I think this guy has some valid points. You just need to ignore his fairly standard Bush-bashing comments and get to the meat of the arguments.
Source
After being thoroughly thumped by the voters, and struggling to keep his poll numbers above 30%, George Bush heads to Vietnam, a country whose war he avoided (checked the "no" box when asked if he would volunteer for overseas duty), and, more tragically, whose lessons he did not learn. The idea that a Vietnam-era no-show would even utter the word "quit" and use that war to cheerlead continued loss of US life, limbs and treasure without being excoriated by the press is intolerable.
Daddy may have kept him from Vietnam, rescued him from his failed company while his co-investors lost, enrolled him at Yale and then Harvard Business School, provided the basis for his participation with the Texas Rangers, but even Daddy's friends, it seems, cannot teach George anything worthwhile about history.
The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq have been addressed. Several key points deserve comment.
Proponents of the Iraq War try to distinguish Vietnam by asserting that, in that war, our losing would not have increased the danger of attacks inside the United States whereas with Iraq, they assert, such an exigency is likely if we withdraw. This is John McCain's major argument for raising troop levels. How quickly they forget. At the time of Vietnam, the official line was that we were threatened by the "red menace", and that we needed to fight them in Saigon to keep us from having to fight them in San Francisco. Sound familiar?
One of the arguments made by Vietnam War opponents was that our military action actually accomplished precisely the opposite of what supporters asserted was the major rationale for the war. Vietnam, supporters said, was a client state for China (that we called "Red China") and the Soviet Union, and so the war was a major theater in the struggle against Communism. Ho Chi Minh was, indeed, a communist. But, he was first and foremost a nationalist, who fought the French, the Japanese, the French again and then the United States. In fact, Vietnam had an historical enmity to China, an observation confirmed by the border war with China that started shortly after the United States exited Vietnam. During the war, we drove Ho Chi Minh into the arms of China, accomplishing precisely the opposite of what we claimed were our key aims. We also succeeded in destabilizing Cambodia, leading to the ascension of the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and then the conquest by Vietnam, turning the "domino theory" into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Similarly, fighting in Iraq is somehow to reduce the worldwide terrorist threat. Like the Vietnam strategy, however,the Iraq War is accomplishing precisely the opposite. Not only is Iraq the major recruiter for more terrorists, with another grievance against western boots on muslim soil and the feeling of humiliation arising from powerlessness, but its course can hardly be convincing to neighboring states to move toward democracy. [Where the idea that creating a democracy in the middle east would set off regional democratization came from is puzzling. Turkey became a western style democracy in the 1920s, and Lebanon was a democracy of sorts prior to the civil war: neither had any impact on the other countries in their vicinity.]
Like Vietnam, the Iraq war weakens the United States and emboldens its enemies. Daddy kept George Bush from experiencing the Vietnam quagmire. Daddy's minions will not rescue us from the Iraqi quicksand into which he, stupidly, arrogantly, led us. Now he dares deceive us again by lying about the lessons of Vietnam.
There are some exaggerations, but his arguments are some of the most reasonable I've seen. I DESPISE rabid Bush-haters and super-liberal conspiracy theorists. This author is a good example of how we should address politics, with civility and intelligence, not hysteria, paranoia and hatred.
11/16/2006
Kid Gets Tased at UCLA
Watch the video first.
Now, read some articles. Like this one, and this one, and this one.
Informed? Good.
Opinions? Post comments, I'm dying to hear what you think.
Here's my take:
Cries of police brutality are absolutely ridiculous. Nothing I see in that video tells me that kid is being at all cooperative. He's on the ground, shouting obscenities and being a belligerent ass, refusing to stand up and leave. The rules are quite clear and simple: don't have an ID? You need to leave. So this kid is either brain-dead or a jackass. He is shouting randomly about the Patriot Act and taunting the police. So he is either brain-dead or a jackass.
What is so hard to understand? Honestly. Get the shit out. You've been tased already, don't push your luck. What's worse is that the whole fucking library must've stood up and gathered 'round to watch the spectacle. What good does that do? Nothing. All it does is add more stress to the situation, which is exactly what the officers DON'T need, and gives the stupid kid an audience, which is exactly what he WANTS.
