Please tell me you don't think this is a Democrat thing. And to use it as a defense against Tom DeLay, one of the worst in the politics of personal destruction is even more laughable. You graduated law school and are obviously a smart guy, but jeez.
Oooohh...that's gonna hurt when the judges tally the final score. Maybe he can make it up in the swimsuit round.
Please don't tell me you think Refman wasn't using 'draft doger' status for an indictment of Clinton. These are political issues. People willingly step up and play the same asinine game, over and over again. 'Till next time... mmm... time to ask questions about Pergo vs. Hardwood; maybe in that thread, people won't actually talk past one another.
I genuinely think the issue of Iraq is bipartisan. There are members of both parties on both sides. It's really interesting. Actually I really don't like Tom Delay (the project if it doesn't include Sugarland ). Glynch has seemed to pick up on the politics of personal destruction that the Clinton cronies made into an art form. That's all I was really saying. Would I do that? Me??? Actually like I said before...anybody with money was trying to stay out of Vietnam. Dodging that draft was NOT partisan.
Edit: I wanted to say that people should pay attention to Macbeth/JAG's post. His knowledge of historical events is pretty damn good. It's his application of history to policy that I have a problem with. Since he is specifically speaking about the Iraq situation, this is hardly a 'we should never compromise' edict, or a blanket 'let's nuke 'em, as you'd have us believe. Kennedy was offer many alternatives for the Cuban missle crisis, not just nuking the island. And yes, backing off the Cuban Missle Crisis and letting the missles stay in Cuba would have been appeasement, and would have been a mistake.
The Lesson of World War II: Free Nations’ Lack of Moral Confidence Planted the Roots for History’s Bloodiest Conflict September 3 marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the bloodiest conflict in human history: World War II. Two days earlier, Hitler’s troops had invaded Poland, initiating a conflict that would cost 57 million lives — including 293,000 American servicemen. Now, as we are about to enter the 21st century — in a world armed with weapons far more powerful than those used in World War II — it is important to understand the causes of that conflict, to make sure that we have learned its lessons and are able to prevent similar future bloodbaths. The primary cause of the war was, of course, the totalitarian ideology of Nazism, which held that the state is all-important, and that the individual must be sacrificed to the good of the state. Hitler put this ideology into practice, sacrificing individual lives by the millions. But the success of German military aggression was not inevitable. The free countries of Europe had several opportunities to stop Hitler prior to 1939 — but at each turn they offered appeasement rather than resistance. In 1936, Hitler sent German troops into the Rhineland, on the border between Germany and France. This was the first major step in the Nazi military buildup and a direct violation of the treaty of Versailles (signed at the end of World War I). The German military was still small; if France had attacked, Germany would have been unable to resist. Instead, the French simply dropped the issue. In 1938, Germany annexed Austria; again, the democratic European nations did nothing. Later that year, Hitler demanded possession of the Sudetenland, an ethnic German enclave in Czechoslovakia. The European powers met at a diplomatic conference in Munich, where they acceded to Hitler’s demands, promising, in British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s now infamous words, that this concession would ensure “peace in our time.” Within a few months, Germany had seized all of Czechoslovakia. By the time he attacked Poland, Hitler had received a consistent message: In the face of demands, threats, and outright aggression, the free nations would simply give in. What could explain this weakness in the face of such a clear threat? France and especially Britain were nations whose citizens lived in freedom, who could claim a tradition of individual rights and the rule of law; their enemy was a racist dictatorship whose stated goal was to enslave and murder. Their attitude should have been one of righteous outrage and swift action to destroy an obvious evil. Yet their actual attitudes were the reverse. Hitler was the one who issued his demands in a tone of strident righteousness, while the free nations replied with compromising timidity. The incredible truth is that the nations that best represented freedom and individual rights had lost the certainty of their own moral convictions. They were unable to muster the moral confidence necessary to threaten war in defense of their own freedom. Have we learned the lessons of World War II? Take a look at American foreign policy. In Iraq, where a nationalist dictator is attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction, we have let the issue drop. North Korea is building missiles and developing nuclear weapons to use against our allies in Asia; our response has been to appease them with money and aid. And China, which echoes Nazi Germany in its threats to annex neighboring territories, has met with the same appeasement that emboldened Hitler in 1938. In the face of Chinese missile threats against Taiwan, for example, we are now busy affirming our agreement with China that Taiwan should not declare its formal independence. The only time we have had the nerve to face down a dictator has been in the tiny province of Kosovo — where the threat to American interests is insignificant. The reason for U.S. appeasement is chillingly familiar. While the Chinese furiously denounce our attempts to “impose our values” on them and “interfere in China’s internal affairs” — our president flew to China last year to acknowledge, in a televised broadcast, America’s past faults. The same pattern is repeating itself: Strident moral certainty on the part of dictators, met by mealy-mouthed compromise on the part of free nations. What is needed to oppose these threats — and avoid the necessity for a future war that will break World War II’s record for carnage — is moral confidence on the part of free nations, followed by firm action. But the message to the world’s dictators must be the opposite of the message given to Adolf Hitler prior to 1939. It is not necessary, nor would it be in our interest, to go to war in all of these cases. What is necessary is for America to regain its confidence in the morality of freedom and individual rights — and to have the certainty to stand up for these values against the world’s dictators. Robert W. Tracinski Mr. Tracinski is a syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate and is the publisher and editor of The Intellectual Activist, a magazine analyzing political, cultural, and philosophic issues from an individualist perspective. His commentary has been published in the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, Cincinnati Enquirer, Los Angeles Daily News, San Jose Mercury News, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.
