I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   Philosophy, Politics, and News (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   A War Begun in Failure (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1778)

Buffalo Tom Mar 20th, 2003 11:13 AM

A War Begun in Failure
 
A War Begun in Failure

by John Nichols, The Nation

It appears that George W. Bush will get his war. But it will be a war begun in failure. Even as Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders in the United States dutifully signed up with promises of support or silence regarding a war many of them know to be unnecessary, the blunt reality is that this American president has failed to convince the world of the need for a war with Iraq.

The president's dramatic defeat in the court of international public opinion was acknowledged Monday, when the administration abandoned its doomed effort to win a go-ahead from the United Nations Security Council for warmaking.

That rejection of diplomacy was met with a diplomatic response from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who telegraphed his frustration with a read-between-the-lines statement to the effect that, "If the action is to take place without the support of the Council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the support for it will be diminished." Others were not so gentle in their assessment.

Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair abandoned their attempt to get a new UN resolution, said Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the French ambassador to the UN, because the argument for war was unconvincing. "It (the resolution) did not get the votes because the majority of the UN and, I would say the majority of people in the world, do not think it would be right to have the Council authorize the use of force," he explained.

It was not just the French who noted the collapse of the Bush Administration's diplomatic initiative.

The leader of the British House of Commons, Robin Cook, who quit Blair's Cabinet to protest the Prime Minister's commitment of British troops to the US cause, articulated the reasoned view of that failure when he argued on Tuesday that: "The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition."

In the United States, Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich, who may be the closest thing the current Congress has to an opposition leader, said, "The President's decision to push our nation, and the world, to the brink of war, in the face of intense international opposition, and without UN approval is a failure by this Administration to exercise world leadership and a grave mistake. The Administration's decision to withdraw its resolution from the United Nations Security Council is a dramatic admission of its failure to convince the world of its case against Iraq."

Despite months of cajoling, conniving and, when all else failed, behind-the-scenes offers of economic aid and political consideration, the Bush Administration could not convince the chief target audience -- Security Council members -- that there was sufficient legal or moral justification for war at this time. To wit:

* The president and his aides built their case for war on a "foundation" of discredited data, including reports of supposed Iraqi "threats" that turned out to have been misread, falsified or, in the case of a key British document, reliant upon out-of-date information culled from the Internet.

* The president and his aides repeatedly attempted to establish a connection between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network, yet they never succeeded in doing so. The unrelenting focus on finding such a linkage undermined the Administration's broader argument for war. It became clear to the international community that if there was the slightest shred of evidence, the administration would have produced it. And they were never able to do so.

* The president refused to perform basic diplomatic duties. In particular, he failed to maintain personal contact with leaders of countries that questioned his stance - especially French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Neither the president nor Secretary of State Colin Powell engaged in the sort of international travel and one-on-one communication that former President George Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker used to build coalition support for the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The mumbles, stumbles and bumbles that characterized the Bush Administration's approach to the question of how best to disarm Iraq served to isolate the White House from leaders with whom Bush thought he had built solid personal relationships, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin and Mexico's Vicente Fox. And it has severely strained relations with historic US allies such as Germany and China. The veteran French journalist Gérard Dupuy used a physical metaphor to explain the diplomatic reality. "In the end, Mr. Bush finds himself backed up by the only two leaders who have stuck by him from the beginning - Mr Blair and (Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria) Aznar," noted Dupuy, as he described the one-hour "summit" on an island in the Azores at which the determination was made to reject diplomacy. "Their meeting on an American base lost in the immensity of the Atlantic neatly symbolises the isolation of a president who has fallen victim to his own mediocrity."

Nothing that the president said in Monday night's televised address to the nation, and the world, changed the fact that George W. Bush has entered the international arena and stumbled. Badly. His ultimatum to Iraq's Saddam - leave the country or face the "serious consequences" mentioned in U.N. Resolution 1441 - made war seem inevitable.

If war comes, however, it will not be the war that any thoughtful American president could have wanted. Rather, it will be a misguided mission pursued by a troublingly small "coalition of the willing" - with most coalition "partners" there against the will of the people in their countries.

A wiser president might have refused to go ahead without having convinced more of the world. Then again, a wiser president would not have pursued this path in the first place.

After all, the point of diplomacy is not to wage an unrelenting campaign for an unpopular result. The point of diplomacy is to propose action, open a dialogue about the plan and then to refine and improve the approach until the theoretical becomes the possible. It is about winning the faith of others.

