The Democrat Thread

[DukeNukeEm]

There is a reason why World War I was called "The War" and that the treaty was signed on 11/11 and why the war was called "the war to end all wars".

 

The problem with your proposition is that within 3 decades of the end of World War I (the most devastating war known to man at the time) came World War II another war that was devastating on an unprecedented parallel.

Because there were still unsatisfied actors (Germany) who were getting shafted. Europe had the right intentions but France was still angry about 1871 and they couldn't help but revert back to the old ways of going back and forth. When every city on the continent burned* everyone learned to finally bury the hatchet. I'm not even talking about religious wars here, those ended like 300 years prior.

 

*WW2 also had ridiculous civilian casualties, something the earlier European wars never had.

 

The question is, why was World War I not destructive enough to stop war, where as World War II was?

 

See: *

 

Europe was fed up with war to the point where it will never fight another war (France fought Vietnam after WWII, USA has fought many countries, GB has fought Argentina over Falklands and so on and so forth)

 

Because if that was the case then no one would have considered the possibility of the Cold War developing into World War III.

Disputes in former colonies is a lot different than Germany and France going after each other again. Europe was peaceful and coalesced after World War 2, there was still conflict (there will always be conflict) but no region is more stable than Europe.

 

The Cold War never turned into WW3 because of the argument I've been making all along. In modern war between great powers the ends never justify the means.

 

If the 30 years war was such a severe war, then why did Europe continue to fight for the next 300 years?

 

If the 100 years war was such a severe war, then why did Europe continue to fight for another 600 years?

 

If the Napoleonic wars were so severe, why did Europe eventually get into World War I and World War II?

 

The answer to these questions is it is not the severity of the war that impacts whether or not war will happen in the future.

 

This is not like the 30 years war, the 100 years war or any conflict that has existed in European history. This conflict is born at the root of the religions.

100 years war was not a religious war, the 30 years war definitely was. Read about the Peace of Westphalia and Peace of Augsburg. A lot of people think The English Civil War was the last religious war in Europe but I dont buy that. In fact, I find it pretty similar to the current conflict in the Middle East. Power hungry leaders using religion as a vehicle to rile the population into a bloodlust.

 

The political consequences of the Napoleonic wars gave birth the German Confederation. The German Confederation was easily the strongest country on the planet at that time and they were pretty unhappy with the current landscape. Unsatisfied actors as strong as Germany are bound to go to war eventually, the point is to not let them become so angry. Note this has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all, they got sick of those wars long before.

 

What incentive is there to stop fighting eachother when losing is worse than death to some?

 

The war itself is not irrational

Well then I'd like to know what the hell it is.

 

So is the reason you dont care about prior to 1500 because thats where the AP Euro book starts? (or at least thats where I remember it starting when I was a Sophomore in HS

Because I'm an IR student and if my professor caught me referencing ancient hatreds or some bulls*** like that he'd laugh at me. The s*** was proved wrong in Yugoslavia already.

[DukeNukeEm]

The leaders in the Middle East are ready to make peace with Israel, its just radical elements that are unaffiliated with governments are throwing a wrench in it all. Anwar al Sadat negotiated with Israel after the Yom Kippur War but was assassinated for it. So this realization that bmags is talking about has already taken root amongst the leadership.

[bmags]

But here is where I disagree.

 

This is not a fight over money or this life, this is a fight about god.

 

This is a fight over the jewish narrative, the story of the chosen people, the story of the first people to believe in the one true god, who for their belief were given a piece of land where they were supposed to build a temple to god, the story of the first temple and its destruction, the story of the second temple and its destruction and finally the store of the third temple being rebuilt.

 

I dont lay claims for anyone, I do not side with either on the argument, I just know what beats in their hearts.

 

From your posts I am going to guess that you are not Jewish, I may be wrong, but I just have a feeling.