I've read in various places about how this is a great example of civil disobedience... what kind of idiot "civilly disobeys" a request to leave a private building because he doesn't have the proper identification? A big one. Anyone who says that needs to get a brain. We aren't fighting segregation or unequal rights. He breaks a rule, and refuses to act in the proper manner. His resistance is pointless and stupid and proves NO POINT. Civil disobedience my ass.
Added Content:
A main blog I visit, americablog.com, is covering this story intently. Read up a bit. Anyway, I responded in a comment to the irrational comparison of the retard kid to Rosa Parks. This is what I said:
"Yeah, having to have an ID is SO DISCRIMINATORY. I mean, Rosa would be so proud of this insolent young college student! He was fighting against the oppression of being identifiable as a member of a private institution, and we should all praise him. Screw authority!"
Then he replied in another comment:
"NOTE FROM JOHN: You ignorant fuck. So Miranda rights are no longer necessary because Miranda was a Mexican and an idiot. And all those others I mentioned in the story, whose court cases form the basis of your civil rights today - what about them? They're all a LOT worse than this student, and a lot worse than Rosa Parks. So using your Soviet-style police-state logic all of those civil rights should be thrown out because the people we owe those rights too are scum. Congratulations on being one big ignorant fuck, and a sad excuse for an American."
Now, I was quite astonished to find this awaiting me. Ignorant fuck? ME? So I thought about it for a second... the only possible explanation must be that he missed the sarcasm. I still can't really figure it out. His language and tone left much to be desired too.
Anyway, my reply:
"Wow John, that was an incredibly intelligent and well thought out response. /sarcasm
I don't know whether you missed the sarcasm or are completely off your rocker with paranoia, but the tasing of a stupid belligerent college kid disobeying a lawful order is perfectly reasonable. That Miranda garbage you're spouting is totally unrelated.
Rosa Parks resisted an unjust law. Mr. Smartass was resisting a simple rule. There is a massive difference. COMPARING the two is an insult to civil rights.
You should really learn to be civil."
I can support civil disobedience, in the proper situation. This stupid fuck was resisting a completely reasonable rule, for ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON. The rule wasn't discriminatory, or racist, or unjust. Show your ID or leave. HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? He refused to obey. That's illegal. Fucker deserved to be tased just for being an idiot.
Now, read some articles. Like this one, and this one, and this one.
Informed? Good.
Opinions? Post comments, I'm dying to hear what you think.
Here's my take:
Cries of police brutality are absolutely ridiculous. Nothing I see in that video tells me that kid is being at all cooperative. He's on the ground, shouting obscenities and being a belligerent ass, refusing to stand up and leave. The rules are quite clear and simple: don't have an ID? You need to leave. So this kid is either brain-dead or a jackass. He is shouting randomly about the Patriot Act and taunting the police. So he is either brain-dead or a jackass.
What is so hard to understand? Honestly. Get the shit out. You've been tased already, don't push your luck. What's worse is that the whole fucking library must've stood up and gathered 'round to watch the spectacle. What good does that do? Nothing. All it does is add more stress to the situation, which is exactly what the officers DON'T need, and gives the stupid kid an audience, which is exactly what he WANTS.
I've read in various places about how this is a great example of civil disobedience... what kind of idiot "civilly disobeys" a request to leave a private building because he doesn't have the proper identification? A big one. Anyone who says that needs to get a brain. We aren't fighting segregation or unequal rights. He breaks a rule, and refuses to act in the proper manner. His resistance is pointless and stupid and proves NO POINT. Civil disobedience my ass.
Added Content:
A main blog I visit, americablog.com, is covering this story intently. Read up a bit. Anyway, I responded in a comment to the irrational comparison of the retard kid to Rosa Parks. This is what I said:
"Yeah, having to have an ID is SO DISCRIMINATORY. I mean, Rosa would be so proud of this insolent young college student! He was fighting against the oppression of being identifiable as a member of a private institution, and we should all praise him. Screw authority!"
Then he replied in another comment:
"NOTE FROM JOHN: You ignorant fuck. So Miranda rights are no longer necessary because Miranda was a Mexican and an idiot. And all those others I mentioned in the story, whose court cases form the basis of your civil rights today - what about them? They're all a LOT worse than this student, and a lot worse than Rosa Parks. So using your Soviet-style police-state logic all of those civil rights should be thrown out because the people we owe those rights too are scum. Congratulations on being one big ignorant fuck, and a sad excuse for an American."