George W. Bush leads the world's remaining superpower. That position places great responsibilities on his shoulders. The greatest of these is to engage seriously and sincerely in the diplomatic process that allows for the collective wisdom of many nations to inform the actions of the United States.

President Bush has failed to meet that responsibility. He has let his country down. He has let his world down. The Spanish newspaper El Pais said it best in an editorial that read, "Diplomacy has ended because the US president has had enough of negotiating..."

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 11:14 AM

Iraq has fired SCUD missles. This constitutes breach of 1441, as these weapons were banned. The President was correct in his accusations. Period.

Ronnie Raygun Mar 20th, 2003 11:17 AM

Sorry Tom.

Maybe you should delete this post and save face.

FS Mar 20th, 2003 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HNICPantitude
Iraq has fired SCUD missles. This constitutes breach of 1441, as these weapons were banned. The President was correct in his accusations. Period.

That's kind of like getting lucky when picking a murderer out of a line-up.

Buffalo Tom Mar 20th, 2003 11:26 AM

If Iraq has such banned armaments, why wasn't your President able to make a convincing case to the international body politic and build a global consensus backing his administrations position? Where were the concrete, unequivocal, 'smoking-gun' intelligence reports that proved Iraq was housing such weapons? Why didn't we see for this administration an Adlai Stevenson-like moment at the UN in 1962, when the then Secretary of State presented satellite photos clearly showing Soviet forces installing missile batteries in Cuba?

This administration clearly lacks the diplomatic saavy and experience to accomplish even what Bush Senior accomplished in 1991 when his administration was able to build the coalition for Desert Storm. Dubya couldn't even meet what was expected of a mediocre leader of the most powerful country in the world. This administration has alienated three members of the UN Security Council. Global public opinion is against this administration and its foreign policy aims. Its imperious posturing are adding fuel to the fire of radical, anti-Western forces who will no doubt have a new bevy of recruits from those people who are opposed to this war.

Let's face it: your President is a divider, not a uniter.

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 11:57 AM

As stated, the President was hesitant to release US Intelligence in the interest of security. He also has no obligation to do so. He acts in the United States' best interest.

VinceZeb Mar 20th, 2003 12:28 PM

I guess when we get ANY information on the war or terror, we should make sure to plaster it all lover FNC, CNN, MSNBC, and all other news outlets to make sure that Buffalo Tom knows 100% about what is happening. But, since that may endanger our troops and our people, it shouldn’t matter, because BUFFALO TOM must know everything, as should the entire world. If we get Osama trapped within 30 feet of his home, we should make sure to tell THE WORLD because that one person in bumblefuck, MO that doesn’t know is a modern-day Greek tragedy.

Hey Buffalo, I guess having one less country, Germany, than we did when Bush 41 went to war with Saddam the first time isn’t an “international coalition”.

Oh yeah, who is “your” president? Saying to people that “Bush” is your president doesn’t make him lose his position as the President of the U.S. no more than an atheist telling someone that he doesn’t believe in “your” God.

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 12:40 PM

Quote:

He also has no obligation to do so.
resolution 1441 clause 10

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 12:46 PM

resolution 1441 clause 10

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;[/quote]

ItalianStereotype Mar 20th, 2003 01:03 PM

from a paper i wrote on the current conflict...

In his report to the U.N., Blix stated that inspectors had been harassed, followed, spied upon, and disturbed in their duties on a daily basis. It was also noted that most of the 12,000 page document submitted by the Iraqi government consisted of pages that had been reprinted from earlier and could not provide solid evidence as to the location, condition, or quantity of weapons of mass destruction and their facilities. There was even proof that the overseers had lied to the inspection teams stating that no new VX nerve gases, the same gas used to exterminate the Kurds in the 80’s, had been produced since the Persian Gulf War and that research had not been done into improving the potency of the lethal nerve agent. This was called into question when inspectors discovered a document noting the “purity of the agent…in laboratory production, was higher than declared.”

Buffalo Tom Mar 20th, 2003 01:16 PM

The leader of the British House of Commons, Robin Cook, who quit Blair's Cabinet to protest the Prime Minister's commitment of British troops to the US cause, articulated the reasoned view of that failure when he argued on Tuesday that: "The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition."

That pretty much sums up the diplomatic failure of this whole ass-backwards affair.

ItalianStereotype Mar 20th, 2003 01:19 PM

suppose we decide to go after iran, north korea, syria, or libya, do you think that there will be no coalition then?

