CA AIDS fundings cut

[John Reynolds]

How is this policy any different with the exception being that the 'Bush Doctrine' takes into account the changing times and technological differential? Where as the Monroe Doctrine provided security against imminent threats by keeping the hemesphere off-limits, in todays world of 24hour flights anywhere and NBC weapons there are no such temporal constructs - instead you must eliminate the threat preempitvly.

And what immediate threat again did Saddam pose to us domestically or our interests abroad? 24-hour flights and NBC weapons have what to do with Iraq? I'm a troll and yet you and others constantly fail to address these questions when I repeatedly bring them up. Oh, according to you we're going to germinate the Middle East with democracy (whether they want it or not). Uh huh. And exactly how, even if successful (which I highly, highly doubt), is that going to suppress a minority of fundamentalist radicals from continuing to operate within the Middle East? We've had one fairly recent domestic terrorist attack perpetrated by an American(s). Are we not an educated, democratic society? So I'm sorry if I completely fail to see any resemblance whatsoever to our invasion of Iraq with the Monroe, Truman, or Julian-Claudian Doctrines containment/expansion (nice skipping around though as you wildly introduce ideas from all fields).

This logic is like the Bush ads: Al Qaeda so love the democratic process of transferring power that a vote Kerry is a vote for bin Laden. Because we all know that they're sitting in their little terrorist camps telling new followers about their glory days in the '90s, what it was like before Dubya got in office and put the royal smack down on them all. How he relentlessly hunts them without respite. I'm sure that's exactly what new recruits are told.

 

[Natoma]

Excuse me? If anything, people are upset about the fact that we went to Iraq while forgetting about the problems in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan had been taken with the number of troops we sent to Iraq, I believe wholeheartedly that Al-Qaeda and all the Taliban would have been caught at Tora Bora. Instead we depended on warlords to do it for us, and surprise surprise, they got away.

Didn't the Soviet's try to invade the country with several divisions too? Natoma, the brilliance of our campaign was the use of Special Ops with overwhelming Airpower and the use of the warlords.

Putting massive American troops would have just raised the 108 American's currently dead into the thousands with little tangible gains guaranteed.

Also, if the Soviets taught us anything that we shoudl all grasp, it's that putting the "number of troops we sent to Iraq" into Afghanistan would have been a disaster. Most of those forces are conventional armored divisions and/or mobile infantry who aren't suited to an assymetrical war. Lets try not to generalize as you did - just putting "troops" down doesn't mean shit.

Vince, the Soviets were not working with the level of technology we have today. It's not like we would have put 150K troops on the ground and they would have had 1980 technology whereas 50K troops had 2001 technology. We needed that amount of troops on the ground so that we wouldn't have to depend on the warlords and their fighters to fight for us. What would that troop strength have allowed us to do? Corner Al-Qaeda and the Taliban with our technology, as well as take the weapons out of the hands of the warlords and truly have a stable nation on our hands, not a nation-city that exists today.

You honestly believe the warlords didn't let the Taliban and Al-Qaeda get away if they were paid enough? They're ruthless mercenaries. They were that way before we went in, and they're that way today. How can we possibly trust them with an issue of the utmost national security? I can't believe you actually consider that a stroke of brilliance on our part. :?

People are upset about Iraq because we were told that the oil would pay for everything and we'd have minimal outlays. We were told that there would be WMD. We were told that there would be terrorist ties. When all of those didn't come to pass, people were naturally reluctant to want to do anything further for the situation. Of course at this point, we have no choice and we have to march forward and make it a success.

First off, "people" aren't upset. Liberals are upset, they've been upset since 2000. I do believe you'll see in the upcoming election that people do understand, that your WMD issue (which is political BS anyways as even Clinton supported attacks into their soverignty under the aegis of WMD) doesn't hold. There are terrorist ties, as has been posted; and Iraq has become the exact type of virtual client state I talked about. It is the centre of the war on terrorism and will be the key to long-term victory.

