USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Fishing for what you meant by us killing innocent people to protect our interest in your previous post.

How many innocent, non-combatant Iraqis citizens do you suspect have been killed in Iraq by U.S. firepower? Now do you see what I am talking about?

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Why so technical. Shouldnt we be humanitarians before political critics? These people and groups kill innocent people. Please dont debate this, for this is my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jacko

Well, since you brought it up....not just our friends......WE have also killed many innocent people in our quest to protect our interests and "do the right thing", right?

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by Jacko

How many innocent, non-combatant Iraqis citizens do you suspect have been killed in Iraq by U.S. firepower? Now do you see what I am talking about?

Probably not as many that have been or would continue to be killed, and im not talking innocent Iraqis only, If someone would not have stepped in. If we have "dethroned" one killing dictator, we have probably stopped generations of killing dictators. How can we compare the numbers?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Probably not as many that have been or would continued to be killed, and im not talking innocent Iraqis only, If someone would not have stepped in. If we have "dethroned" one killing dictator, we have probably stopped generations of killing dictators. How can we compare the numbers?

We cannot..to their families...to their children....they are just as dead and just as innocent whether we killed them or Sadaam killed them......this is worthy of careful consideration...most of their lives will never change because of our presence...for better or for worse, most are just trying to make a living and feed their children while poverty, war and violence surround them....prior to our being there...during our presence....and after we leave.....

[ryberg]

Well, in answer to Roni's question, I certainly found nothing in Obama's book that would knock him out of the running for me or that diminished his image or approach to things. I kind of thought there probably would be, but in fact it helped flesh things out a bit and underscored the high sense of moral decency and reasonableness that generally emanates from him, a strong sense of fairness that is (obviously!) lacking in politics today (he is often complimentary of Republican figures, for example, as the above excerpt also shows), and his sort of natural focus on unity and solutions as opposed to typical party-line type of bickering.

There are things to be filled in (as there are for any candidate, of course), but honestly, the above may very well be enough by itself in this day and age to set him apart as better than the rest of the pack. The supposed lack of experience (which is not lacking as much as the CW seems to hold, I think) is also not so problematic when you consider others (ahem!) with remarkably little experience who were elected President and are doggedly defended in their questionable actions and when you consider what many with more experience have done badly.

Couple all that with his better showings in polls v current conservative contenders, my impression that Clinton, regardless of her qualifications, is not likely electable, my guess that Gore won't even run (and that doesn't mean he'd be a better choice, necessarily, if he did), and Edwards leaving me totally flat, and, well...

Of course it's very early yet, but again to get back to the sort of central question of the thread (after helping to stray from it a lot!), I'll answer in that way for now. We'll see what happens.

Steve

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by Jacko

We cannot..to their families...to their children....they are just as dead and just as innocent whether we killed them or Sadaam killed them......this is worthy of careful consideration...

Right, they would never understand. Now lets look at History and decide if we had made the right choice in overthrowing any murdering gov't.. Im sure there will be debate here, but, where would we be if we didnt step in. What kind of world would our children be living in?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Right, they would never understand. Now lets look at History and decide if we had made the right choice in overthrowing any murdering gov't.. Im sure there will be debate here, but, where would we be if we didnt step in. What kind of world would our children be living in?

This world.....The same kind of world where we could not, should not or would not step into injustice and tragedy and even genocides in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Darfur, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Chechnya, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. etc. etc....choices must be made and when doing so, we must find a way to make things better than when we stepped in...nation-building, or peace-making by force and occupation has been more a failure than a success throughout history and has often resulted in more death, violence, pain and suffering than that which preceded the intervention. The common man watches the regime change and often nothing much changes around him and his family except the interruption of the violence from each regime change....

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Right, they would never understand. Now lets look at History and decide if we had made the right choice in overthrowing any murdering gov't.. Im sure there will be debate here, but, where would we be if we didnt step in. What kind of world would our children be living in?

Uhhh, Chile under Pinochet? Nicaragua under Noriega? Iran under the Shah? How many examples do we need of deadly dictatorships we not only did not overthrow but in some cases actually established ourselves?

