So who wants to take bets how long it takes Maynard to talk Dems into being anti-war? 
I'll respect your one-on-one and I hope everyone else will too.
I'll respect your one-on-one and I hope everyone else will too.
Parallel Thread - Dems vs. Maynard
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
H
Heretic
Guest
Im not going to touch the one on one debate no matter how silly I think some of the stuff that comes out of your computer is. Besides you couldn't handle a debate with me.
So who won't be able to control themselves? Who will be the first to bust in? My vote goes to....Larry Gude.
Been good, Maynard - did you all get any of this crummy weather? Up here we got...drumroll please...24" of snow! Then another 3" a few days later. THEN another 2" or so just the other day!
Been good, Maynard - did you all get any of this crummy weather? Up here we got...drumroll please...24" of snow! Then another 3" a few days later. THEN another 2" or so just the other day!
H
Heretic
Guest
Just because someone has a stance on an issue that is different from what you or their party wants them to have doesnt make them "lost" or "wrong" its called independent thought.
That is what is wrong with politics its a two sided issue and if one side is for it the other side immediately thinks they have to boe against it. This is exactly why I left the democratic party and refuse to join any political party ever again.
I really wish we could escape the clutches of this two party system.
That is what is wrong with politics its a two sided issue and if one side is for it the other side immediately thinks they have to boe against it. This is exactly why I left the democratic party and refuse to join any political party ever again.
I really wish we could escape the clutches of this two party system.
Yeah, maybe he should blow up a meat packing plant to show he's a "real" liberal. Maybe he should volunteer to be a human shield (I hear there are some new openings). Maybe he should create a statue of Jesus out of pig excrement.
Oh, and by the way, SMC - anti-war protesters aren't "real" liberals.
http://www.turnleft.com/liberal.html
Maybe you didn't get the memo.
So far our parallel thread is getting more action than the one-on-one.
Maynard's questions:
Maynard's questions:
1. So what if it's anti-Bush? This is HIS war. But you were okay with it when it was Clinton's war, right? And anyway, it's not Bush's war - it's all of our war, just as it was when Clinton took action. Do you think Bush just made this stuff up out of the blue? If that's the case, then there are a LOT of people in on it - including Bill Clinton and his administration.
2. Yugoslavia (Serbia) was a UN deal, just like this one should be.. Why do you suppose the UN would go for ousting Milosovic but NOT Saddam? That's the question we must ask and get an honest reply to before we can point to the UN as some kind of authority. Did the UN authorize it when Clinton dropped bombs on Baghdad? And did he call for other nations to join us? Or did he act unilaterally? And you also have to ask why the UN would pull inspectors out in 1998 (?) because the Iraqis weren't cooperating. Does that makes sense to you?
3. Who is "we"? We, us, the United States - and any other ocuntry that has decided they've had enough of terrorism and maniac dictators. We say "we" when we want to align ourselves with a particular group and show support - much like when the Redskins win a game and we say, "Yay! We won!" Want me to define "is" for you, too?
4. Many tools are available besides war and sitting back doing nothing. Some are in progress, others are on the table. Most have already been tried - FOR 8 YEARS! Everyone says Clinton ignored the Iraq problem and did nothing about it. I disagree. I think he showed us that "diplomacy" doesn't work with guys like Saddam.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
It is my wish that people would quit trying to trip up Democrats by dragging out the 1999 Persian Gulf (Iraq) resolution that the Dems passed. Why are so many people (especially Tim Russert) so confused about why the Dems could be so anxious to fight Iraq in 1999 and so reluctant in 2003?
The answer is obvious since people usually do not change their stances on peace and war very easily or en masse. The answer is that the Dems knew ahead of the vote that Clinton had no intention of following through on his threats, and that the whole resolution was nothing more than a smokescreen to help make Clinton look as good as possible during his impeachment. They voted the way they did because they had been assured that war would not really take place.
The answer is obvious since people usually do not change their stances on peace and war very easily or en masse. The answer is that the Dems knew ahead of the vote that Clinton had no intention of following through on his threats, and that the whole resolution was nothing more than a smokescreen to help make Clinton look as good as possible during his impeachment. They voted the way they did because they had been assured that war would not really take place.
Hopefully most of us can agree that bombing Baghdad is not the goal; it is the means to achieve the goal. So what is the goal?
1. Disarm Iraq.
2. Possibly remove Saddam from power (and maybe remove his head from his body.)
As far as #1 is concerned, attacking and bombing don't accomplish much disarmament, except that it would POSSIBLY create a more stable environment for the disarmament to take place. I say that IF the disarmanemt can take place without the bombing, let's keep it up. And before you get all freaky about the inspectors not supposed to be disarming, I say why not? The UN hired them, the UN can tell them what they want them to do. It's the US (again) trying to restrict what the inspectors can and can't do.
There are so many wild cards to deal with after an attack: who takes over; we still won't know where any WMD's might be; political implications all over the world; how long do we stay; we take their oil to pay for this?.
The Un is clearly on board with disarming Iraq, there is just a difference on how to go about it. But all those other issues get dealt with much more effectively with UN sanction.