 

This is my analogy:

 

Your father is god, on your first birthday he gives you a house and says, as long as you live in my house you will be blessed and you will have heaven in your house. Unfortunately there are no police and you grow up not to be the biggest guy on the block. 25 years later your neighbor comes over ( Babylonians) and decides to burn your house down. You then have to walk around for a while until the Babylonians tell you that you can build your house again. You build your house and live there for another 25 years. Unfortunately while youve been living in your house another person bought all the land its on and has decided to make you pay taxes (Romans). You get upset about that so they come over destroy everything in your house and burn it down. Now for the next 50 years you live on the land where your house once was, but no one will let you rebuild your house (permits etc) so you just sit there and wait. Eventually the people who hand out permits decide that they are going to give a permit to your arch enemy and will let him build a house on your land. You protest, but there is nothing you can do.

 

So they build the house where your house once was, and you can never have heaven on earth because you can not live in the house as god directed.

 

No analogy can ever make sense unless it includes god, because the problem can not be solved with money or wealth, that can never bring the messiah.

 

Well, we won't come to a compromise here, though I see your argument and respect it. In my opinion, these two groups are looking for their home more deeply rooted in ancestors and entitlement. If this could be settled reasonably and heal those wounds, the conflict will be hard to root up again. The rest is brought in to claim a higher sense of righteousness to their cause in conflict. When the conflict is gone the power behind it eases as well. When it comes down to motives, fighting for what was passed down by your father and father's father has been as big as a motive as land felt belonging to them and given by the Father.

Edited January 14, 2009 by bmags

[Soxbadger]

Because there were still unsatisfied actors (Germany) who were getting shafted. Europe had the right intentions but France was still angry about 1871 and they couldn't help but revert back to the old ways of going back and forth. When every city on the continent burned* everyone learned to finally bury the hatchet. I'm not even talking about religious wars here, those ended like 300 years prior.

 

*WW2 also had ridiculous civilian casualties, something the earlier European wars never had.

 

But the reason why Germans, French, English, etc could bury the hatchet was because there was no true reason for why the fighting even began in the first place. World War I was entirely dependent on a group alliances that were built in response to counter balance the different rising European powers. Most of the tensions were due to colonization and greed, not deeply rooted traditions that are the entire basis of their culture.

 

The European wars were based on a desire of worldly gain, the Middle East war is based on spiritual gain.

 

Disputes in former colonies is a lot different than Germany and France going after each other again. Europe was peaceful and coalesced after World War 2, there was still conflict (there will always be conflict) but no region is more stable than Europe.

 

The Cold War never turned into WW3 because of the argument I've been making all along. In modern war between great powers the ends never justify the means.

 

Its funny that you mention Machiavelli because I was going to bring him up later, I just wanted to mention that.

 

And I disagree that no region is more stable than Europe. Europe is always finely balanced it just is not classically balanced. The instability of Europe now is derived from conflict in the East (Russia and satellites) which is in some ways much like the beginnings of World War I. Just because Germany, England and France are playing nice today, does not mean that if certain other countries were to break down or war it could not lead to the entire destabilization of the EU.

 

As the EU expands it will eventually be brought into conflict. Nothing can expand forever and not eventually meet resistance. The question for Europe in the future will be what happens when the conflict between the EU and whatever party finally happens. As countries that are closer to Russian influence begin to enter the fold it will be interesting to see how Russia pushes back. Since the end of World War II economic warfare has been the preferred battle ground of countries (Russian natural gas shortages to Europe blaming Ukraine who is trying to get into NATO and who knows maybe eventually EU).

 

Right now there is peace, I just think based on history war is inevitable.

 

Which brings us back to Machiavelli, I believe he stated:

 

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.

 

 

 

100 years war was not a religious war, the 30 years war definitely was. Read about the Peace of Westphalia and Peace of Augsburg. A lot of people think The English Civil War was the last religious war in Europe but I dont buy that. In fact, I find it pretty similar to the current conflict in the Middle East. Power hungry leaders using religion as a vehicle to rile the population into a bloodlust.

 

The political consequences of the Napoleonic wars gave birth the German Confederation. The German Confederation was easily the strongest country on the planet at that time and they were pretty unhappy with the current landscape. Unsatisfied actors as strong as Germany are bound to go to war eventually, the point is to not let them become so angry. Note this has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all, they got sick of those wars long before.

 

Im pretty aware of the treaty of Westphalia.