If our purpose is to go into a rogue nation that's dangerous to the world and thereby increase safety, why have we not gone into North Korea?

Steve

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Uhhh, Chile under Pinochet? Nicaragua under Noriega? Iran under the Shah? How many examples do we need of deadly dictatorships we not only did not overthrow but in some cases actually established ourselves?

If our purpose is to go into a rogue nation that's dangerous to the world and thereby increase safety, why have we not gone into North Korea?

Steve

Any success stories you can think of?

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by Jacko

This world.....The same kind of world where we could not, should not or would not step into injustice and tragedy and even genocides in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Darfur, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Chechnya, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. etc. etc....choices must be made and when doing so, we must find a way to make things better than when we stepped in...nation-building, or peace-making by force and occupation has been more a failure than a success throughout history and has often resulted in more death, violence, pain and suffering than that which preceded the intervention. The common man watches the regime change and often nothing much changes around him and his family except the interruption of the violence from each regime change....

I agree we need to make things better than when we stepped in. What is the answer? Cant just sit back? To quote a friend of ours" Ask Jacko, he knows the answer" Just kidding buddy.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Any success stories you can think of?

WWII and none others that I can think of right now.........Do I win?

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by Jacko

WWII and none others that I can think of right now.........Do I win?

Yes you win, Steve your a distant second

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

I agree we need to make things better than when we stepped in. What is the answer? Cant just sit back? To quote a friend of ours" Ask Jacko, he knows the answer" Just kidding buddy.

You didn't read what I posted, did you?....you see, we DID just sit back in many of those cases didn't we? And others, we fought very hard (Vietnam), lost and left and the world went on...indeed, it went on VERY peacefully in Vietnam now didn't it? I mean despite our worst fears, right? Don't take it from me...hell, I don't have the answers ....I just know to keep asking the questions.. and .......I can usually smell the BS when it gets splattered all around real good.......

[Brent & Kim]

[quote=Jacko]You didn't read what I posted, did you?....you see, we DID just sit back in many of those cases didn't we? And others, we fought very hard (Vietnam), lost and left and the world went on...indeed, it went on VERY peacefully now didn't it? I mean despite our worst fears, right? Don't take it from me...hell, I don't have the answers...I just know to keep asking the questions...[/quote
I dont know either, I just pose my own questions and thoughts and look for response. This is how I learn. Peace.

[roni]

Let us bring this conversation around to the US national interest.

It was not in our national interest, narrowly or broadly defined, to invade Iraq when we did. There is absolutely no question about that. It was an elective war, a preemptive one, an unneeded one that also flew in the face of all Christian teachings about Just Wars.

Just because our collective politicians were too stupid and or chicken-shit to declare that does not change those facts.

These points, outlined above, are incontrovertible. You can argue it all you want to, does not change the facts. The war was not needed, not justified, and was a bond-headed move on the part the USA. The fact that near 70% of the USA agrees with those points now does not mean we have to engage in endless debate with some of the 30% who are still willing to argue on behalf of the war.

I suggest we move on and let the small minority of the 30% who want to extol the virtues of the war continue to do so.

The same goes for the rest of their assault on reason, to the extent that you consider it an assault on reason.
Our response should be silence, I would humbly suggest.,

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by roni

Let us bring this conversation around to the US national interest.

It was not in our national interest, narrowly or broadly defined, to invade Iraq when we did. There is absolutely no question about that. It was an elective war, a preemptive one, an unneeded one that also flew in the face of all Christian teachings about Just Wars.

Just because our collective politicians were too stupid and or chicken-shit to declare that does not change those facts.

These points, outline above, are incontrovertible. You can argue it all you want to, does not change the facts. The war was not needed, not justified, and was a bond-headed move on the part the USA. The fact that near 70% of the USA agrees with those points now does not mean we have to engage in endless debate with some of the 30% who are still willing to argue on behalf of the war.

I suggest we move on and let the small minority of the 30% who want to extol the virtues of the war continue to do so.

The same goes for the rest of their assault on reason, to the extent that you consider it an assault on reason.
Our response should 'be silence, I would humbly suggest.,

"just cause" reason of "just war" does talk about human rights though. Of course this is an ethical not religious teaching.