Oh Good Lord

[Professor S]

*The following are my opinions and please take them as such*

I have decided to not have kids.

That reason is because Donald Rumsfeld has resigned and will be replaced by Robert Gates. Now I am no fan of Donald Rumsfeld outside of his "no bs" style of interview. But, at least Rumsfeld was resolved to fight the war against extreme Islam this generation.

For those of you not familiar with Robert Gates, he is not a stranger to Bush administrations. In fact, he worked for the previous Bush administration and was a key member of international defense policy for many years while Bush Sr. was CIA director (I think during that time) and VP.

The problem in my eyes is that unlike Rumsfeld, Gates is from the school of "situation management". Now that sounds fine and dandy, and would likely reduce the US presence in the Middle East, it is also the ethos that got us in this mess. It is the ethos that fed Saddam Hussein weapons to fight Iran. It is the ethos that put Pinochet and Noreiga in power. It is the policy that states: "as long as they are killing each other, they aren't killing us". It is a vulgar, morally bankrupt, ethnocentric (viewing non-Western cultures as barbarians that must be managed) and in the end, futile way of thinking. At best it merely delays the inevitable.

Here is an example of possible way this way of thinking could get us into another Vietnam, and I mean a REAL Vietnam, not the political lie that you heard on TV ads: Gates pulls back from the current mindset in Iraq and instead believes that either the Shiite or Sunis need to gain power for the benefit of US security (we have done this before, don;t think it can't happen) and ask them to convince us which side we should support. So we think that we can sway diplomacy by scaring the hell out of them with picking a side or we'll just help one side annihilate the other (once again, we have done this before under Gate's historical ideaology). Problem is, the Shiites don't need us, they have Iran. So the Suni's accept our help and now we are in the middle of a proxy war between the Shiites and Suni's but its really between the US and Iran. FYI: this is the short version of the situation I imagine so it might come off as simplistic.

The alternative to that scenario is that we convince the Middle East to begin fighting itself again, and meanwhile the population grows, extreme ideaology continues to win and we end up back where we were pre-911, except with a bigger problem on our hands in terms of population and firepower of our enemies when the situation finally becomes completely untenable in a few decades.

Gate's ethos also operates under the asumption that the current state of extreme Islam is manageable, and I think it passed that point in the 90's. Islam is growing far too quickly and we cannot try and keep it in a cultural bubble any longer. Part of our diplomacy HAS to be one of influence in some form or another, or else our very way of life will change in a mere 10-50 years (IMO).

[Typhoid]

First, I'll just say I hate the term "pre-911".
[Not to quote you] "How things were pre-911."
"Remember before 9/11?"
Well ****, lots of good things happened before 9/11.
Jesus was born pre-911.
That's apparently a good thing.



Anyways, I've always thought one of two things will happen in the middle east:

1. Nothing. The cycle repeats itself. All the countries invading will pull out. Resulting in a big f*cking mess for the middle-easterners to clean up on their own. So they'll go right back to solving their own problems how they did before any of us stepped in; war with eachother. Except now it will be more volitile than before, and will have a never ending watchful eye of hte media documenting every refugee's leave and calling them a terrorist. The population in those designated areas will grow, and be raised as they have been before. Some hating western culture, others adapting and embracing it. And thus, the cycle is copmplete again with another threat, resulting in another 'invasion'.

2: It will escalate into some pseudo-world war. Not really a world war, (though im sure the media would pounce right on it) but more like The middle east vs. Europe and North America. Asia can tally score and bring refreshments, while slowly building a counter-attack army of their own.

[GameMaster]

Sargent Johnson, I have good news, Sir. The Democrats are coming back home!

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by GameMaster

Sargent Johnson, I have good news, Sir. The Democrats are coming back home!

That really has nothing to do with this topic, but since you brought it up, I found it funny that the day of the election Democrat leaders said they really couldn't change any policy on Iraq (Gephardt and Pelosi I think).

So they run an anti-war campaign and then tell you they never could do anything about it anyway... suckers. Kind of like John Corzine in New Jersey. He runs for governor on a policy of lowering property taxes, then once he hits the office he raises the state sales tax and re-instates government spending he previously cut to excuse the tax increase... suckers. Kind of like how the Democrats play the race card every single election to maintain power in urban areas, yet its the same minorities that they claim to serve that have remained impoverished over decades of Democrat leadership.... suckers.

