My idea of American policy towards Iraq, Iran, Syria, pretty much any camel oriented nation: we win they lose. You want to live like Tusken Raiders (seriously, you Star Wars nerds know what I'm talking about, there are some odd similarities between Middle Easterners and the "sand people" and I'm not just talking about them living in the desert and having poor hygeine) that's fine by me, but come bother us and we will bomb you back further than the stone age. (since that is where you seem to currently reside)
And can we all agree that teachers are the most overpaid workers in America? Seriously, do they actually work like 8 weeks out of the year? $30k/year doesn't sound too bad when you get summer off, spring break, Christmas (I mean "winter") break, every holiday imaginable and when it gets a little cold you get a "snow day."
But the important thing is that Randy Leonard is saving kids from the horrors of seeing adults smoke cigarettes in the park. He says that smoking isn't "role model behavior." Fine, but Portland celebrates stuff that isn't role model behavior with alarming frequency:
Where you saying something about "health risks" Randy? But I'm sure that Portlands "gay community" (they get their own community because they are so opressed) is so glad that now they only have to worry about AIDS and other STD's and not having their children (oh wait...) see adults using legal products in the public park.
On to my new hobby: I have been holding all my conversations as if I have drank the cool-aid. I've found it quite enjoyable. (especially with a certain co-worker who I will call "Gary") I simply parrot the most asinine liberal trash that I can think of. Examples:
Anyone who is friends with Dick Cheney is referred to as a "cronie."
Make statements such as "we should take the money we are spending in Iraq and instead 'invest' it in preschool nutrition programs."
Take no responsibility for your problems and instead blame them on "the white male establishment." (corporate America can also be blamed)
Mutter about "the rich" constantly.
Talk about oil as if it is snake venom.
Make fun of Christians, especially Pat Robertson.
I'm going to sign off with a link to some Reagan quotes. Boy do I wish that man was president today...
37 comments:
" ... we will bomb you back further than the stone age ... "
If you knew jack shit about the history of the region, you'd know that western powers have been doing exactly that since bombs were built. See Sven Lindqvist's "A History of Bombing," if you care AND can bring yourself to crack a book written by someone other than Ann Coulter, two things I wouldn't put money on.
I wonder if there's any relationship, any whatsoever, between a century of western powers killing, bombing, shooting, torturing, raping, imprisoning, starving and humiliating Arabs, carving up their countries and the shit we're in today. Hmmmmm ....
Lets not pick on Randy Leonard as many folks who suffer open-heart surgery never mentally recover from that many hours of sedation.
"Lil' ol' America?"
You sweet, naive little girl.
Amy, Stick apparently thinks that if you don't believe as he does, then you know absolutely nothing about anything. He is at the top of the "To Be Ignored" column.
"...but come bother us and we will bomb you back further than the stone age. (since that is where you seem to currently reside)"
Well, Daniel, when your country (and mine if you insist) contributes to the repression of economic and social development, what do you expect?
Speaking of social repression, terms such as "Gay community" only arise when people like you stigmatize the sexuality of others. I think that one expressing his own sexuality is much more healthy than one expressing their right to smoke (even though I am against the ban on smoking cigarettes in public parks).
Amy-
"Stop bitching or I may call someone back in Italy to prove it to you!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying it is ok for the United States, supposedly the most advanced social (and unarguably military) civilization, to bomb the living crap out of a country because some nations (allegedly) do it more?
Scottiebill-
"Amy, Stick apparently thinks that if you don't believe as he does, then you know absolutely nothing about anything. He is at the top of the "To Be Ignored" column."
I guess that's an appropriate response to an argument that is impossible to refute.
Good grief Daniel, you HAD to bring back that hideous picture.
Daniel, I love ya, but I think you may be disingenuous in citing Ronald Reagan in this diatribe. While Reagan was determined to stop the spread of communism he was very selective about where and how he used the military might of the U.S. The following are a couple of quotes from him:
"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."
"Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means."
"Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will."
"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
The following are a few quotes from G.W. and his mother:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." ~George W. Bush
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." ~George W. Bush
"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace." ~George W. Bush
"Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
~Barbara Bush
The following are quotes by people that I believe are true to our nations founding:
"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world". ~Benjamin Harrison
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
"How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?" ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
Bryan,
...contributes to the repression of economic and social development...
Ahem. Can I have some of whatever it is you've been ingesting?
The middle east is awash in money from their oil sales, so it's hard to make the argument that the USA is in any way contributing to economic repression - that's done by the sheiks and dictators who rule those countries.
As for social repression - Islam calls for the repression of females; the USA elects them to the Senate. And Bush appointed one to Secretary of State. Care to show us even one Arab or Persian country that's done likewise?
What, getting stoned to death for not wearing your burkha isn't the same as being elected majority leader?
OH BOY...Randy Leonard,I asked a retired fireman if Randy Leonard was a good fireman, he grinned ,"WELL HE WAS A GOOD COOK!"
Maybe he ate too much of his own cooking..thus the bad heart!
WAIT A MINUTE...he doesn't have one!
Hey everybody! It’s time to play, “I’m not a racist!” Let’s introduce our contestants this week:
DANIEL: “…some odd similarities between Middle Easterners and the "sand people" and I'm not just talking about them living in the desert and having poor.”
AMY: “I am Italian, the master race if you ask me!”
BRUCE: “That is a good hobby....humiliating, torturing, raping, starving, shooting, bombing and killing Ragheads. They aren't worth the oxygen that they use to breath.”
Great! Thank you all for coming to play, now, on with the show!
LOL! if you just read that and didnt understand that you were the one getting skewered with common's sense of humor, then YOU are the one who doesn't have a sense of humor!!!!
"You can't hone an axe on a block of tofu."
- Calhoun
I am so glad to appear on your site again
_____________________________
http://www.workerbees.biz/images
The Cavemen of the Middle East have been trying to Rule the World for a THOUSAND years-YOU should read your history 1st poster.
Their leaders live in palaces and have garges that hold 50 Rolls Royces, while the people live in mud huts.
America did not do that to them.
Just like Mexico, they are weak stupid sheep.
I am sick of bombing them and then giving it all back, we should do what our Forefathers did here, take possesion, clean it up and let the people LIVE FREELY!
Mexico too.
Mexico & Islam hate us because their Leaders tell them too.
Sticks argument is not only possible to refute, it is easy. Simply get out a calendar and check the timeline. We are a 200-year-old country that only became a super power with a Middle East presence post WW1, that’s less than 100 years. Therefore it is ludicrous to argue we are somehow responsible for centuries of repression in the Arab world.
Oh gee, and what happened right around WW1? Well, the Arabs found they had oil and the world found they had a use for it and all of a sudden the Arabs were rich. I am so damn sorry that their leaders spend their wealth foolishly, but it sure as hell aint my problem.
Look, if the only thing holding the Muslim world back from having free, prosperous countries with human rights were us, then you would expect to see human rights and democracy in a few of the countries with which we have little or no relations. Guess what? They don’t. What Middle East Muslim country seems to have at least some semblance of democracy and human rights? Turkey. Which Middle East country is a member of NATO? Um ahhh, geee, wait a minute, hey, its Turkey!
That nice warm crackling glow you now feel is the whole Blame the US first argument going down in flames. MMmmmm, Im going to get some marshmallows, anyone got some hot dogs?
Oh and save your breath - Ill make the usual left wing come back ahead of time - "You dont know anything, you are a stupid head, you are so stupid its hard to know where to start so I am just going to call you stupid head"
Whatever argument you're refuting, it isn't Stick's. Needless to say, it's a little revealing that everyone here assumed that by "western powers" he obviously meant "the United States," as if the rest of us include the whole bloody continent of Europe just to be polite.