VinceZeb Mar 20th, 2003 01:29 PM

I'd like to give my 2 cents on those countries:

Iran: Seems that Iran may just reform itself without our help. Militarily, that is. We will probably help support it via propaganda campaign. Iran is a small threat to us, but not one that is war-worth at the time.

N. Korea: Korea is like the little kid with a new toy. Korea wants us to pay attention to him. So it flashes it and plays with it and wants attention. Korea just may be a military strike from the U.S. and our fellow countries. Of any country that I would love to see free, it’s this one. The plight of the N. Koreans is absolutely sickening. If anyone ever tells you Communism can work, just have him speak to someone from there. Watch the madness occur.

Syria and Libya: These are countries that talk big but won’t do anything. This war with Iraq will show other countries that after many years of the U.S. getting kicked in the nuts and asking the other countries if we hurt their foot, we finally got fed up and beat ass.

But that’s just my uninformed opinion....

Buffalo Tom Mar 20th, 2003 01:30 PM

What if a year from now China decides an independent Taiwan is a threat to its security, and masses an invasion fleet off its coastline? What if it demands a change from a pro-West regime? More immediately, what if North Korea decides to invade South Korea, to pre-empt any sort of attacks by America and its allies in that country? Would the United States and its 'coalition of the willing' have any legal and moral ground from which to mount an opposition?

This whole stupid affair has opened up a can of worms that the current and future American administration will find unpalatable.

ItalianStereotype Mar 20th, 2003 01:35 PM

if any of that actually happened then there would be armed conflict, what did you think would happen? whether or not we have a coalition really depends on whether or not the rest of the world is practicing appeasement.

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 02:01 PM

The 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act places Taiwan at an equal level af alliance as NATO Allies. An attack on Taiwan would be punished severely, most likely with very high support internationally.

__________________________________________

Additionally:

http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20...0010821o1.html

US rallying allies for joint Taiwan defense

Published: August 21, 2001
Source: The China Post

he Taiwan Strait appears to be a place where war could break out at any time, at least in the minds of American strategic planners.

The U.S. is legally bound to help defend the island according to the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and morally obligated to protect the democracy against communist intimidation. This was the rationale of President George W. Bush's famous pledge of doing "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.

Washington has been busy convincing its allies in the region to help it fulfill that pledge. Consultations have been conducted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Jim Kelly with their counterparts in Seoul, Tokyo and Canberra.

That Taiwan defense was a dominant subject in their discussions is evidenced by Deputy Secretary of State Armitage's remarks made in Sydney last week.

Answering media questions, Armitage said the U.S. expects Australian troops to die alongside American servicemen in any future conflict with mainland China over Taiwan and that Australia is obliged to commit troops to any military conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

"I am not sure all of our friends here in Australia understand the significance of the alliance with America ... It is not a matter of political convenience or of economic interaction ... for us an alliance is an obligation, if necessary, to fight and die for each other.

"We are talking on the U.S. side (of) our sons and daughters fighting and dying if Australia comes under attack and, by the way, we are talking about Australian sons and daughters who would be willing to sacrifice their lives to help the United States.

"That is what an alliance means and when you think about it in those terms ... you realize this is a very special and indeed potent confidence building measure."

Armitage, visiting Australia just weeks after the departure of Powell and Rumsfeld, also issued a blunt warning to Canberra, saying it was in Australia's interests to join the U.S. in defending Taiwan in the event of a Chinese communist invasion.

During their visit in late July, Powell and Rumsfeld talked with their Australian hosts on closer strategic coordination between Washington and its three main Asia-Pacific allies ¡V Australia, Japan and South Korea.

But America's four-nation security alliance proposal has not been well received in the capitals of the three Asian countries. Officials of both Japan and South Korea have refrained from discussing it in public. Canberra has played down the proposal, describing it as just an idea "to informally bring together officials, not necessarily ministers, for a little bit more dialogue into the relationship." And the head of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region, Admiral Denis Blair, said that such regional security talks were not aimed at hemming in mainland China.

However, with Armitage's remarks, it would be naive to expect Beijing to believe this was not a containment conspiracy against it.

Washington has also demonstrated its determination to defend Taiwan by other means.

Last Friday, two U.S. aircraft carriers staged a rare show of force in the South China sea in what was seen as a response to the People's Liberation Army's intimidating exercises in the Taiwan Strait.

