Good post!
posted by HeyHey at 11:30 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 10, 2006 #
Sorry, Dave, but silly Republican propaganda never got a free ride on ToledoTalk, and today is no exception.
daveschulz: “Our service men and women are ubelievably corageous and selfless. I was humbled by it and realized that we are nothing compared to these fine people.”
Sorry; false. They have no more or less rights than the rest of us do. You can feel in whatever fashion that you want for yourself, but I'm not going to let you get away with saying any of the rest of us are any different with respect to our military service history (or lack thereof).
daveschulz: “We lost a good Senator.”
We must have gained a goodplus Senator, then, since I'm sure you assumed that the people made a better choice since the electorate tends to ditch worse politicians over time.
daveschulz: “It was a tough year to be a Republcan in Ohio in particular.”
Understatement of the election cycle! I'm sure the Dems will try their best to out-do that, however. The Ohio Republicans ran everything out of a sense of Economic Emergency. Ohio is far worse off from that, hence the Dems will feel a stronger sense of emergency. This will tend to lead to handing out more tax abatements, grants, low-interest loans, and all the other aspects of the disgusting Corporate-Welfare State. Welfare of any kind is a poor response to bad economic conditions.
daveschulz: “Too bad the voters didn't get to see the real Dewine rather than the all too negative one they saw in the way he ran his campaign.”
Sorry; false. DeWine was responsible for his campaign, wasn't he? What's he really going to say about it?: "Sorry, I really didn't mean all that."
It's perfectly obvious that Gore lost 2000 by himself and Kerry lost 2004 by himself. At least have the honesty to admit DeWine is equally and fully responsible for losing his own race.
daveschulz: “I was against the Iraq war before it started but realize that it is important we get this right or somehow leave Iraq in a place where it can function well.”
Sorry; that's impossible now. The US government conspired with the military-industrial complex to invade Iraq in order to steal its oil. The Iraqi people and the rest of the world (being not so much propagandized by Imperial wealth) well understand that. Staying there only earns their hatred. Leaving is the only sensible option, despite the hatred that will follow on our heels. Like I've said before, you don't negotiate a rape in progress. You either continue the rape or stop it. Both continuance and stoppage have their problems, but it's undeniable that punishment for the rape must come, regardless. America is in vast denial about this hard fact. If only America had bothered to recognize that Iraq had had nothing to do with 911, and in fact Osama bin Laden was not in Iraq, then we'd be better off today (as would tens of thousands of Iraqis who by definition would not have been killed by the American invasion and occupation).
daveschulz: “May take years but both Dems and GOP have to come together to settle on a strategy and be united.”
Neither pro-war nor anti-war positions are united positions ... until the warfreaks imprison the anti-war faction members like myself. (Note well the anti-war guys would never imprison the warfreaks. Kind of tells you a lot, eh?)
I really don't know why people harp in this non-united thing. America went to a half-assed war position without paying any attention to the anti-war faction whatsoever, even to the point of solidifying media contols under the pro-war philosophical umbrella to such an extent that the New York Times had to actually apologize for such a thing in the first place. 95%+ of the Republicans were pro-war, and about 66% of the Democrats were pro-war. This is still largely the case. This makes anti-war sentiment and gumption in the Congress still a small minority. If you're a warfreak, then you've still got the votes to get anything done that you want.
So, what's to worry about? The warfreaks ignored our dissent and protests for 5 years, and counting. This wall of enforced ignorance can just continue on as if nothing material happened in the election (and it really didn't, we must note). The wars can just proceed in their usual (and silly) lack of success as they always have. Thousands of people will die in the Middle East from all this warfare, as usual. America didn't (and doesn't) mind 3000 dead on our side, and it certainly NEVER gave two hoots about how many thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis die on "their" side. We don't even know how many thousands of them have died, since we intentionally don't try to find out. We do that since we just don't give a fuck. So, what's the problem? America blew through 50000 American dead in Vietnam, and including Cambodia and Laos, the Happy Fun Vietnam Adventure only cost about a million dead slanty-eyed folk. We've a long way to go before we'll feel such a pinch in the Middle East.
daveschulz: “The end of one party rule in DC is much needed to bring a new policy to bear.”
You call for the end of one-party rule, yet you want Dems and Repubs to be "united". What am I missing, here? If most of the Dems vote in sync with most of the Repubs, how is that any different than what we had for 5 years already, when most of the Dems voted in sync with most of the Repubs?
You'll really have to expand on this idea, Dave.
daveschulz: “Another reason we must get the job done is Iran and Syria. They are evil and must be dealt with. Doesn't mean absolutely militarily.”
Oh, yes you DO mean "militarily". The US Congress along with the Presidency has been at the strongest pro-war state than it's been in some time. Bush outrightly called Iran and Syria part of an "Axis of Evil" and then showed the world how he intended to handle such an axis; to wit: endless war (or in the Pentagon's terms, the "Long War").
America is not willing to be in a real community of nations (in which it only has proportional representation), and on top of that, it can't even imagine being in a community of nations with Islamic nations who are in control of serious amounts of much-desired oil.
Evil is not the issue. America has been one of the most evil nations ever seen on Earth. It had consistently rocked the 20th Century with wars and innumerable armed conflicts, as well as issuing forth one of the true sorrows of mankind: the fucking C-I-A! The CIA is America's bona fide Gestapo, and has murdered for the Empire for a good 50 years. America kills for oil and other desirable resources. America will shake hands with any common murdering thug just to secure the thug's area for Capitalist exploitation.
Well, when America says "evil", it really knows what it's talking about. America is the world's leading rogue nation, and one of the world's leading terrorist states. What changes this truth in the eyes of Americans is that America is an Empire and thus, uses the Imperial entitlement mentality to frame all of America's evil acts in self-serving ways. This is the entire hinge that the "War on Terror" swings on. In order to conduct an oil war, Americans were sold on the idea that they were "fighting tyranny" and "spreading liberty". About the only liberty that they exported to Iraq was to help Iraqis get liberated from their lives and homes by bullets, bombs and general insurgency-from-destabilization.
daveschulz: “The middle East problems are long rooted and many generations have been brain washed to hate the US and Isreal.”
It didn't take too much brainwashing for the Iranians to hate America for using the CIA to stop Mossadegh from nationalizing oil assets, nor does it take too much brainwashing for the Arab world to watch Israel bottle up Palestinians into the world's largest ghetto called "Gaza".
Dave, you DID read Daniel Yergin's book "The Prize", didn't you? It's a comprehensive summary of how the West has terrorized the Middle East for essentially all of the 20th Century in order to steal its oil.
daveschulz: “Most governments over there have bubbling problems with radical parts of their population. Long term reform, education and diplomacy is needed.”
Great! This is the true-est thing you've said. However:
daveschulz: “Of course some of these hard liners only understand force and we can deliver that if needed.”
... you unfortunately earned a failing grade in International Politics 101. Generally, a real community of nations has something called "national sovereignty", whereby their borders and laws are inviolate. If diplomacy worked as well as you imply, then we can count on it convincing errant nations (such as Afghanistan in 2001) to stop harboring a clear criminal class (which, in Afghanistan's case, was Al Qaeda). The 911 report mentions how nations like Pakistan had undertaken several efforts over the 1990s to counter terrorist planners like bin Laden and many others of the "usual suspects". They could always be better at rounding up such folks, but -- gee, so could we, but we're FORTUNATELY restrained by a few things like "civil rights" and "due process".
We're not the world police. The very concept is aberrant to the Republic that we're supposed to be. The hard liners around the world (like those in the White House, Langley and the Pentagon!) can be rounded up with a sufficiency of diplomacy and that good ol' standby: economic sanctions.
daveschulz: “The Bush administration has made many serious mistakes and it starts with the arrogance of Pres. Bush. Many of the problems have been identified in the ISG report. I don't agree with much of the report but the silver lining is that hopefully this will unite our leaders behind a modified course and end the political posturing that is undermining our efforts.”
Bush is not going to change his course even a few seconds of arc. It's hard to negotiate with an opposition that will make ZERO concessions. Your statement about his arrogance is the 2nd true thing in your article.
So, maybe ... you Republicans can just go back to being big believers in limited and responsible government? Can we at least get that out of you?
posted by GuestZero at 06:02 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
Guest, certainly you are guilty of some "kool aid" drinking if you say that I am, especially the "oil" argument we hear out of the far left. This war is a very conflicting to many of all political persuasions. I tend to agree with Sen. Gordon Smith on his frustrations.
We have tougher economic sanctions outlined in law that could be used against Syria to get them out of Lebanon but the Europeans have to get on board, especially since their interests are impacted directly in Lebanon.
I agree that Bush has damaged world relations and hopefully a better policy will result that will acheive success in Iraq. I think most Iraqis are happy we got rid of Saddam. We have to find a way to instill hope and jumpstart their economy to give them hope. Freedom is very powerful and they deserve it. Surrender is not an option. As has been discussed in the media there aren't any silver bullet options. You will recall that the vote of Dems and Repubs was based on intelligence held by many spy agencies in the world and thus they based their votes on that. See Gordon Smith's speech. I think/hope that the new political dynamic will force Bush to change tactics to stem the military deaths and acheive a stable Iraq.
I have trouble believing much that comes out of the Bush administration. We can hope that a better policy results and hold hope that he only has about 2 years left in office. Also, the radical islamists make ZERO concessions too.