That said, feel free to waste time countering the "blame America first" philosophy, because it isn't one that people actually believe in. Liberals in general are not making that argument, nor have the people in general been fooled into thinking otherwise.
Naaahhhh, come on. The US, was obviously to be included when using the phrase "western powers". If one means European powers, then one would use the word Europe. Clearly the US was to be included among those to blame.
And please Kaelri, Liberals CONSTANTLY use the blame America first argument. How many times have liberals said that our involvement in Iraq has made the threat terrorism worse?
The phrase has endured since the 80's, when Jean Kirkpatrick first uttered it at the UN for a reason, it resonates with people, so obviously some think there is some credence to it.
Max-
"Ahem. Can I have some of whatever it is you've been ingesting?"
Truth? Sure. It may cost you a couple grand, but there are plenty of Public Universities that I'm sure would be happy to have you.
"The middle east is awash in money from their oil sales, so it's hard to make the argument that the USA is in any way contributing to economic repression - that's done by the sheiks and dictators who rule those countries."
Yes, and we are empowering those sheiks and dictators either through funding those governments or imposing economic sanctions that give those governments license to capitalize on "American Brutality," blaming their problems on the United States and thus swaying public opinion against the US. Instead of perpetuating this anti-Americanism in the Middle East, we should concentrate on social development, work to instigate social benevolence in those countries, and refrain from forcibly removing governments that are unfriendly to us. I would think that such promoters of Democracy and political liberalism (look up that word before you make any inferences) would understand that such processes cannot be "sped up" by anything other than social enlightenment which involves the implementation of the above social reforms.
"As for social repression - Islam calls for the repression of females; the USA elects them to the Senate. And Bush appointed one to Secretary of State. Care to show us even one Arab or Persian country that's done likewise?"
Max (or Straw Man, whichever you prefer), where did I ever make the claim that most middle eastern governments are bastions of the liberalism (once again, you may have to look this up)? My grievance is with the actions of the United States as a "Democratic nation," because our recent actions have been contradictory to the ideals we claim to promote.
R Huse-
"Sticks argument is not only possible to refute, it is easy. Simply get out a calendar and check the timeline. We are a 200-year-old country that only became a super power with a Middle East presence post WW1, that’s less than 100 years. Therefore it is ludicrous to argue we are somehow responsible for centuries of repression in the Arab world."
Kaelri already responded well enough to your first paragraph.
"Oh gee, and what happened right around WW1? Well, the Arabs found they had oil and the world found they had a use for it and all of a sudden the Arabs were rich. I am so damn sorry that their leaders spend their wealth foolishly, but it sure as hell aint my problem."
Obviously it is your problem, as well as mine. It is undeniable that the United States has been adversely affected by the actions of a few middle eastern countries, therefore, I would think that our refusal to make any sort of positive contribution to those societies (which we have the ability to do) would be first on your list of strategies to rectify the problems that some countries in the middle east present us with. The interests of a few, empowered by their manipulation of the masses that they are responsible for, are the ones instigating harmful action against the United States. We need to educate, empower, and otherwise refrain from interfering with those societies instead of using "hard diplomacy (if you don't understand, take a FP class).
"Look, if the only thing holding the Muslim world back from having free, prosperous countries with human rights were us, then you would expect to see human rights and democracy in a few of the countries with which we have little or no relations. Guess what? They don’t."
Once again, our fault. We have refused to assist in the social development of those countries.
"That nice warm crackling glow you now feel is the whole Blame the US first argument going down in flames. MMmmmm, Im going to get some marshmallows, anyone got some hot dogs?"
I would venture to say you have less of an argument than I do.
"Oh and save your breath - Ill make the usual left wing come back ahead of time - "You don’t know anything, you are a stupid head, you are so stupid its hard to know where to start so I am just going to call you stupid head""
Thanks for saving me the trouble :).
"Naaahhhh, come on. The US, was obviously to be included when using the phrase "western powers". If one means European powers, then one would use the word Europe. Clearly the US was to be included among those to blame."