The one-day exercise, carried out by the USS Carl Vinson, the USS Constellation and their battle groups, involved the launching of fighter jets and joint operations between the two battle groups.

While the U.S. Navy officially sought to play down its significance, the display of American military might was clearly designed to send a message to Beijing that America has an interest in the future of Taiwan.

The PLA war games, dubbed "Liberation 1," are reportedly the largest ever and have been in progress since June on and around Dongshan Island, off the coast of Fujian and Guangdong provinces facing Taiwan. They simulated an assault on one of Taiwan's outlying islands and an engagement with a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group.

The last time an exercise involving two U.S. aircraft carriers took place in the region was in August 1999 when tensions were high between Taipei and Beijing over former President Lee Teng-hui's proposal that cross-strait relations be conducted on a "state-to-state" basis.

Beijing responded to the U.S. military exercises by refusing to allow an American reconnaissance plane to land in Hong Kong on a training mission. However, the USS Constellation and its support ships were allowed to dock in Hong Kong Monday.

Indeed, it is gratifying to see the Bush administration's commitment to defending freedom and democracy.

But it is ironic that Washington continues to acknowledge the Chinese communist dictatorship's sovereignty claim over Taiwan and collaborate with it in isolating the island diplomatically.

Strategic containment of the communist dictatorship does not warrant diplomatic containment of democratic Taiwan.

__________________________________________
Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN Resolution 1441

Protoclown Mar 20th, 2003 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Oh yeah, who is “your” president? Saying to people that “Bush” is your president doesn’t make him lose his position as the President of the U.S. no more than an atheist telling someone that he doesn’t believe in “your” God.

HE'S CANADIAN, YOU DUMB FUCK :lol

ranxer Mar 20th, 2003 09:45 PM

YEAH
 
Quote:

A wiser president might have refused to go ahead without having convinced more of the world. Then again, a wiser president would not have pursued this path in the first place.
Hot Damn! Thats so hard to explain to Bush supporters! >:

what a tremendous blunder making so many americans part of warcrimes is worse than criminal .. i dunno what it is but all i as is that america signs up to IMPEACH BUSH!
www.votetoimpeach.org

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 09:57 PM

I would, but I'd really rather not let our administration have my personal information in conjunction with what I think of them.

ranxer Mar 20th, 2003 10:18 PM

gogo vote!
 
noway, i didnt think twice about it, well, i cant even find the list of signers so it seems they keep it private.. but now that i look, i can't tell who's behind the site.. hmm. a washington office: 1901 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 607, Washington, D.C. anyone know who's there?

freespeech is protected so many ways and so many have signed i think we're safe adding our names to a protest petition..
i don't think the people can actually impeach though, this is more a statement of numbers to give polititions an idea of how many are supporting impeachment proceedings.

do you vote? do you keep yer candidate a secret?

El Blanco Mar 20th, 2003 10:20 PM

I don't want to impeach Bush, but I would love to see your head explode while Cheney takes the oath.

Anonymous Mar 20th, 2003 10:24 PM

Electronics Boutique, the petition is for the impeachment of most (if not all) of the Bush administration.

Quote:

freespeech is protected so many ways...do you vote? do you keep yer candidate a secret?
Haha, shyeah...And I haven't been able to vote until last year, but voting for the opposing party is worlds apart from voting against the defending one.

ItalianStereotype Mar 20th, 2003 10:29 PM

i would love to see his explode period, which isnt an impossibility if he would ever read one of his own posts.

VinceZeb Mar 20th, 2003 11:53 PM

Oh yes, I am a dumb fuck because I didn't know someone was from Canada. I guess that would make you a dumb fuck for being a short-sighted idiot with a lame insult.

FS Mar 21st, 2003 05:25 AM

No, you're a dumbfuck for not considering it.

Protoclown Mar 21st, 2003 06:58 AM

Exactly. I just think it's hilarious how you just assumed he's a US citizen, because we all must be US citizens around here because the United States is the only country with technology and we're also the center of the universe. :rolleyes

There are quite a few non-American (not UN-American, mind you) posters on here.

You dumbfuck. :lol

VinceZeb Mar 21st, 2003 09:42 AM

Ok, I'm sorry that I used my mind to put the gaps together to see that the same people that always say "your" president are usually Americans that don't like Bush. Most people from a different country wouldnt put quotes around your to begin with, especally if they are from a different country. Serves no purpose to do so.

