yup. So i'm in the middle with this issue, as I think most Americans are. I think i made my position clear earlier when I denounced Socialism and the negative aspects of Capitialism. Given the two, i'd prefer what we have, a Capitialistic society. But it's not perfect.

I'm pretty certain that the Neo-con movement in the 60's was based on conservative liberals.
The Neo-con movement i'm referring to is amongst the Republican order, which did gain footing during the Reagan era.

jdhdiggs

PhantomOG wrote:

I think you have north and south mixed up...

Yes, that's what happens when the UPS guy shows up with the new SVS drivers and I'm trying to do work...

BIZILL

jdhdiggs wrote:

Yes, that's what happens when the UPS guy shows up with the new SVS drivers and I'm trying to do work...

damn it. mine are slated for delivery on thursday.

MacLeod

Just for the record, conservatives cant get any of the blame for any success or failure in the war on terror because currently there are no conservatives holding elected office in DC with the possible exception of Rep. Zach Wamp.

tommyboy

Demiurge wrote:

It means exactly what I said. If you think what's happening in Iraq, Afganistan, and now Lebanon is so outrageous, you wouldn't have been able to stand what happened in just the first couple of hours of WW2 without cowering in the corner wetting your pants.

Until you go over to Iraq or afghanistan and fight, you have no **** right to call anyone pussies.

Demiurge wrote:

Also, you're out of your mind if you think the liberals today are the liberals of the Greatest Generation. My Grandfather was a Democrat, he's still alive today, and is considered a rather conservative man by todays standards. The loony direction your ideology has gone to is absurd.

Yes they are considered the greatest generations cause they had the worst conflict this world has ever seen. let me say this one more time... THEY HAD A GOOD REASON TO FIGHT.

Demiurge wrote:

Afghanistan was never the end game. He called it an Axis of evil, which included Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Did you really think it was going to end there? Al-Qaida isn't a country.

Who called it the axis of evil, bush? They have yet to find any (real) proof(or direct links) that hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Bin laden did not approve what Hussein was doing in Iraq.. well since we scratched off two, we might as well attack Iran, syria, don't forget saudi arabia. Wait, we can't have north korea saying all these threats, we might as well attack them too.

I agree with what bush did until I heard he wanted to go into Iraq. I was like wait, what? we haven't even finished in afghanistan yet... I don't care what you say, There was no real reason to go to Iraq.

Im done talking on this thread cause this is just going to go back and forth, we have different beliefs and we both aren't going to change them...

aaharvel

.

.

.

MacLeod

tommyboy wrote:

Until you go over to Iraq or afghanistan and fight, you have no **** right to call anyone pussies.

Yes he does. He has a right to call anything he wants. Thats the beauty of this "free speech" thing that the bedwetters are always using to defend flag burning, obscene art and trashing the President.

Who called it the axis of evil, bush? They have yet to find any (real) proof(or direct links) that hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

Nobody claimed Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. This was not in response necessarily to 9/11. This was a RESUMPTION of force from the first Gulf War in which we were enforcing the 14 UN resloutions over a 12 year period, ordering Hussein to disarm and to allow inspectors in to verify it. If he'd let the inspectors in back in 2003, he'd still be in power today.

Bin laden did not approve what Hussein was doing in Iraq.. well since we scratched off two, we might as well attack Iran, syria, don't forget saudi arabia. Wait, we can't have north korea saying all these threats, we might as well attack them too.

The biggest difference is that Iraq is well known for attacking people and their ties with terrorism are well documented and well known. N Korea are no saints but theyre no sponsors of terrorism either are not insane. Do you really think for an instance that the minute Hussein got a nuke that he wouldnt immediately try to get it into the US?

[quoteI agree with what bush did until I heard he wanted to go into Iraq. I was like wait, what? we haven't even finished in afghanistan yet... I don't care what you say, There was no real reason to go to Iraq.[/quote]

There were all kinds of reasons. The whole 14 UN resloutions and the terms of his surrender in the 1st Gulf War aside, Hussein was a tumor on this planet and a huge threat to this country and those around us. The entire world is much safer and better off with him out of power.

jderdock

MacLeod wrote:

The entire world is much safer and better off with him out of power.

I think the world is a lot less safe as Iraq was not a friend of Shiite Iran and acted as Iran's "check and balance" in the region. Now we have an entire Shiite crescent which is far more hostile to the US than Iraq was.

jderdock

no to mention the tens of thousands dead who have surviving, pissed off family members.

jderdock

BUT, history will be the judge of that...I certainly hope we are "safer".

(sorry for the triple post )

MacLeod

But we not only have a US friendly government in Iraq now but we also have a strong military force on either side of Iran.

I think looking out your window and seeing America's finest pointing loaded tanks at you from both directions would be more of a deterant than Saddam Hussein.

Demiurge

jderdock wrote:

no to mention the tens of thousands dead who have surviving, pissed off family members.

