The insanity of today's Republican Party

[A Black Falcon]

From a recent poll:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-s...w-gop-poll

* 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist. * 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim * 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" * 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" * Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

No, that many people believing things that stupid is NOT good for America. I mean, disagree on issues of policy, fine. But believing insane things like that Obama wasn't born in America or he's a Communist or a Muslim or something? Come on... could the Republicans do anything more to prove their paranoia and racism?

I know that lots of very divisive issues are around right now, but seriously, Democrats just don't get crazy like that... I guess it's the same thing that makes talk radio popular, whatever that is. Hate and fear feed eachother until we get this as a result. It's understandable, but too bad. I mean, Rush Limbaugh will get better ratings when Democrats are in office than Republicans, I imagine, and ratings are what matter to radio and television people the most, so it's not like the actually cares that much about how well the Republican Party is doing...

[Unreadphilosophy]

I don't agree with his policies. I never have, and I most likely never will. Still, calling Obama the Antichrist or the Devil is a little off. I do agree with you on that. Plus, all of this name calling coming from the left and right isn't doing us any good. I hate to tell you, Falcon, but the left is just as guilty as name calling as the right. Do you want me to tell you some of the things I've been called for what I believe?

I want to make it clear to you, my friend, that I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Hell, you can call me one of the following: libertarian, individualist anarchist, constitutional individualist, TEA party member. Yes, I do support the TEA Party movement. And, yes, I do agree with you that there are members of the movement that are racist. However, I can ensure you that I am not a representation of those people. I would never, under any circumstances, call someone the n word. You believe me, right? By the way, Falcon, do you know that the original intent of the TEA party movement was not to show support to people like Palin? The TEA Party movement was actually hijacked by those who...did not agree with its original intent. I can say with 100% certainly that the original members of the movement are not racist. I know because I'm part of the organization that started them.

[Unreadphilosophy]

Del. Damn double posting.

[Fittisize]

Del. Damn double posting.

That wasn't a double post you deleted - what was originally there was you agreeing that Obama is a socialist.

[Unreadphilosophy]

^That my stupid cousin. He's a radical Republican.

[Unreadphilosophy]

*was* my stupid cousin! Damn, my grammar is off today.

[A Black Falcon]

-Obama is not a socialist. Ask any socialist (Bernie Sanders, for instance). Obama's most definitely not one. Actual socialists want at least a public option, and probably universal health care like the more socialist countries in Europe have. Obama has always opposed universal health care (one reason why I did not support him in the primaries before the '08 election), and even his support for the public option was lukewarm at best; he didn't fight hard for it at all, and doesn't seem much bothered by the fact that it's not in the bill, sadly. That's good for healthcare companies, bad for Americans who want actual affordable healthcare. Most of the stuff in this bill are things that some Republicans would be supporting if they were being allowed to by their leadership, of that I am certain.

-Obama was born in Hawaii, where his mother and her family lived (and where his grandfather still lives). He even showed the birth certificate to prove it some time ago, in a vain attempt to get the conspiracy theorists to stop. His father abandoned his mother before he was even born, and Obama only ever met his father once, when he was nine or ten years old and his father visited for a month.

-Obama is not a Muslim. He was a member of a UCC church in Chicago for many years before he was elected President for a reason, he's a Christian.

Hitler and the Antichrist I don't think even deserve responses, they are so utterly absurd. So you agree on those... but what about the other, more important really issues above?

I want to make it clear to you, my friend, that I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Hell, you can call me one of the following: libertarian, individualist anarchist, constitutional individualist, TEA party member. Yes, I do support the TEA Party movement. And, yes, I do agree with you that there are members of the movement that are racist. However, I can ensure you that I am not a representation of those people. I would never, under any circumstances, call someone the n word. You believe me, right? By the way, Falcon, do you know that the original intent of the TEA party movement was not to show support to people like Palin? The TEA Party movement was actually hijacked by those who...did not agree with its original intent. I can say with 100% certainly that the original members of the movement are not racist. I know because I'm part of the organization that started them.

The Republican party in general (and conservatives in general) are more sexist and racist than liberals. Just look at the congress, Republicans are almost all white and male while Democrats include almost all of the minority and female members. If the Republican party wants to keep winning, they'll eventually need to deal with these problems... because eventually even Texas will be hard to win if Hispanics keep growing in population while Republicans keep acting like they're evil. That's good for Democrats of course, but still, seeing so much racism isn't something I like...

Of course there are some valid reasons to oppose illegal immigration, and I agree with some of them at least in part. It's really tricky though... for instance it's not fair for people waiting for years to be punished while people who broke the law and snuck in get rewarded... but on the other hand you can't evict them all, so what can you do... I'm just bringing it up because while it's died down for the moment due to all the crazy calls of "Obama is making the US into the Soviet Union" and that somehow the democratic process is the end of liberty (funny how something that happened because people were voted in who wanted it to happen and because a majority of the American people supported it is somehow "against what the American People Want"...), but I'm sure the anti-immigration rhetoric from a few years ago will be back...