Oh no, people dont post here from America! I didn't realize that. I wish I could be cool and put Mortal Kombat and clown pictures all over my posts and be hip! Bet that gets you laid constantly.

FS Mar 21st, 2003 10:08 AM

Quote:

Oh no, people dont post here from America! I didn't realize that. I wish I could be cool and put Mortal Kombat and clown pictures all over my posts and be hip! Bet that gets you laid constantly.
:lol

Translation: YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LOOK STUPID. I AM VINCEZEB! I MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID!

VinceZeb Mar 21st, 2003 10:11 AM

Yep, that is what I said. Man, you are clever.

Protoclown Mar 21st, 2003 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Ok, I'm sorry that I used my mind to put the gaps together to see that the same people that always say "your" president are usually Americans that don't like Bush.

I have NEVER heard an American refer to the President that way, no matter how much they don't like him. Maybe you were having political debates in your special ed class or something?

Buffalo Tom Mar 21st, 2003 12:36 PM

Quote:

Maybe you were having political debates in your special ed class or something?
Protoclown, you dumb fuck! You know that in special ed class they only talk about how not to eat Elmer's Glue and about the dangers of blunt kindergarten scissors! Stop making silly assumptions about a person's normal daily activities, no matter how idiotic his posts are!

Protoclown Mar 21st, 2003 12:50 PM

You're right, I shouldn't make assumptions. Fortunately for me, in his postings, he's CLEARLY illustrated how much of a cold heartless asshole prick he is without a shred of decency or compassion, so I don't have to assume that anyway.

VinceZeb Mar 21st, 2003 01:27 PM

I wished I lived in dillusional liberal land. Must be nice to be a fucking uninformed idiot.

I guess I'm an idiot. I'll continue to be a part of the 10% who pulls the cart and you continue to be the 90% who rides along and whines about it not going your way.

Pub Lover Mar 21st, 2003 01:34 PM

Hey Vince, can we have a look at your magic key?

Edit: Because you must have a magic key to open your secret stash of 'truth' that only you seem privy to. :(

ranxer Mar 21st, 2003 03:01 PM

bahaha
 
Quote:

but I would love to see your head explode while Cheney takes the oath.
yea as said it is most of the administration.
as for heads exploding.. i just stand my ground with a sign or two and watch others get red in the face and threaten to explode my head, but if they move on me it proves my point that they don't believe in a free country.

sorry you wont see me acting rabid, as a matter of fact the anti-war people are determinded to keep things as peaceful as possible.. much more so than the bush supporters.
my biggest problem is getting passed thier propoganda of 'if your not with us you're a terrorist' they cant seem to think very well. :/

so keep screaming obsenities and wishing harm on others it shows your true colors!

ItalianStereotype Mar 21st, 2003 03:04 PM

forget all that terrorist, iraqi, blah blah war bullshit, i want to see your head explode because you are a foaming zealot and i dont like you.

glowbelly Mar 21st, 2003 03:24 PM

i want to see your head explode because i bet it's filled with pretty colored confetti. :)

Carnivore Mar 21st, 2003 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Must be nice to be a fucking uninformed idiot.

Why are the best educated people (most college professors) in the country overwhelmingly liberal? They must be uninformed :/

So long as there are people like you to swallow government lies and accept what is said at face value, this country will continue to decline.

ItalianStereotype Mar 21st, 2003 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowbelly
i want to see your head explode because i bet it's filled with pretty colored confetti. :)

if you hit it with a bat, maybe some tasty candy yummies will fall out

VinceZeb Mar 21st, 2003 08:27 PM

Ha. Most college professors, that are liberal, usually do not have a grasp of reality. If you would like many stats, figures, and reports on the idiots of the left who everyone adores like Noam (who's doctorate, in my opinion, should be withdrawn since he is completely based on junk science and little research), Zinn (a straight up Commie), and Singer (words cant describe how reprehensible this lunatic is), I would gladly do it in public.

I dont accept or believe everything the govt says. Like I said before, if you would get some reading comprehension, is that I don't agree with anything I hear or see unless a) It already agrees and confirms what I have believed or b) It has enough truth based on FACTS that I can be swayed to believe that way.

Carnivore Mar 21st, 2003 08:46 PM

Socialism is not bad. It can be successfully bred with democracy. It is not a bad word. You and Raygun need to know this. Calling someone a Commie doesn't discredit them. I feel no need to defend any of the individuals you indicted as their credentials stand on their own.