Right. I'm saying both were included - the United States, European states, and, for that matter, the Australian state. "Western powers" is taken to include all of them.
"And please Kaelri, Liberals CONSTANTLY use the blame America first argument. How many times have liberals said that our involvement in Iraq has made the threat terrorism worse?"
...that's a "blame America first" argument? Is there some other country that you feel deserves more credit for America's involvement in Iraq than America itself?
Thanks Bryan you rather neatly reinforced my argument that this is all about blame America first since you blame us twice in your reply. Also, relying on the Kaelri reply? Pretty weak.
First, how does our not “assisting in their social development” give them license to commit acts of war against us? Are they retarded because they don’t know any better because we have not taught them? This seems condescending to the Middle East to say the least.
Second; it would be nice if vague phrases like “assist in the social development of these countries” were actually a little more concrete. How, exactly, do you want us to assist?
Aren’t we assisting in the social development of Iraq by trying to establish a democracy? Didn’t we help the social development of Afghanistan by throwing out an incredibly oppressive regime? Don’t like that because it is too war like? OK Who is the second biggest recipient of US aid? Egypt! Hey wait a second…. Aint they part of the Muslim world? Don’t like that, wow, well, what about Somalia? We went in just to try and feed people, Muslim people, and we are still hated.
You really didn’t counter any of my points with anything concrete. I would suggest that since that is the case, you might want to give the issue a little more thought than you have. Nice phrases like “we should have helped more with their social development” don’t mean crap without an example of what you would specifically do.
Oh, and please don’t come back with any “pay our dues to the UN crap” that one will get shot down in about two lines.
Kaelri – NO – Good lord, follow the post. Stick was speaking about the Middle East in general. I clearly said I was speaking about the Middle East in general. How the hell did you construe this to now mean it was specific to Iraq?
Look, I often agree with you, often I don’t, you are generally very well thought out in your replies, but please, don’t go off on a tangent like this.
Wait, wait what!?
I thought Amy the Razor was a tranny.
And Bob the Mentally Deficient Barber needs a spelling lesson... or twenty.
NUKE the Middle East!
Recover the Oil in Nuke Suits and special equipment!
We own the Oil!
NO MORE WAR!
PEACE on EARTH!
AMY, you have been skewered or you would not have a child.
Unless you did it the Gay scientific way.
R Huse - Iraq first reared its ugly head here in your post, not mine. That said, I wasn't trying to evade the topic. This is more than relevant: the "liberal" perspective on the situation in the Middle East is fast becoming the majority opinion in the United States, and I think that for you you continue characterizing it as something like "blame America first" (though it was amusing back in the grassroots days when we only had half the electorate) is insulting to those who care deeply about this historic thread, if only because their children's blood is a part of the equation.
Kaelri – Im sorry if you need to construe what I quite clearly said in my post to mean I was solely talking about Iraq. There is really not a lot I can do about that.
Second – We both know, and everybody knows, that the “liberal” opinion on the situation in the Middle East is not the majority one. If it were, there would be much more movement in congress to cut off funding for the war, not increase troop levels.
Third – To say “this is insulting to those who care very deeply yadda yadda yadda” is inane. Im sorry if you feel insulted when the basic premise and logic of your argument is questioned. I also think it is childish to go with the tactic that if ones children’s blood is involved, then ones logic is not to be questioned. Take that one to Oprah, it is meaningless drivel and cuts no ice with me.
"Im sorry if you need to construe what I quite clearly said in my post to mean I was solely talking about Iraq. There is really not a lot I can do about that."
You have an unusual sense of humor...
"We both know, and everybody knows, that the “liberal” opinion on the situation in the Middle East is not the majority one. If it were, there would be much more movement in congress to cut off funding for the war, not increase troop levels."
...but as long as you're enjoying yourself, I guess.
"I also think it is childish to go with the tactic that if ones children’s blood is involved, then ones logic is not to be questioned."
