• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I cannot believe Rumsfeld/Meyers/Bush want to see any soldier

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
die. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. When you fight and enemy that will fly planes into buildings, or strap explosives to themselves they are difficult to defend against. I am not sure these terrorists care whether anyone is liberal or conservative. They want to kill us because we are Americans and because they detest our success and life style. Hollywood has not helped our image around the world as far as morals go. Just a thought. :monkey
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,944
Reaction score
6,057
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Welcome to Debate Politics.

:wcm

I simply could not agree with you more.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Jack Dawson said:
die. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. When you fight and enemy that will fly planes into buildings, or strap explosives to themselves they are difficult to defend against. I am not sure these terrorists care whether anyone is liberal or conservative. They want to kill us because we are Americans and because they detest our success and life style. Hollywood has not helped our image around the world as far as morals go. Just a thought. :monkey
Did someone suggest that Rumsfeld & co. want to see American soldiers die? Did I miss something?

Terrorist fundamentalists want to kill us because we are a free society, at least we were, and a free society who has meddled in Middle Eastern affairs to secure our own interests. Anyone who denies it needs to read up on the modern history of our covert operations there.
And of course by saying that, you knee-jerkers out there will assume that I approve of the methods of terrorism (you're either with us or against right, duh, right?), but of course I don't. I just have the capacity to see and accept our role in this mess and still love my country. And you folks have the nerve to try and deny me my patriotism.

I love how the right has used terrorism and fear of it to justify their "moral agenda." What a joke. Terrorists want to kill us because of Hollywood. That is hilarious, man - ya oughtta take that act on the road.
What's next? They hate us for that jungle rock 'n' roll music?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Terrorists hate us because we have a military prescence in just about every country in the world!

After the first Gulf War, we left troops in neighboring countries, like Turkey. This has proven to lead to an increase in AlQaeda membership.

They resent our troops in their countries. That's all there is to it.

Of course, it doesn't help that the Bush family has strong ties to the Saudi Royal family....the same royal family that is actively financing fanatic religious schools throughout the Middle East...schools that are teaching the youth to grow up hating americans.

And while I don't truely believe anyone from the Bush administration wants to see US soldiers die, until we break ties with nations like Saudi-Arabia, and tell them to stop raising terrorists, we will have generation upon generation of young, brought up to hate everything we stand for.

The Bush White House may not want to see soldiers die, but based on their own policies, they could be doing alot more to prevent it...it's been 4 years...you control the House and Senate now...get it together...show me something.



Hoot
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mixedmedia said:
Did someone suggest that Rumsfeld & co. want to see American soldiers die? Did I miss something?

Terrorist fundamentalists want to kill us because we are a free society, at least we were, and a free society who has meddled in Middle Eastern affairs to secure our own interests. Anyone who denies it needs to read up on the modern history of our covert operations there.
And of course by saying that, you knee-jerkers out there will assume that I approve of the methods of terrorism (you're either with us or against right, duh, right?), but of course I don't. I just have the capacity to see and accept our role in this mess and still love my country. And you folks have the nerve to try and deny me my patriotism.

I love how the right has used terrorism and fear of it to justify their "moral agenda." What a joke. Terrorists want to kill us because of Hollywood. That is hilarious, man - ya oughtta take that act on the road.
What's next? They hate us for that jungle rock 'n' roll music?
Sarcasm is nothing but irony cloaked in humor. Sometimes deliberately; sometimes unintentionally.

There are two considerations.

The first is that the most radical followers of Islam believe that the faith of their youth is being corrupted by the West (read: US). They see the spread of US culture, music, movies, clothing, fast food, treatment of women, and many other temptations through TV, the Internet, and service personnel stationed abroad, as evil being heaped upon them. They believe it is their religious duty to eliminate the 'infidels', as they refer to us.