...and the tens of thousands more sweet little Mr. Hussein would of have killed in the years to come didn't matter? Do you forget that he killed 30,000 of his own people in 1991? That's just over one little uprising. The mass graves he filled contain the remains of untold hundreds of thousands of his own people. Does that just not enter into your inane thought pattern? With Saddam out of power he can't do that anymore. Those prevented deaths don't matter? Oh, but because evil America did something about it and civilians died it was wrong. I get it now. Giving them a chance to be free was wrong. Living in fear for your life day after day is a good thing. :rolleyes:

ND13

MacLeod wrote:

.

I think looking out your window and seeing America's finest pointing loaded tanks at you from both directions would be more of a deterant than Saddam Hussein.

Yep!!

Come on people, how was Sadaam's military going to fight anyone with a decently trained force?? It took us all of what??.....three days or so to completely defeat his ground troops(including his "elite" guard). His troops were surrendering to news groups for God's sake. I really don't think that Iran feared Sadaam or Iraq. Sadaam was a bully that picked on the weak(Kuwait and his own people). That being said, bullies are the types of cowards that would use a WMD if available.

Demiurge

tommyboy wrote:

Until you go over to Iraq or afghanistan and fight, you have no **** right to call anyone pussies.

Well, that's your opinion. With your logic I guess that means we can discount everything you've said in this thread since you weren't there.

tommyboy wrote:

Yes they are considered the greatest generations cause they had the worst conflict this world has ever seen. let me say this one more time... THEY HAD A GOOD REASON TO FIGHT.

They don't have a "good reason" to fight now? What does that mean, "good reason?"

Wait, I forgot...since you didn't serve in that war you can't possibly answer that question.

tommyboy wrote:

Who called it the axis of evil, bush? They have yet to find any (real) proof(or direct links) that hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Bin laden did not approve what Hussein was doing in Iraq.. well since we scratched off two, we might as well attack Iran, syria, don't forget saudi arabia. Wait, we can't have north korea saying all these threats, we might as well attack them too.

I agree with what bush did until I heard he wanted to go into Iraq. I was like wait, what? we haven't even finished in afghanistan yet... I don't care what you say, There was no real reason to go to Iraq.

Im done talking on this thread cause this is just going to go back and forth, we have different beliefs and we both aren't going to change them...

Well, Mac pretty much dismantled this portion of your post. The war in Iraq doesn't have anything to do with 9/11. There are plenty of connections out there, but since it's beside the point I won't get into it. Our world changed on 9/11, and we're being proactive against rogue nations. I hope we dismantle Syria, Iran, and North Korea in the coming years. The world is better off for it.


Oh no, they might hate us more than they already do! That's what a bedwetter says.

ND13

He said bedwetter!!!:D

jderdock

ND13 wrote:

Yep!!

Come on people, how was Sadaam's military going to fight anyone with a decently trained force?? It took us all of what??.....three days or so to completely defeat his ground troops(including his "elite" guard).

Bill Hicks wrote:

"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the **** arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the **** out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."

Bill Hicks wrote:

People say "Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world". Yeah, maybe, but you know what, after the first 3 largest armies, there's a REAL big **** drop-off. The Hare Krishnas are the 5th largest army in the world, and they've already got all our airports.

Gotta love the guy

ND13 wrote:

That being said, bullies are the types of cowards that would use a WMD if available.

For what it's worth, the US is the only country to have ever used such weapons...the necessity of which is regularly debated

ND13

jderdock wrote:

For what it's worth, the US is the only country to have ever used such weapons...the necessity of which is regularly debated

That was well before the military knew very much about the BOMB. I would hope that if we were able to do it all over again, we would give Japan a demonstration of the bomb's real power before dropping it, to give them a choice...surrender or else.

MacLeod

jderdock wrote:

For what it's worth, the US is the only country to have ever used such weapons...the necessity of which is regularly debated

Well, its been said before but Ill say it again anyway. If there hadnt have been a Pearl Harbor, there wouldnt have been a Hiroshima.

As with this war, WE DIDNT START IT! We were only finishing it. You fly over here and, unprovoked, bomb our base killing thousands of our citizens, dont come crying when we turn your country 20,000 degrees!

Further, the whole idea of responding in a war "proportionately" it STUPID beyond measure!! This is a montra I see being taken up by the bedwetters as of late. "Hellebazoo is a 3rd world bunch of cavemen and Israel is a well developed and modern country therefore they should only respond with bows and arrows." Puh-leeze!

Say you have a gun and there is a guy that has just hacked 3 people to death with a mechete and now he's charging toward you. Well, to be proportionate, you should only use the butt of that gun to fight off the attacker. Thats pretty stupid right? Youd blow his f**king head off!

Same here. When you have a country continuously lobbing rockets into your country, killing your civillians and vowing to God that theyre going to drive your country into the sea you fight back with everything youve got! You kill them before they kill you. Thats how you win wars!

We used to have a problem with Japanese flying their planes into our ships. Well, we just killed them all and whad'ya know?! No more Japanese flying planes into our ships! Works everytime its tried!

aaharvel

ND13 wrote:

That was well before we knew very much about the BOMB.

you're joking right?

brettw22

Alan has something to say to everyone......