Now, I was quite astonished to find this awaiting me. Ignorant fuck? ME? So I thought about it for a second... the only possible explanation must be that he missed the sarcasm. I still can't really figure it out. His language and tone left much to be desired too.
Anyway, my reply:
"Wow John, that was an incredibly intelligent and well thought out response. /sarcasm
I don't know whether you missed the sarcasm or are completely off your rocker with paranoia, but the tasing of a stupid belligerent college kid disobeying a lawful order is perfectly reasonable. That Miranda garbage you're spouting is totally unrelated.
Rosa Parks resisted an unjust law. Mr. Smartass was resisting a simple rule. There is a massive difference. COMPARING the two is an insult to civil rights.
You should really learn to be civil."
I can support civil disobedience, in the proper situation. This stupid fuck was resisting a completely reasonable rule, for ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON. The rule wasn't discriminatory, or racist, or unjust. Show your ID or leave. HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? He refused to obey. That's illegal. Fucker deserved to be tased just for being an idiot.
11/12/2006
General Agreement with my Compatriot, and a State of Affairs
I return to blogland after a long hiatus. The reason for the hiatus was partly due to lack of time I chose to devote to things of this nature, but mostly due to the weakness in my arguments. In my mind I constantly have an argument brewing to defend the things that I believe it, but recent developments have undermined my arguments and made glaring holes in them. I often choose to avoid arguing when it is hard to discern a right and a wrong course of action. As is the case with the biggest political issue in the United States today, the War in Iraq.
Now I believe the War in Iraq was right when it started, and I do believe that it is still right and that we need to stay the course. But the blaring hole that anyone, including myself, can rip apart is the fact that our main focus for going into Iraq was WMDs, and while I really could care less if they were there or not. It is the fact that the other two countries that President Bush named in one of his famous post-9/11 speechs, Iran and North Korea, are ignored despite the fact one is confirmed to have developed a nuclear weapon, and the other is blatantly trying to get them. This paradox puts my argument in severe jeopardy. How can one argue for something based on a cause, than can be used for two other, and more dangerous countries?
Another thing is the blatant idiocy of our political system. The common people all the time pull out random quotes from people like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Confucius, that say powerful messages. It's quotes like these that people use to strengthen their arguments, but there are always quotes on the other side of the spectrum that say the exact opposite, and yet, are ignored. Are they less valid, just because they don't agree with the majority of people? That's the way it seems to be. I'll bring up a certain quote, by one of our "Greatest Presidents" according to polling of the American Public.... Jorge Washingtino.... or George Washington. I knew that George Washington said this, but he says it in a way that is much more supporting of my argument than I thought.
In relation to partisan politics:
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
People use George Washington quotes for a variety of arguments, but this is one that attacks exactly what we have become, so it is pushed to the backburner. I am disgusted at how the American government has become a mass of two bickering parties that result in nothing productive getting done. Anyone who says American's are "united" should really think if that's true. Andrew brings up a good point:
"The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad."
In presidential elections, it is a shocker if a candidate gets above 50% of the popular vote. 50% of 300 million people? Half of our country agrees on one thing, and the other half agrees on something that is distinctly different. And it is very likely that a large portion of each 50% doesn't even agree with their party, they just like Andrew said, are less bad than the other. And with the latest general elections, it is clear that we have taken a turn for the worse. Democrats have triumped on the fact that they are not republicans, and even more specifically, that they are not George Bush. The opinions of the masses are contradictory to each other. George Washington advised against a multi-party system for the sake of the country. For a country to be successful and prosperous, they need to be united under a common belief or cause. Oh and just another fun fact, George Washington believed in the use of morality and RELIGION in government. People take a reference to religion in any political statement as a violation of the constitution. Washington didn't see it this way, and more than likely the founding fathers didn't either.
Andrew mentions that there will never be a draft again, and I agree unless someone takes hostile actions against us, i.e. someone gets nuked. There will not be a draft for a US-induced war. It will be a defensive war is their is a draft.
Everyone's beliefs are different, I for one believe in a powerful, and strong central government, I would not rule out warrantless arrests, unless done in an unacceptable manner. If done right, I belive it could be the right choice, but there is always that chance that it gets out of hand. There is a delicate balance between security and oppression, and that is another argument I will avoid, because it is one of those arguments where someone else's opinion I don't necessarily view as wrong, I view it as different. I could argue against myself with ease, because it is a thing that is a matter of sheer opinion. In closing, that guy is an idiot.