Indoctrinating children, starting at about the age of five, in the Medrassa schools, that the highest honor one can pay to Allah is to die in the act of killing infidels ensures a steady stream of young men and women who are ready, willing, and able to sacrifice themselves to the cause. The fact that the families of successful suicide bombers receive a healthy cash settlement from Arab governments doesn't hurt, either.

The second is the leftover hierarchy from the deposed Iraqi government. These folks understand that the only hope they have of regaining any of the power they formerly held depends on driving the Americans out of Iraq. Free elections will be the final nail in their coffin. Therefore, having everything to gain and nothing to lose but their lives, which won't be worth much, they see it as a win or die in the attempt effort.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
The first is that the most radical followers of Islam believe that the faith of their youth is being corrupted by the West (read: US). They see the spread of US culture, music, movies, clothing, fast food, treatment of women, and many other temptations through TV, the Internet, and service personnel stationed abroad, as evil being heaped upon them. They believe it is their religious duty to eliminate the 'infidels', as they refer to us.
Gosh, this sounds very familiar...where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it's exactly what the red state "moral values" crowd yammers on about: their faith under attack, the corruption of the culture blah blah blah...takes one to know one, I guess.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Gosh, this sounds very familiar...where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it's exactly what the red state "moral values" crowd yammers on about: their faith under attack, the corruption of the culture blah blah blah...takes one to know one, I guess.
Is there some speck of refutation lurking in there? Or am I simply reading a sarcastically cloaked unfounded opinion?

If it's the former, kindly point out what I've missed. If it's the latter, how does this advance the aims of this forum?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Is there some speck of refutation lurking in there? Or am I simply reading a sarcastically cloaked unfounded opinion?
Oh, it's sarcasm all right, congrats! (There's some more for you.) Here, I'll be more blunt: Your description of "radical followers of Islam" is also a pitch perfect description of the Christian right. Does that work better for you?

P.S. Purporting to know what radical followers of Islam believe is not only an "unfounded opinion" but incredibly pompous.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Wow, Argepax! You must really be afraid of religion to equate the existing Christian Churches to the Islamist Fascists who bomb civilians, stone women, behead their POWs, etc. What is it about someone else's religious belief that causes you such consternation that you're blinded by the subtle differences among the two? Please note that "subtle" was *my* attempt at sarcasm.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Additionally, instead of claiming Fantasea is speculating on what makes the Radical Islamists want us dead and sarcastically attacking his/her religion, how about doing something like research which will either prove the accuracy of the statement, or enlighten all of us as to why exactly we were bombed through out the '90's culminating into the 9/11 attack.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WKL815 said:
Wow, Argepax! You must really be afraid of religion to equate the existing Christian Churches to the Islamist Fascists who bomb civilians, stone women, behead their POWs, etc. What is it about someone else's religious belief that causes you such consternation that you're blinded by the subtle differences among the two? Please note that "subtle" was *my* attempt at sarcasm.
I'm not afraid of religion, I'm afraid of religious fundamentalism. When you believe you've got God on your side, you'll justify any atrocity. Christianity wasn't always the cute little chapel on the hill it is today. The history of Christianity is riddled with brutality and genocide. Christians have used the Bible to justify everything from enslaving blacks to persecuting Jews to massacring Native Americans. The difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism is one of degree, not kind.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WKL815 said:
Additionally, instead of claiming Fantasea is speculating on what makes the Radical Islamists want us dead and sarcastically attacking his/her religion, how about doing something like research which will either prove the accuracy of the statement, or enlighten all of us as to why exactly we were bombed through out the '90's culminating into the 9/11 attack.
Ask, and ye shall receive!
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
argexpat said:
I'm not afraid of religion, I'm afraid of religious fundamentalism. When you believe you've got God on your side, you'll justify any atrocity...
You make me laugh. I explicitly say "existing Christian church" and you give me a history on the horrors of the Christian uprising.