Anyway, as far as taxes go, obviously the Republicans' biggest hypocricy, and what makes them completely impossible to take seriously in this whole thing beyond anything else, is that when THEY are in power, they cut taxes and raise spending. They grow the size of government. They grow the deficit and in the long run ruin the nation as a result -- there's a reason that after both Reagan and Bush II there were crashes, cut-taxes-and-spend-more is a long-term recipe for failure, obviously. But now that they're out of power the Republicans talk about shrinking government again, as if people didn't notice what they were doing for the eight years before that or something?

Democrats increase spending too, but at least they make attempts to pay for at least part of it with new taxes.

[Unreadphilosophy]

^In regards to the Republican party: the Republican party has been infested and corrupted by the neo-conservative agenda for quite sometime. Neo cons are not true conservatives. They're nothing more than war mongers who believe that America has to be the police of the world. They say they stand for the Constitution, but in reality, will not hesitate to show support for things like the PATRIOT Act.

The only good thing about the Republican party is that there is one glimmer of hope. There is one man that has any sort of principals, virtues, honor, respect, kindness and intelligence. I think you know who I'm talking about, Falcon.

[Weltall]

I bet there was no poll of Democrats from three or four years ago who believed similar (though obviously adjusted for ideology) things about G.W. Bush.

[A Black Falcon]

I can't think of anything similar people believed about Bush... unless you mean just "he's an idiot" or something?

Democrats in general are just not hateful like Republicans. There's no left-wing analog to talk radio, really; the internet's the closest thing there is, and even there major left-wing sites just insult Republicans, call their policies bad, maybe use a few insults ("Repugs", not something I'd use but I see it), etc, nothing like the frothing vitriol of Limbaugh.

[Weltall]

What a load of self-serving horseshit.

[alien space marine]

The only good thing about the Republican party is that there is one glimmer of hope. There is one man that has any sort of principals, virtues, honor, respect, kindness and intelligence. I think you know who I'm talking about, Falcon.

You mean Ron Paul?

[alien space marine]

What a load of self-serving horseshit.

I found that in the {horseshit}link you posted

[Weltall]

My point: Neither is fundamentally less prone to acting like fuckwads. Many, many people on both sides engage in this kind of behavior.

[Geno]

Yeah, I will have to agree that there's just as much douchebaggery coming from the left as there is from the right. The difference is that the right wing extremists are more popular, it seems. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. actually get airtime. Most of the liberal extremism comes from the internet.

And yeah, I'm assuming Unreadphilosophy is referring to Ron Paul there. He's about the only Republican I'd ever vote for.

[Darunia]

* 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist. * 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim * 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" * 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" * Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

67 v 40
57 v 32
45 v 25
38 v 20
24 v 14

Some points I would like to make. Where this poll very cleary says that while these numbers are higher amongst GOP members, it also makes it very clear that a sizable number of non-GOP share these beliefs. Also, with most of these statistics, take for example 67% of GOP v. 40% others... since the GOP is not a majority party, isn't the 40% of others a far bigger number? While these numbers are nothing to be proud of, I think you're over-emphasizing the GOP role. Another way to read that is:

40 percent of Americans overall believe that Obama is a socialist. 32 percent overall believe that Obama is a Muslim. 25 percent overall agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president. 20 percent overall say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" * Scariest of all, 14 percent overall say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

Those numbers would appear to constitute a far greater number of people than the GOP numbers do.

The only one of the allegations which may hold any water is that he is a socialist. Dictionary.com says that socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Is not his enormous health care bill driving this industry out of private hands and into the dubious safety of the government? Would you honestly stand here and say to me that Obama is a free-market capitalist? If he is not, then what is he?

[Unreadphilosophy]

You know, guys, correlating Bush to Hitler isn't that far off. During his years at Yale, Bush was a member of Skulls & Bones, a society that supported and funded Hitler's Third Reich. There are quite a few books on the issue.

And, Marine, Ron Paul is the man that I'm talking about. He's the only politician that I have any respect and trust for. His ideas are just plain, common sense.

[Unreadphilosophy]

Durunia, I agree with you that Obama is not a free-market individual. He supported the bailouts of 08, and gave the head of the freaking Federal Reserve of New York the job of Treasury Sec.

The Obama care bill is the beginning of something worse. Even if he's not a socialist now, the bill is a strong precursor to what he can become.

Remember: Socialism isn't something that happens over night. It's an ideology that doesn't occur overnight. All political ideologies--capitalism, socialism, communism--take time to form. Do I believe that we're heading toward socialism? Yes, I do. Falcon can take that comment any way he likes.

Don't forget that Newsweek announced a socialistic society a short time after Obama's election: http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663?from=rss. And you can't use the "that's a right lie" argument. Newsweek is extremely leftist.

[Geno]

Correlating Bush to Hitler, while hyperbole, was at least understandable: Bush started a war. But seriously, where are the Obama-Hitler comparisons coming from? They promised change during a time of turmoil, they were popular when campaigning... and that's it? Hitler was a mass-murderer; he isn't so abhorred today because he forced a healthcare bill into law.

[Weltall]

Bush is not the first president to start a war. Among others are Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, William McKinley and Lyndon Johnson. Three of those wars were no less questionable than Iraq, either.