Now I believe the War in Iraq was right when it started, and I do believe that it is still right and that we need to stay the course. But the blaring hole that anyone, including myself, can rip apart is the fact that our main focus for going into Iraq was WMDs, and while I really could care less if they were there or not. It is the fact that the other two countries that President Bush named in one of his famous post-9/11 speechs, Iran and North Korea, are ignored despite the fact one is confirmed to have developed a nuclear weapon, and the other is blatantly trying to get them. This paradox puts my argument in severe jeopardy. How can one argue for something based on a cause, than can be used for two other, and more dangerous countries?
Another thing is the blatant idiocy of our political system. The common people all the time pull out random quotes from people like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Confucius, that say powerful messages. It's quotes like these that people use to strengthen their arguments, but there are always quotes on the other side of the spectrum that say the exact opposite, and yet, are ignored. Are they less valid, just because they don't agree with the majority of people? That's the way it seems to be. I'll bring up a certain quote, by one of our "Greatest Presidents" according to polling of the American Public.... Jorge Washingtino.... or George Washington. I knew that George Washington said this, but he says it in a way that is much more supporting of my argument than I thought.
In relation to partisan politics:
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
People use George Washington quotes for a variety of arguments, but this is one that attacks exactly what we have become, so it is pushed to the backburner. I am disgusted at how the American government has become a mass of two bickering parties that result in nothing productive getting done. Anyone who says American's are "united" should really think if that's true. Andrew brings up a good point:
"The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad."
In presidential elections, it is a shocker if a candidate gets above 50% of the popular vote. 50% of 300 million people? Half of our country agrees on one thing, and the other half agrees on something that is distinctly different. And it is very likely that a large portion of each 50% doesn't even agree with their party, they just like Andrew said, are less bad than the other. And with the latest general elections, it is clear that we have taken a turn for the worse. Democrats have triumped on the fact that they are not republicans, and even more specifically, that they are not George Bush. The opinions of the masses are contradictory to each other. George Washington advised against a multi-party system for the sake of the country. For a country to be successful and prosperous, they need to be united under a common belief or cause. Oh and just another fun fact, George Washington believed in the use of morality and RELIGION in government. People take a reference to religion in any political statement as a violation of the constitution. Washington didn't see it this way, and more than likely the founding fathers didn't either.
Andrew mentions that there will never be a draft again, and I agree unless someone takes hostile actions against us, i.e. someone gets nuked. There will not be a draft for a US-induced war. It will be a defensive war is their is a draft.
Everyone's beliefs are different, I for one believe in a powerful, and strong central government, I would not rule out warrantless arrests, unless done in an unacceptable manner. If done right, I belive it could be the right choice, but there is always that chance that it gets out of hand. There is a delicate balance between security and oppression, and that is another argument I will avoid, because it is one of those arguments where someone else's opinion I don't necessarily view as wrong, I view it as different. I could argue against myself with ease, because it is a thing that is a matter of sheer opinion. In closing, that guy is an idiot.
Even in victory, the American people can be so clueless: Fearmongering Idiocy
Source Link
Even in victory, the American people can be so clueless
by John in DC - 11/11/2006 09:25:00 PM
More from that Newsweek poll that Joe mentioned earlier:
While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
At some the American people need to grow up. If they aren't ready for us to leave Iraq, then fine: stay in Iraq. More American soldiers will die for no reason, the civil war will get worse, we will be directly responsible for breeding even more terrorists, and we'll probably have a draft sometime over the next two years. But if that's what it will take for the American people to learn that history is not without consequences, then so be it. I see no reason that Democrats should fall on their swords so that the American people and the Republicans can avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
Oh yeah, and we'll also give police the right to take Americans away in the middle of the night without a warrant, and waterboard their husbands, wives and children - in the name of public safety, of course. Then after 20,000 or 30,000 Americans are missing, and probably dead (in Argentina, they used to drug political prisoners and drop them from helicopters into the sea - you see, the authorities simply had to keep the country safe), the American people can ask themselves what went wrong.
We are paying for our citizens' ignorance of history. Perhaps they need to learn the hard way, by giving them what they want and letting them suffer the consequences. At some point, it may be the only way to fix the problem. Otherwise, we fall on our sword for them, and they vote us out in two years and continue the carnage in Iraq and on our civil liberties.