You're right, it is interesting...that doesn't happen too often. However, I was referring to your politics of personal destruction comment. The Democrats are not the only ones to do it, and Tom DeLay, personally, does it well.
I Far from Disappeared Guys! Wow, I come back after a few days and this post is still around. The point I was trying to make with my comments was that the U.S. created much of its own problems with Iraq with its foreign policy in the region. How Ironic is it that Iraq and Afghanistan (Specifically the Taliban-type groups) used to be US allies?? Iraq was the Most Secular state in the Middle East and if not for our annihilation of the country, probably would have been an ally against Al-Queda and extremist regimes. Even Kuwait today does not believe Iraq should be attacked, obviously if his neighbors are not worried, he shouldn't be considered an expansionist, and if expansionism is a crime then the only curren expansionist state is Israel. In regards to the bio-weapons statement, I was simply using the point to show how the media can demonize with fears of bio-chemical terror. Having a slanted attitude towards the rights of the whole world will come back to us. I have been one of the most critical of middle eastern governments, probably one of the most vehemently against many of them in this BBS, so don't go lumping me in as some pro-arab/dictatorial regimes.
Considering the whole underpinning of the international nation-state system was completely overturned with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is not suprising that former allies are no longer. It was inevitable in a world that moved from a bi-polar balance of power to a unipolar one.
Rocketman Tex, I have never once seen you state anything of value in a thread, just little insulting quirps. Quite the Troll.
Now Jams Baker opposes th rush to war without any allies except for the expanisionist Israeli state, to quote Khan.
Everybody here who has paid attention in Middle East threads knows that I have been very critical of Israel. But to call the Israelis expansionists in the same way that Iraq has attempted expansion is absurd. You have to invade sovereign nations with the intent of annexing them under your rule in order to be expansionists. Since there is no such thing as a Palestinian state this has not occurred. I don't agree with the tactics of the Israelis, but they are committing these acts within the borders of Israel.
FD, I've bever once seen you state anything of value in a Middle East-realted thread. In fact, most of the posts you've ever made in a Middle Eastern thread have been (1) anti-Israel, (2) anti-Jewish and (3) borderline anti-semetic. You, my friend, constantly display on this BBS your dislike of, and quite possibly hatred for Jews, of which I am one. After continuously reading the ignorant garbage you post on the Middle East, I have nothing left for you other than to point out your stupidity. Your posts leave me with many opportunities to do so. I'm happy to do so because to me, your posts on the Middle East are offensive and insulting. Speaking of which, what the hell is a "quirp"? Perhaps you meant to use the word "quip".
