Fighting for what's right.

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 15:07
VIEWED: 3499
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
...We could make the world a better place, but it would take a hell of a lot to reverse the distrust and outright hatred directed at the U.S. Our politicians just don't have the patience for that sort of thing, so they just keep doing what got us into this mess in the first place.

This is a really interesting point, but I'd propose that it's not our leaders who are lacking in patience but, in fact, it's us. Or at least the vast majority of the voters. Or maybe it's systematic, but it's clear our system simply doesn't support farsighted leaders with the fortitude to do the right thing for the long term, which often requires short-term sacrifice. We want simple, easily digested platitudes.

Am I being too cynical? Can people rise above TV politics?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:15 AM

No, I agree with you, Sergeant.

When Bush announced big tax credits and refunds that would squander our surplus, any logical thinker had to know it was a rotten idea. Paying down the deficit would have had the biggest long term benefit for the nation.

But everyone happily pocketed their hundred dollar plus bribe because having a little money now is much nicer than saving a lot of money later.

We are an instant gratification society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Sort of gives a pass to Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan,

My history's not too good; weren't they more than 60 years ago?

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You are indeed very kind to Bush and Co.
In my book they are dumasses, at best.

My guess is (and indeed its my point) that if any of the wars you mentioned (including removing Saddam) that you label as “right” had been fought, you would be saying the same thing about the presidents that fought those wars. I agree that it would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991, but Bush the first didn’t because he knew the reconstruction would be difficult and he knew that you (and others) wouldn’t support him. The same thing is true of Clinton. We might have stopped the genocide in Ruwanda if we had sent in troops, but if we had, don't you think people would have decried Clinton for a “pre-emptive” war on a “sovereign” country that was “no-threat” to the US. Doing what’s right is hard. Sitting around and pushing these problems onto the next presidency, that’s easy. The problem is that we like to talk a big story about fighting for what is right, but many of us don’t want to do any real fighting. That puts our leaders in a precarious position: do they undertake wars that they believe are right even though they know they won't have the support of the people or do they just ignore the problem until it bites us in the ass? Bush the second chose to do something, and I think he was right for doing it, even if I don't always agree with the particularly strategy, my hats off to a president who finally did what his predecessors didn't have the balls to do.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My history's not too good; weren't they more than 60 years ago?

None the less, they had a dramatic impact on the last 60 years. But really it’s disingenuous to imply that the US alone shaped the last 60 years, because even without WWII, which was the defining historical aspect of the last century, the Soviet Union did survive, and the Cold War is really responsible for shaping much of the last 60 years, particularly the events that many people, critical of the US, like to attribute solely to the US.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KAYLEESTHEGREATEST

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:24 PM

i think oil companys are trying to screw us over

Someday the verse will spit in your soup but at least they gave you soup.
one day
one plan
one mission
one army of browncoats
june 23rd serenity day

-Our mission as browncoats is to make us known.

RUE

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:40 PM

The best thing the US could have done would have been developing and deploying renewable alternative energy. With oil demand reduced the US wouldn't have motivation to meddle in oil producing regions.

The US could then have, in the words of the Beetles 'let it be', and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, among others, would have been moot.

Those horrible Soviets could have continued training Afghani women doctors, engineers, scientists and professors. The US wouldn't have felt compelled to arm the Taliban.

Foreign aid to Israel would be down, and the target painted on the US from that direction would fade. (And perhaps Israel, realizing it didn't have the 800 pound gorilla big brother would have sought more realistic policies with its neighobrs.)

The US wouldn't have continued presence in Saudi Arabia - bin Laden's big issue.

The US economy would be better.

And so on.

The cost - investment money.
The result - priceless

Oh let it be ...

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I agree that it would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991, but Bush the first didn’t because he knew the reconstruction would be difficult and he knew that you (and others) wouldn’t support him. The same thing is true of Clinton. We might have stopped the genocide in Ruwanda if we had sent in troops, but if we had, don't you think people would have decried Clinton for a “pre-emptive” war on a “sovereign” country that was “no-threat” to the US.

Finn, I respect you and your point of view immensely, so I'm trying to put this delicately...let's see, um...

W H A T ????????

Bush the first didn't take out Saddam because he didn't have our support?
Stopping genocide gets a president yelled at?

If a situation is explained truthfully, and the support doesn't come, let the president tell us we get no supper and an early bedtime. What are we gonna do- impeach him?

I understand liking Bush for doing something, but I just wish truth and brains came with those balls.
Is this all we get for presidents from now on? Short-sighted bravado dudes, or timid little buck-passers?

*Chrisisall falls over, his rant all shot off, his snarky-ness now gone. He goes back to his briefing as to how he's stealing the MIG-31 from Russia*

Gantsisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

The cost - investment money.
The result - priceless

I said it before.
HK and Rue for prez and vp.

Chrisisall

REAVERMAN

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We might have stopped the genocide in Ruwanda if we had sent in troops, but if we had, don't you think people would have decried Clinton for a “pre-emptive” war on a “sovereign” country that was “no-threat” to the US.

No, we didn't stop the Rwanda genocide because it wasn't immediately profitable. If Rwanda was sitting on a gigantic oil field, we would have been there in a heartbeat, and we would have stayed to "enforce the peace" while the oil companies made big bucks.

Quote:
Doing what’s right is hard. Sitting around and pushing these problems onto the next presidency, that’s easy. The problem is that we like to talk a big story about fighting for what is right, but many of us don’t want to do any real fighting. That puts our leaders in a precarious position: do they undertake wars that they believe are right even though they know they won't have the support of the people or do they just ignore the problem until it bites us in the ass?

No, the choice they have to make is "can they get away with 'securing' more wealth and power". C'mon, these are politicians we are talking about. If you have enough money, you can change a staunch conservative into a progressive liberal. They don't give a damn about right and wrong (except in how it affects their re-election campaign).

Quote:
... and the Cold War is really responsible for shaping much of the last 60 years, particularly the events that many people, critical of the US, like to attribute solely to the US.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was saying that the US was the sole influence, because that wasn't my intention. I was trying to say that the current terrorist situation is all blowback from what the U.S. did during and after the Cold War.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bush the first didn't take out Saddam because he didn't have our support? Stopping genocide gets a president yelled at?

Bush the first believed he would not, and he was probably right. What do you think would have happened if Bush the first had removed Saddam in 1991? All smiles and sunshine?

Some things would have been easier, but not easy. For the most part it would have looked like it looks now, maybe worse. Bush understood this.

The interesting thing about stopping genocide is that once you stop it, it’s no longer there to influence opinion, and if you stop it by force, then your opponents are going to say you are the killer.

And Clinton understood what I’m telling you too. He understood it well. We bombed Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, but we didn’t put boots on the ground. We did put boots on the ground in Somalia but fled at the first sign of bloodshed. Clinton loved to pretend to fight, but he wasn’t about to actually fight, anywhere but Haiti. He was probably serious about Haiti.

And Bush the second understands what I’m telling you too. He understood it before all this happened, as well, in fact he campaigned on it in 2000.

No president wants to get into a protracted war, becasue they know the American people don't want it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE