BBO Discussion Forums: Hope you voted. - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Hope you voted.

#41 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,472
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-November-09, 13:01

keylime, on Nov 8 2006, 06:14 AM, said:

Looks like Steele might lose, and frankly he and Santorum ran 2 great campaigns.

Looks like Steele has gotten himself embroiled in some rather ugly stuff...

Michael Steele's election organization "Steele for Maryland, Inc" got caught handing out some very misleading voter guides in heavily african american parts of Maryland the day of the election.

The "official voter guides" listed Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele as the Democratic candidates. They also misrepresented endorsements by several leading local politicans including Kweisi Mfume.

A real "great" campaign. I hope that Steele and Ehrlich see jail time for this crap.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#42 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2006-November-09, 13:14

well, I am not so sure about what Steele did the day of the election, but he made up thousands of bumper stickers which read Steele Demoncrat, as well as signs like this one...

Baltimore Sun photo

Here is a washington post article about the same topic
Washington post

His explaination of the Steele Democrat campaign was weak, at best. Then there was his ads on TV with his sister who sadly suffers from the same illness as Michael J. Fox. She says her brother loves her and supports stem cell research. I don't really care where he stands of stem cell research, but among the stem cell research community, his support is not consider "support". His views on stem cell research is adult lines and current lines allowed only. This is not what people who "support" stem cell research are fighting for, they want to allow fetal stem cell research which Mr. Steele is against.

I don't live in Maryland, but being in neighboring Virginia, I might have voted for Mr. Steele up until I discovered the deception associated with the Steele Demoncrat campaign and the false impression he portrayed on his commercial about his support for stem cell research. After all, he does love puppies.
--Ben--

#43 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-November-09, 13:15

I think the defining election was in Rhode Island. Rhode Island is about 75% democrats, but new englanders have always liked the fiscal conservative but socially liberal sorts. Hence many "liberal" republicans have been elected in new england. People like Lincoln Chafee whose politics are far closer to Howard Dean (also fiscally conservative and socially liberal) than to their republican colleagues. This election voters finally decided that even though they like Chafee (60% approval in polls of voters) they voted for Whitehorse anyway, since they felt (rightly so) that Chafee had no influence whatsoever on other republicans, but only served to give the Republicans control of key committees.

The voters wanted democrats back in because the moderate/liberal wing of the republican party was too marginalized. Its a sad day when Chafee has to lose, merely because his party sucks. (Jeffords just a few years ago left the republicans and became an independant voting with the democratic caucus for the same reasons as Chafee got voted out). I just hope that the republican party goes back to being the party of limited government instead of what it has become today- the party of government controling how we love, think, and prey, while at the same time being the most fiscally irresponsible rulers in history, borrowing like crazy (to pay for a war that we have no plan or ability to win, at least in the short run) and not paying its own bills. Then at least we can have a civil discorse about the size and role of government, instead of rhetoric from the biggest proponents of big government in history, who claim to be for small government. Oy....
0

#44 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-November-09, 13:15

hrothgar, on Nov 9 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

keylime, on Nov 8 2006, 06:14 AM, said:

Looks like Steele might lose, and frankly he and Santorum ran 2 great campaigns.

Looks like Steele has gotten himself embroiled in some rather ugly stuff...

Michael Steele's election organization "Steele for Maryland, Inc" got caught handing out some very misleading voter guides in heavily african american parts of Maryland the day of the election.

The "official voter guides" listed Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele as the Democratic candidates. They also misrepresented endorsements by several leading local politicans including Kweisi Mfume.

A real "great" campaign. I hope that Steele and Ehrlich see jail time for this crap.

I don't think laws are the answer to these kind of dirty tricks. (Like the Republican party funding spam phone calls that seem to be coming from the Democratic party if you hangup soon.) The only answer are enough well-informed voters so that being caught with a dirty trick costs a lot more votes than could possibly be gained by a successful dirty trick.

Btw, all the dirty tricks I read about in this election came from the Republican side. Is this my flawed perception, or is it a different standard of ethics in the current campaigns? (No I don't care about dead voters 30 years ago.)
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#45 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-November-10, 21:48

i see where al-qaida in iraq applaud the recent elections

Quote

Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats, saying: "They voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

sort of mixed blessings when an american political party gets close to 100% of the terrorist support... i hope they are as disappointed in these elected officials as most americans were with the last batch
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#46 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-November-10, 22:41

Unplugging the automatic rubber stamp Congress can only be considered a success if there are meaningful investigations with supoena power.