Sigh. Vince, the difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush attacked without fully vetting the intelligence. [EDIT]That is to say, he committed hundreds of thousands of troops to this endeavour, but the intelligence used, the same as read by Clinton, was not fully vetted before making that decision[/EDIT] It took me 5 minutes of googling to figure out that the Niger claim was bogus. And it certainly didn't take me long to realize that the "intelligence" that was being fed to the administration through the OSP from Chalabi and his cohorts should be taken with a grain of salt considering their stake in seeing Saddam removed. There were questions that needed to be asked before we committed to war. I believe to this day that the reason we went in so quickly without letting the process of inspections and vetting complete is because if that had occurred, the intelligence we had would have been proven shaky at best, or completely wrong at worst (which actually turned out to be the case).

This has nothing to do with the 2000 election, and more to do with the limited number of troops we sent to Afghanistan which has resulted in a country where we have absolutely no control outside of Kabul.

 

[Natoma]

And what immediate threat again did Saddam pose to us domestically or our interests abroad? 24-hour flights and NBC weapons have what to do with Iraq? I'm a troll and yet you and others constantly fail to address these questions when I repeatedly bring them up. Oh, according to you we're going to germinate the Middle East with democracy (whether they want it or not). Uh huh. And exactly how, even if successful (which I highly, highly doubt), is that going to suppress a minority of fundamentalist radicals from continuing to operate within the Middle East? We've had one fairly recent domestic terrorist attack perpetrated by an American(s). Are we not an educated, democratic society? So I'm sorry if I completely fail to see any resemblance whatsoever to our invasion of Iraq with the Monroe, Truman, or Julian-Claudian Doctrines containment/expansion (nice skipping around though as you wildly introduce ideas from all fields).

This logic is like the Bush ads: Al Qaeda so love the democratic process of transferring power that a vote Kerry is a vote for bin Laden. Because we all know that they're sitting in their little terrorist camps telling new followers about their glory days in the '90s, what it was like before Dubya got in office and put the royal smack down on them all. How he relentlessly hunts them without respite. I'm sure that's exactly what new recruits are told.

Agreed. I'm still waiting for the "immediate threat" portion to be answered now that we've found no WMD or terrorist ties. And I've also brought up the fact that in our own great nation, we have militias who I would certainly call crazy terrorists. The Unabomber is a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh. The guy who committed those anthrax attacks, I forget his name, definitely is a terrorist. Charles Manson is definitely a terrorist. All home grown American. Democracy in and of itself won't stop terrorism.

I have to admit though, the ideas presented by the PNAC are certainly enticing. The idea that if you just export democracy to nations, their peoples will accept it and solve all the world's problems is certainly alluring. Unfortunately, thinking about the problem from our own perspective automatically disproves that theory.

 

[Vince]

Actually my point, which I thought rather obvious, was democracy exported to a nation that had never before had such a form of government. None of your examples apply.

Japan, Mexico, Cuba, Philippines, et al.

Japan is a great example, it just illuminated Natoma's.. um.. utter lack of history when he stated:

However, many historians classify pre-war Japan as an Imperial Democracy. Japan had a capitalist society in the 19th century, and opened the door to many democratic changes in the government and economy.It's a fudge, but it certainly doesn't fit the mold of exported democracy (unless you mean our brand of it) via military force.

Japan is a shining example as a culture which was isolated and closed to western ideology. They were total isolanistst (for over 250 years prior) under the previous and Tokugawa governments untill the United States sent Commodore Perry in 1853 to Japan with a fleet of warships to force them into international trade.

Thus, it was American Force (Cmd. Perry in particular) which introduced the first Democratic tendencies, in this case free-trade when in 1854 I believe Japan finally opened several ports to internation trade. Not that they had much choice with several modern American waships sitting in Uraga.

It was American Military force which basically created Japan, from breaking it's isolationist government, to implimenting democracy post WW2.