If you don't believe everything you're told, what do you think this war is about? I'll hold my response for your answer.

VinceZeb Mar 21st, 2003 09:09 PM

Communism murdered 100+ million people, more than every religious war combined. Communism is based on the belief that govt gives you rights, everyone no matter how much you work or dont work that you should get all the same, and that speaking out against the govt or having unpopular thoughts or ideas should be considered a 'crime' and you should be sent to a re-education camp.

Socalism is the utopia of fools. Democracy and socalism does not work. Free men believe in captalism, which is a unequal distribution of joy. Liberalism is the equal distribution of misery.


This war has to do with many things. Iraq violated the rules of law as set by the cease fire agreement during the first Gulf War. Would we have did this before 9/11? Probably not. But now is a different time where the enemies of free nations is not contained to a state or a nationality, and whoever supports these groups should be punished. Does this have to do a bit about oil? Perhaps. I have not seen any evidence either way to support it. It wouldnt suprise me a bit if it was, but so what? We could have just invaded Kuwait or bought off saddam to get cheap black gold.

I have seen enough to justify my views and to dismiss the ones on the far-left and the far-right.

FS Mar 22nd, 2003 08:50 AM

Quote:

Communism murdered 100+ million people
Egad! And I thought it was dictators.

Carnivore Mar 22nd, 2003 11:36 AM

Egad! You were right! Communism is about equal distribution of wealth, but it has nothing to do with eliminating free speech and reeducation camps. Governments claiming to be communist have perpetrated such crimes in the past, but those were the acts of individuals, not communism.

You call a democratic socialist state the "utopia of fools" so I must assume you were born into a well-off family and have never wanted for anything in your life. Say that you have the same opportunities as a hispanic child born in the inner-city to a single parent working two jobs just to make ends meet. I'm not about equal distribution of wealth. I don't mind people earning money. I just believe that with greater wealth comes greater responsibility to ensure equal opportunity for everyone. There is nothing wrong with wealth when legitimately earned. I can't condone earning wealth through government subsidies, laying off employees and cutting benefits to maximize profits, and other less-than-honest practices. In a completely capitalist society without any government regulation of business, this would happen. As it is, the United States is not even completely capitalist. Democratic socialism does work where it exists (where the United States has allowed it to exist because American likes to overthrow socialist governments using what some might call terrorist methods).

You're quite the arrogant ignoramus. It's clear that you don't look beyond your own limited experience at the bigger picture. You must be Raygun's twin.

AChimp Mar 22nd, 2003 12:10 PM

*waves small Canadian flag* :)

VinceZeb Mar 22nd, 2003 05:41 PM

Sorry, but I wasnt born well off. My family made a modest living and I work for all that I have. I was taught self-reliance, unlike most people are today. They are taught by example to rely on govt for everything. I want to help out anyone that wants to work and stand on their own two feet. If they want to be govt money banks and collect the hard earned tax dollars of me and my fellow tax payers, then I have no use for them whatsoever. I would assume if you got ALL of your money that you earned and then had to pay 5% of it to a bum who did nothing but smoke crack or shoot up all day, you would change your tune.

In America, we have about as much equal oppurunity as human society can provide. You operate under the notion that there is true "equalness", when, as it has been proven time and time again, there is not. If we were all in the caveman days, the notion of equality would be laughed upon. It's who clubs the deer and cleans the meat who gets to eat. The ones that are too lazy starve off.

I am confident, although some say I am arrogant. But I am not ignorant nor small-pictured. I SEE the big picture every day. I am a conserative/libertarian. That is the only way to see things.

Carnivore Mar 22nd, 2003 05:52 PM

I see the abuses of welfare all the time. I'm the one scooping them off the street after they OD. It pissed me off, yes. I don't, however, lose sight of the people who really do need help. The people who need welfare support for a little while they get back on their feet.

As for equal opportunity, you mean to tell me somebody attending an inner-city public school is going to get an education equal to the one I got in the public school system of a rich, upper-middle class suburb inhabited primarily by whites?

VinceZeb Mar 22nd, 2003 07:50 PM

Quote:

As for equal opportunity, you mean to tell me somebody attending an inner-city public school is going to get an education equal to the one I got in the public school system of a rich, upper-middle class suburb inhabited primarily by whites?
NO, THEY WONT! You are proving one of my points that everyone on this board denies! Inner city schools suck! Not because they don't get money, its because of the way the govt has given control to the unionized teachers and then they dont teach! The teachers teach the kids crappy, they dont care about the job, and the children suffer, because no one bothers to help them with their condition! If we have it so the kids could choose the public schools they went to, then schools would have to compete (like a business, as in capitalism) for kids. How would schools compete for children and parents? By providing a good education and after school activites so kids can learn that THEY CAN get out from their situations.