No one's beliefs are unquestionable. I'm not saying you shouldn't challenge them, I'm simply asking you to take them seriously. We can't make any progress as long as you pretend that your opponents' argument is something that it's not.
Well, if you check my post you will see I quite clearly took my opponents argument more seriously than you did mine. I challenge their points and yours and ask for concrete examples, nothing but insults and snide comments are returned and thus you lose.
Sorry, but when you cut and snip someone's post and make snide comments please don't ask to be taken seriously, you don't deserve it until you return the same.
Well, at the risk of adding further insult, the reason I "cut and snipped" your post was that I literally thought you were joking. Thus the lighthearted jab at your sense of humor. But I'm happy to go back for a second take.
"Im sorry if you need to construe what I quite clearly said in my post to mean I was solely talking about Iraq. There is really not a lot I can do about that."
Neither one of us has made any attempt to narrow the topic to Iraq alone. You gave an example that was explicitly related to the issue of Iraq - your question was, I quote, "how many times have liberals said that our involvement in Iraq has made the threat terrorism worse?" I answered in kind, assuming that it was understood by both sides that we would discuss that individual matter as a peripheral to the broader topic set by Stick. And for what it's worth, we can still do that.
"We both know, and everybody knows, that the “liberal” opinion on the situation in the Middle East is not the majority one. If it were, there would be much more movement in congress to cut off funding for the war, not increase troop levels."
This is the bit that convinced me that you were joking. The "movement" to increase troop levels is a nationally-abhorred pet policy of President Bush, opposed in Congress by eighty percent of the Democrats and a third of the Republicans. And, accordingly, the policy of using the "power of the purse" to tie the President's hands on the war is a proposal that is gaining in popularity, being seen as the most traditional and practical check on the executive's foreign conduct short of full-blown impeachment. Generally speaking, this is the opportunity that American liberals have dreamed of for the past two years, and it is not at all a dramatization to say that the public overwhelmingly supports the Democrats' choice to seize it.
Which allows me to circle back to the inane spin that this mentality is based on a desire to "blame America first." This is America speaking, more or less, and America is not blaming itself. It is blaming its head of state. While I believe that the GOP still has a lot of the last six years to answer for, they are now decisively separating their contemporary selves from the more stagnant platform of President Bush. The President is quickly becoming a lone nexus of the issues and errors that the people find most irresponsible, infuriating and insulting, and the result of this will be that the country will try to let those administrative blemishes diminish with Bush's reign over the next two years.
Do not confuse this with some fanciful belief that we can just fix everything with one swift stroke. On the contrary, a major concession that drives our judgment is the fact that in Israel, in Iraq, in Iran, in Afghanistan, there are forces in motion that are beyond out power to reel in. We seek a withdrawal in Iraq, for example, because the sectarian factions that seek to control the country are too ideologically resolved and materially entrenched to be defeated militarily. If there is a side here that would be said to be "blaming America first," I submit that it would be the members of the administration who would suggest that our losses could be attributed to the American people's lack of patience and resolve.
What's most important to keep in mind here is that when we criticize the justification, the conduct and the consequences of these wars, the object is not simply to undermine a President of a different political party. There are real, tangible ways in which the failures in all three areas have in fact helped to destabilize the Middle East, encourage terrorism and 4G warfare, diluted the strength of our alliances, and, domestically, threatened constitutional liberty and process and fostered neglect to the economy. Our foreign policy in the Middle East, simply put, has made the country less safe, less prosperous, and less positively influential. We point these things out not to discourage, but to motivate; not to depress people, but to rouse them into action such that these problems can be fixed. Our message is that it doesn't have to be this way; we can make things better again, guide ourselves down a better path, if we work for it. While I'm among the first to concede the usual fickleness of public opinion, I believe the people responded to this message overwhelmingly last November, and that their desires are being satisfied, with impressive expediency and dedication, by a decidedly liberal legislative coalition.