Thanks for your comments. Oh and most certainly, I have always preached limited govt and fiscal reponsibility. This country is a right of center country and Bush is too liberal in many ways. Hence part of the reason for the loss. To be honest, I didn't shed a tear when the GOP lost congress, was well deserved.
posted by daveschulz at 07:33 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
daveschulz: “Our service men and women are ubelievably corageous and selfless. I was humbled by it and realized that we are nothing compared to these fine people.”
Sorry; false. They have no more or less rights than the rest of us do. You can feel in whatever fashion that you want for yourself, but I'm not going to let you get away with saying any of the rest of us are any different with respect to our military service history (or lack thereof). Sorry GZ but you are false. Our servicemembers today have less rights than you.
When I was in the fleet I had a security clearance. My credit report was routinely pulled because if it were bad I'd lose my clearance because I'd be more apt to sell secrets to improve my financial situation. People here get up in arms about phone calls to known terrorists listened in on as being unjust. Imagine if the gov't were pulling your credit report and it affected your job.
Freedom of Speech: not to the military. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are subject to punishment if they openly criticize the President or Congress under which they currently serve. Reason being: They take orders from their chain of command. The President and Congress(somewhat) fall in their chain of command.
Just 2 examples but if you want more I can give them to you. Now the debate should be: Are these rights taken away rightfully and necessarily?
until the warfreaks imprison the anti-war faction members like myself. (Note well the anti-war guys would never imprison the warfreaks. Kind of tells you a lot, eh?) um... please give an example of this cuz this is news to me.
Having met Dave I can certainly attest that he is no "kool-aid" drinker. And I think he was right on many points about Sen. Dewine, after all he was one of the gang of 14. Plus I wouldn't say Ohioans have seen the last of him. Now whether or not he gets elected remains to be seen.
Dave~ I haven't quite figured out GZ, at times he talks like a socialist, at times an isolationist. I do know many times he criticizes others without giving solutions, which is typical of Toledoans. But other times his points are so clear and thought out it's hard to argue with him.
posted by MikeyA at 08:42 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
Mikey,
Good to hear from you. Been watching your posts lately and see you provoking thought and causing a little trouble. Good perspective from your view being in the military.
This war is not black and white...very conflicting.
I agree, Guest is hard to figure out but he does his research and believes strongly in his positions. This is a good forum.
Talk to you soon.
Dave
posted by daveschulz at 08:55 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
We lost a good Senator.
We didn’t. We got rid of a controlling, power hungry RINO who should never have been in office in the first place.
It was a tough year to be a Republican in Ohio in particular. Too bad the voters didn't get to see the real Dewine rather than the all too negative one they saw in the way he ran his campaign.
The voters did see the real DeWine, which is why he’s no longer in office.
The rest of this post is garbage and only serves to support the idea that the first amendment should be repealed.
posted by madjack at 09:04 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
Good riddance to Dewine
posted by pink_slip at 09:41 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
Tossing in my two cents worth...There were many reasons why Mike DeWine lost, most of which had very little to do with his record as a Senator. Very few people pay attention to the majority of work Congress does or doesn't do, it's the public perception that matters most. Sherrod Brown did a better job in creating the right public perception and had the advantage being on the same ticket as Ted Strickland. The whole "clean sweep" concept while not totally successful was a better appearance of a united front than what the Republicans did.
I was the opposite of Dave, I initially supported the war in Iraq not just because of the whole WMD but we should have dealt with the removal of Saddam from Iraq during the first Gulf War. I would have preferred to have had UN support but it was obvious that wasn't going to ever happen. I thought we could have done a better job as far as giving the inspections a bit more time but once the whole "Shock and Awe" finished that's when the mismanagement began and if there are not some dramatic changes made in the way this war is being handled, I'm not optimistic at Iraq's chances of survival.
On Iran and Syria, the main problem in the middle east is Israel and Palestine and the longer that situation continues there will be no peace in the Middle East. While it's clear that most of these Middle Eastern countries really don't care about their brothers in Palestine, they are very adept in making the issue of Palestine one they use to take attention off of problems in their own countries making the focus of the attention on what injustices are being done to Palestine with the US and Israel being the source of hatred. We continue to feed that by acting in a manner that proves that anything Israel does is okay and we continue to help Israel as well as continue to ignore the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and that is one of the very reasons why other Middle Eastern nations want them too. I'm not suggesting we stop helping Israel, I'm not naive enough to think that would ever happen but we could have done and can do a better job in making sure some of the injustices that happen all to frequently stop. We could also do a better job in trying to end the situation of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were driven out of their homes and are still living nationless in the Middle East. Not able to return home yet not accepted by the middle eastern nations that are basically holding them in no more than glorified prison camps.