We keep pumping money into a leaky ship that never gets fixed! Whats the point of giving money to a school if it still sucks! Let the kids choose. Schools will improve. In the places it is done, it works. Even Joe Clark, the guy who the movie 'Lean On Me' is about, says that. Over and over.

Carnivore Mar 22nd, 2003 07:59 PM

The town I grew up in had a very active teachers union and was considered one of the best towns for education in the state. That's the state of Massachusetts, one of the best states for education in the country. Forcing schools to compete will only result in great inequality. Who do you think is going to be attending the better schools? Obviously not the poor! Measures must be taken to ensure that all schools provide an equal, quality education. Privatizing public schools is one of the most asinine ideas I've heard ever. You are quickly surpassing the dumbassedness of Raygun.

VinceZeb Mar 22nd, 2003 08:56 PM

Ok, I am going to be nice for one post. Do you know what the whole voucher movement is? The voucher movement is so underprivledged children CAN go to the better schools with the same type of money that would be given to a shitty school they are FORCED to be in. Making schools compete against each other is the best idea for schools!

When companies compete against each other for customers, who benefits? Ding ding ding, the CONSUMER! Taking the tax money out of failing schools, allowing parents to use the SAME TAX money that is paid to go to a different school that they CHOOSE, creates that much-needed competition! I work at a private college, we compete against MANY schools, and it makes we the workers, the teachers... EVERYONE work harder to provide the best education for the CONSUMER, the student!

Teachers will be forced to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, instead of "group feeling" sessions and tolerance classes! That stuff may be nice, but when it comes down to what children NEED first, its the basic tools to make it in our society! You can be tolerant and open minded all you want, but if your dumbass cant read or add functions, you won't make much of yourself a vast majority of the time.

Before kids learn about multiculturalism, they need to learn mathmatics. I have seen too many good people flunk our entrance exam to the school I work for because they don't know basic information that you or I should hopefully know. And these people are seniors or just graduated from high school! Hell, I have seen college students that can't pass it. And do you know where they all go? Govt schools. The ones who go to govt schols where they care about students or private schools knock our test out of the park.


I can only sum this up by an experience I had about a year ago while waiting in the line one late night after work at a grocery store. They just started talking about school vouchers and this upper-crust white apologist woman started talking about the evil Repugs and their school vouchers. She said all schools are just as good as another. I ask her where she sent her kid. She sends him to a private Luthern school. I then told her to put her money where her mouth is and send him to a school in East St. Louis.

East st. louis is in the top 5 of worst neighboods in the country. Needless to say, the conversation ended quickly.

Carnivore Mar 24th, 2003 03:57 PM

Your solution doesn't cure the disease. The crappy schools will continue to get crappier if no investment is made in them. As for vouchers, unless they cover the full cost of a private school, the poor will not be able to use them. Forcing schools to compete are like forcing inner-city, working class kids to compete against suburban, middle class kids without any equalizer. The well-off ones will come out on top.

As for curriculum, nothing pisses me off than people who don't grasp basic concepts of the English language. I'm only for "group feeling" sessions (pervert :P) in an after school setting.

mburbank Mar 24th, 2003 04:26 PM

Meanwhile, go back to your sources and you'll find that none of the missiles fired by Iraq turn out to be SCUDS.

It's like the friggin' patriot missiles. Page one banner headline, Patriot Missiles Save World. A few months later, page 52, Patriot missiles turn out to have missed all targets.

I strongly suggest not believing ANY news from ANY source until it has time to have been verified by multiple sources.

VinceZeb Mar 25th, 2003 01:45 AM

Carnivore, there should be NO equalizers in a free society when it comes to competition for jobs. All that does is pander and make people look inferior. By proxy, your statement says that blacks are dumbasses and need The Man to look after them because they cant learn for themselves. Anyone can look at the statement you made and assume that. I truly hope you don't mean it that way. Anyone that thinks like that is demeaning a whole group of people based on facial structure and skin color, and that is pretty fucking sick. Anyone that would race-patronize me would get my foot up their ass.