The stock market is already dropping because of the election, the tax cuts will likely be repealed and John Bolton might not get assigned as UN representative when in his short stay he has done a great job representing the US (he personally put together a coalition to prevent Hugo Chavez from taking the South American seat on the security council).

If the Democratic leadership works towards goals established by the newly elected Blue Dog Dems, then there won't be an issue, but looking at the leadership I doubt that will happen. Look forward to 2 years of bitterness and subpeonas.

Typhoid, when I refer to pre-911, I was specifically referring to foreign policy. I thought that was pretty self-evident. I guess I could have used different terms, but pre-911 is just easier.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Typhoid, when I refer to pre-911, I was specifically referring to foreign policy. I thought that was pretty self-evident. I guess I could have used different terms, but pre-911 is just easier.

I know what you meant.
Thats why I said "not to quote you".
I too, thought it was pretty self-evident that I wasnt referring to you specifically.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I know what you meant.
Thats why I said "not to quote you".
I too, thought it was pretty self-evident that I wasnt referring to you specifically.

Must have missed that part. My apologies.

[Jason1]

Congrats, Professor. Another stirring topic bringing up key Republican bull****!

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Congrats, Professor. Another stirring topic bringing up key Republican bull****!

Wow.

Could you please explain to me how severely criticizing the Republican choice for Secretary of Defense is me bring up key Republican bull****? True, I delved into some Dem vs. Rep topics, but only after someone else took the coversation in that direction and I pointed out that it was off-topic.

The actual point of this thread is a severe criticism of Republican policy. So severe, in fact, that I think this policy could create dire consequences for the entire world. I hope you bothered to read the entirety of the thread first before responding in such a inflamatory manner. If not, you might have some egg on your face right now, beyond the fact that your comment was both dismissive and completely lacking in substance.

Also, if your main argument in politics solely rests on the opposing viewpoint being "bull****!", you might serve your party and yourself better by not voicing it.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I hope you bothered to read the entirety of the thread first before responding in such a inflamatory manner.

Nope, cant say that I did. But I was really referring to your second post, the one replying to GM's comment anyways. Truth be told, the world will be a much better place now that the Democrats are in power. In fact, once our lame duck president is finally finished in 2008 or 9 or whenever, and we get Obama elected president, the United States will probably become so great, and the rest of the world will like us so much, that there will probably be dancing on the streets, not to mention world peace.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Nope, cant say that I did. But I was really referring to your second post, the one replying to GM's comment anyways. Truth be told, the world will be a much better place now that the Democrats are in power. In fact, once our lame duck president is finally finished in 2008 or 9 or whenever, and we get Obama elected president, the United States will probably become so great, and the rest of the world will like us so much, that there will probably be dancing on the streets, not to mention world peace.

And you seriously think any of this will happen? Like it or not, America is still too racist of a nation to elect Obama. I'm talking to you, southern states. Obama will never carry the swing states he'll need to be elected. Regardless of race, I would love to hear something besides Tony Robbins-esque catch phrases from Obama. He talks a great game is a wonderful orator and motivator, but I haven't heard much substantive argument from him.

As for the world being a better place under Democrats... maybe. Who knows, the future hasn't happened yet and the Denocrats did elect conservative blue-dog reps. If recent history of Democratic leadership is any indicator, we'll pull back and forget anything ever happened. 10 years from now, we'll be attacked again and most likely this time with a nuclear device.

World peace? Regardless of Republican and Democratic control, that will never happen. Human beings are a violent, war-like people. In the history of civilization there has always been at least one war going on somewhere in the world. We will always fight one another and there is nothing you or I can do about it.

Your comments, while likely intended to get a rise out of me, are the common contention between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think, while liberals feel. World peace would be wonderful, but logical analysis quickly brings the conslusion that world peace is an impossibility. So while conservatives recognize this fact and act in ways to try and protect themselves and their people, liberals refuse to apply logic and lessons learned in history and insist on believing that if we were just nice to everyone the world would be filled with lollypops, dandylions and free Phish concerts.

You can pick bewteen reality and idyllic fantasy. I pick reality, even if it lacks a sweet, bubble-gum center.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

As for the world being a better place under Democrats... maybe. Who knows, the future hasn't happened yet and the Denocrats did elect conservative blue-dog reps. If recent history of Democratic leadership is any indicator, we'll pull back and forget anything ever happened. 10 years from now, we'll be attacked again and most likely this time with a nuclear device.