Also John, Your entire argument is fundimantally fallicious. Democracy's roots are in the 1500 separate poleis of Greece, namely the Athenian democracy of the fifth century IIRC. If Democracy was never exported to a country that didn't previously contain it, it would have had to spring-up in every nation-state independantly.

Instead this didn't occur, we've seen that Democracy and the governmental forms of rule are all homologous to a wide extent. The America's prove this as Democracy wasn't inherient in the native people, but rather imported with the culture and people who were being militaristically persecuted by an external force

 

[Natoma]

Vince, that was international trade. That had nothing to do with Japan's internals at the time. Isolationism != non-democratic.

 

[Vince]

And what immediate threat again did Saddam pose to us domestically or our interests abroad? 24-hour flights and NBC weapons have what to do with Iraq? I'm a troll and yet you and others constantly fail to address these questions when I repeatedly bring them up.

If you have yet to understand the entire concept of post-9/11 terrorism and it's connection to an underlying ideology and how the formation of a client-state is and has proven to be adventageous to a country in assymentric conflict - then yes, you'll never understand.

Oh, according to you we're going to germinate the Middle East with democracy (whether they want it or not). Uh huh. And exactly how, even if successful (which I highly, highly doubt), is that going to suppress a minority of fundamentalist radicals from continuing to operate within the Middle East?

That's not what I'm saying, you're just incapable of grasping the concept. I also refuse to continue arguing when everything needed has already been stated.

So I'm sorry if I completely fail to see any resemblance whatsoever to our invasion of Iraq with the Monroe, Truman, or Julian-Claudian Doctrines containment/expansion (nice skipping around though as you wildly introduce ideas from all fields).

Interdisciplinary thinking is essential in any high-level field or contemporary field which is a complex adaptive system or othewise chaotic system. The world isn't linearly as you're trying to think about it, it's intrinsically non-linear with infleunces and forces acting on it in nonperiodic ways with underlying dynamics that are soo complex it's curious if we'll even even come close to understanding them.

Yet, you're level of thinking - and subsequent comment on "skipping around" just shows me how futile this discussion is. The world isn't Black or White.. it's grey. And you need to apply everything human's have learned, in every field, to see just how grey is is.

 

[John Reynolds]

Also John, Your entire argument is fundimantally fallicious. Democracy's roots are in the 1500 separate poleis of Greece, namely the Athenian democracy of the fifth century IIRC. If Democracy was never exported to a country that didn't previously contain it, it would have had to spring-up in every nation-state independantly.

Because it's impossible to stop the spread of ideas, of philosophies, of belief systems? Throw as much war material and military force at it as you want and you won't change what people choose to believe. What you posit is a new Manifest Destiny for the Iraqi people, one forcibly exported from the West by the neocons to destroy the social and cultural bed of Islamic fundamentalism by toppling a secular government. Uh huh. Bush should fire Karl Rove and hire you instead.

Instead this didn't occur, we've seen that Democracy and the governmental forms of rule are all homologous to a wide extent. The America's prove this as Democracy wasn't inherient in the native people, but rather imported with the culture and people who were being militaristically persecuted by an external force

Great analogy there with North America, Vince. So now we're going to supplant almost the entire Iraqi population with Euro-Americans? That's essentially what we'd have to do for your analogy to be relevent.

 

[Vince]

Vince, that was international trade. That had nothing to do with Japan's internals at the time. Isolationism != non-democratic.

Ahh, right. So Democracies routinely impliment a strict 4-class system without upward movement? Western Literature was banned for over a hundred years and it wasn't untill the opening to internationalism that Japan actually started it's transformation. To quote:

Meiji Japan was determined to close the gap to the Western powers economically and militarily. Drastic reforms were carried out in practically all areas.

The new government aimed to make Japan a democratic state with equality among all its people. The boundaries between the social classes of Tokugawa Japan were gradually broken down. Consequently, the samurai were the big losers of those social reforms since they lost all their privileges. The reforms also included the establishment of human rights such as religious freedom in 1873.