 

The point of my statement was each of those wars were horrific events where millions of people may have died, but none of those wars prevented the other wars from happening. I do not believe that World War II will stop an eventual war from happening in Europe. We may never see another World War, but my guess is that before humans cease to exist there will be another great war.

 

Well then I'd like to know what the hell it is.

 

Its entirely rational.

 

The Jewish people believe that in order to fulfill the word of god they need to build a temple in a certain place and only that place will suffice.

 

Unless you are saying that religion is by definition irrational, and then I entirely agree with you.

 

But unfortunately I doubt that I can convince either side to just drop religion.

 

Because I'm an IR student and if my professor caught me referencing ancient hatreds or some bulls*** like that he'd laugh at me. The s*** was proved wrong in Yugoslavia already.

 

All I can say is I never made an argument about ancient hatred, I made an argument that certain people believe that a specific piece of land has significance that can not be qualified and that historically this piece of land has been disproportionately fought over.

 

And congratulations on being an international relations student (I think thats what IR means.) I received degrees in Political Science and History, so perhaps thats why my slant is to focus on the historical, as I believe Machiavelli thought it was important to look to the past to learn about the future. But not everyone agrees that the past is all that important.

 

 

Bmags,

 

I cant really speak as to the Palestinian argument.

 

I can only tell you what I have seen from the Jewish perspective.

 

For those who believe there is no compromise that can be reached in terms of the temple, it must be built and it must be built on that site.

 

Unfortunately I can not give you the perspective of a believer, because at the end of the day I do not truly believe in any religion.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

That right there is the simplest and most profound statement I have read on this subject. And it could be said for everyone in that region.

 

For what it's worth, that wasn't meant to be deep at all. It was just a statement of fact about how Israel views the world. They will literally destroy anything that they think is a threat to their existance, and they do not care what world opinion of their actions really is.

[StrangeSox]

This is an editorial trying to defend Bush's legacy, but given how pathetic of an attempt it is, I figured I'd post it in the Dem thread.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...15/986rockt.asp

 

The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

 

He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That--defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency.

 

Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.

 

He stood athwart mounting global warming hysteria and yelled, "Stop!" He slowed the movement toward a policy blunder of worldwide impact, providing time for facts to catch up with the dubious claims of alarmists. Thanks in part to Bush, the supposed consensus of scientists on global warming has now collapsed. The skeptics, who point to global cooling over the past decade, are now heard loud and clear. And a rational approach to the theory of manmade global warming is possible.

 

Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, "Those are precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have prevented a second attack."

 

Crucial intelligence was obtained from captured al Qaeda leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the help of waterboarding. Whether this tactic--it creates a drowning sensation--is torture is a matter of debate. John McCain and many Democrats say it is. Bush and Vice President Cheney insist it isn't. In any case, it was necessary. Lincoln once made a similar point in defending his suspension of habeas corpus in direct defiance of Chief Justice Roger Taney. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln asked. Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

 

Bush's third achievement was the rebuilding of presidential authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, and Bill Clinton. He didn't hesitate to conduct wireless surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's okay. He decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where they should be imprisoned. Those were legitimate decisions for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel no need to apologize.

 

Defending, all the way to the Supreme Court, Cheney's refusal to disclose to Congress the names of people he'd consulted on energy policy was also enormously important. Democratic congressman Henry Waxman demanded the names, but the Court upheld Cheney, 7-2. Last week, Cheney defended his refusal, waspishly noting that Waxman "doesn't call me up and tell me who he's meeting with."

 

Achievement number four was Bush's unswerving support for Israel. Reagan was once deemed Israel's best friend in the White House. Now Bush can claim the title. He ostracized Yasser Arafat as an impediment to peace in the Middle East. This infuriated the anti-Israel forces in Europe, the Third World, and the United Nations, and was criticized by champions of the "peace process" here at home. Bush was right.

 

He was clever in his support. Bush announced that Ariel Sharon should withdraw the tanks he'd sent into the West Bank in 2002, then exerted zero pressure on Sharon to do so. And he backed the wall along Israel's eastern border without endorsing it as an official boundary, while knowing full well that it might eventually become exactly that. He was a loyal friend.

 

His fifth success was No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform bill cosponsored by America's most prominent liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers' unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools--they all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability.