Vouchers for the most part cover the full cost of private school. I doubt it would be sad if schools had to compete. Competition is what the real world is about, so why should educational facilities be an exception. Dont colleges compete for students? And if the crappy schools didn't keep up to the expected standards of their customers (the tax-payers), then the schools go bye bye. Companies die off all the time if they cant fulfill needs. It happens, and shitty schools need to be buried so the kids can be free to learn at better ones that will equip them for the real world, and not the liberal pixie-dust fairy land.

If there is anything that I would think that would make decent black folk want to cause a riot, it would be when they tried to pass Ebonics off in Oakland as a language. That is the most P.C. pandering bunch of crap I ever came across. Instead of making students learn to talk proper english, they just said "Screw the standards and lets set one that is lower." I guess to them, blacks weren't smart enough to be able to speak English.

It reminds me when I used to work for a call center. One of my bosses was a well-educated black man who was the American Dream. Worked two jobs, always dressed professionally, the whole bit. His co-workers, who were mostly women from temp agencies who kept producing babies and whined about getting free food stamps (Yes, they actually talked about this). They gave him shit about wanting Bush to win, gave him crap about how he spoke, about how he didn't use slang. He just stood there and smiled. He now started up his own fashion design company online and the rest of the morons who ridiculed his blackness are still stuck in the same sucky job I left two years ago. Considering every job I have had in St. Louis before my current one I have been the extreme minority in the staff, I have been able to get a good view of what the world is like "on the other side", so to speak.

Carnivore Mar 25th, 2003 01:59 AM

I made no mention of race and no mention of applying equalizers to job competition. I am talking about equal access to education. Schools in urban areas do not suck because of unions or poor cirriculua. They suck because of a weaker tax base and, consequently, poor funding. State of federal funds are needed to equalize education. Vouchers just undermine the public education system, an important part of what makes America great.

VinceZeb Mar 25th, 2003 02:14 AM

We give money to these schools and build them up to be better than what the surburban kids have, even better. But ya know, that is the problem with the liberal viewpoint. I am not saying this is your own. But the viewpoint of just throwing money at something to fix it is faulty at best.

Going to dwell back into my personal life for a bit, and its a good analogy: I used to be one tubby fat fuck. 6'4" and almost 500lbs. I was up shit creek. Now, I always had access to the best exercise equipment and trainers, but I was too fucking lazy to do anything. I was never motivated.

One day, I met a girl who really liked me. I was suprised and shocked, of course. So, I decided to get into shape for her. So I went out, not able to access the best items, and i lost weight. Now, after 3 years of going at it, I am down now to about 225lbs, an approximate.

Now, the moral of the story is that you can throw money and nice computers and visual aids at students all day long. If the teachers suck and the school is unsafe and everything else is horrible, the kids wont be motivated to learn shit. Its feel good liberalism of "just doing something" instead of "getting something done" that would have eventually killed me and what is going to screw the children of the future.

AChimp Mar 25th, 2003 05:25 PM

*fuck my Internet connection*

AChimp Mar 25th, 2003 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Taking the tax money out of failing schools, allowing parents to use the SAME TAX money that is paid to go to a different school that they CHOOSE, creates that much-needed competition!

No, it will just create really empty buildings and buildings where kids fall out of the upper floor windows because they're so packed.

You are acting as if it's the SCHOOL that makes kids smart, where it is in fact PARENTS creating a nurturing environment and encouraging children to learn that makes the difference. I have seen people as dumb as dogshit attending private schools (very motivated teachers!), and people who could be the next Einstein attending regular public schools (very unmotivated teachers! :rolleyes )

The school has very little to do with anything, other than providing more material to learn.

Say, isn't it good Conservatism to enforce solid family values? No, we better just send our kids to "better" schools so they "learn more."

mburbank Mar 25th, 2003 05:38 PM

All I get from your epic weight loss story (and believe me, it was a SHOCKER! I never would have guessed from your constant mentioning of your fitness that you used to be a "Tubby Fat Fuck") is that your a stimulus response type guy. All you needed was the proper cheese to get you going. Now I'm glad as hell that worked for you, but to extrapolate from the fact that needing to impress a girl made you give a crap about yourslef to funding schools... well, shouldn't we be offering our students good looking partners? Is that what your getting at?

The Moral of this story. PFAH! Sheeple.

Protoclown Mar 25th, 2003 06:16 PM

SO DID YOU GET THE GIRL OR WHAT????


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.