The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Evil to me would be genocide, like in Rwanda or Hitler

Human experiments

Torture like Saddam

stuff like that. I'm not certain what kind of definition he would be doing to judge something the US has done as evil. Perhaps giving billions in aid around the world? Sending our troops, at our expense, around the globe? Calling the US evil is just asinine.

We haven't done anything recently that I'd call "evil". But, I think an unjust and awfully executed war in Iraq is close.

 

Go back in history, and see what we did to the American Indians. I'd call that evil. Slavery as well. But those are of course way, way back.

 

[Texsox]

We haven't done anything recently that I'd call "evil". But, I think an unjust and awfully executed war in Iraq is close.

 

Go back in history, and see what we did to the American Indians. I'd call that evil. Slavery as well. But those are of course way, way back.

 

Which is why I called it desperate to say we are evil. That stuff is a long time ago. Plus Iraq was to stop the evil torture that their government was doing. Sometimes you have to meet evil with really nasty.

[Balta1701]

Which is why I called it desperate to say we are evil. That stuff is a long time ago. Plus Iraq was to stop the evil torture that their government was doing. Sometimes you have to meet evil with really nasty.

Why is it that only these incredulously large things get classified as "Evil"? How many people have to die before an action that is wrong becomes classified as evil?

 

Frankly though I will agree that sometimes you have to meet evil with pretty darn nasty. But the one caveat I'll add to that is that you better be able to control the really darn nasty and punish the people doing it when the orders are taken too far.

[lostfan]

Which is why I called it desperate to say we are evil. That stuff is a long time ago. Plus Iraq was to stop the evil torture that their government was doing. Sometimes you have to meet evil with really nasty.

That's not why we invaded Iraq btw

[StrangeSox]

Which is why I called it desperate to say we are evil. That stuff is a long time ago. Plus Iraq was to stop the evil torture that their government was doing. Sometimes you have to meet evil with really nasty.

 

The US did plenty of awful things or supported some pretty awful regimes during the Cold War. Let's not act like this country has always done "the right thing" and has never done evil or supported evil.

[Texsox]

That's not why we invaded Iraq btw

 

I thought that was the last reason we gave. Especially after the whole WMD thing didn't pan out. So what is the "real reason"? Oil?

 

Balta, why only the big stuff? Evil is a word, a concept, and can be defined as people choose. I have no qualms if you want to call something evil that I may not. Some believe killing anyone is evil, others find exceptions. PETA has some members who would argue that killing cockroaches is evil.

 

Words get their meaning from people accepting some definitions. We have a concept of good and evil. Where we draw the line becomes a personal choice. I just choose to draw the line at the point where I wonder if the person is even human. It would seem we cross from good to evil a lot sooner with your definition. I'm not even certain there is a specific body count. The atomic bombs we dropped saved many more lives, on both sides, by ending the war sooner. Sherman's march ended the civil war quicker. Lots of bodies, but probably saved many times more.

 

Also, I object because evil was used specifically to draw a specific emotional reaction. It is a damn shame when a candidate has to insult the very citizens of the country he allegedly wishes to lead.

[lostfan]

I thought that was the last reason we gave. Especially after the whole WMD thing didn't pan out. So what is the "real reason"? Oil?

Well I will give the "lenient" answer and not the "conspiracy theory" answer (which I am closer to believing) - they believed the intelligence when they really should've known better. By the time they realized they'd blown it really bad, it was too late, and we had to follow through. We made our bed and had to sleep in it, can't leave a job half-assed.

 

The "conspiracy theory" answer is my personal belief that his mind was already made up even before 9-11, he wanted all of his information to be able to support his decisions, and everything else was dismissed - I can somewhat attest to that, too. I wish I could go back and find some of the documents I wrote in 2002 to see how accurate they were. They probably could be re-worded to sound like news articles now. This is wrong because conclusions are drawn from intelligence, not vice versa which appeared to me to happen in this case. In any case this is the only rational explanation I can come up with that would cause senior government officials to say things in public like "Saddam was supporting bin Laden."

Edited August 19, 2008 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Well I will give the "lenient" answer and not the "conspiracy theory" answer (which I am closer to believing) - they believed the intelligence when they really should've known better. By the time they realized they'd blown it really bad, it was too late, and we had to follow through. We made our bed and had to sleep in it, can't leave a job half-assed.

 

The "conspiracy theory" answer is my personal belief that his mind was already made up even before 9-11, he wanted all of his information to be able to support his decisions, and everything else was dismissed - I can somewhat attest to that, too. I wish I could go back and find some of the documents I wrote in 2002 to see how accurate they were. They probably could be re-worded to sound like news articles now. This is wrong because conclusions are drawn from intelligence, not vice versa which appeared to me to happen in this case. In any case this is the only rational explanation I can come up with that would cause senior government officials to say things in public like "Saddam was supporting bin Laden."

"Supporting" is probably somewhat accurate - meaning - financially. He wasn't logistically supporting him. I'd be willing to bet there's some money trails there. But that wouldn't matter, because the American people would have never supported that, and they knew it.

 

 

[lostfan]

"Supporting" is probably somewhat accurate - meaning - financially. He wasn't logistically supporting him. I'd be willing to bet there's some money trails there. But that wouldn't matter, because the American people would have never supported that, and they knew it.