 

Kennedy later turned against NCLB, saying Bush is shortchanging the program. In truth, federal education spending is at record levels. Another complaint is that it forces teachers to "teach to the test." The tests are on math and reading. They are tests worth teaching to.

 

Sixth, Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would henceforth focus on promoting democracy around the world. This put him squarely in the Reagan camp, but he was lambasted as unrealistic, impractical, and a tool of wily neoconservatives. The new policy gave Bush credibility in pressing for democracy in the former Soviet republics and Middle East and in zinging various dictators and kleptocrats. It will do the same for President Obama, if he's wise enough to hang onto it.

 

The seventh achievement is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003. It's not only wildly popular; it has cost less than expected by triggering competition among drug companies. Conservatives have deep reservations about the program. But they shouldn't have been surprised. Bush advocated the drug benefit in the 2000 campaign. And if he hadn't acted, Democrats would have, with a much less attractive result.

 

Then there were John Roberts and Sam Alito. In putting them on the Supreme Court and naming Roberts chief justice, Bush achieved what had eluded Richard Nixon, Reagan, and his own father. Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 58, should be justices for decades to come.

 

Bush's ninth achievement has been widely ignored. He strengthened relations with east Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) without causing a rift with China. On top of that, he forged strong ties with India. An important factor was their common enemy, Islamic jihadists. After 9/11, Bush made the most of this, and Indian leaders were receptive. His state dinner for Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in 2006 was a lovefest.

 

Finally, a no-brainer: the surge. Bush prompted nearly unanimous disapproval in January 2007 when he announced he was sending more troops to Iraq and adopting a new counterinsurgency strategy. His opponents initially included the State Department, the Pentagon, most of Congress, the media, the foreign policy establishment, indeed the whole world. This makes his decision a profile in courage. Best of all, the surge worked. Iraq is now a fragile but functioning democracy.

 

How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's judged from the perspective of two or three decades. Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, it may have the same effect for Bush.

 

Amen

[lostfan]

That is Onion-caliber bad. Most of those things are on the list of things that were WRONG with his presidency. History is not going to look differently on things like waterboarding, for instance.

[Soxy]

When did "elite" become a dirty word? I mean, isn't elite better that mediocre? Wouldn't we rather be an elite nation than a mediocre one? Seriously.

[bmags]

The supposed consensus of science on global warming has now collapsed? Didn't we just have two presidential candidates who both believed that global warming is man made?

 

good lord that entire thing is a trainwreck. The rebuilding of presidential authority? This is disgusting. How can the man look at that with a straight face.

Edited January 14, 2009 by bmags

[lostfan]

When did "elite" become a dirty word? I mean, isn't elite better that mediocre? Wouldn't we rather be an elite nation than a mediocre one? Seriously.

"Elitist" is the dumbest pejorative in the English language.

[bmags]

"Elitist" is the dumbest pejorative in the English language.

 

I mean, it clearly had its truths in times of a more class structured country, but today is just a buzz word to divide the country.

[StrangeSox]

That is Onion-caliber bad. Most of those things are on the list of things that were WRONG with his presidency. History is not going to look differently on things like waterboarding, for instance.

 

Not only that, but one of Bush's "Ten Best Accomplishments" is a statement he made in his inauguration address that didn't do, change or accomplish a damn thing.

Edited January 14, 2009 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

When did "elite" become a dirty word? I mean, isn't elite better that mediocre? Wouldn't we rather be an elite nation than a mediocre one? Seriously.

 

 

Its part of the dumbing down of the country. People who read and look things up are now "elitist".

[StrangeSox]

The supposed consensus of science on global warming has now collapsed? Didn't we just have two presidential candidates who both believed that global warming is man made?

 

I loved that part. Bush sticking his in the sand (or another place where the sun doesn't shine, if you prefer) somehow changed the science behind the claims. Some of the AGW alarmists are over the top, but Bush did absolutely nothing to reverse the scientific consensus.

 

good lord that entire thing is a trainwreck. The rebuilding of presidential authority? This is disgusting. How can the man look at that with a straight face.

 

Keep in mind its from the Weekly Standard. The head honcho over there has been pretty much universally wrong every time he's opened his mouth for at least the last 6 years.

