lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against me :PQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Stand by your "dig", sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by kooltilldend
Watch behind you for liberals.
Printable View
lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against me :PQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Stand by your "dig", sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by kooltilldend
Watch behind you for liberals.
Well, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by kooltilldendlol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against me :PQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Totally flawed argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If you boil it down, he is arguing that the current political alignment in Japan means that WW2 was a positive outcome for the US and therefore war was a better solution than negotiation.
The problem with that argument is that it was Japan that went to war while the US was trying for negotiation. Japan lost!
Not that it has anything to do with whether Obama deserves the Nobel prize.
No use in watching biased reporters, your brain will simply melt from the, well, biased point of view...
As soon as the guy start using the term 'liberal', you know you're in for a take on a simplified world view. The reverse holds true as well of course....
This is what you get when the media is run by money; extreme polarization designed to appeal to a specific market... no good.
You're both incorrect.
Whether or not war is wrong, appeasement/negotiation/diplomacy is at worst a total waste of time, and at best a financial drain.
The fellow used the term "liberal" only in the interest of accuracy; you people who reject labels (when they are applied to you) really should settle in behind your beliefs rather than selectively presenting as some sort of ideological will-o-the-wisp.
Fact is, the fellow wasn't advocating war, he was merely telling the truth about the other.
So, if diplomacy is always a bad idea, then war is the only option...for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"Might is right" in all cases, eh?
Diplomacy has it's place and use.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerSo, if diplomacy is always a bad idea, then war is the only option...for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"Might is right" in all cases, eh?
So has war - let's not naively pretend otherwise.
Your difficulty is discerning when diplomacy becomes a game of 'chicken', and war is looming off-stage-left, looking at the assholes for it's cue.
Diplomacy should always be practiced to the very last moment, of course, but please realize there are a few genuine barbarians left, and many of them are rather unfortunately positioned to cause trouble, as can plainly be seen from the right.
Think of it this way:
Given the relatively new trend of laxity in dealing with those pursuing the ability to cause catastrophic destruction, whether flying flags or under terrorist auspices, the option of 'turning the other cheek' has been removed from the menu.
Human nature creates the imperative, you see?
Total and utter crap.
At the end of the day, short of total annihilation of one side, wars only come to an end by some sort of negotiation. That's even the case when it is described as "unconditional surrender".
Since negotiation is inevitable it is better, where possible, to have that negotiation before conflict occurs.
"Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War" - Winston Churchill.
Let's see you call HIM a left wing liberal.
They gave it to Gorbachev for similar reasons - I wouldn't say he deserved it, but the prize IS a political award (after all base don opinion of a select few) just like the Oscars.. did Halle Berry deserve it for that sex scene with Billy Bob in Monster's Balle - hell no! She should've gotten it the year b4 for Dorothy Dandridge but they gave someone else who was the popular vote instead that year and "made it up" to her with that giveaway.
As said before the positive is they could give it to Joe Plumber and he probably wouldn't have the kind of impact that Obama and his administration could have.
As to him being involve din wars in the Middle East and a plunging economy I think you'll find with a weeb it of research taht is George W's mess he's trying to clean up! lmao!
Channeling Cheney again I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You "right-seers" really nailed the call invading Iraq the second time didn't you?
Your excellent vision could see an Al-qaeda connection and WMDs where none existed.
Your impeccable political senses could discern widespread local support and desire for Western democracy that is still not apparent to anyone else.
Your belief that you and yours are the only ones capable of seeing and dealing with the threats that face the world is sadly not supported by fact.
Of course, you guys are adept at rewriting history to suit your ends- see: Jackie Robinson was a Republican- and clearly masters of ignoring facts, so who here is surprised?
Winnie was correct, and so am I.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Sometimes the other side forces the issue, whatever that might be, and I'm quite sure he knew what to do if attacked.
As to your attempt to broaden the meaning of the word "negotiation", compare the "negotiation" constituted in the Treaty of Versailles with those ending WWII, then consider the result of each.
To refuse to see the difference begs intellectual blindness.
Recount for me please the sterling history of diplomacy and negotiation in the Mideast.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Start with Israel and Palestine - that should be easy for a practiced leftie.
Perhaps you could also blow some air up Neville Chamberlain's legacy for our edification.
If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.
Way too much work, much simpler to just throw some boots on the ground and 'splode some shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Diplomacy is prosponing the inevitable enough for time to shuffle the cards.
If I knew what "prosponing" was I might agree with you.
And perhaps democrats could, too, rather than just talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.
Doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.
Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedoDoesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.
Especially Nixon - it's just not done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedoDoesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.
Oh Kev, of course you're allowed to use "historical perspective" but it'd be nice if you used the history of this planet and not the fantasy world so beloved of the right these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Elected in 1968, Nixon didn't end the Vietnam war until 1973.
So let's see...
Obama has been in office less than a year and hasn't gotten us out of Iraq/Afghanistan yet.
It took five years for Nixon to get out of Vietnam (although to be fair, he was busy breaking domestic laws for the latter half of that period).
And Nixon is more of a peacemaker than Obama?
Even us hippy-dippy liberals don't take as much LSD as you guys appear to.
I don't believe I was the one who made the comparison, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerQuote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
Oh Kev, of course you're allowed to use "historical perspective" but it'd be nice if you used the history of this planet and not the fantasy world so beloved of the right these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Elected in 1968, Nixon didn't end the Vietnam war until 1973.
So let's see...
Obama has been in office less than a year and hasn't gotten us out of Iraq/Afghanistan yet.
It took five years for Nixon to get out of Vietnam (although to be fair, he was busy breaking domestic laws for the latter half of that period).
And Nixon is more of a peacemaker than Obama?
Even us hippy-dippy liberals don't take as much LSD as you guys appear to.
You're right.
You just encouraged it.
The usage and study of history?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I certainly hope so.
Btw-
How would one go about determining whose version of "history" (yours or mine) was correct?
As an aside, out of a pure and abiding interest, I would appreciate hearing your capsule characterization of Nixon and his presidency...as one who was there, so to speak.
Is there question about when Nixon took office and when the Vietnam accords were signed?
Do my dates not jibe with yours?
I'm not saying that Nixon did no wrong. But I'm saying Obama has done no good, yet. He was elected to end the wars and didn't. And frankly, I lost all respect for the man the day he decided not to support impeachment against the previous administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
Especially Nixon - it's just not done.
Liberals who do nothing can be far more dangerous than republicans with a corporate agenda.
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
How does one impeach a President no longer in office?Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
Drown him in peaches.
Non sexual vocabulary.
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Think you're talking to the wrong guy...
I live next door to nobel farce, what texts would you like on the posters?
list pls
i decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Who's on second?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What?
Ooook, mr.technicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerHow does one impeach a President no longer in office?Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
Not putting forward criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for their war crimes is against any morality, and should be against the law.
Are you quite sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedoOoook, mr.technicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Not putting forward criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for their war crimes is against any morality...
I do believe it's well documented that the Bush administration invaded Iraq with no former validated intelligence. They started the war with intelligence reports having only one convincing source, and have later come to regret the decisions they made, but showing no policy change on their new found knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Are you quite sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
Or you have the torture they allowed or the unconstitutional wiretapping that still taking place in your country. The bucs administration can be charged for treason on a number of cases.
Glad to be in europe :)
Must've given that a miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
Sorry.
nope he do not deserve a NOBEL.