The Hitler/Obama comparison is valid in the context of elections, not ideology. While certainly there was none of the Nazi strongarming at the polls, the basic electoral premise of both men was almost identical: "The guy in charge now sucks. If you vote for me, everything will get better because I'm different from the guy in charge, and you'll believe me because I'm a charismatic media slut".

Hitler's 1932 campaign for the chancellery was HOPE AND CHANGE (for the (officially-recognized) German people).

The comparison breaks down once you realize that Hitler actually had a plan and did an excellent job of CHANGE, whereas the Obama administration has, for the most part, just continued most of what Bush was doing and the change over the last year and a half has almost all been for the worse. ;D

[Darunia]

You know, guys, correlating Bush to Hitler isn't that far off. During his years at Yale, Bush was a member of Skulls & Bones, a society that supported and funded Hitler's Third Reich. There are quite a few books on the issue.

That's the weakest pretense ever. Isn't that far off? Besides they're both white male politicians... I don't see much more the link them. Last I knew Bush wasn't anti-semitic, or white-supremacist, or coveting leibensraum... comparing Iraq 2003 to Poland 1939 is a fool's analogy.

[Unreadphilosophy]

^Exactly. The parallels between Bush and Obama are breath taking. Obama promised to end the war in the Middle East; not only did he not end the war, he increased the troop size by 30,000 after he got his Nobel Prize (talk about Orwellian Doublethink). He promised to end the Patriot Act; the Democrats secretly renewed the act with no Congressional oversight. Hell, the recent jobs bill that wa Oh, and let's not forget about the naked body scanners that Obama wants to place in airports all across the country. Who doesn't want some fat ass looking at them naked in a back room? He promised to strengthen our ties with other countries; he recently declared sanctions on Iran, the ultimate provoker of war. Obama's war efforts are no different from the last asshole that we had in office. Hell, the war was one of the reasons that people voted for him. Even after he decided to stay the course, none of his supporters did anything to show dismay. He lied to them, and people like Falcon continue to think he's something special. When you remove the charisma and promises, the only thing you get is another politician being back up by Wall Street.

[Unreadphilosophy]

You know, guys, correlating Bush to Hitler isn't that far off. During his years at Yale, Bush was a member of Skulls & Bones, a society that supported and funded Hitler's Third Reich. There are quite a few books on the issue.

That's the weakest pretense ever. Isn't that far off? Besides they're both white male politicians... I don't see much more the link them. Last I knew Bush wasn't anti-semitic, or white-supremacist, or coveting leibensraum... comparing Iraq 2003 to Poland 1939 is a fool's analogy.

The difference between Poland and Iraq is that Hitler was actually successful when he went into Poland. Bush fucked up his "Enduring Freedom" BS.

[Darunia]

The difference between Poland and Iraq is that Hitler was actually successful when he went into Poland. Bush fucked up his "Enduring Freedom" BS.


Really? That's the only difference between Poland 39 and Iraq 03? Do you want to rethink about that before I tear you apart for that or are you ready right now?

[Unreadphilosophy]

You're a Republican. I'm not surprised that you would be willing to defend him. Just know that I've never supported him or this war. Anything you say to me will more than likely go in one ear and out the other.

You know, I'm surprised that you defend this war. Most of the atheists that I've met are against it. You're the first secular Republican I've met that lumps himself in a support group dominated by fundamentalists. Awkward kudos to you.

[A Black Falcon]

What a load of self-serving horseshit.

None of those are anywhere even remotely as bad as the kind of things in that poll, or the kinds of things said about Obama by the right.

Bush as the Antichrist? Obviously meant as a joke, not something serious. Not true about Obama as the Antichrist.

Bush evil? Well, he certainly did a lot of evil...

The same goes for "He's an idiot", I mean obviously he isn't really an idiot, just intellectually incurious and uncaring, and completely unfit to be president. But it's easy to just generalize and call him stupid. But I really, really don't think that that's anywhere remotely as bad as what the right is saying about Obama...

The same goes for talk of secession, sure there was a little joking talk of secession up here, but nobody actually meant any of it like some in Texas almost seem to...


I mean yeah, if you mean that there were insults, of course there were. And I'd say that most of them were deserved. But they just weren't the kind of virulent, violent hatred that you are getting from the far right today. Liberals just aren't like that in general...

Yeah, I will have to agree that there's just as much douchebaggery coming from the left as there is from the right. The difference is that the right wing extremists are more popular, it seems. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. actually get airtime. Most of the liberal extremism comes from the internet.

Absolutely. Conservative extremism has a huge, loud public voice in America. We can see that pretty obviously today. Liberal extremism? Minimal, barely noticed, and not important. What there is is on the internet, and isn't very influential. There's a massive difference between the two. Just looking at liberals during Bush vs. conservatives during Obama should show that very clearly...

And yeah, I'm assuming Unreadphilosophy is referring to Ron Paul there. He's about the only Republican I'd ever vote for.

I'm sure he is referring to Ron Paul.