Point #2- removing heads of state (or removing heads of heads of state lol) is supposed to be way off limits for individual countries. I know it' s happened before, but that doesn't make it right. If we, the de-facto leader of the world, keeps doing it, then there are no rules. We are back to the 1600's when everybody was fighting over territory.
There's a bit more to say, but I'm out of time for now.
1. Disarm Iraq.
2. Possibly remove Saddam from power (and maybe remove his head from his body.)
As far as #1 is concerned, attacking and bombing don't accomplish much disarmament, except that it would POSSIBLY create a more stable environment for the disarmament to take place. I say that IF the disarmanemt can take place without the bombing, let's keep it up. And before you get all freaky about the inspectors not supposed to be disarming, I say why not? The UN hired them, the UN can tell them what they want them to do. It's the US (again) trying to restrict what the inspectors can and can't do.
There are so many wild cards to deal with after an attack: who takes over; we still won't know where any WMD's might be; political implications all over the world; how long do we stay; we take their oil to pay for this?.
The Un is clearly on board with disarming Iraq, there is just a difference on how to go about it. But all those other issues get dealt with much more effectively with UN sanction.
Point #2- removing heads of state (or removing heads of heads of state lol) is supposed to be way off limits for individual countries. I know it' s happened before, but that doesn't make it right. If we, the de-facto leader of the world, keeps doing it, then there are no rules. We are back to the 1600's when everybody was fighting over territory.
There's a bit more to say, but I'm out of time for now.
Excuse me, Maynard - your thread is over here .
And here's what your girl Hillary has to say about it:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm
She must have seen that Gallup poll that said the majority of Americans favor invading Iraq.
And here's what your girl Hillary has to say about it:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm
She must have seen that Gallup poll that said the majority of Americans favor invading Iraq.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Never ceases to amaze me...
Damn MG,
One minute, the LETTER of the law MUST be followed; no shooting until the UN says so, then:
Now, the UN can do whatever "they" want, (like Hussein who most certainly did what he wanted in kicking them out in the first place while the ever vigilant UN did...???) nevermind what the resolutions say, while we, thus US, YOUR country, have to follow all the rules.
It's this constant revisionism that makes me feel so distant from my liberal fellow citizens. You all engage in "wish" craft. You are adults yet you think and feel and debate like children. You just want what you want; rules, laws and agreements be damned.
Then, bam, back to "rules" as it fits your current wish:
KEEP DOING WHAT??? Who the hell have we murdered, as you imply?
Try this. Just imagine Hussein is Shrub, or, worse yet, a young Ronald Reagan. Can you see it ..."tax cuts, strong US military, limited government"...Now how do you feel about war?
Damn MG,
One minute, the LETTER of the law MUST be followed; no shooting until the UN says so, then:
Now, the UN can do whatever "they" want, (like Hussein who most certainly did what he wanted in kicking them out in the first place while the ever vigilant UN did...???) nevermind what the resolutions say, while we, thus US, YOUR country, have to follow all the rules.
It's this constant revisionism that makes me feel so distant from my liberal fellow citizens. You all engage in "wish" craft. You are adults yet you think and feel and debate like children. You just want what you want; rules, laws and agreements be damned.
Then, bam, back to "rules" as it fits your current wish:
KEEP DOING WHAT??? Who the hell have we murdered, as you imply?
Try this. Just imagine Hussein is Shrub, or, worse yet, a young Ronald Reagan. Can you see it ..."tax cuts, strong US military, limited government"...Now how do you feel about war?
I am being totally consistent. There are some laws that are clear; invading foreign countries with no reason for example; piracy on the high seas, that kind of thing. Other issues are not so clear. The UN has said what Iraq must do. Then they siad, if they don't do that, we will decide what to do next. They did NOT say that if Iraq fails to comply, the USA gets to attack.
By the way, saddam did not kick out the inspectors before; we withdrew them in preperation for some bombing.
As far as us "doing it", I was referring to intervening in other countries in one form or another: Nicaragua, Chile, Viet Nam, and most lately Venezuela.
I don't get your "imagine" bit. Are you trying to say that somehow I support saddam? If so, wrong. Yesterday it occurred to me to try to fin an iraqi consulate office here in Atlanta. If I can find one, I will go protest there, with a sign that says something to the effect of demanding that the dictator step down, save his people from war. And then I would hope that somebody would arrest him and put him on trial for crimes against humanity.
By the way, saddam did not kick out the inspectors before; we withdrew them in preperation for some bombing.
As far as us "doing it", I was referring to intervening in other countries in one form or another: Nicaragua, Chile, Viet Nam, and most lately Venezuela.
I don't get your "imagine" bit. Are you trying to say that somehow I support saddam? If so, wrong. Yesterday it occurred to me to try to fin an iraqi consulate office here in Atlanta. If I can find one, I will go protest there, with a sign that says something to the effect of demanding that the dictator step down, save his people from war. And then I would hope that somebody would arrest him and put him on trial for crimes against humanity.