People who have hope that they will one day have a future are not typically the types who are willing to strap on a suicide bomb. The real key to ending terrorism is ending the anger and the frustration that creates the belief that the only way to strike back to stop anything is by killing yourself and taking as many people as you can with you.
posted by psyche777 at 03:08 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
I agree psyche. I think while Democrats did a great job this past election they can't rest on their laurels as the Republicans did. I think the Conneticuit election exposed a major split in the Democrats base where the funding comes from the largly progressive side but the voting is done by the more moderate side. This should be interesting for the '08 election.
Now that being said the house is a different animal. Of the key win there are many seats that were won in areas that are highly republican even after the race. These will be majorly contested in '08. While I don't expect the Dems to lose the house I think they'll have a very slim majority. I've seen too many "one-term wonders" in elections such as this that I know the left's rhetoric needs more fuel for the fire to keep their "mandate" past '08.
A large reason Dewine lost was because conservatives protested because they'd rather not vote and get a Dem then have a RINO trying to speak for them. It'll be interesting to see if the change in leadership creates a change in the party's politics to prevent it from happening again.
psyche I think you nailed some great points on the middle east. I think shock and awe was Rumsfeld's answer to the Generals who wanted more troops. I credit him with the winning strategy. However the focus of the troops not to stop looting is his blame as well. I think history will be kinder to him than the media but not all of the criticism is unwarranted.
As far as WMD's go I've stated on here I thought that was a dumb plan because the term WMD is very subjective. Just as I think that "winning in Iraq" is subjective. The war is already won. Now the term "winning" should no longer have meaning to American's. Stabilizing Iraq is a win for only Iraq and not for America. The pro-war crowd should stop that rhetoric.
Since '05 the fight in Iraq has been mainly a textbook example of how to fight a counterinsurgency. Terrain dictates most of the fighting. That's why the desert was abandoned by the insurgents for the urban centers. The problem is the "opinion run" operations of '03-'04 gave the insurgents much needed propaganda for their cause. Believe it or not the war at this point can be won by the beaurocracy. If it remains present in the everyday life of Iraqis then faith in the insurgents will diminish. If it fails then the insurgents will have toppled the government.
Al Franken supports splitting up Iraq into 3 sovereign gov'ts in that case. I disagree partially, it makes for three govt's at war. If the decision to split the country up I say do it in 4ths and let allied countries (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) annex the areas as they already have stable governments, would benefit from the natural resources, and would still keep the area free of Iranian/Syrian control.
posted by MikeyA at 03:44 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
Dave, Good to hear from you. Been watching your posts lately and see you provoking thought and causing a little trouble. as always I bring my points and try to keep them free of "talking points".
I look forward to hopefully getting a chance at sitting down with you and discussing more ideas again.
GZ definitely helps make this site fun.
posted by MikeyA at 03:50 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
Zero said "America has been one of the most evil nations ever seen on Earth."
As a very happy citizen of evil America, I would like to be the first here at Toledo Talk to submit my $10.00 contribution to the Move Zero to Iran Fund (MZIF). There Zero and Zero's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, et al, can rant and rave together while waiting for the 13th Imam to end the imperialist, lying, sadistic, AND Capitalist America. I bet we could get enough money together to fly him over in business class on British Airways, Virgin, or whatever.
Hey Zero, deal? I really hate to lose such a valuable citizen. However, I hate to deprive the Axis of Evil of their biggest fan.
posted by paulhem at 03:55 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 11, 2006 #
The members of our all volunteer military have my greatest respect. It's not a requirement to serve and as the daughter/sister of soldiers I know that many times they had to do things that were hard for them to achieve their objectives. "The devil is in the details" is a common saying in my family. It's a hard role to be a soldier. Everyone's seen the statue of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. Anybody know how many of their buddies' bodies those famous soldiers walked over to be where the flag was raised? Or the nightmares they brought home? Or the lives they lead that were changed because they were changed by terrors most of us cannot imagine - let alone expect to ever have to life through.
I also believe that those high up in our government know security information and world history that would cause us to be scared out of our minds. I also know that not only does the American media distort information (both from the left and the right) that damages Americans' view of America - but damages our standing in the world view. I think it would be a great relief for soldiers and politicians to be able to defend themselves and give out the information that causes many of the things we don't understand to happen, but that can't be. So we can do some things, we can make sure that we're aware and questioning and try to elect the best people into the positions that make the decisions that we can.
We can support our troops. Many don't support the war, but as soldiers they do their duty. That's a hard place to be. They deserve support. And yes, I believe when you step outside the comfort zone of life in America and put on a military uniform, leave your home, job and family to go to war in a foreign country - that puts you a step above. That's my opinion.
posted by katie82640 at 10:05 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 12, 2006 #
De Whiner got what he deserved --- the door.
posted by Beowulf at 08:55 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 14, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