The following is an exerpt from a Speech by Franchise Blade. The speech was never given, of course, except to you guys here at the BBS, right now. Every generation will be tested. Every generation will be called on to defend our freedom, and the country's ideals. It's just sad when in addition to defending it against terrorists both locally and abroad, we must defend the country's principles against people in it's own govt. I'm here today to make the case for liberating the country from propoganda, jingoism, whipping people into a frenzy where otherwise good people seek an unprovoked first strike against a weak country that could be contained in other ways. President Bush clearly seem intent on invading Iraq, listening to the advice of hawks in his administration, at least one of whom, was busy circumventing U.S. law by selling parts to Saddam Hussein through a subsidiary company of his. The Foundation of American society rests on principles of freedom, sanctity of human life. Following these very principles the United States has never struck first. The other attacks have been in defense of an invaded country, itself or its allies. But now some people like Tom Delay, Condoleezzzzzzza Rice, Rumsfeld and others aren't concerened with that. In his Remarks at West Point the President forged a national security strategic doctorine for the post cold-war era. No longer could America trust the policies of deterrence and containment. Bush made those remarks despite the fact those very policies of containment, and deterrence actually WON the cold-war, and didn't involve unprovoked first strikes, and military invasions. It seems that even though our opponent in that war had a huge military, including weapons of mass destruction that could actually reach our cities, the current President and his administration don't have enough confidence in themselves to contain the dictator of a country with military force only about 30% of what it was the last time we fought them in the Gulf War. Much of the support for the invasion is the result of nothing but a campaign of fear, and propoganda put out by people with a deep distrust of American Principles, and regard for human life. After last September, America recognized that we`re locked in a battle with evil that could take decades. Despite the certain heavy costs in lives and treasure, Americans support an active campaign to destroy international terrorism. The proposed war in Iraq, of course, has almost zero to do with that war, and in fact will only hinder that war. Tom Delay defy's the architects of complacency, to explain to America one time when the policy of international neglect tamed a militaristic regime. And that's part of the problem. Hawks like Delay present the only choices as war, or nothing. However those aren't the only choices. Are some peoples minds so simplistic that they can't notice more complicated plans, such as containment, drumming up support from the international community against Saddam. Saddam is already hemmed in and with a weakened military. The idea that Saddam is poised on the brink of destroying the whole region is a fraud. One building labeled as containing chemical and biological weapons was recently opened to reporters who found baby formula and sugar. President Bush will come to congress before Saddam's day of reckoning... Or at least that's what Tom Delay said. However today the white house is trying to make the case that Bush doesn't need congressional approval. The threats terrorism poses to every free society should naturally create a broad coalition dedicated to decisive action and the destruction of every terrorist organization and its sponsors. This is the exact reason we shouldn't invade Iraq. After the 9/11 attacks the world was on our side. There was an unprecedented flow of good will towards our country, and the fight against terrorism. However, with plans to invade a country, not invovled in those attacks, and one that has only doubtful threats to the U.S. at all, Bush has managed to erode and continues to erode all of that international cooperation and good will. Toppling Saddam would, they say, "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Ladies and gentlemen, these critics are right. Saying otherwise even when our allies in the war against terrorism are against it, is foolish, and arrogant. Removing Saddam, despite the fact that he hasn't attacked us, or isn't capable of attacking us, would send a clear and unambiguous signal to every other state: "We have more weapons than you, and regardless of whether we are in the right or wrong, we aren't afraid to use them..." As Americans, we`re not governed by fear - unless it's needed to drum up support for an unjust war. As Americans, we inherit a higher obligation than placating contemporary opinion. Judging by Tom Delay's speech we inherit the obligation to be arrogant and think we're better than all the other nations combined. As Americans, we reject the illusion of greener pastures offered by moral equivocators... Or those offered by Immoral war mongers. As Americans, we offer unceasing hostility to terrorists, tyrants, and every system of oppression. Unless those doing the oppression serve our interest. Because, as Americans, we`re born to a special destiny... says Tom Delay. Who's he to decide that? We won`t evade the defense of freedom. But we will attack even when it isn't self-defense. We won`t take counsel of our fears. But we will try and instill fear in our own citizens to gain support for our unjust war. We won`t seek shelter in the naïve comfort of misguided hopes. Or peaceful means of resolving conflicts for that matter. And we won`t shrink from the mission before us. That mission should be fighting terrorism. We won't shrink from that mission, but we will hinder it severly by invading Iraq. For in the last analysis, we`ll answer, not to the fickle whims of the international community, but to posterity. Instead we will become military aggressors, and refer to the desires for peace that our allies voice as nothing more than 'fickle whims'.