In order to stabilize the new government, the former feudal lords (daimyo) had to return all their lands to the emperor. This was achieved already in 1870 and followed by the restructuring of the country in prefectures.

The education system was reformed after the French and later after the German system. Among those reforms was the introduction of compulsory education.

 

[Natoma]

Ahh, right. So Democracies routinely impliment a strict 4-class system without upward movement?

19th Century America, pre Civil War.
Current Day India, Caste System.

 

[Vince]

Because it's impossible to stop the spread of ideas, of philosophies, of belief systems? Throw as much war material and military force at it as you want and you won't change what people choose to believe. What you posit is a new Manifest Destiny for the Iraqi people, one forcibly exported from the West by the neocons to destroy the social and cultural bed of Islamic fundamentalism by toppling a secular government. Uh huh. Bush should fire Karl Rove and hire you instead.

This debate's over. Your a tool, it's pathetic. You can't refrain from busting out the contemporary political talking points by invoking "Karl Rove" and "NeoCons" and all these other liberal talking points in responce to my responces. You totally overlook all substantive comments and instead turn to this...

Atleast when I bash you it's substantive, you just don't know shit. It's clearn from your positions and arguing points. It's also possible for you to counter-bash me on my incorrect points based on tangible arguments - which you can't do. I don't think you're smart enough frankly and instead you turn to a comment I'd expect out of Natoma filled with nothing but political slams without substance.

You're positions are laugable, as is your knowledge of history or ability to integrate concepts. I may disagree with Natoma, but atleast he has a head on his sholders and there's substance behind his political comments.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child.

Great analogy there with North America, Vince. So now we're going to supplant almost the entire Iraqi population with Euro-Americans? That's essentially what we'd have to do for your analogy to be relevent.

You're an embarrasement. That's not possible and nobody (most def not I) is advocating the mass killing of a population, rather if you would have read my initial comment in this thread:

in which it progressively lost its client states (that were under loose cultural control) that served as physical and ideological buffers against the world and threats around it.

We're giving them the same things the Roman's gave their clients: Protection, their soverignty, and choice of customs and government - in return for close relations.

 

[Vince]

Ahh, right. So Democracies routinely impliment a strict 4-class system without upward movement?

19th Century America, pre Civil War.
Current Day India, Caste System.

There was, um, a post attached to that

Also, There was never a mandatory or government sanctioned class system in the United States, the CSA tried but were defeated. India is a curious example though, although one could say that it's a relic of the British imposing westernized culture on the eastern culture and country via military dominance for so many years.

 

[Natoma]

Atleast when I bash you it's substantive, you just don't know shit. It's clearn from your positions and arguing points. It's also possible for you to counter-bash me on my incorrect points based on tangible arguments - which you can't do. I don't think you're smart enough frankly and instead you turn to a comment I'd expect out of Natoma filled with nothing but political slams without substance.

You're positions are laugable, as is your knowledge of history or ability to integrate concepts. I may disagree with Natoma, but atleast he has a head on his sholders and there's substance behind his political comments.

Huh? On one hand I make political slams that have no substance in them, but on the other hand, there is substance behind my political comments?

Wow. :?

 

[Natoma]

Ahh, right. So Democracies routinely impliment a strict 4-class system without upward movement?

19th Century America, pre Civil War.
Current Day India, Caste System.

There was, um, a post attached to that

Also, There was never a mandatory or government sanctioned class system in the United States, the CSA tried but were defeated. India is a curious example though, although one could say that it's a relic of the British imposing westernized culture on the eastern culture and country via military dominance for so many years.

I'm not sure what you mean. Separate But Equal was a totally mandatory and governmentally sanctioned class system in this country, and so was slavery. Remember blacks were 3/5 human?

And the caste system is hinduism, not british colonialism.

 

[John Reynolds]

This debate's over. Your a tool, it's pathetic. You can't refrain from busting out the contemporary political talking points by invoking "Karl Rove" and "NeoCons" and all these other liberal talking points in responce to my responces. You totally overlook all substantive comments and instead turn to this...