Some points I would like to make. Where this poll very cleary says that while these numbers are higher amongst GOP members, it also makes it very clear that a sizable number of non-GOP share these beliefs. Also, with most of these statistics, take for example 67% of GOP v. 40% others... since the GOP is not a majority party, isn't the 40% of others a far bigger number? While these numbers are nothing to be proud of, I think you're over-emphasizing the GOP role. Another way to read that is:

"Overall" includes Republicans you know, right? The vast majority of people who believe those things are Republican.

The only one of the allegations which may hold any water is that he is a socialist. Dictionary.com says that socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Is not his enormous health care bill driving this industry out of private hands and into the dubious safety of the government? Would you honestly stand here and say to me that Obama is a free-market capitalist? If he is not, then what is he?

Considering that there isn't even a public option, much less universal health care, absolutely not. This is actually a MASSIVE GIVEAWAY to private companies! Michael Moore said recently that if health care companies weren't as incredibly greedy they'd love this bill, because they're getting something like 90% of what they wanted... but they fight it tooth and nail because they wanted 100%.

I mean, this bill says that ALL AMERICANS MUST BUY THEIR PRODUCTS, and there will be no competition from the government over it. Yes, there are more restrictions, and it's harder now for them to drop people's coverage and such, but the healthcare industry, sadly, wins overall from this bill, not loses as they should. This is very, very far from a socialist bill. I wish Obama was a socialist, we might have had a better bill today...

Remember: Socialism isn't something that happens over night. It's an ideology that doesn't occur overnight. All political ideologies--capitalism, socialism, communism--take time to form. Do I believe that we're heading toward socialism? Yes, I do. Falcon can take that comment any way he likes.

If America did healthcare like most of Western Europe does, that is, using a socialist system, we'd be paying less and be getting more for it. So yes, I hope it goes that way eventually... for-profit health care is a failed experiment.

You're a Republican. I'm not surprised that you would be willing to defend him. Just know that I've never supported him or this war. Anything you say to me will more than likely go in one ear and out the other.

You know, I'm surprised that you defend this war. Most of the atheists that I've met are against it. You're the first secular Republican I've met that lumps himself in a support group dominated by fundamentalists. Awkward kudos to you.

Apart from the atheism, he's pretty much a down-the-line Republican... it is kind of an odd mix, agreed.

As for the war, much of the left is also very frustrated over Obama's support for the wars, and it's definitely fueling some of the liberal disenchantment over Obama. The fact that they FINALLY got health care done helps there some, but it was without a public option, which is bad, and Obama's still supporting the wars, which many liberals oppose...

Myself I think that we do have to keep on in the Afghanistan effort, and we are slowly pulling out of Iraq so that one is finally ending, but yeah, I'm not sure if I'm in the majority of liberals in thinking that we do have to be doing something in Afghanistan...

Correlating Bush to Hitler, while hyperbole, was at least understandable: Bush started a war. But seriously, where are the Obama-Hitler comparisons coming from? They promised change during a time of turmoil, they were popular when campaigning... and that's it? Hitler was a mass-murderer; he isn't so abhorred today because he forced a healthcare bill into law.

Bush can't be Hitler, Hitler was actually competent, for the most part... Bush was just a weak person being controlled most of the time by the people actually in power, such as Dick Cheney. Cheney's by far the most "evil" one in the Bush administration, followed by his cohorts such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, not Bush...

When Bush got into office, there were both centrist and neocon wings in his administration -- Rummy, Wolfowitz, and Cheney on the neocon side, and Condileeza Rice, Colin Powell, any residual Bush I influence, and some others on the more centrist side. After a big fight, the neocons won... but I don't think Bush came into office as a neocon, and I don't know if he ever really was one. He probably did become one, but still, he was never a Cheney... and that's why Cheney was the one I most wanted impeached during the Bush administration. He was responsible for the most crimes.

[Darunia]

You're a Republican. I'm not surprised that you would be willing to defend him. Just know that I've never supported him or this war. Anything you say to me will more than likely go in one ear and out the other.

Point A: I'm not a republican. I'm a moderate conservative, unaffiliated. I defend him on some things and not on others. The difference is, I'm open-minded and I don't 100% condemn or pardon him. I'm the same way on all politicians. I give kudos to Obama for certain things.

You know, I'm surprised that you defend this war. Most of the atheists that I've met are against it. You're the first secular Republican I've met that lumps himself in a support group dominated by fundamentalists. Awkward kudos to you.

(See point A.)

[Darunia]

Poland 1939:

Premeditated attack to attain territory at the expense of a racially inferior people for German colonization. A full and permanent government is established within which the Poles have no de facto voice or representation. The Poles become a subordinate people within Poland, and are ultimately supposed to be relegated to second-class statues, deported, or killed. This is a policy of racial purification. Poland, while not directly annexed, is a permanent satellite state-territory of Germany. Germans have ultimate authority to do as they feel necessary. In this case, Poland is a clear victim of aggressive imperialism.

German objectives: Full, permanent colonial expansion. Erradication of a foreign, inferior race.

Iraq 2003: A coalition of allied western democracies attack a recalcitrant Iraqi dictator who was suspected as having developed WMDs. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, a great number of foreign leaders and domestic leaders, including a plurality of Democrats, agreed and voted to go to see (See: Hilary Clinton.) The coalition rather easily outs the old regime, and while rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, for some years is plagued by insurgents, which winded down and mostly fizzled out in 2009. The Iraqi government is sovereign and held by Iraqis. US, UN and Nato peacekeepers remain there as long as necessary and work hand-in-hand with the local homogenous Iraqi government. Crimes perpetrated by any foreign troops are taken to court.