For example, the President declared that his illegal wiretapping program was necessary due to the terrorist's attacks of 9-11; however, it turns out that the infrastructure to carry out that surveillance had been ordered 7 months before the attacks:

Quote

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11
Bloomberg
June 30, 2006
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

"The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11," plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. "This undermines that assertion."


Followed by this:

Quote

Specter: Cheney interfering with investigation
SouthCoastToday
By James Kuhnhenn , Knight Ridder Newspapers
June 7, 2006
WASHINGTON — In an unusually pointed letter, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Vice President Dick Cheney of interfering with his panel's attempts to examine the National Security Agency's use of private phone records.

Specter, in a three-page letter yesterday to the vice president, said Cheney not only lobbied members of his committee behind Specter's back, but also blocked telephone companies from testifying before the Judiciary Committee about any relationship they may have with the NSA.



As has been the case, although reported initially there was no follow up and the information died. Surely, this has to be determined - if the Bush administration had been planning illegal surveillance for 7 months before the Sept. 11 attacks then the claim of using the wiretapping only due to 9-11 is a hollow shell.

If this new Congress is does its job, the next 2 years should see a challenge to Presidential powers that will make in comparison the Nixon era look like an episode of Ozzie and Harriet.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#47 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-November-10, 22:52

winston, i think your zeal for these things causes you to overstate the case... for example, you say "...however, it turns out that the infrastructure to carry out that surveillance had been ordered 7 months before the attacks..."

but your quote says, "The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed ... "

this either is or is not true, but you seem to give an assertion the same weight as a fact... lawyers are advocates of a position, that's all... both sides have advocates... this has yet to be heard in a court, to my knowledge, much less proven... evidently this is a pending legal action... let's see how it comes out before declaring someone guilty

i'm on record as saying that i disagree with the direction our country seems to be heading viz privacy and personal freedoms, and i applaud anyone's efforts to stem that tide... but if you think changing the congress will do so, it's my belief that you are mistaken
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#48 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-November-10, 23:53

luke warm, on Nov 10 2006, 11:52 PM, said:

winston, i think your zeal for these things causes you to overstate the case... for example, you say "...however, it turns out that the infrastructure to carry out that surveillance had been ordered 7 months before the attacks..."

but your quote says, "The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed ... "

this either is or is not true, but you seem to give an assertion the same weight as a fact... lawyers are advocates of a position, that's all... both sides have advocates... this has yet to be heard in a court, to my knowledge, much less proven... evidently this is a pending legal action... let's see how it comes out before declaring someone guilty

i'm on record as saying that i disagree with the direction our country seems to be heading viz privacy and personal freedoms, and i applaud anyone's efforts to stem that tide... but if you think changing the congress will do so, it's my belief that you are mistaken

Jimmy you are right that it is only an assertion - what I find so odd is how immense would be the implications yet how little reported it was and still is.

I happen to agree with you that nothing will change - I still view the Democrats and Republicans as simply the left and right arm of the same body.

I also don't see this as just Bush - it reminds me of what the psychiatrist reported about the two killers Truman Capote wrote of "In Cold Blood", that alone neither was capable but together they formed a third personality.

I see Bush, Cheney, and the other neo-cons in much this same light - it is not so much any one person I have a problem with but the agenda for which they strive.

If there really were a difference between the parties, there would be an all-out investigation of the intelligence that led us into was in Iraq - Bush and Rumsfeld both stated absolutely that there were chemical weapons and WMD. It should be imperative to find out if this was purposeful deception to justify war.

This administration has shifted the balance of power into the executive branch unlike any other administarion in history - the Republicans rolled over with no oversight - if the Dems do not revisit this power grab and reassert Congressional strength and the concept of checks and balances, it will be as guilty as its predecessor in allowing it to happen.

I could show more quotes, but this time I'll paraphrase the American Bar Association as saying that Bush's use of signing statements and claims of the power of the "unitary executive" have shifted the balance of power and are a "violation of the constitution and a danger to democracy."

