Some may think the same about Bush’s speeches and his policies, so it’s a kind of moot to add such qualifiers. [/quote]
Rascal,
Many believe that Bush’s speeches and policies are crap. That isn’t the point, however.
The point is, Bush, for good or ill, is doing something. He has a plan. His plan is a radical change from the status quo of the previos 50 years.
Thus, I think its idiotic for a study to state in its abstract that the past 5 years demonstrate that current policy has failed, when the previous policy was given 50 years.
Some may think the same about Bush’s speeches and his policies, so it’s a kind of moot to add such qualifiers. [/quote]
Rascal,
Many believe that Bush’s speeches and policies are crap. That isn’t the point, however.
The point is, Bush, for good or ill, is doing something. He has a plan. His plan is a radical change from the status quo of the previos 50 years.
Thus, I think its idiotic for a study to state in its abstract that the past 5 years demonstrate that current policy has failed, when the previous policy was given 50 years.[/quote]
It’s not the first time in history invasion and occupation has been tried though. History goes back way more than 50 years.
Some may think the same about Bush’s speeches and his policies, so it’s a kind of moot to add such qualifiers. [/quote]
Rascal,
Many believe that Bush’s speeches and policies are crap. That isn’t the point, however.
The point is, Bush, for good or ill, is doing something. He has a plan. His plan is a radical change from the status quo of the previos 50 years.
Thus, I think its idiotic for a study to state in its abstract that the past 5 years demonstrate that current policy has failed, when the previous policy was given 50 years.[/quote]
And nowhere in the study they suggest to return to the policy of the past 50 years. They do point out that the current policy won’t do any good either. Which can be easily extrapolated from the current change during the past 5 years. During this time the world has seen more terrorist attacks than ever, more terrorist recruits than ever and has generally become more unstable than ever.
They are more talking about mainting the status of the US, GB (probalby the entire western society) in the world power arrangment. Which they are trying to protect by military force.
We’re not the only ones who are confused as to what “the plan” is:
"President Bush’s two-day strategy session starting Monday at Camp David is intended to revive highly tangible efforts to shore up Iraq’s new government, from getting the electricity back on in Baghdad to purging the security forces of revenge-seeking militias, White House officials said.
Three years of efforts to accomplish those goals have largely failed. Billions of dollars have been spent on both electricity and security, yet residents of Baghdad get only five to eight hours of power a day, and the American ambassador acknowledged on Friday that the city is “more insecure now than it was a few months ago.”
One of the senior officials involved in the strategy session characterized it as a “last, best chance to get this right,” an implicit acknowledgment that previous American-led efforts had gone astray. . . . "
I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction. When faced with the dilemma of finding itself in a hole of its own making, what is the Bush administration going to do?
Keep digging, of course! (or “stay the course” I should say)
Well, I just scanned through this to find something that was new or worthy of comment. It is the same leftwing recycled shit as we have seen repeatedly before. Who are these authors? And for all the talk about not being politically aligned, it is no surprise to me that most of the quotes come from people in Peace Institutes. Wonder what side of the fence they could be on? Overall, a very tiresomely sophomoric report. It seems more like a summary of debate over the past 10 years by a freshman in college rather than something new and insightful. Again the same old tire debates about the anti-missile treaty. This was negotiated successfully with the Russians and despite all the hew and cry by many leftwing Europeans, what really is the beef? It was a successful bilateral effort that led to none of the trumped up disasters that were supposed to occur. As to Kyoto, why emphasize that the US has not signed. Why not mention that most of those that have signed are no where near to meeting their treaty bound obligations? Again, I am with Tigerman. This is perhaps not horseshit but some kind of shit and not very interesting shit at that.
So, the question remains, how do we promote democracy and freedom
without bombing to ensure global security, stability and prosperity.
I guess that remains the million dollar question. Although, a good
example of this is happening at the moment. Turkey’s EU membership.