No. They hated each other. And they are just about as welcome in Iran too, actually. To believe that is to completely misunderstand al-Qaida's basic mentality.

 

There were some shady connections, yes, but not in the hilariously distorted way the Bush administration interpreted it, and not with AQ. I'm reading this Newsmax article from 4 years ago and it's kind of making me laugh.

[kapkomet]

No. They hated each other. And they are just about as welcome in Iran too, actually. To believe that is to completely misunderstand al-Qaida's basic mentality.

 

There were some shady connections, yes, but not in the hilariously distorted way the Bush administration interpreted it, and not with AQ. I'm reading this Newsmax article from 4 years ago and it's kind of making me laugh.

Well Iran and Iraq are Shia, and Bin Ladin is Sunni, right? Nonetheless, they do have a common enemy... and I have a feeling the money networks tend to run together, sects be darned.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Well Iran and Iraq are Shia, and Bin Ladin is Sunni, right? Nonetheless, they do have a common enemy... and I have a feeling the money networks tend to run together, sects be darned.

Common enemies makes friends faster then common likes.

[StrangeSox]

Well Iran and Iraq are Shia, and Bin Ladin is Sunni, right? Nonetheless, they do have a common enemy... and I have a feeling the money networks tend to run together, sects be darned.

 

We've heard this same sort of accusation since about 2002 and have never seen any evidence for it. Maybe when you're dealing with religious fanatics, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't always work.

Edited August 19, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

We've heard this same sort of accusation since about 2002 and have never seen any evidence for it. Maybe when you're dealing with religious fanatics, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't always work.

MAYBE.

 

No one knows, on either side. But, I do think that they both agree that the US doesn't need to be over there, and I'm sure there's money trails around.

[lostfan]

You guys do realize you're essentially telling a doctor how to operate, right? This is the equivalent of me trying to school SS2K or NSS on some financial matters, or someone else trying to school Balta about science.

 

I don't make statements like the one I made above out of political bias, I state them because they're facts (and there is also a line I can't cross).

Edited August 19, 2008 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Well Iran and Iraq are Shia, and Bin Ladin is Sunni, right? Nonetheless, they do have a common enemy... and I have a feeling the money networks tend to run together, sects be darned.

Saddam was Sunni, but secular, and therefore an apostate regime by Bin Laden's standards. He pretty much felt the same about them as he felt about the Soviets.

[lostfan]

MAYBE.

 

No one knows, on either side. But, I do think that they both agree that the US doesn't need to be over there, and I'm sure there's money trails around.

The former is true no doubt, the latter may or may not be true since it gets pretty far down into the weeds and in any case does not represent any official position of anybody if it does.

[kapkomet]

Saddam was Sunni, but secular, and therefore an apostate regime by Bin Laden's standards. He pretty much felt the same about them as he felt about the Soviets.

Right, I understand that. I do think, though, that there are common themes that run across that part of the world. I also realize that at the time AQ was forming, Iraq was an "ally" for trying to beat up Iran.

 

 

[lostfan]

Right, I understand that. I do think, though, that there are common themes that run across that part of the world. I also realize that at the time AQ was forming, Iraq was an "ally" for trying to beat up Iran.

That's a slippery slope though. If you go back that far, you know what other country bin Laden was allied with? Does that alliance have anything to do with today? Not so much.

 

The Cold War was a mess and a lot of what we did back then has backfired since. Iran, as an example.

[kapkomet]

That's a slippery slope though. If you go back that far, you know what other country bin Laden was allied with? Does that alliance have anything to do with today? Not so much.

 

The Cold War was a mess and a lot of what we did back then has backfired since. Iran, as an example.

Sure. 1980 happens, USSR invades Afghanistan. We fund OBL. Iran/Iraq happens late in the 1980's... then OBL gets fed up in 1991 because US takes over Kuwait and Saudi, then that's when he turns against us. Simple, really.

 

[Balta1701]

Sure. 1980 happens, USSR invades Afghanistan. We fund OBL. Iran/Iraq happens late in the 1980's... then OBL gets fed up in 1991 because US takes over Kuwait and Saudi, then that's when he turns against us. Simple, really.

Actually, the Iraqi invasion of Iran began in September of 1980. The Iran/Iraq war itself dragged on until 1988.

[lostfan]

Yeah that's my point. Stuff has obviously changed since then so we can't go back and go talking about who talked to whom.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, the Iraqi invasion of Iran began in September of 1980. The Iran/Iraq war itself dragged on until 1988.

 

Exactly, if I recall correctly, the same doctrine of preemptive warfare that we used in 2003 was used by Iraq to invade Iran. Hussein wanted to create a buffer zone inside Iran which was looking alternately between being an aggressor and a failed state at the time. In fact, a few border skirmishes were used as a justification that Iran was planning a full scale invasion.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/080..._McCain_08.html

 

"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation. A President has got to know the territory, but that's not enough."

 

Joe Biden 1988

 

Boy I hope Obama picks him as a running mate, because he has A LOT of bulletin board material out there.

[BearSox]

did anyone here Obama's response to the abortion question? My god, he is a piece of trash.

[Balta1701]

did anyone here Obama's response to the abortion question? My god, he is a piece of trash.

Which one are you referring to? The one where he was asked when life begins and he responded that the answer was above his pay grade?