Say, do you know about the history of the Democratic party?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WKL815 said:
Say, do you know about the history of the Democratic party?
That they ended child labor and segregation and gave us the eight hour work day and overtime pay and worker safety regulation and electricity to rural America and mass transit and VA loans and the GI Bill and programs that help regular people buy homes and get an education and save for retirement and a host of economic and social benefits that Republicans take for granted? Yeah, I know that history, but thanks for checking.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
argexpat said:
Ask, and ye shall receive!
Whew!!! What a load to read! From 1991 no less. Very update to date on all the policies.

Re: Oil...then I suppose drilling in ANWR is a go. Excellent. That'll tidy that little Middle East problem we have.

Re: Israel v. Palestine ... Yassar was the problem there. He's gone. Let's try again with the Palestinian State.

Basically, what the entire article refused to address was the leadership of the people of the Middle East. It is presumed that the people should be allowed to allow themselves to be subjugated by monsters whom then we must work with and make nice so he won't need to kill as many of his people. Just as many as their religious law allows. Yeah. Let's give that person exactly what he wants.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Nice list there.

The Christians provide great humanitarian aid across the world - where others are afraid or don't care to go. The Christians spend their time rehabilitating criminals in a way that actually works as opposed to the red-tape mess that social services and other government agencies require. I encourage any other actual Christian to add to my list. I prefer to move on with my thought now.

Since you mentioned the whole Christian war-mongering thing several centuries ago, let's not forget about the Democratic Party's fight against the abolishment of slavery and then in the 50's and 60's their attempts to maintain segregation. My personal favorite that gives Democrats the biggest award for abominations to humanity in present day life is the insistance that unborn children should be sacrificed to make things easier for all involved.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Oh, it's sarcasm all right, congrats! (There's some more for you.) Here, I'll be more blunt: Your description of "radical followers of Islam" is also a pitch perfect description of the Christian right. Does that work better for you?

P.S. Purporting to know what radical followers of Islam believe is not only an "unfounded opinion" but incredibly pompous.
You would do well to pay heed to the words of Osama Bin Laden. While I have not furnished a verbatim quote, my description is correct. He and others of his ilk have made this perfectly clear on numerous occasions.

If you have some time to spare, you might wish to do a google search on the name. You'll find many hits and among them will be translations of his speeches, tapes, etc. Reading a few will convince you of the accuracy of my statement.

If you are an honorable person, you will then post an apology for your harsh and incorrect words.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
That they ended child labor and segregation and gave us the eight hour work day and overtime pay and worker safety regulation and electricity to rural America and mass transit and VA loans and the GI Bill and programs that help regular people buy homes and get an education and save for retirement and a host of economic and social benefits that Republicans take for granted? Yeah, I know that history, but thanks for checking.
I won't bore readers by taking the statement apart point by point. I'll limit my hatchet job to just one element: 'segregation'.

Any serious student of history should know that regardless of how a piece of legislation is enacted, it is the President, at the time, and by extension, his party, who recieves credit for it.

Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the daddy of them all, into law.

However, the fact is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed largely due to the support of Republicans. According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did. All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. As one can plainly see, without Republican support, the act, and Johnson along with it, would have gone down in flames.

Among the senators voting against the legislation was Albert Gore (D) TN, the father whose son would later occupy his senate seat and go on to the Vice-presidency.

It was the Republicans who got the job done, and saved Johnson's bacon, too, wasn't it?

Now you know.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're right. What I should have said is liberals brought us all those things, including ending slavery. In the 50's and 60's the South was Democratic because Republicans were seen as the party of Lincoln and northern carpetbaggers, but southern democrats were social conservatives and it was the Civil Rights Act that drove them to the Republican party.

The epitomy of this migration is Strom Thurmond, who was nominated for president by the States' Rights Democrats (“Dixiecrats” ), southerners who bolted the Democratic party in opposition to President Truman's civil-rights program. Thurmond switched from the Democratic to the Republican party in 1964.