H
Heretic
Guest
1) Ok if the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 to prepare for bombing...why did the bombing occur?
2) The UN had no plans on disarming Iraq until the US pressed rather hard for it to. Or as you put it bullied and bribed. But now you are saying that the UN telling Iraq to disarm is a good thing...how could it be if it was Bushes bullying and bribes....could it be that the UN wasn't doing its job?
2) The UN had no plans on disarming Iraq until the US pressed rather hard for it to. Or as you put it bullied and bribed. But now you are saying that the UN telling Iraq to disarm is a good thing...how could it be if it was Bushes bullying and bribes....could it be that the UN wasn't doing its job?
I don't remember the exact circumstances of that bombing. I am sure it was in response to something that saddam did, if that's what you mean. But the question for me would be , was it UN sanctioned? I think it was, but I'm not sure.
To me, the idea of "international law" is still young and undeveloped. The UN (and the League of Nations before that) are the first real attempts to build a system that deals with this. But the UN is only as strong as it's members let it be. Prior to the League and UN, there was no collective way to deal with international bad behavior. It was essentially every country for themselves. Alliances were formed and broken, but there was no standard of behavior to give everybody a sense of what was right and wrong. Now that virtually every square foot of the planet belongs to one country or another, we need a mechanism to protect all those countries and their borders.
When events crop up that test international will, we can choose to say that the international will doesn't matter- we're not ready yet, or we can use it as another precedent to strengthen that will and reinforce the rule of law. I think the current situation is an opportunity to do the latter.
I also would like to say that in my previous post, I mentioned that the UN had not sanctioned the US to enforce their resolutions. I realize that this is debatable. I have been reading about the "legality" of our claiming the right to enforce the resolutions, and there is quite a bit of disagreement over whether we have that right or not.
The UN had no plans on disarming Iraq until the US pressed rather hard for it to. Or as you put it bullied and bribed. But now you are saying that the UN telling Iraq to disarm is a good thing...how could it be if it was Bushes bullying and bribes....could it be that the UN wasn't doing its job?
Yes it could be that the UN wasn't doing it's job very well. But the UN is not some supernatural entity, it is representatives of countries, no doubt the US the most influential of them. Prior to the '92 state of the union address, we hardly ever heard about Iraq- the occassional shot at a radar station in the no fly zones. Then The Boss decided to call them out. Some think saddam has been buiding all kinds of nasty weapons all that time, Maybe so. But isn't disarmament the goal? How does bombing Baghdad achieve that? We will STILL have to disarm Iraq after the bombing.
We get different messages from the government. sometimes they say if he disarms there will be no war. Other times, they say that's not good enough, he has to be removed from power. THAT ist he issue that I think has the UN all bunchy. They do not want to endorse one country deciding it's time to change another country without a damn good reason, especially if it looks like another method than war might work.
To me, the idea of "international law" is still young and undeveloped. The UN (and the League of Nations before that) are the first real attempts to build a system that deals with this. But the UN is only as strong as it's members let it be. Prior to the League and UN, there was no collective way to deal with international bad behavior. It was essentially every country for themselves. Alliances were formed and broken, but there was no standard of behavior to give everybody a sense of what was right and wrong. Now that virtually every square foot of the planet belongs to one country or another, we need a mechanism to protect all those countries and their borders.
When events crop up that test international will, we can choose to say that the international will doesn't matter- we're not ready yet, or we can use it as another precedent to strengthen that will and reinforce the rule of law. I think the current situation is an opportunity to do the latter.
I also would like to say that in my previous post, I mentioned that the UN had not sanctioned the US to enforce their resolutions. I realize that this is debatable. I have been reading about the "legality" of our claiming the right to enforce the resolutions, and there is quite a bit of disagreement over whether we have that right or not.
The UN had no plans on disarming Iraq until the US pressed rather hard for it to. Or as you put it bullied and bribed. But now you are saying that the UN telling Iraq to disarm is a good thing...how could it be if it was Bushes bullying and bribes....could it be that the UN wasn't doing its job?
Yes it could be that the UN wasn't doing it's job very well. But the UN is not some supernatural entity, it is representatives of countries, no doubt the US the most influential of them. Prior to the '92 state of the union address, we hardly ever heard about Iraq- the occassional shot at a radar station in the no fly zones. Then The Boss decided to call them out. Some think saddam has been buiding all kinds of nasty weapons all that time, Maybe so. But isn't disarmament the goal? How does bombing Baghdad achieve that? We will STILL have to disarm Iraq after the bombing.
We get different messages from the government. sometimes they say if he disarms there will be no war. Other times, they say that's not good enough, he has to be removed from power. THAT ist he issue that I think has the UN all bunchy. They do not want to endorse one country deciding it's time to change another country without a damn good reason, especially if it looks like another method than war might work.
So much for your one-on-one, eh Maynard?
H
Heretic
Guest
Although in itself bombing Baghdad will not achieve disarmament it is that threat and only that threat that Saddam will listen to. He has let his people starve and his country fall into ruin when all he really had to do was behave. I think it has been proven time and time again that the only thing that Saddam respects is shows of force.