American objectives: Eliminate threat to world peace as posed by WMDs, Saddam regime; rebuild and exit a (hopefully) stable Iraq.

Now, as I said, hindsight is 20/20. There were no WMDs and this was a huge embarassment. Nobody knew that there were none... it was the casus belli.

Do I need to go on?

[A Black Falcon]

Poland 1939:

Premeditated attack to attain territory at the expense of a racially inferior people for German colonization. A full and permanent government is established within which the Poles have no de facto voice or representation. The Poles become a subordinate people within Poland, and are ultimately supposed to be relegated to second-class statues, deported, or killed. This is a policy of racial purification. Poland, while not directly annexed, is a permanent satellite state-territory of Germany. Germans have ultimate authority to do as they feel necessary. In this case, Poland is a clear victim of aggressive imperialism.

German objectives: Full, permanent colonial expansion. Erradication of a foreign, inferior race.

Plus they then followed it up by murdering most of the Jewish population of Poland, which had the most Jews of any country except perhaps Russia at that time.

Now most Poles hated Jews so maybe they didn't mind, but still, yeah. You're absolutely right -- there's no comparison between Poland 1939 and Iraq 2003. What Hitler did was incomparably worse and on a completely different level. Still, your depiction of the Iraq war is very deceptive, so I need to correct that... don't think, though, that by any of it I mean that it is in any way comparable to Hitler -- it is absolutely not.

Iraq 2003: A coalition of allied western democracies attack a recalcitrant Iraqi dictator who was suspected as having developed WMDs. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, a great number of foreign leaders and domestic leaders, including a plurality of Democrats, agreed and voted to go to see (See: Hilary Clinton.)

Not really. That vote said that they could, but not that they would, and wasn't a declaration of war. Bush lied to Congress before that vote by claiming that he'd only use war as a last resort, if he had to, while actually the Neocons were planning on attacking first, at the absolute first opportunity. They did that several months later, forcing the UN weapons inspectors to leave the country with their work (which had found nothing, because there was nothing to find) incomplete.

I mean, the Democrats should not have voted for that bill. It was incredibly stupid that they did; if people like me could see that the Republicans were lying to them, why in the world were they so stupid that they believed them? And yet somehow many Democrats did... only later to admit that yes, they were lied to and deceived. They should definitely have known better, but they trusted that when dealing with such an important issue they'd be told the truth, because that's how it works in the Congress. That didn't happen.

The coalition rather easily outs the old regime, and while rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, for some years is plagued by insurgents, which winded down and mostly fizzled out in 2009.

That is, America sets off a civil war in Iraq which devastates the country and, combined with the constant American military actions that frequently kill civilians as well as insurgents, kill perhaps as much as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the course of the war. That civil war would not have happened if we hadn't invaded. We should have seen it coming, but the neocons were too blind to see the obvious.

The Iraqi government is sovereign and held by Iraqis. US, UN and Nato peacekeepers remain there as long as necessary and work hand-in-hand with the local homogenous Iraqi government. Crimes perpetrated by any foreign troops are taken to court.

Not really. Most crimes perpetuated by foreign troops, or by mercenaries such as Blackwater, are never prosecuted. For a long time mercenaries and troops pretty much had free rein. In a few rare cases there was actually a prosecution, but those were very uncommon; most murders, random killings of "suspected insurgents", etc. happened with no consequences for the perpetrators.

That often happens during war, sure, but still, we should have higher standards than that...

American objectives: Eliminate threat to world peace as posed by WMDs, Saddam regime; rebuild and exit a (hopefully) stable Iraq.

Actual American objectives: Secure Mideast oil for the US. Set up a friendly government in the Middle East, so that we can get more Mideast oil without dealing with unfriendly dictatorships. Kill Sadaam Hussein because daddy failed to back in 1991, despite that he hasn't actually been a real threat in years. Follow the Neocon plans to overthrow and kill Sadaam that they had been working on since 1991. Boost ratings at home for greater success in the coming (2004) elections. Start the new crusade and take down one of the Axis of Evil!

WMDs were irrelevant really, they were just the excuse used to try to sell the invasion to the world because the Neocons thought that that was the excuse that'd be more likely to be accurate... but of course even that wasn't.

It does seem that they were planning on being out within a year, and didn't see pretty much any of the things that happened after we took over Iraq coming, but that's just evidence of how horrible their planning job was and their incompetence, not of their original goals... though the fact that their plans were seriously flawed and lacking in much connection to reality certainly is something important to understand when you look at it all.

Now, as I said, hindsight is 20/20. There were no WMDs and this was a huge embarassment. Nobody knew that there were none... it was the casus belli.

Do I need to go on?

Helping to show how lacking the reasons for war actually were, and how obviously illegal the invasion was under international law...

[Darunia]

"That vote said that they could, but not that they would, and wasn't a declaration of war..."

Declarations of war don't exist in the 21st century. You know this to be true. They're not PC.