I notice Daniel keeps bringing back the picture. Someone who is repused by homosexuals wouldn't keep it around on their desktop. Is this just another example of a pro-homo erotica Republican Christian that we hear so much about?
Oh – Ok Kaelri – I see what you are saying, with the Iraq misunderstanding.
With the rest now I think you are the one who is joking.
“Generally speaking, this is the opportunity that American liberals have dreamed of for the past two years, and it is not at all a dramatization to say that the public overwhelmingly supports the Democrats' choice to seize it.”
A one-vote margin in the Senate, aint overwhelming. This statement is especially odd since right now congress is considering increasing troop levels.
The forces in Iraq are too ideologically resolved and too materially entrenched - This is not is not born out by the facts on the ground. If it were true then it would be hard to understand why Syria and Iran seem to have to constantly supply people and equipment to keep things going. Forces that have to be re-supplied are pretty much by definition not too entrenched to defeat.
Your last paragraph is where I seriously start to wonder though.
Our foreign policy in the mid east has made us less safe? – Hmm, don’t seem to be any terrorist attacks occurring on US soil. Hey, weren’t those happening under the previous administration. Oh yeah, that’s right, the first world trade center bombing, the attempted millennium bombing. Iraq in open defiance of the terms of its surrender with the usual Clinton impotent response.
Our mid East policy has made us less prosperous? – Ok, well, this is a little ridiculous considering that virtually every economic indicator is up, housing starts, Dow Jones etc. The deficit is down compared with the outset of the war in fact I think in the last three months the government reported Friday they ran, not projected but ran, a $40B surplus.
Our Mid East policy has made us less positively influential – With whom? The Europeans? You mean those guys who didn’t want us to invade Iraq because it messed up their little sweet heart deal with the oil for food program? Oh wow, well cry me a river over that one.
Stick said:
"Speaking of social repression, terms such as "Gay community" only arise when people like you stigmatize the sexuality of others."
Romans 1:26,27& 28 says (otherwise known as God's word)
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections[passions]: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature;
And also likewise their men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned up in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain [refused to have] God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [fitting];"
According to Dictionary.com:
rep·ro·bate /ˈrɛprəˌbeɪt/ Pronunciation[rep-ruh-beyt] Pronunciation noun, adjective, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun 1. a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
–adjective 3. morally depraved; unprincipled; bad.
4. rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
–verb (used with object) 5. to disapprove, condemn, or censure.
6. (of God) to reject (a person), as for sin; exclude from the number of the elect or from salvation.
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME reprobaten < L reprobātus; ptp. of reprobāre
There is the final authority on the issue of "sexuality". Call it what you like, God calls it unseemly, and those that practise it a reprobate.
The bible is the final authority on sex? Who established that that? Seems like it would have a racier title than Bible if that were true.
Wait, God wrote the bible? Is that really true?
Hey, wait, you know English wasn't even a language back when the bible was written. Since it is the exact word of God, that's like really important, so I assume you do know Greek or Sanskrit and thus are not reading a translation? Or is this stuff fed to you by others?
Hey wait a second you sly dog - You sound exactly like the assholes we are fighting in the Middle East. They have a direct line to God as well.
Damn, Now that is one hell of a Co Inky Dink dontcha think?
Wish I had a direct line to God, man that must be neat. Id want it to be like the Bat Phone though. You know, something that lit up when it rang.
Hmmmm.... now what color would Gods Bat Phone light up in?
Now THAT is a question for the ages.
"There is the final authority on the issue of "sexuality". Call it what you like, God calls it unseemly, and those that practise it a reprobate."
Correction: Paul calls it wrong. Paul also calls for the abolition of marriage.
Sorry, not abolition, but rather restraint.
Great blog very informative re home warranty insurance. In a simliar vain to home warranty insurance would definitely recommend http://www.bargainplace.co.uk for **cheap car insurance** or **cheap home insurance**, even **cheap pet insurance**
Post a Comment