GENIUS FORUMS

It may be possible to make some forward progress now that Donald Rumsfeld appears to be resigning and the Democrats appear to have gained control of at least one of the houses of parliament.

Question is: have the Dems really ever been that different to the Repukes on foreign policy matters?

I think they do differ if not in strategy, then certainly in tactics and tone. The Israeli/Palestinian issue is the great elephant in the room.

Clinton put much effort into that cause. And he was backed by the left and moderates and even most conservatives, at the time. He tried but failed to keep the neighbors apart. But he did try. And today that has not been forgotten.

It was Bush who ignored the Palestinian issue and signaled that he was not getting involved, which is a passive acknowledgement that the Israeli rightwing could do as it pleases and expect no rebuke from its patron. This was even before 9/11. The American rightwing and the Israeli rightwing are like minded administrations when it comes to a kind of visceral dislike for "others," and they are willing, and often gleeful, at some perceived slight that can then allow them to beat their chests alittle. This same mindset dominates the two warring parties in the Middle East also, especially at the points of impact.

You don't see much of that underlying personality type in the Democratic party currently. But honestly, it often takes one to beat one. And more Democratic hawks are coming out of the woodwork. Hopefully they beat their chests for a more realistic, outward-looking outcome.

Dan Rowden wrote: Question is: have the Dems really ever been that different to the Repukes on foreign policy matters?

Yeah, to some degree they do.
I mean, they both are over anxious to get involved, but while republicans tend to get us involved in long standing battles killing many people over a long period of time, democrats tend to go in, blow shit up, and get out.

-Rory

Tharan,

You are being a little extreme here. Not all Democrats are John Kerry. A guy like Jim Webb is a decorated Vietnam vet and probably just as conservative as his opponent George Allen (who is a lying piece of shit and probably about as truly conservative as Foley and that preacher who recently got busted snorting speed and sucking dicks).

And so what if they bring it here? Bring it. It is our fight isn't it?

Terrorist attacks aren't really a fight. Just like fishing in a bucket full of starving fish isn't fishing. I don't want to be a starving fish getting pulled out of my bucket. You are right that I was being extreme...I will probably stay in the country and do my part.

I agree with you that not all Democrats are John Kerry. But it's about what the American public is voting for more than what the candidates are actually about. If a Democrat is elected there will be even more pressure to pull out of the Middle East from the media, because that's what is expected of a Democrat.

Are you honestly saying you value American life more than Iraqi life, on a general philosophical level?

Philosophically, I value everyone's way of life. Iraqis should do what they want. Americans should do what they want...as long as it doesn't impede on any other nation's way of life.

But personally, I value the American way of life a hell of a lot more than the Iraqi way of life.

Fuck the mujahadeen. But if they kill only our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, then the American public doesn't much care.

Yeah, it's not real here in America. It's like a fiction story to most here.

Americans feel lied to. Why the fuck would they then become this administration's cheerleaders? And as long as it "over there," then it is not "here," both physically and mentally. (So many tactical fuckups by this adminstration.)

But if they kill some civilians at home, Americans will truly get up in arms and this war will be over VERY quickly (which would most likely save a large number of lives over time).

The war would be over very quickly because all suspects would be murdered. I hope that doesn't happen. Anyone that looks Middle Eastern...anyone who reads the Koran...anyone who speaks out against America.

It would take some strong leadership to keep the country together if the war was brought here. I mean half of the nation is split between this war anyway. You've got people who are afraid of all bad things (liberal types) and you've got people who are way too patriotic (conservatives). And there's not much middle ground...

Just imagine: the cops having to try and stop violence that they hope would happen. People going on trial for murdering potential terrorists, while the judge and jury wants it all to end as well.

Bringing this war, which involves a major religion, into a divided country would ruin the country. In my opinion.

So I say quit torturing the Iraqis and using them, and bring this fight to where it belongs; American soil.

I still don't consider our occupation as torturing or using Iraqis.

You cannot justify the feeling that you are somehow better than they are and they deserve the collateral damage. I'll fight that just as quick as I would behead a jihadi. Not all Democrats are doves.

I do think they deserve the collateral damage when they don't fight against it themselves. They allow it on a daily basis. They help it happen to themselves. On a large scale of course, and not an individual level.

What is interesting about this divide in America, is that both sides share the same strategy, generally speaking. It makes both equally patriotic, despite the accusations of the Republicans. Yet incompetence and corruption by those actually running the show tends to ruin their credibility.

In my opinion, I'd rather have the current administration than a Democratic one. I've seen more incompetance and corruption on that side than on the Republican side. But I guess we all have different viewpoints...and this one isn't that big of a deal when we must work as a team.

And it looks like, as of this writing, the Republicans have lost the House, despite their extensive gerrymandering.

Yes, that is how things appear to be. People have lost their trust in Bush (for no reason in my opinion). People are generally very stupid and herdlike. The sheep who have rooted for Bush have seemed to lose heart and change their minds. It wasn't anything that the president has done in my opinion.

We said this shit OVER and OVER and OVER again before the Commander in Chief took us into this hellhole. So don't say you weren't warned.

What did you say? I don't think ANYone knew what would happen.

