Thread: Voting McCain?

You could find a lot more pictures like that from World War II. Does that mean World War II was not necessary?

does having post wwII Nazi's work in the US really necessary?

I don't see how any rational, informed, and objective person could support the war in Iraq. If you support the war, you're lacking one of those of those characteristics.

We all lack objectivity.

And UM if the Iraq war was properly covered people then I bet the same thing would have happened as with Vietnam, the American people would have stepped up and demanded us out of the war. WW2 is different than Iraq ans Vietnam, neither of those wars have one single thing to do with freedom.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

We all lack objectivity

On the contrary, I'm a fairly sizable object.

Still, you could practically define politics as 'those things we don't agree on.' There's never any right answer; we just muddle through.

Originally Posted by 27

I don't see how any rational, informed, and objective person could support the war in Iraq. If you support the war, you're lacking one of those of those characteristics.

A comment like that calls for some backup. You are going to have to do better than that. I could say the same about people who are against the war.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And UM if the Iraq war was properly covered people then I bet the same thing would have happened as with Vietnam, the American people would have stepped up and demanded us out of the war. WW2 is different than Iraq ans Vietnam, neither of those wars have one single thing to do with freedom.

Both wars were for the liberation of oppressed dictatorships. How could that not be about freedom? Vietnam had the bigger objective of stopping Soviet conquest. That effort was very much about freedom. Iraq is also about spreading the spirit of freedom all over the Middle East eventually.

I'm sorry, I have a little bit more self respect than to believe that. A monk burned himself to death in protest of the South Vietnam's dictatorship. We were honestly just choosing the dictator that didn't want to nationalize their industries.

And since when was the war about exporting democracy? I know that's all Bush would say about it when they couldn't find any weapons, but I mean, I thought this was about the safety of our nation and the war on terror? Too bad ultimately with terrorism swelling in the Nation because of all the orphans we produced now susceptible to Muslim brainwashing and the augmented discontent against America by the rest of the world, we've only endangered ourselves more.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm sorry, I have a little bit more self respect than to believe that. A monk burned himself to death in protest of the South Vietnam's dictatorship. We were honestly just choosing the dictator that didn't want to nationalize their industries.

The intent was good; the way we went about it was bad. Should have been left to SF. Give em all the resources and freedom they need, and let em loose. That's how it needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Sagea

The intent was good; the way we went about it was bad. Should have been left to SF. Give em all the resources and freedom they need, and let em loose. That's how it needs to be done.

Exactly. Like how we gave Saddam and Afghan militants a pile of guns and money to neutralize Iran and fend off the Ruskies, respectively, and now Iran has no influence and the whole region is a showcase of democracy.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Exactly. Like how we gave Saddam and Afghan militants a pile of guns and money to neutralize Iran and fend off the Ruskies, respectively, and now Iran has no influence and the whole region is a showcase of democracy.

So that's our fault, right? Since we have complete control of what the people do over there.
And no, what you are talking about really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking warfare. You're talking... Sarcasm.

I'm talking about not fighting fires with gasoline. Pump ordinance indiscriminately into unstable areas and you will find yourself on the receiving end before much time passes.

Polling Data------------------Obama--vs--Mcain

RCP Average 05/11 - 05/25 ---47.0--------44.0

(source)

Anti-Americanism

The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships... Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise. Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” - Edward Abbey

“The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” - Mark Twain



Opinions were flying in here, but no one seemed willing to back themselves up, so I found sources for all of you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Both wars were for the liberation of oppressed dictatorships. How could that not be about freedom? Vietnam had the bigger objective of stopping Soviet conquest. That effort was very much about freedom. Iraq is also about spreading the spirit of freedom all over the Middle East eventually.

This is the same reason that the Chinese government cites for its invasion of Tibet.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And since when was the war about exporting democracy? I know that's all Bush would say about it when they couldn't find any weapons, but I mean, I thought this was about the safety of our nation and the war on terror?

It has been about all of those things. The point of democratizing Iraq, among other things, is to produce a future culture that is prosperous and civilized. Such landscapes tend to not be breeding grounds for suicide terrorists. World security is depending on the Middle East to come out of the Biblical age during this day of much easier and more likely WMD access. Don't you think so?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm sorry, I have a little bit more self respect than to believe that. A monk burned himself to death in protest of the South Vietnam's dictatorship. We were honestly just choosing the dictator that didn't want to nationalize their industries.