"We are paying for out citizens' ignorance of history." Yep, he called us stupid. Just wanted to get that out of the way.
Ok buddy, there is absolutely no way any of that would happen. Ever. We aren't in the fucking jungle, we aren't in drug-cartel land. There will NEVER be a draft. All those things he listed are the last step in the slippery slope argument that Iraq will ruin everything.
This guy seems to think the best way to settle our affairs is to say "Oops, we messed up, time to go." What he needs to realize, which the "ignorant masses" has already figured out, is that an immediate withdrawal would be incredibly harmful to the Iraqis. Yes, the presence of soldiers creates tension and causes fighting. But as soon as we leave, it's going to get MUCH WORSE. We realize it was a bad idea to go in there, but we're there now, so we should try to fix our mistake, not run away from it. THAT is the action of cowards and retards.
Now, I don't mean that stay the course crap. We need a new strategy under new leadership. That's why the Democrats carried the elections; we want the problem FIXED, not run away from. The Republican government wasn't doing the job, so they got ousted. If the Democrats do a garbage job, I don't know what's gonna happen. The problem needs to be looked at with new eyes, and addressed in a new way. The American people will not be happy with anything else.
But once again, everyone has to realize that this stuff TAKES TIME. The whole process needs to be organized, and a strategy needs to be developed. That doesn't happen instantly, especially since I haven't seen ANY Democrats coming up with ANY strategies yet. The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad.
That's right Democrats, we don't actually like you, we're just pissed with Republicans. We'll like you if you make the situation better. Otherwise, you're in DEEP trouble.
by John in DC - 11/11/2006 09:25:00 PM
More from that Newsweek poll that Joe mentioned earlier:
While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
At some the American people need to grow up. If they aren't ready for us to leave Iraq, then fine: stay in Iraq. More American soldiers will die for no reason, the civil war will get worse, we will be directly responsible for breeding even more terrorists, and we'll probably have a draft sometime over the next two years. But if that's what it will take for the American people to learn that history is not without consequences, then so be it. I see no reason that Democrats should fall on their swords so that the American people and the Republicans can avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
Oh yeah, and we'll also give police the right to take Americans away in the middle of the night without a warrant, and waterboard their husbands, wives and children - in the name of public safety, of course. Then after 20,000 or 30,000 Americans are missing, and probably dead (in Argentina, they used to drug political prisoners and drop them from helicopters into the sea - you see, the authorities simply had to keep the country safe), the American people can ask themselves what went wrong.
We are paying for our citizens' ignorance of history. Perhaps they need to learn the hard way, by giving them what they want and letting them suffer the consequences. At some point, it may be the only way to fix the problem. Otherwise, we fall on our sword for them, and they vote us out in two years and continue the carnage in Iraq and on our civil liberties.
"We are paying for out citizens' ignorance of history." Yep, he called us stupid. Just wanted to get that out of the way.
Ok buddy, there is absolutely no way any of that would happen. Ever. We aren't in the fucking jungle, we aren't in drug-cartel land. There will NEVER be a draft. All those things he listed are the last step in the slippery slope argument that Iraq will ruin everything.
This guy seems to think the best way to settle our affairs is to say "Oops, we messed up, time to go." What he needs to realize, which the "ignorant masses" has already figured out, is that an immediate withdrawal would be incredibly harmful to the Iraqis. Yes, the presence of soldiers creates tension and causes fighting. But as soon as we leave, it's going to get MUCH WORSE. We realize it was a bad idea to go in there, but we're there now, so we should try to fix our mistake, not run away from it. THAT is the action of cowards and retards.
Now, I don't mean that stay the course crap. We need a new strategy under new leadership. That's why the Democrats carried the elections; we want the problem FIXED, not run away from. The Republican government wasn't doing the job, so they got ousted. If the Democrats do a garbage job, I don't know what's gonna happen. The problem needs to be looked at with new eyes, and addressed in a new way. The American people will not be happy with anything else.
But once again, everyone has to realize that this stuff TAKES TIME. The whole process needs to be organized, and a strategy needs to be developed. That doesn't happen instantly, especially since I haven't seen ANY Democrats coming up with ANY strategies yet. The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad.
That's right Democrats, we don't actually like you, we're just pissed with Republicans. We'll like you if you make the situation better. Otherwise, you're in DEEP trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)