I mean, the Democrats should not have voted for that bill. It was incredibly stupid that they did; if people like me could see that the Republicans were lying to them, why in the world were they so stupid that they believed them? And yet somehow many Democrats did... only later to admit that yes, they were lied to and deceived. They should definitely have known better, but they trusted that when dealing with such an important issue they'd be told the truth, because that's how it works in the Congress. That didn't happen.

If you honestly believe that Bush intentionally deceived congree in order to start a war, what was his reason? I agree that he probably did want to go to war... he may be a bellicose person in some ways... but I think that he honestly believed there to be a casus belli.

That is, America sets off a civil war in Iraq which devastates the country and, combined with the constant American military actions that frequently kill civilians as well as insurgents, kill perhaps as much as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the course of the war. That civil war would not have happened if we hadn't invaded. We should have seen it coming, but the neocons were too blind to see the obvious.

Civil War? Pray inform me further. I know there are regional stressors, as there are in many countries were more than one ethnicity are heaped together, but I don't know that it has gone to that level.


Not really. Most crimes perpetuated by foreign troops, or by mercenaries such as Blackwater, are never prosecuted. For a long time mercenaries and troops pretty much had free rein. In a few rare cases there was actually a prosecution, but those were very uncommon; most murders, random killings of "suspected insurgents", etc. happened with no consequences for the perpetrators.

There is always colateral damage in war, but it is my understanding that the guilty parties are held culpable. If you believe otherwise, prove it here with substantive documentation.

That often happens during war, sure, but still, we should have higher standards than that...

Agreed.

Actual American objectives: Secure Mideast oil for the US.

Yea, I know... because, we all know that the mideast oil fields have been seized and nationalized by the US government, and that's why gas is so cheap right now. I gotta give you that one.

Set up a friendly government in the Middle East, so that we can get more Mideast oil without dealing with unfriendly dictatorships.

I see a stable, democratic government, you see a compliant one for oil. I say tomato, you say sodomy. But, you still maintain that tired old leftist routine about oil. So, we have the oil now, right? Where is it? Why is gas so expensive?

Kill Sadaam Hussein because daddy failed to back in 1991, despite that he hasn't actually been a real threat in years. Follow the Neocon plans to overthrow and kill Sadaam that they had been working on since 1991. Boost ratings at home for greater success in the coming (2004) elections. Start the new crusade and take down one of the Axis of Evil!

That wasn't the reason for going to war at all, that's a leftist conspiracy theory on par with the Birthers on the right.

WMDs were irrelevant really, they were just the excuse used to try to sell the invasion to the world because the Neocons thought that that was the excuse that'd be more likely to be accurate... but of course even that wasn't.

The threat of WMDs is a very real one. It appeared real at the time. It's reason enough. Global stability is an issue that all nations have to deal with. You again unfairly give the burden to "Neocons" when congress passed it, and we have numerous international support. You are telling me that Bush hoodwinked the entire world, and all of congress? Either he did or didn't, I feel he didn't, but if he did, then he's the smartest and most capable charlatan in the world to have been able to carry the entire world in his pocket, wouldn't you agree? Yet, the cliche of his is a bumbling bumpkin. Which was is it? Master deceiver or bumbling moron? Naturally you'll say both, but the two versions are incompatible.

It does seem that they were planning on being out within a year, and didn't see pretty much any of the things that happened after we took over Iraq coming, but that's just evidence of how horrible their planning job was and their incompetence, not of their original goals... though the fact that their plans were seriously flawed and lacking in much connection to reality certainly is something important to understand when you look at it all.

For clarification, who is the 'They' to which you refer? Did all their fascist neocon boogey men get together and draft out the strategy for the war one night?


Helping to show how lacking the reasons for war actually were, and how obviously illegal the invasion was under international law...

An unstable despot who has WMDs is reason enough to go to war. Which is why I endorse Obama's Iranian sanctions, though I'm not quite sure it goes far enough.

[alien space marine]

ll is a strong precursor to what he can become.

Remember: Socialism isn't something that happens over night. It's an ideology that doesn't occur overnight. All political ideologies--capitalism, socialism, communism--take time to form. Do I believe that we're heading toward socialism? Yes, I do. Falcon can take that comment any way he likes.

Don't forget that Newsweek announced a socialistic society a short time after Obama's election: http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663?from=rss. And you can't use the "that's a right lie" argument. Newsweek is extremely leftist.

What is with you American's and your paranoia about socialism? You make it sound like we should shit our paints and scream in terror the moment the word is uttered!!

[Darunia]

Good question, ASM. I believe it is residual, from the cold war, when the US was pitted against the Soviet Union. Other nations wouldn't understand it anymore than they would understand Manifest Destiny.