For people to change, you have to offer them something. The EU offers
them trade benefits, common stable currency, common market etc. But
to become a member, they have to change. So from a marginal islamic
nation, Turkey is willing to meet EU requirements, to enjoy the
benefits of an EU membership. And the EU will certainly except some of
Turkey’s shortcomings and will see that it become a member that everybody
can be proud of. Sure this will be a slow process, but hey, no bombs have
been dropped. And there are other success stories surrounding the EU.
As for the other user comments to the article I pointed out, such as
Come on guys, this is old stuff. We know since the Cold War that
communists or lefties are bad, and have to be eradicated. Why are
they bad, nobody can really explain, they just are. And everything
but neo-con nonsense is shit anyway. YAAWWWWWNNNNN !!!
When do those folk learn that you cannot just force everybody to be
the same. You have to arrange yourself with different cultures, opinions
and ways of living, otherwise this place is going to hell.
But to add a little more creativity, I will try to contribute also.
So far, everything I have heard that comes out of a neo-con mouth,
or a neo-con tries to argue or reduce the significance of the results of
the above mentioned study are either arrogant neo-con brain farts
caused by excessive gas within cerebral gyri or a product of rancid
brain lard excreted as oily discharge.
As this might not be the usual level of my posts it at least brings a
little more creativity in this forum besides calling everything “shit”
“horse shit” “not interesting shit” “bullshit” etc.
[quote]But to add a little more creativity, I will try to contribute also.
So far, everything I have heard that comes out of a neo-con mouth,
or a neo-con tries to argue or reduce the significance of the results of
the above mentioned study are either arrogant neo-con brain farts
caused by excessive gas within cerebral gyri or a product of rancid
brain lard excreted as oily discharge. [/quote]
And how is this in any way productive to the discussion?
[quote]lefties are bad, and have to be eradicated. Why are
they bad, nobody can really explain, they just are.[/quote]
Are you kidding? Have you not been reading the threads? Certain posters have explained again and again, backed up by multiple links, why some of the left’s POLICIES are not just bad but criminally insane (not really left wing, either – just anti-Bush), while other posters have supported the left, backed up with their own links.
Me, I don’t really care one way or the other, but I sure as hell know whose arguments are the more compelling to me. And the Bush-bashers consistently fall so short that they’re not even in the ball-park.
IMO.
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote]But to add a little more creativity, I will try to contribute also.
So far, everything I have heard that comes out of a neo-con mouth,
or a neo-con tries to argue or reduce the significance of the results of
the above mentioned study are either arrogant neo-con brain farts
caused by excessive gas within cerebral gyri or a product of rancid
brain lard excreted as oily discharge. [/quote]
And how is this in any way productive to the discussion?
[/quote]
Not at all, but I guess that was the point I was trying to make, as fecal language does contribute in the same way. But I hope people do read the first paragraph. Sorry for the stir-up!
There is a link to a staff page on the “About Us” section on their webpage. They seem to be people that know what they are talking about. And I highly doubt they would risk their reputation with an ill-researched publication. Here the link to a short biography of each member. oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/staff.htm
Of course you won’t find a neo-con or war wager writing about alternative ways to promote democracy. That’s what the peace people are for. That’s like asking a beef lover to write a book about how good a vegetarian diet is.
I read the link ot the About Us section as soon as I saw the sophomoroic writings. Again, would it be all right if I ask again: Who are these people?
So what would you say about the elections in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Palestine with widened suffrage in several Persian Gulf nations? Who brought that about?
So feel free to point out how many Middle Eastern nations these “peace” people have brought about and by the way how many wars have these “peace” people ended? In fact, how much “peace” have these “peace” people brought about. Just because they name themselves “peace” people does not make them so. Just because war seems bad does not make it always bad and sometimes not fighting makes peace even less likely.