So your blaming 9/11 on the Clinton Era? Please. You cant blame 9/11 on anybody. But you can blame the Bush Administration for how poorly they handled the situation. Instead of actually finding and capturing the person that is responsible for 9/11, they go and finish what daddy Bush started, which had nothing to do with 9/11. FACE THE FACTS: Hussien might have been a bad man, but he had NOTHING to do with what happened on 9/11. But hey, we got him right? While Osama runs free in the desert...

go watch Farienheit 911.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

So your blaming 9/11 on the Clinton Era? Please. You cant blame 9/11 on anybody. But you can blame the Bush Administration for how poorly they handled the situation. Instead of actually finding and capturing the person that is responsible for 9/11, they go and finish what daddy Bush started, which had nothing to do with 9/11. FACE THE FACTS: Hussien might have been a bad man, but he had NOTHING to do with what happened on 9/11. But hey, we got him right? While Osama runs free in the desert...

go watch Farienheit 911.

I have seen it, and it is possibly one of the most dishonest and truthfully bankrupt films ever made. The sheer number of lies of omission and lies of editing are astounding.

go watch FahrenHYPE 9/11 or just read this: http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

I'm not just blaming Clinton, btw. It was everyone's fault during that time, including Bush in his presidency before that date. Here's the facts: Bin Laden attacked the US and US interests at least 4 times during Clinton's presidency, including the first World Trade attack (not fact, but most evidence supports it)... and he sent a cruise missile into an empty camp in retalliation. Thats it. His own aids have admitted to this and his chief advisor at the time, Dick Morris, believes that Clinton was a complete incompetant when it came to battling the terrorist problem.

My worry is not about the past or blamer, however, it is about repeating the mistakes we have made before and actually looking at the war in Iraq through the eyes of a rational being and not a shoot from the hip "give peace a chance" simple-minded mongoloid. If we pull out of Iraq or attempt to "manage" the middle east, we are done for.

Iraq was intended to be a jumping ground for the future war on terrorism, IMO. It had the best infrastructure in the whole of the Middle East and large base of educated citizens. Even as of the last poll I saw over 60% of them did not want the US Military to leave before their country established a solid government. See how educated they are? It was in the hope that democracy could breed in the area, and the jury is still out on this matter. It will take more than a handful of years to see if an entire region's political idealogy can change with influence. I think that we could have done this much better than Rumsfeld did, but I don't think this policy should be abandoned.

Also ask yourself this question, Jason: If the Democrats are going to lead the world to peace and freedom, why are the terrorists celebrating the fact that they won?

Now here is the next question: Which 2 sentences is Jason going to concentrate on responding to this time, while ignoring every other argument I make (and it's reasoning)?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Also ask yourself this question, Jason: If the Democrats are going to lead the world to peace and freedom, why are the terrorists celebrating the fact that they won?

If you're referring to why the terrorists are celebrating why the democrats won, (opposed to meaning the terrorists won, if I understand correctly) they could, you know, logically be celebrating because with a Democratic reign, comes peace. As you said. With peace, comes no war. With no war, comes no deaths in their nation. It seems pretty blatently simple to me.

Unless you were trying to imply that the terrorists love democrats, therefore all democrats must love terrorists.

Either one makes a goatload of sense to me.

[Xantar]

I'm going to sidestep the world peace argument for now because really, nobody knows what's going on out there. I just want to focus on one little point here.

As for the world being a better place under Democrats... maybe. Who knows, the future hasn't happened yet and the Denocrats did elect conservative blue-dog reps.

It's conventional wisdom that the Democrats ran a bunch of "conservative" candidates and that's how they won the House and the Senate. There's a grain of truth to this, but we have to be careful about what we mean by the word "conseravtive."

Jon Tester of Montana, for example, is against the flag-burning amendment, is against a gay marriage ban, is pro-choice, is very pro-environmentalist (he used to be an organic farmer) and wants the tax system restructured so that the rich are paying a greater portion of it. A lot of the media has called him "conservative," and I guess since he supports gun rights then in that sense he is more conservative than than John Kerry. But given that list, I hardly think you could call him a true "conservative," whatever that word means nowadays.