But did anyone listen? Not anyone in power. The Republicans got us completely distracted; blinded by their sense of self importance. We could have done serious damage to the Islamist movement by now without this headache.

I think it's unfair to make statements like "blinded by their sense of self importance." I could easily say the same for the Democrats...but I choose not to because it's just my opinion and has nothing to do with facts.

How could we have damaged the Islamist movement?

Islam needs a reformation, in the same way Chrisitanity had its reformation. And if it must come by blood, then we need to make sure that it is their blood that brings it. But they will reform, one way or another.

Perhaps they won't. It's a major religion in the world, despite not being seen as much in America. I could easily see the tides changing and Islam dominating.

It actually has nothing to do with American politics. It must come from the women and the moderate Muslims. No one else can change the jihadis. They all have mothers and sisters, and they need to step up and speak. Meanwhile, we will continue killing them.

I absolutely agree. Especially about moderate Muslims.

Rory,

I must say in public, as I told you in private, that your last point was great.

I mean, they both are over anxious to get involved, but while republicans tend to get us involved in long standing battles killing many people over a long period of time, democrats tend to go in, blow shit up, and get out.

Hopefully the Republicans don't play devil's advocate when that's suggested.

sschaula wrote: It would take some strong leadership to keep the country together if the war was brought here. I mean half of the nation is split between this war anyway. You've got people who are afraid of all bad things (liberal types) and you've got people who are way too patriotic (conservatives). And there's not much middle ground...

I don't think it's as bad as all that. Most people I've spoken to who oppose the war say that if fighting ever came here they'd fight to the death. And yes I recognize that 9/11 was here but there was no one we could personally fight for that - they were all dead already.

I don't think there are many people in America who want to see America defeated. The question is on how the issue should be managed not if the question should be managed.

Basically, this prolonged war in Iraq I don't like one bit, but I would support the democratic method I mentioned above. :)

Rory,

Most people I've spoken to who oppose the war say that if fighting ever came here they'd fight to the death. And yes I recognize that 9/11 was here but there was no one we could personally fight for that - they were all dead already.

I have no doubt that even most protestors of the war would fight if it came home...but as you mentioned, the terrorists don't fight wars in the way we typically think.

Rory wrote:

sschaula wrote: All Muslims hate non-Muslims. They are bound by their religion to kill us or convert us.

This is simply not true. Despite being at different times over the last 7 years Wiccan and Atheist, I have multiple friends in Saudi Arabia who I consider very dear friends. There have been no attempts at conversion.

Nearly all schools of law now demand that Muslims commit Jihad only when Islamic ways of life are directly threatened. If they personally are being prevented from practicing their religion.

Frankly, it terrifies me more that people like you serve in our military than the continued existance of Osama bin Ladin.

Rory, you're simply an ignorant dipstick.

They apologized to each other and moved on. Don't shit disturb.

millipodium wrote: Rory, you're simply an ignorant dipstick.

My, what a convincing argument.

Hey!

God help me, but I found this quite funny:

Rummy

Rory wrote:

millipodium wrote: Rory, you're simply an ignorant dipstick.

My, what a convincing argument.

The argument is the simple observable reality of the world we live in.

Take out the politically correct thought control chip and realize Islam supports theocracy and is ideologically inconsistent with a tolerant and pluralistic society. You can read, can't you? Poor thing.

millipodium wrote: Rory, you're simply an ignorant dipstick.

I guess that's all you got, huh, Milli?

millipodium wrote: Take out the politically correct thought control chip and realize Islam supports theocracy and is ideologically inconsistent with a tolerant and pluralistic society. You can read, can't you? Poor thing.

And this has what to do with anything I've said?

Scott In my opinion, I'd rather have the current administration than a Democratic one. I've seen more incompetance and corruption on that side than on the Republican side. But I guess we all have different viewpoints...and this one isn't that big of a deal when we must work as a team.

You must know something I don't or are severely blinkered.

IMO, every leader of the Republican Party in the last 40-50 years has been corrupt or incompetant.

pod boy: Take out the politically correct thought control chip and realize Islam supports theocracy and is ideologically inconsistent with a tolerant and pluralistic society. You can read, can't you? Poor thing.

A tolerant and pluralistic society? Which of the three major religions on the face of this earth are not as you describe Islam? Which of them do not hold the supremacy of their own Gods, complete with rites and rituals?

What is it, according to you, that makes a religion a religion?

Or are you, just like everyone else who singles out Islam with such fine moral indignance, simply more afraid of being bombed to death unsuspectingly than you are interested in the idiotic mentality rife within the religious, period?

I don’t see any reason for valuing the life of a Christian or Jew over that of a Muslim for the sake of their religion. Do you?

Your pluralistic ideal comes as a plea from fear, not reason. And I never trust people who are afraid.

Tharan: It actually has nothing to do with American politics.

That’s right. It’s the Christian God’s will that involved Americans with the Middle East. Or was it Allah? Hell, I reckon it was Yahweh, myself.

It must come from the women and the moderate Muslims. No one else can change the jihadis. They all have mothers and sisters, and they need to step up and speak. Meanwhile, we will continue killing them.

I can hear the jihadis saying precisely the same thing.

Stupid. Especially as a political ploy.

.