No your analogy above like much of your other arguments is flawed. Naturally, a beef lover would not write about vegetarian diets or it is highly unlikely that he or she would want to do so. BUT you are assuming that only these self-styled “peace” people want “peace” while the neocons want “war.” Perhaps, we want “war” so that there can be “peace” and we understand that “peace” has given several nations a chance to better arm which makes the “peace” that much more difficult to preserve, but I seriously doubt that you have the ability to understand this. It would require a greater understanding of history and politics than I believe that you are capable of, but fear not: everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how poorly buttressed it is by facts or how haphazardly it is made. Fire away!
Good question. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. I am wondering is democracy that important that you have to bring it to people by force? There are plenty of other systems out ther that work fine.
If the people of a certain nation want democracy, they would have to initiate the proces, not other nation. That’s why it’s call democracy, the power lies within the people !!!
What always amazes me is who easy it is to get a billion dollar budget for waging a war, but instituts and efforts that actually try to promote alternative approaches to a more stable and secure world are constantly underfunded.
Good question. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. I am wondering is democracy that important that you have to bring it to people by force? There are plenty of other systems out ther that work fine. [/quote]
Name one or two.
How did people power work out in East Germany?
That ideal may have been true before the armies had tanks and machine guns.
How did people power work in Burma? China? Egypt?
It worked in Lebanon,but I’m not sure what they have accomplished since.
People power these days is leftist crapola ala Chavez, who pretends to give everything back to its rightful owners, and then sucks the country dry like a vampire on an opera singer’s fat neck.
What everyone here seems to fail to have accepted is that this was all inevitable. The world is shrinking due to globalization, competition for resources etc and there is a great big battle going on behind the scenes between the main players as to who gets what and where! Why is China messing around in Africa so much nowadays? Its not for the love of the African people! Wars have always been about either security or resources and usually both. This so called War on terror is no exception and the fact that the Bush administration has now renamed it the ‘Long War’ tells its own stroy. Whether anyone likes it or not is besides the point, it is happening and will get worse and sadly, eventually everyone will have to choose a side and there maybe more than 2!!
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“ratlung”]
Good question. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. I am wondering is democracy that important that you have to bring it to people by force? There are plenty of other systems out ther that work fine. [/quote]
Name one or two.
[/quote]
Out of the top of my head. Hmm Monaco, and United Kingdom
[quote=“jdsmith”]
How did people power work out in East Germany?
That ideal may have been true before the armies had tanks and machine guns.
How did people power work in Burma? China? Egypt?
It worked in Lebanon,but I’m not sure what they have accomplished since.
People power these days is leftist crapola ala Chavez, who pretends to give everything back to its rightful owners, and then sucks the country dry like a vampire on an opera singer’s fat neck.[/quote]
There are always examples that are pro and con. I would say the orange revolution in the Ukraine went well, and Belarus is probably next.
I know in East Germany there was no force involved, I guess it was just the break down of the eastern block for various reasons. I do believe that people power was part of it, though. Look at the former eastern block countries, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, former yugoslavia, they are all coming around without being forced.
A similar model should also work for the middle east, it just has never been tried.
[quote=“ratlung”][quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“ratlung”]
Good question. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. I am wondering is democracy that important that you have to bring it to people by force? There are plenty of other systems out ther that work fine. [/quote]
Name one or two.
[/quote]
Out of the top of my head. Hmm Monaco, and United Kingdom[/quote]
Singapore. A democracy on paper, but far from it in practice.
I think it’s wrong to equate democracy with freedom.
[quote=“Truant”][quote=“ratlung”][quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“ratlung”]
Good question. I don’t know. I can only speak for myself. I am wondering is democracy that important that you have to bring it to people by force? There are plenty of other systems out ther that work fine. [/quote]
Name one or two.
[/quote]
Out of the top of my head. Hmm Monaco, and United Kingdom[/quote]
Singapore. A democracy on paper, but far from it in practice.
I think it’s wrong to equate democracy with freedom.[/quote]
Thailand is another monarchy, and didn’t the power of the people just overthrew the king in Nepal?
[/quote]