So, although there were southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act, they were conservatives who eventually wound up in the Republican party, where they reside today. The 2004 electoral map mirrors exactly the pre-civil war slave vs. free states. The old slave states are now Republican red, and the free states are Democratic blue. It was Kennedy who first proposed the Civil Rights Act, and it was the Democratic party's support for it that lost it the South.


 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Slavery, Segregation and Infanticide remain relics of the Democratic Party Platform. Well, except for that last one...that one's still existing. Liberals and Democrats consistently choose to make laws and interpret the constitution in ways that serve the purpose of subjugating their constituency so they can retain power. This is inherent to their platform and it is bad for freedom.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
WKL815 said:
Whew!!! What a load to read! From 1991 no less. Very update to date on all the policies.

Re: Oil...then I suppose drilling in ANWR is a go. Excellent. That'll tidy that little Middle East problem we have.

Re: Israel v. Palestine ... Yassar was the problem there. He's gone. Let's try again with the Palestinian State.

Basically, what the entire article refused to address was the leadership of the people of the Middle East. It is presumed that the people should be allowed to allow themselves to be subjugated by monsters whom then we must work with and make nice so he won't need to kill as many of his people. Just as many as their religious law allows. Yeah. Let's give that person exactly what he wants.
Since drilling in the ANWR will take about ten years to bring the oil to market and will only supply us with approx. 6 months worth of crude. How exactly will this "Tidy" any Middle East problem?
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
You're right, Pac. I didn't articulate clearly that *little* detail in my plan that I am sure all liberals will immediately flock to write their congressmen to support. You know, it seems too hard...we should just not do it all together. Forget the whole thing. It's all just too hard to figure out and even if we could, it will take too long and not stop this Iraq war right now. /sarcasm
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
WKL815 said:
You're right, Pac. I didn't articulate clearly that *little* detail in my plan that I am sure all liberals will immediately flock to write their congressmen to support. You know, it seems too hard...we should just not do it all together. Forget the whole thing. It's all just too hard to figure out and even if we could, it will take too long and not stop this Iraq war right now. /sarcasm
So it goes from being the solution to a major problem- to a long hard task that is still worth undertaking? Wow! That's quite a jump! /Sans sarcasm.

Why not take the energy we'd put into developing the ANWR resources and use it to come up with a long term sustainable solution to our oil short falls?
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Pacridge said:
Since drilling in the ANWR will take about ten years to bring the oil to market..How exactly will this "Tidy" any Middle East problem?
It will "tidy" it by starting the process. Once you start something, you're closer to the end product than before you started. Please tell me I don't have to explain this principle too.

And I am soooooo sorry I used the hyperbole *tidy*. I need to remember that when given half a chance to argue semantics, a liberal mind will seize on it to deflect away from the actual argument.

Pacridge said:
and will only supply us with approx. 6 months worth of crude.
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.magDtl&dtl=2&mid=856

excerpts: Take, for example, the claim that ANWR would only provide about a six-month oil supply. To support that claim, opponents begin by using the lowest possible estimates of ANWR's oil resources for their calculations. Then they chop this estimate by 40%, for reasons that remain unexplained. But that's not all. They then assume that the oil would be pumped at a rate of 19 million barrels per day (mbd), an amount equal to total U.S. consumption.

The problem with this analysis is that experts believe ANWR's oil reserves are more than three times what the drilling opponents claim.

Further, the expected production rate for ANWR would be 2 mbd, not 19 mbd. In fact, it would be impossible to produce oil from ANWR at a higher rate without seriously damaging the oil field and losing much of its precious resource.

In truth, ANWR should produce petroleum for at least 14 years, and possibly much longer.


Pacridge said:
Why not take the energy we'd put into developing the ANWR resources and use it to come up with a long term sustainable solution to our oil short falls?
So that's a no on the ANWR drilling? Because it won't work? Won't work fast enough? Or you don't want to disturb the antelope?
 
Top Bottom