Edited January 14, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Keep in mind its from the Weekly Standard. The head honcho over there has been pretty much universally wrong every time he's opened his mouth for at least the last 6 years.

Which is of course...why he's a major Fox News contributor, why the NYT picked him to run an op-ed column for a while, and why he dined with the President Elect last night.

 

There's no better way to advance your career in politics than by being constantly wrong, as long as you're constantly wrong in advocating for more wars.

[StrangeSox]

Which is of course...why he's a major Fox News contributor, why the NYT picked him to run an op-ed column for a while, and why he dined with the President Elect last night.

 

There's no better way to advance your career in politics than by being constantly wrong, as long as you're constantly wrong in advocating for more wars.

 

Watch the Daily Show Monday night? They went to a "school" for media pundits. The veracity of your claims and intellectual ability don't matter. It's all about emotionally-charged language.

[NorthSideSox72]

That article is a disaster.

 

I read it, trying to find ones that were actually... you know... accomplishments. The only ones I saw were two that were only partial in nature:

 

1. The Surge, which is a misnomer anyway, was in part a change in strategy suggested by some very smart military men, and endorsed by Bush. That change in strategy was, in fact, a part of the drop in violence in Iraq. Only a part, though.

 

2. India. Bush strengthened relations with India in a positive fashion, though I think it was smallish in scale as for what impact it will have.

 

This reminds me of the thread I started a year or two ago, asking people to only mention positive accomplishments of the Bush Presidency. No snark, just his real good stuff. And of course there is some, as there is for any President.

[bmags]

It didn't even mention his actual accomplishments in the area of AIDS relief that he can actually hang his hat on does it?

[StrangeSox]

I don't get why he didn't mention his AIDS initiatives in Africa.

 

edit: bmags beat me to it. The AIDS aid has its own problems, though; 1/3 of the funds are for abstinence-only education.

Edited January 14, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I don't get why he didn't mention his AIDS initiatives in Africa.

 

edit: bmags beat me to it. The AIDS aid has its own problems, though; 1/3 of the funds are for abstinence-only education.

And most of the money for those programs came out of funding for anti-malaria programs and other diseases.

[BigSqwert]

1. The Surge

 

So they want credit for fixing something they initially f***ed up for several years? Sheesh.

Edited January 14, 2009 by BigSqwert

[bmags]

I don't get why he didn't mention his AIDS initiatives in Africa.

 

edit: bmags beat me to it. The AIDS aid has its own problems, though; 1/3 of the funds are for abstinence-only education.

 

Yeah wasn't that held up a lot by Jesse Helms initially. Not sorry to see him gone.

[DukeNukeEm]

The surge isn't working, it's just postponing inevitable violence and another rise in the insurgency.

 

Soxbadger: we have a fundemental disagreement here on conflict. I dont believe that wars start for liberal reasons like religion or crazy dictator, I think in the modern era states have gotten past that because they realize how useless it is. All wars after Napoleon are about maintaining a global and regional balance of power, that's the middle east in a nutshell. It's a large group of countries that are experiencing a major power disparity with Israel and they only way restore a good balance is to defeat Israel, the US wont let Israel lose and that's why this stupid thing will never end. Religion isn't part of it at all, they just use that to recruit support from within their countries.

[lostfan]

That article is a disaster.

 

I read it, trying to find ones that were actually... you know... accomplishments. The only ones I saw were two that were only partial in nature:

 

1. The Surge, which is a misnomer anyway, was in part a change in strategy suggested by some very smart military men, and endorsed by Bush. That change in strategy was, in fact, a part of the drop in violence in Iraq. Only a part, though.

 

2. India. Bush strengthened relations with India in a positive fashion, though I think it was smallish in scale as for what impact it will have.

 

This reminds me of the thread I started a year or two ago, asking people to only mention positive accomplishments of the Bush Presidency. No snark, just his real good stuff. And of course there is some, as there is for any President.

Outside of India, which was a very sound strategic direction to go in, I didn't get the whole accomplishment about strengthening ties with Japan and Australia... when have our ties with them been weak? Ever?

[DukeNukeEm]

1943?