Please don't even pull that Anti-Semetic nonsense on me. I am anti-zionism because I feel that it is oppressive and created an apartheid type state. I am also vehemently against most middle eastern governments as I have stated on numerous occasions. I think you are very closed-minded and are extremely anti-muslim, whereas I am simply against an oppressive state. And calling me stupid, and your silly little comments does nothing to prove any point, oh yeah...you've never made a point, you've just insulted me and others. I think you should open your eyes and see justice instead of this cloud of patriotism you feel for a country that is constantly illegally expanding, torturing and oppressing a group of people. My loyalty is to the United States, I don't think yours is. go to www.nimn.org It is a site by Jewish People Such as yourself that are against the violence perpetuated by Israel. It has testimonies from soldiers who refused to serve in the occupied territories, and insight into how the Israeli manipulate the public in the world and use funds and lobbying in the U.S. to push their views. I simply want you to put aside your pride and your loyalties and understand that each human life is precious, and that if a country's policies are taking the life and freedom away from others than it must be spoken against. All the Palestinians want is what we hold dear in the US; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to deny it to them.....and then to demonize them when they fight back. As deplorable as their methods are, they are fighting oppression.
<b>Originally posted by MacBeth ** It could possibly be argued that appeasement was one of the later causes for WWII, although that is a limited view. (Hitler's rise to power was a direct reaction to black and white definitions w/ regards to Communism, as that was his original source of power. Additionally, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which opened up Hitler's westward expanionist strategy, was the direct result of the black and white view the West help towards Communism, especially Britain, as they continually rebuffed Stalin's attempts to limit Hitler's power by arriving at an Anglo-Franco-Russo agreement. It was only after his repeated appeals to do this were ignored/rejected, and he wasn't even invited to the talks leading to the Munich Pact, that the M-R treaty was signed. Thus, sophomoric views had at least as much to do with WWII as appeasement, which only came into play once Hitler's regime was well under way. </b> <A HREF="http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s6426.html">Russia and Germany Reborn: Unification, the Soviet Collapse, and the New Europe</A> <i> ..... <b>Russia and Germany before the Cold War</b> The failure of the German uprisings in 1919 ensured that Bolshevik Russia would have to survive by itself, without international socialist support. Nevertheless, in the 1920s, Germany played a key role in enabling the Soviet Union to become a diplomatic player in Europe and in building up Soviet military strength. The USSR likewise facilitated Germany's rearmament. The two pariahs in the international system, the "comrades in misfortune" as Winston Churchill called them, who had been excluded from the Versailles settlement, began their clandestine military cooperation in 1921 and continued it until Hitler came to power. The Germans were thereby enabled to evade restrictions on their rearmament imposed by the Versailles settlement and the Russians to rebuild their military industry and their armed forces with the assistance of a more technologically advanced country. The official diplomatic breakthrough, of course, came at Rapallo in 1922, when the Soviet commissar of foreign affairs, Georgi Chicherin, managed to persuade the reluctant German Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau to sign a separate German-Soviet treaty instead of an agreement with the Western powers who were negotiating in nearby Locarno. The Treaty of Rapallo itself was rather innocuous. It provided merely for the resumption of full diplomatic relations, the cancellation of mutual claims, and the granting of most-favored-nation status, and it was separate from the secret military collaboration. Yet it symbolized for the Western powers the ultimate act of perfidy--the Soviet state, in its first diplomatic triumph, making a separate deal with Germany, persuading Germany to reject its western and eastern neighbors and collaborate with Russia to the detriment of European security. Rapallo was subsequently praised by Soviet writers as a model for future cooperation and was criticized by the West as an example of nefarious secret dealing, so much so that when Chancellor Helmut Kohl negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev (without the participation of Germany's allies) the deal that enabled a united Germany to remain in NATO, the specter of Rapallo was once again raised. Rapallo as a metaphor has, therefore, played an important role in shaping the attitudes of Germany's and Russia's neighbors in the twentieth century. It also represented for the postwar Soviet Germanisty (German experts) an ideal model for the future. It has provided a powerful historical image, used by critics and admirers alike to resurrect fears from a bygone era when issues of the future of European security are discussed. During the Weimar Republic, economic ties between Germany and the USSR were a major factor in the growth of Soviet industrial strength. Germany was a far more important trade partner for the Soviet Union than vice versa, because of the limited market for Soviet raw material exports: imports from Germany, on the other hand, were particularly significant during the first Five Year Plan, when they constituted