[Fittisize]

The US and Soviet Union weren't the only countries inolved in the Cold War, you know. Other Western nations like Canada were players as well. The Red Scare was in fact very prevalent here. Fred Rose, for example, was elected to the House of Commons as a member of the Communist Party and was removed from his seat and imprisoned for suspected espionage (complete fearmongering), and the Canada-USSR Summit Series (hockey) was an East vs. West Battle on par or possibly larger than that of the USA-USSR Lake Placid game. The Cold War very much factored into Canada's political atmosphere and tensions were very, very high here. Of course, you wouldn't understand that because you're an American and can't possibly imagine any experiences outside your own or what you've been brainwashed to believe. Seriously, the Cold War ended a long time ago. I'm getting sick of hearing the excuse of "residual fears" from the Cold War to explain America's ignorance. When Universal Healthcare was created in Canada it was met with the same opposition and communist fears that exists is in the USA today. Except that happened in 1966 at the height of the Cold War and not two decades after the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Sacred Jellybean]

The Hitler/Obama comparison is valid in the context of elections, not ideology. While certainly there was none of the Nazi strongarming at the polls, the basic electoral premise of both men was almost identical: "The guy in charge now sucks. If you vote for me, everything will get better because I'm different from the guy in charge, and you'll believe me because I'm a charismatic media slut".

A presidential candidate using "the guy in charge sucks and I'm better" rhetoric? You don't say!

[lazyfatbum]

A presidential candidate using "the guy in charge sucks and I'm better" rhetoric? You don't say!

I lol'd

[Unreadphilosophy]

A presidential candidate using "the guy in charge sucks and I'm better" rhetoric? You don't say!

Politics: Because we're too lazy to think about you.

[alien space marine]

[QUOTE=Darunia]

[QUOTE]If you honestly believe that Bush intentionally deceived congree in order to start a war, what was his reason? I agree that he probably did want to go to war... he may be a bellicose person in some ways... but I think that he honestly believed there to be a casus belli.
[/QUOTE]

Back in the 90's Saddam Hussein hatched a failed plot to assassinate his father while he was on a business trip to the Mideast, I think he had very personal reasons for wanting to depose Saddam and had longed to strike at him in retaliation for the plot against his dad.

The Bush administration went into Iraq for various reasons, While they may have actually believed that Saddam had WMD's hidden somewhere,The deception was that they knew the intel they had was complete dubious garbage but continued to try to pass it off as credible evidence that Iraq was imminent threat.

Also I object to the war because it has tarnished the U.S and western civilization as a hole, It was also a huge misstep that has further antagonized the Islamic world and seeded the ground for more terrorism and Islamism.

[QUOTE]Civil War? Pray inform me further. I know there are regional stressors, as there are in many countries were more than one ethnicity are heaped together, but I don't know that it has gone to that level.[/QUOTE]

Do you watch the news? Iraqi's were hacking and shooting each other to bits by the thousands on sectarian lines, many southern Iraqi cities and regions have been cleansed of Sunnites,A huge chunk of the suicide bombings against civilians were by Sunnites avenging themselves against the shia.

Many say that all of this is due to the fact that back in 2003, Many of Saddam's former generals had been promised by U.S officials that they would be part of the new Iraq and that their army division would continue to be employed in service to the new government when they surrendered, The Bush administration instead choose to disband the entire army forcing the countries population of soldiers into unemployment, Thus Turning a potential asset into another enemy.

With the army disbanded they had to build new army from scratch which takes a few years to complete, When they could have had a large local military force to police the country right off hand and the sectarian bloodbaths could have been stopped before they escalated out of control by having Iraqi veterans fight with you and not against you, The disbanding the old national army caused soldiers to turn to their tribal and religious leaders joining the sectarian militias that would later kill each other when the sectarian violence erupted, before that they had unity by common allegiance to the Generals of the former national army.

[QUOTE]There is always colateral damage in war[/QUOTE]

Which is why Bush is grilled for starting a preemptive war over WMD's and imminent threats that didn't exist.

As a consequence western civilians in Madrid and London became collateral damage........

Bush and Blair were and are completely clueless about Muslims and the fact the quran commands them to take up arms and defend co-believers regardless of nationality when infidels invade their lands, So any Muslim living in the UK and in America will see the war in iraq as a attack against the Islamic world nation and a call to jihad.

Historically Iraq was the center of the Islamic world and Baghdad was the seat of the caliphate in centuries past, If muslims will flock across the globe to fight russkies in a backwater like afghanistan in the 80's imagine how much more would volunteer for jihad to defend a land of great sentimental value.

A minority already viewed American patronage of Israel as a act of war, That's why a fringe group of bearded circumcised fucktards hijacked planes and slam them into the towers, Ever since Iraq its no longer just a small percentage that consider the U.S the enemy now most of them do.

[QUOTE]An unstable despot who has WMDs is reason enough to go to war. Which is why I endorse Obama's Iranian sanctions, though I'm not quite sure it goes far enough.[/QUOTE]

Which is why Bush ignored the well contained Saddam Hussein and went after the despot in the axis of evil who actually had nuclear bombs,the very wonely Kim Jong-il

*In the alternative universe were George W Bush was not dropped on his head as a infant.*

[Darunia]

Hahah--oh Fittisize. It's so cute when the Canadians get in a tizzy. They want to be big boys when they grow up but they're just so darn cute! Shhh... you just stay up there in Ontario, cultivate your maple syrup and hockey. We'll take care of the important things.

ASM, I'm too lazy to repudiate your weary old Marxist dogma. Just take this 2x4 and bash yourself for me. I grow tired of it. There's a good lad.