Jim Webb of Virginia is really hard to nail down one way or another because his stated positions are actually pretty vague. You can look at his website and see if you can figure it out for yourself. About the only thing I've been able to glean is he thinks the tax system is too favorable to the rich and that the middle- and lower-classes are getting squeezed.

Claire McCaskill of Missouri wants to raise the minimum wage, supports "fair trade" policies (I've never been sure what that means, but it's always a Democrat position for some reason), wants to develop renewable energy resources, is strongly pro-environment and is against privatizing Social Security. In fact, her opponent was slamming her for being "too liberal" for Missouri.

The other new Democratic senators come from Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ohio, none of which are exactly Republican bastions.

As for the House, we have people like John Yarmuth in Kentucky. He doesn't have too many stated positions, so all I have been able to find is he is against privatizing Social Security, wants universal health care and is a strong critic of No Child Left Behind.

I could get into all 28 other House candidates, but you get the idea by now. These people aren't pinko hippies, to be sure, but I don't think you could call most of them "conservative."

Oh, and one other thing.

Your comments, while likely intended to get a rise out of me, are the common contention between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think, while liberals feel. World peace would be wonderful, but logical analysis quickly brings the conslusion that world peace is an impossibility. So while conservatives recognize this fact and act in ways to try and protect themselves and their people, liberals refuse to apply logic and lessons learned in history and insist on believing that if we were just nice to everyone the world would be filled with lollypops, dandylions and free Phish concerts.

Come on now. All liberals are just acting on "gut instinct" or something? None of them are out there actually using their brains? There is absolutely no logical basis for their thinking at all? All the liberal thinkers out there are actually not thinking and their conservative counterparts are?

That's a wee bit harsh, not to mention simplistic, don't you think?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Come on now. All liberals are just acting on "gut instinct" or something? None of them are out there actually using their brains? There is absolutely no logical basis for their thinking at all? All the liberal thinkers out there are actually not thinking and their conservative counterparts are?

That's a wee bit harsh, not to mention simplistic, don't you think?

Well it is a generality, but generalities are a must in society. Without them the world would screech to a halt as no decision could be made on any subject. I will say this: I do not think that today's American liberals are bad people, only misguided. They have the best intentions at heart.

To use less of a generality, I actually view liberals in one of two categories: "Raving Loons" and "Super-Intelligent Cyber-Men From the Future".

Raving Loons are those who love Michael Moore and Al Gore. They run on pure passion, whether thats joy or pure venom. Anything said by any individual that supports their pre-determined opinions is immediate fact. Anything that contests that "fact" is immediately wrong for the simple fact it dared challenge their beliefs. The believe things are true because they sound good and wholesome and anything that sounds as good as "universal healthcare" could not possibly have any downside, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an evil, money grubbing shill for some nondescript rich people regardless of the validity of the content of the challenge. The subgenre's underneath Raving Loon include Conspiracy Loons (believe 9/11 was caused by Bush and that every election won by a Republican in hisrtory was "stolen") and Nature Loons (bio-engineered food is horrible even though its probably saved billions of lives from starvation and malnutrition).

Super-Intelligent Cyber-Men from the Future, on the other hand, have gone the other direction. They have read and learned so much that they have completely disassociated themselves from the human race, and view them as ants that need to be ruled becase ants cannot possibly know what is best for them. Kind of like Dr. Manhattan in Alan Moore's The Watchmen. Everything has become relative and reality and theory have combined into "thereality", where ideas are just as good as precedent and pragmatism. Cyber-Men believe that they must help man transcend their mundane form and existence and reach their level of reality. Concepts like "roller-derby", "NASCAR" and "exchange of currency for goods and services that can then be exhanged for goods and services" are barbaric and insulting. Cyber-Men tend to exist solely in intellectual bubble worlds, like universities and grant operated think-tanks. The real world tends to be too harsh and unmalliable for their liking.

Is this a little more specific for you?

On the political front, I think you left out Casey in PA as a pretty moderate Dem who booted Santorum. I do want to clarify, though, when I referred to conservative democrat, I was meaning that they were more moderate than what we have veiwed Dems as recently. They tended to be more socially conservative but militarily and financially liberal. The Dem leadership are far more left of center than the Dems that were just elected. It could make things interesting next year.

By the way, Lamont really creamed Leiberman, didn't he? Wow, what a blowout.

Sorry, I had to do it.