And then this: October 5, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's frequent use of signing statements to assert that he has the power to disobey newly enacted laws is "an integral part" of his "comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power" at the expense of the legislative branch, according to a report by the non partisan Congressional Research Service.

Again, I do not think this is Bush per se, but the entire administration pushing an agenda. In fact, it has probably been driven more by Cheney than Bush.

The next two years will be a total farce unless constitutional checks and balances are reinstated.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#49 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-November-11, 06:02

"Personally, I think that this election boiled down to a question of competance. I think that candidates that were able to articulate strong, principled, internally consistent positions did well regardless of whether they were liberals or conservatives, which gives me some faint hope."

The election was primarily about Iraq.

Without Iraq, the Democrats would have won in 2002 and 2004 (though probably narrowly in both cases). The Republicans used "soft on Saddam/terror" nonsense both times quite skillfully to win an election where other factors went against them.

Without Iraq, I think voters would have handed the Republicans back some of the seats they would have lost in 2002 and 2004, and sent President Kerry a message that he needs to do more to improve wages for working people - after all, that was the main issue of the 2004 campaign, wasn't it? ;)

Peter
0

#50 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,472
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-November-11, 06:06

luke warm, on Nov 11 2006, 06:48 AM, said:

i see where al-qaida in iraq applaud the recent elections

Quote

Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats, saying: "They voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

sort of mixed blessings when an american political party gets close to 100% of the terrorist support... i hope they are as disappointed in these elected officials as most americans were with the last batch

Those terrorists are certainly a puzzling bunch.

They go arround blowing up airplanes and destroying skycrapers, yet they are honest enough citizens that we can unthinkly accept El Qaeda press releases at face value.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#51 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-November-11, 09:41

well richard, as you know al-quaida isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

Quote

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#52 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,472
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-November-11, 10:10

luke warm, on Nov 11 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

well richard, as you know al-quaida isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

Quote

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

I'm not a mind a reader. I don't read Arabic. I don't read Farsi.
I don't know what the announcements actually said in their original language.

I don't know if the announcements actually reflect the true belief of the individuals who released. Alternatively, I don't know if they were part of some disinformation campaign.

For all I know, this was just the type of polite/eaningless congratulations that heads of state send when there has been an election.

So, I don't put a lot of weight on these sorts of announcements...

I will note the following:

1. Iran and Al Qaeda are very separate and distinct groups. Indeed, back when the Talliban was running Afghanistan the Iranians and Al Qaeda had a running series of military clashes. While the US is in conflict with both groups, its a mistake to consider them as some kind of monolithic block and assume that both organizations share the same motives. The most obvious example of the significant split between the two groups is that Al Qaeda is a Sunni group while Iran is a Shi'a state.

2. The Iranian made a number of peaceful overtures to the United States, all of which were rejected by the Bush administration. I don't think that the Iranians are going to abandon their nuclear weapons program. At the same time, i don't think that they are particularly interested in a full fledged war with the United States. I suspect that they believe the electoral defeat of hardline Republicans signals that a diplomatic solution may be possible.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#53 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,194
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2006-November-11, 10:26

luke warm, on Nov 11 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

well richard, as you know al-quaida isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

Quote

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

First of all, the terrorist's audience, as well the audience of the Iranian president, hate the republicans even more than they hate the democrats, so they pretty much say what they have to say.

As for Iran, the Democrats' victory decreases the chance of a war with the U.S. I'm rather cynical but not cynical enough to think that the Iranian president wants a war with the U.S. So he might actually be honest in this particular case.

As for the terrorists, one might expect that they would prefer as much support for Bush's line as possible since they feed on war. Then again, if the U.S. leaves Iraq as a consequence of the elections, many will see it as if the terrorists defeated the U.S. which will encourage terrorism elsewhere. So I really don't know what the terrorists feel about the elections. Maybe each terrorist feels differently.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#54 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-November-11, 11:20

luke warm, on Nov 11 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

well richard, as you know al-qaeda isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

Quote

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

Seems to me this statement only discloses the low regard for which many outside the U.S. hold for Bush - including Iran.

Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:

Quote

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.


Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable. From the quote I read, the attack was directly against Rumsfeld and Bush independent of the American people - very personal.

As for the election, it does indeed seem a victory as it reinforces insurgency as a viable means to affect interntional politics - and it would seem al qaeda recognizes this in the statement. But the victory could never have occurred without the Bush led invasion of Iraq. So to infer that a victory for the Dems is a victory for the terrorists, which is what you seem to imply, is hogwash - the victory had already been won with the deterioration of Iraq into civil war - the elections only emphasized that fact.

I am already disappointed that the Dems have announced that impeachment is off the table - not that it should be a goal - but to me it shows there will be no meaningful investigation into the screw-ups and/or deceptions that led to the war.
If it was monumental screw-up, there should be no impeachment - but if the information was known to be false or unreliable and the President plowed ahead with lies and decption of his own, not only should impeachment be on the table but should head the list.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#55 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-November-12, 11:37

Winstonm, on Nov 11 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:

Quote

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.


Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable.

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#56 User is offline   akhare 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Joined: 2005-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-November-12, 13:40

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

This must be a joke -- indeed, if there's so much hatred between the two political factions in our democracy, the country faces a far more serious danger than the one posed by terrorism.

Also, I don't think that clubbing Ali Khamenei and the terrorists (presumably al-Qaeda) in one single sentence makes sense. The Persians have a vastly different cultural background and I suspect that their strategic objectives will be ill served by launching a terrorist attack on the United States. It might work for a stateless organization, but has to be suicidal for Iran...
foobar on BBO
0

#57 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-November-12, 14:55

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 11 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:

Quote

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.


Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable.

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

Perhaps the difference lies in the listener - is it not better to listen to both side without bias?

I made no mention of enemies or friends - that is how you charecterized them.
I only quoted what was claimed to be part of the al-Qaeda message and the statement toward the American people was not hate filled - however, the statements toward Bush, Rumsfeld, and the American troops were bitter and harsh.

There have been many terrorist groups that have arisen over the past 50-60 years - the Zionists pre-Israel, the IRA, and many more - heck, the Boston Tea Party could be considered a terrorist action. In the case of the Zionists bombing the King David Hotel I don't see the same level castigation as is offered for the offensive al-Quada. Terrorism is a political action of last resort - when the political landscape changes the terrror ceases. The fact that "terrorists" can be reasonable and make reasonable statements should shock no one. Even our own press reported this Democratic victory was more a vote against Bush and the war than for the Democrats - is that an unreasonable statement? Then how can it be unreasonable for an al-quada leader to echo those sentiments when the election matched his own goals and targets. Al-Quada is a political/religious organization with goals for America to stay out of middle east affairs - if I had been born in that milieu I might feel the same way.

However, I know it is not that simple - there are legitimate concerns for America in letting the middle east decide its own affairs - and great temptation to intervene in order to make certain American interests are protected. But to a degree we have caused our own problems by globalization and a resistance to alternative fuel development. There is no doubt that without an uninterrupted supply of oil the U.S. economy would wither. But to use force to impose our will instead of negotiation is imperialism verses interntional cooperation.

There is a reaon why the rest of the world views Bush as more of a danger to world peace than N. Korea - it is the unilateral contempt for another's viewpoint and insistence on acquiescience to American will. Back anyone far enough into a corner and they will either yield or fight - is it then any surprise to anyone but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons to find that the Iraq war has strengthened rather than diminished terrorism?

The claims of the Bush White House that al-Quada attacked because they "hate our freedom" is grossly disinginuous. As with all terror, the attacks were an attempt to change the politico - and to some extent that goal succeeded with the dismantling of the Republican legislature, the approval rating for Bush of 31%, and a drastic change in the support of the Iraq war.

Governments tend to spend years castigizing terrorists and belittling their political strength and base until finally they must capitulate and admit to the power of that group and allow them a voice in government - the IRA is a classic example. Perhaps it is in our best interests instead of demonizing al-Quada to understand their political motivations and diffuse them by negotiiation and compromise. In the past, the U.S. has first supported Saddam Hussein and then vilified him, vilified Yasser Arafat and then later stood by as he spoke to the U.N. Whether a group or person is demonized seems directly related to the whims of the U.S. and the political strength of the vilified.