[alien space marine]

[Unreadphilosophy]

An unstable despot who has WMDs is reason enough to go to war. Which is why I endorse Obama's Iranian sanctions, though I'm not quite sure it goes far enough.

Sanctions are the ultimate act of war. Telling another country what it can and can't do with its resources is what provokes attacks on us. One thing that I love about people like Daruina is their hypocrisy. They scream that other countries need to respect our sovereignty, but they have no problem telling other countries how to live.

Iran is not a threat to us. Never have been, and never will be. They have already said countless times that their nuclear energy programs are for civilian purposes. The Pentagon has back this up. In 2003, Iran signed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency treaty. With the signature of this treaty, Iran promised to divert its nuclear energy programs to its civilians. Here is a quote from the Pentagon's report:

"The Pentagon's top intelligence official says there is no evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons.

The chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, says the key findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear energy program are still valid.

"The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true," he told Voice of America.

The NIE report was a consensus judgment of all US intelligence agencies, which concluded that Iran halted all activities which could have allegedly led to the development of nuclear arms in 2003.

Burgess said the Pentagon had seen no indication that Tehran was planning to resume the program allegedly aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

"We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know," he said.

Burgess said the Pentagon would continue to work on verifying that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear activities."

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116...=351020104

There's no reason to fear Iran.

Israel, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Not only has Israel refused to sign the treaty stated above, they're sitting on 150+ nuclear weapons. Most of those weapons came from a generous donation from America.

If Iran attacked Israel at this moment, it would be suicide. Iran would be wiped off the face of planet. There's no reason for us to be funding Israel at all.

Here's a great article on Iran:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/articl...=1#discuss

America has nothing to gain from attacking Iran. It's the government that wants something. The people running the system realize that the people are getting pissed off with this war. They're fed up with the billions and billions of dollars that are being fed to the beast in the Middle-East. The government was successful in scaring the American people into war with Iraq using the WMD fairytale. It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same with Iran. To the system, patriotism is based on how scared you can get the citizens of a country into believing something.

The WMD threat in the Middle East was false. Everything about it was a lie. The leak of the identity of Valerie Plume was done because her husband was planning to go forth with information proving that individuals with the Bush Administration had manipulated data to make is look like the Middle East was buying Yellow Cake Uranium. The "63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the one million pounds of sarin, mustard, and VX gasses alleged to exist" (Paul, 2007, pg. 273). All of it based on lies. All of it nothing more than the figments of the imagination of the people that Durian supports.

A few words: be on the look-out for a false flag terror attack. The war drums in Washington are beating. They'll do whatever it takes to get the bombs dropping. Wanna think I'm crazy? Be my guest.

By the way: the reason that the neo cons probably want to go to war is because the Bible states that Israel is the place where the Rapture will begin. People like Huckabee and Palin are crazed fundamentalist Christians. Palin herself said that she believed that her generation would see the return of Jesus Christ. There's a reason politics and religion should be kept separate. Whether people like her amid it or not, the personal beliefs that they hold are getting in their way of making the right judgment.

Before I end this little rant, enjoy these interesting facts on Iran:

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."

Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.

Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"

Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.

Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?

Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

Reality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

Reality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.

Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

Reality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.

Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

Reality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The U.S. elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

Reality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.

[Darunia]

I hope you're right about Iran, because if you're wrong, Hitler will have nukes this time around. Won't you look silly then.

[A Black Falcon]

Iran is definitely dangerous. They're not Hitler, but they're dangerous. Are they making nukes? Maybe. Likely, really. They might not... but seriously, what they've been doing for years now has been so obstructionist, so pushing the line, so standoffish towards the international community... the Iranian people are not the problem, they're actually less anti-American than most Arab populations are actually (note - the fact that they're Persian and not Arab, while the focus of popular anti-Americanism in the region is among Arabs, is definitely a big part of why; it's too bad that as far as governments go things are very different, but look at American involvement in Iran before the Iranian Revolution and we were kind of asking for it... but anyway.). The government is the problem, and the thing is, they're a big problem, and have a lot of power, including total control of the army.

Iran is mostly a direct threat to Israel, not the US itself, but as Israel is our close ally, that's not such a big comfort...

We can't invade them though, for sure, so the whole thing is an incredibly difficult situation. We definitely need to use sanctions, as we have, and press other countries to support them too, as we have, but maybe we need to do more... sanctions are important, though. For instance, I supported the sanctions on Sadaam's Iraq. They were effective and worked at keeping him from being able to build or rebuild nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capabilities. I support sanctions. The problem came when we went beyond that and invaded for no reason other than those I described...

[Weltall]

A presidential candidate using "the guy in charge sucks and I'm better" rhetoric? You don't say!

As a general rule, most candidates tend to use that as a starting point, as opposed to using it as the total message.

That's why "the guy in charge sucks and I'm better" has become "the guy in charge sucked, and everything is still his fault" going on a year and a half into his administration.

[Darunia]

Thank you, ABF. So this is what it feels like to be on the same side as you. Weird.

That whole "The Guy in Charge Sucks..." rule has one stipulation: you can only use it against an opposing incumbent.