half of all Russian imports. During this period, the Soviets developed a solid respect for German industrial imports and the German business class developed a continuing interest in the Soviet market that revived after the chilliest days of the Cold War. When Hitler came to power in January 1933, Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov declared that there was no reason for change in Soviet policy toward Germany. The Soviet leadership had read Hitler's writings and knew that the essential elements of Nazi ideology included anti-Semitism, anticommunism, a disdain for Slavs, and the belief that Russia was part of Germany's rightful Lebensraum. Yet at this point they failed to appreciate how different Nazism was from other right-wing movements. Moreover, Stalin may well not have realized that the German dictator believed in his ideology more than did the Soviet dictator. When the Soviets finally began to realize the potential danger, they closed down the German military bases, began to pursue a policy of collective security with the West, and in 1934 reversed the previous Comintern line equating Nazis and Social Democrats, urging the formation of popular fronts between communists, Socialists, and other antifascist forces. The history of Soviet relations with the Nazis prior to 1939 involved both attempts to contain the spread of German power and the knowledge that, in order to stay out of a European war, which the USSR was ill-equipped to fight, there were good reasons for once again making a separate deal with the Germans. Moreover, domestic factors played a major role in defining Soviet policy. Between 1936 and 1939 the purges were in full swing, the entire Bolshevik old guard and the top military officers were killed, millions of Soviet citizens perished in camps, and Stalin remained obsessed with destroying any conceivable rival source of power. As the danger of war mounted, and the Western Powers failed to stop Hitler's expansion, Stalin negotiated both with the British and French and with the Germans in 1938 and 1939. The traditional Soviet argument (and that of some Western revisionist historians) until the Gorbachev era was that Stalin genuinely desired an alliance with the British and the French, but that their dilatory tactics and anticommunism forced him to turn to the Nazis and sign an agreement with them in August 1939. Western scholars largely disagreed, maintaining that, from Stalin's point of view, a nonaggression pact with Germany was clearly preferable. An alliance with France and Britain would have involved the USSR in actual fighting, whereas a nonaggression pact would enable the Soviet Union to stay out of the hostilities altogether or at least buy time until it had to fight. Moreover, the Soviets would be able to take back lost territory from Poland--the "b*stard of Versailles" as Molotov called it--and gain new territory. Since the flowering of glasnost under Gorbachev and the opening of previously secret archives, Soviet historians have convincingly argued the mainstream Western case. They have shown that Stalin quite clearly preferred the German option to an alliance with Britain and France against the Nazis. Talks on improving bilateral trade ties began in earnest in 1937 and were at first a surrogate for political dialogue. When the political dialogue picked up in 1939, Stalin was able to ensure that the Soviet Union not only stayed out of the war but also, by the secret protocols that were only very reluctantly released by Gorbachev toward the end of his tenure, acquired the Baltic states and parts of Poland and Rumania. The forced return to Germany of German communists, who had taken refuge in the USSR and who were subsequently to perish at the hands of the Nazis, was a small price to pay for this increase of territory and noninvolvement in the war. Stalin's refusal to heed the warnings of American, British, and even his own officials that a German attack was imminent was the ultimate testimony to his failure to understand Hitler and Nazism. Despite this, as well as the generally cooperative Soviet-German ties of the interwar years, once the invasion took place, Stalin managed to tap a deep reservoir of anti-German and nationalist feeling amongst the Soviet population. It is quite remarkable that, after over a decade of social upheaval, famine, economic dislocation, and purges, Stalin was able to rally his people to fight and ultimately defeat the Germans. When "Death to the German Invader!" replaced "Proletarians of the World Unite!" on the masthead of Pravda, it was a sign that the Soviet leaders realized that the fear of the Germans, so deep in traditional Russian political culture, would come to their aid..... </i> MacBeth, Didn't Russia help Germany rebuild and train its military prior to WW II? Yet, Stalin desired help (a pact) from the Western countries to check the growing threat? What did Russia think Hitler was going to do with his rebuilt armies?
Yeah RocketmanTex, "One of my best friends is muslim" That means everything right Its great that your muslim friend can be more open-minded about things than you are. Yes, all the Palestinians just want to eradicate Israel, so that is why Israel keeps putting up more settlements. Thats a great reason. It is horrendous what the families of the suicide bombers have to go through, but that is just a result of the the government's policies towards the Palestinians. The Israeli people and the Jewish world should stand up against the tyranny of their government. Do you think creating more settlements will A.) Increase Violence because more people are displaced and their homes destroyed or B.) Reduce violence because people like getting their homes demolished and being thrown into a refugee camp. Take your pick.