The cowboy claim that we do not negotiate with terroists is so hollow as our history is filled with such actions once the terrorists political might became a force too large to be ignored. Whether al-Qaeda reaches this level of strength is unknown - and I'm sure until it does we will continue to demonize and vilify their every action. But if they ever reach that strength, we will be making nice with them just as we have done throughout our history.

At some point in their lives, I would venture to say that Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin made reasonable statememts. To vilify a reasonable statement due to the source of that statement to me sounds similar to "you are with us or with the terrorists".
An insane man can state the sky is blue; the fact he is insane does not alter the fact that his statement is accurate.

Now, having said all this I also want to point out that I abhor terrorism as a viable means of political change and if captured those who plan and execute terror events should be harshly punished - but I am not so naive as to ignore the historical significance of terrorism as an effective means of political change, and because that of effectiveness our own view in twenty or thirty years of al-Qaeda may be radically altered.

So to me, to insinuate that an al-Qaeda leader cannot be reasonable or make a reasonable statement seems misguided loyalty to the characterization of al-Qaeda provided by leaders whose claims on other critical matters has proven to have been false.

Maybe they are all madmen and religious zealots; but perhaps they consider themselves reasonable men pushed to their limits and fighting back in the only way viable to them in the confines of their religious beliefs.

I don't claim to know - but I am certain in my own mind that nothing in this world is black and white, no matter how much simpler that would make things.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#58 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,784
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-November-12, 15:32

akhare, on Nov 12 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

This must be a joke -- indeed, if there's so much hatred between the two political factions in our democracy, the country faces a far more serious danger than the one posed by terrorism.

Also, I don't think that clubbing Ali Khamenei and the terrorists (presumably al-Qaeda) in one single sentence makes sense. The Persians have a vastly different cultural background and I suspect that their strategic objectives will be ill served by launching a terrorist attack on the United States. It might work for a stateless organization, but has to be suicidal for Iran...

But not against Israel?

In any event does anyone really believe Iran does not murder Americans in Iraq?
0

#59 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-November-12, 15:45

"In any event does anyone really believe Iran does not murder Americans in Iraq?"

No, but..

In any event does anyone really believe the U.S. does not murder Iraqis in Iraq?

We have even less right than Iran to intervene in Iraqi affairs. Iraq is their neighbor, and (with U.S. aid and encouragement) Iraq invaded Iran.

We have absolutely no room to talk when it comes to mass murder.

Peter
0

#60 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,273
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-November-12, 15:47

An aside:

In my lifetime of 55 years, I cannot remember a single time when this nation (U.S) was so polarized. To me polarization of this magnitude can only occur when one side takes the stance that anything but total acquiescience to their viewpoint is treasonous. It is the viewpoint of a ruling party. It is the viewpoint that you are either with us or against us and has no middle ground for honest dissent and questioning of purposes.

There is only a faith in its own moral infallibility that produces intollerance as great as any on earth.

I happen to believe this is based on misguided fundamental Christian beliefs from people trying to do what they believe to be morally right - the problem comes from their judgement of themselves and then this judgment must extend to others.

Scripture says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." It is my belief that fundamentalist are misguided in their understanding of this passage to mean do not judge others -but included in that passage is the admonition as well to not judge yourself.

If you set up artificial boundaries of moral behavior and then cross those bounds and find yourself a sinner, you have judged your actions and yourself. The problem occurs because that belief system must be - if it is valid - universalized as a common moral demoninator - at that point one must judge others against this standard - it cannot be helped. This leads inevitably to intolerance. If your theological moral system believes homosexuality to be sinful and you judge yourself against this standard, how is it possible to be tolerant of another person whose belief is that homosexuality is natural and moral?

It is my belief that this passage, "Judge not lest ye be judged" is actually a liberating concept in that it calls upon man not to judge himself for his foibles and infallibilities. Once personal humanness and fallibility is accepted, there is no longer need to judge anyone else's actions. This is not an open invitation to immorality - one should certainly strive to live as morally as possible; but what it means is that infallibility is impossible so don't castigate oneself for failure - accept it as part of human frailty and move on. Once you accept this in yourself, it become a simple matter to accept it in others.

And that is the entire basis for tolerance.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users