I thought you knew.... We pulled out our forces due to internal political pressure before we got to the point of a North Vietnamese surrender. As a result, South Vietnam is still communist and oppressed. I hope the hippies are happy with that one. However, we did win the Cold War, which was the point.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Opinions were flying in here, but no one seemed willing to back themselves up, so I found sources for all of you.

If our government were like the Soviet Union or something, being "anti-American" would be a good thing. One way or the other, it is a literal term and it does apply where I used it. No matter what people say about how the term and such terms have been used by this propagandist and that one, it is still a fact that I used the term correctly.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is the same reason that the Chinese government cites for its invasion of Tibet.

The difference is that with us, it is true. Watch what ends up becoming of Iraq since we are not caving into the left wing political pressure. I wish South Vietnam could have been so fortunate.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The difference is that with us, it is true.

Isn't that always the case. Let us good patriotic americans sit back and watch what happens.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Isn't that always the case.

No.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Let us good patriotic americans sit back and watch what happens.

Unpatriotic ones too.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A comment like that calls for some backup. You are going to have to do better than that. I could say the same about people who are against the war.

I am not aware of any convincing argument in favor of the invasion, or our continued occupation of Iraq. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Originally Posted by 27

I am not aware of any convincing argument in favor of the invasion, or our continued occupation of Iraq. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Don't shift the burden. You made the claim, so back it up.

While you are doing that, you can think about this...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The reasons behind the war: enforcement of ceasefire (Yep, the ceasefire existed, and the Hussein regime violated it on several terrorism counts for 12 years), spreading of democracy and capitalism to very backward ass and impoverished region that breeds suicide terrorists with stone age mentalities (They have a democracy now, and the people vote in higher percentages than Americans, even in the face of death threats.), attempted collection of WMD's from a suicide terrorist government (as reported by many, many sources), overthrowing of a suicide terrorists government (mission accomplished), pressure surrounding governments into dismantling of WMD programs (worked on Libbya), liberate a nation from nightmare government that engaged in genocide (mission accomplished), give terrorists a scary reason not to attack the United States (no domestic attacks from foreign terrorists since 9/11/01).

I am tired of going over the same anti-Iraq talking points over and over and over. If you want to argue about this, go to one of the Iraq threads, read what I have already written, and pick it up in there.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm talking about not fighting fires with gasoline. Pump ordinance indiscriminately into unstable areas and you will find yourself on the receiving end before much time passes.

You obviously don't know much about how we wage unconventional warfare.
And the fact that the Middle East has been politically dysfunctional and backwards doesn't seem to factor in your equation.

For anyone questioning Iraq's importance/reasons/etc:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hti.../20080527.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point...spx?comments=Y
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point...spx?comments=Y

^Great site for news. On stuff all over the world, especially pertaining to military.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am tired of going over the same anti-Iraq talking points over and over and over. If you want to argue about this, go to one of the Iraq threads, read what I have already written, and pick it up in there.

I'm off to find the origional.

UM a monk burned himself to death in protest of the government we were supporting during the Vietnam war, the government that lost the war.

Nothing to do with the fight for freedom whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

UM a monk burned himself to death in protest of the government we were supporting during the Vietnam war, the government that lost the war.

Nothing to do with the fight for freedom whatsoever.

I don't quite follow.

Ngo Dinh Diem. Research.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Ngo Dinh Diem. Research.

I did. What about him?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How a presidential candidate feels about his country IS a legitimate issue. I have other issues with him too.

Right...he has devoted his life to public service and is currently serving as a United States Senator...obviously he hates America.

Luckily for the country, the majority of people are sick of non-issues like Reverend Wright (and Pastor Hagee, for that matter) and will be voting based on who they trust to lead the country the most, which by a wide margin will be Barack Obama because his positions on the issues represent the majority of Americans. John McCain is not doing himself any favors by aligning himself with the crew that wrecked our government and national reputation in the past eight years.

There is a reason that George W Bush has the worst approval ratings of any modern American President, and the country will not forgot that (despite the attempts of low-life Republican smear mongers to distract people with non-issues).