Atleast when I bash you it's substantive, you just don't know shit. It's clearn from your positions and arguing points. It's also possible for you to counter-bash me on my incorrect points based on tangible arguments - which you can't do. I don't think you're smart enough frankly and instead you turn to a comment I'd expect out of Natoma filled with nothing but political slams without substance.

Rants the person who jumped into this thread calling me a pot smoking liberal. Uh huh.

 

[Vince]

Huh? On one hand I make political slams that have no substance in them, but on the other hand, there is substance behind my political comments?

I stated that I'm not basing my comments on sheer politic, it's academic and I've kept it that way by bringing in several different disciplines and histories to prove the case - not just contemporary talking points about the war on terror. I'm bashing him because his counter arguments aren't knowledgable, they're quite pathetic actually.

I then stated that his comments rountinely hark to nothing more than political talking-points, he implied me being a Nazi with a "Reichstad" comment, "NeoCon" is rountinely brought up, as are many political points with no substance behind them.

 

[John Reynolds]

Huh? On one hand I make political slams that have no substance in them, but on the other hand, there is substance behind my political comments?

Wow. :?

I caught that contradiction. That's OK, Vince was so busy foaming at the mouth he stumbled a few times.

 

[Vince]

I'm not sure what you mean. Separate But Equal was a totally mandatory and governmentally sanctioned class system in this country, and so was slavery. Remember blacks were 3/5 human?

Slavery wasn't mandated in the United States, as I stated the CSA tried but ultimatly failed. 3/5ths is grey in as much as it doesn't lock a person down in the jobs or life they lead in the Union. There were propersous and well spoken/powerful black's in the Union, even in politics.

And the caste system is hinduism, not british colonialism.

That's not that I stated. I know this and I'm saying that India's westernized and democratic system (not the caste system) is a relic of the Bristish military incursion and subversion of the culture.

 

[Vince]

I caught that contradiction. That's OK, Vince was so busy foaming at the mouth he stumbled a few times.

It's not a contradiction. It's possible to make a highly political statement which has a sound basis underlying it - Natoma often does.

You don't, my intention was to state that yours are hollow - as opposed to many of his.

 

[John Reynolds]

I then stated that his comments rountinely hark to nothing more than political talking-points, he implied me being a Nazi with a "Reichstad" comment, "NeoCon" is rountinely brought up, as are many political points with no substance behind them.

No, no. Not at all was I implying you are a Nazi. No, I was clearly correlating the fear of horrific events, how they impact a society, and potential abuse of governmental powers in the wake of such occurrances. And furthermore, I'm also not trying to compare the Bush administration to Nazi Germany or Hitler. . .I find such comparisons, like the TV ads last fall, highly insulting. I'm no fan of Bush and I gleefully tar him with rather broad strokes at times, but Hitler-Bush analogies are horribly tacky.

The way you sermonize neocon doctrine, though? And why the shrill "I'm insulted he labelled me a neocon" when you don't hesitate to call me a pot smoking liberal/tool/moron/etc. If I were as rude as Joe I'd start calling you a hypocrite, and a rude one at that (and, no!, I'm not calling you anything here. . .well, other than neocon, but I don't see where that's insulting).

 

[Vince]

.The way you sermonize neocon doctrine, though? And why the shrill "I'm insulted he labelled me a neocon" when you don't hesitate to call me a pot smoking liberal/tool/moron/etc. If I were as rude as Joe I'd start calling you a hypocrite, and a rude one at that (and, no!, I'm not calling you anything here. . .well, other than neocon, but I don't see where that's insulting).

It's not insulting, nor did I state it was. Ive yet to be insulted, but it's hollow. What's a Neo-Conservative? I want your thoughts, not some leftist/far-right website critisizing them. Whose a Neo-Conservative? Where can I register? Which professors are Neo-Cons? What's their history?

It's hollow in that it doesn't exist to any extent, surely nothing like the common leftist talking points about a massive government take-over. It doesn't further a substantive debate is is futile.