a question for Democrats

[OleMissCub]

 

That said, his stature was very noticeable well before the Cole or the African embassy bombings.

 

Yes, but your average American had never heard of him before those incidents, that's the point.

[Banedon]

 

That said, his stature was very noticeable well before the Cole or the African embassy bombings.

 

Yes, but your average American had never heard of him before those incidents, that's the point.

 

But I don't think that was frostwyrm's point, which is where this spinoff discussion began. He was referring to Clinton's "easy circumstances" compared to Bush, and how no one had heard of Bin Laden, and while Bin Laden's status as a target has certainly increased since 9/11, it's not like he magically appeared that day. The Clinton administration was well aware of him and had about as much success getting him as the Bush administration has.

[OleMissCub]

 

That said, his stature was very noticeable well before the Cole or the African embassy bombings.

 

Yes, but your average American had never heard of him before those incidents, that's the point.

 

But I don't think that was frostwyrm's point, which is where this spinoff discussion began. He was referring to Clinton's "easy circumstances" compared to Bush, and how no one had heard of Bin Laden, and while Bin Laden's status as a target has certainly increased since 9/11, it's not like he magically appeared that day. The Clinton administration was well aware of him and had about as much success getting him as the Bush administration has.

 

No argument here. My point was just in response to Derwood's comment about him being known as a rebel that we funded. I think most Americans first heard about Bin Laden when Clinton tried to kill him via airstrike after the embassy bombings.

[Derwood]

 

That said, his stature was very noticeable well before the Cole or the African embassy bombings.

 

Yes, but your average American had never heard of him before those incidents, that's the point.

 

But I don't think that was frostwyrm's point, which is where this spinoff discussion began. He was referring to Clinton's "easy circumstances" compared to Bush, and how no one had heard of Bin Laden, and while Bin Laden's status as a target has certainly increased since 9/11, it's not like he magically appeared that day. The Clinton administration was well aware of him and had about as much success getting him as the Bush administration has.

 

No argument here. My point was just in response to Derwood's comment about him being known as a rebel that we funded. I think most Americans first heard about Bin Laden when Clinton tried to kill him via airstrike after the embassy bombings.

 

i didn't mean we knew about him pre-terrorism, i'm just saying i learned about him in the context of "he's a terrible terrorist dude who we funded and trained woops lol"

[OleMissCub]

i didn't mean we knew about him pre-terrorism, i'm just saying i learned about him in the context of "he's a terrible terrorist dude who we funded and trained woops lol"

 

Yes, but I think it's lame when people (not saying you) try and make the argument that we brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because we trained these people and attempt to lay blame on this leader or that leader for doing so.

[seanimal]

i didn't mean we knew about him pre-terrorism, i'm just saying i learned about him in the context of "he's a terrible terrorist dude who we funded and trained woops lol"

 

Yes, but I think it's lame when people (not saying you) try and make the argument that we brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because we trained these people and attempt to lay blame on this leader or that leader for doing so.

 

You mean like blaming Reagan for the CIA's funding of the mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? I think that is a poor argument, but there is something to the notion that we shouldn't have done that. I don't necessarily believe that what we did there, in supporting those groups politically and monetarily, has directly lead to the terrorism we experience now. What we gave them they really weren't using against us until we went into Iraq. However, there is something to the notion that to some extent, our foreign policy is flawed because we are willing to sacrifice a bunch of "little picture" scenarios for "larger picture" scenarios. It's this whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well, no, not if the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. It's like when one reads stories about how elite units of our military are training insurgent groups in Iran. Sure, it'd be nice to not to have to deal with the Iranian elite, but do you really know what you're attempting to replace them with?

[Sammy Sofa]

i didn't mean we knew about him pre-terrorism, i'm just saying i learned about him in the context of "he's a terrible terrorist dude who we funded and trained woops lol"

 

Yes, but I think it's lame when people (not saying you) try and make the argument that we brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because we trained these people and attempt to lay blame on this leader or that leader for doing so.

 

You mean like blaming Reagan for the CIA's funding of the mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? I think that is a poor argument, but there is something to the notion that we shouldn't have done that. I don't necessarily believe that what we did there, in supporting those groups politically and monetarily, has directly lead to the terrorism we experience now. What we gave them they really weren't using against us until we went into Iraq. However, there is something to the notion that to some extent, our foreign policy is flawed because we are willing to sacrifice a bunch of "little picture" scenarios for "larger picture" scenarios. It's this whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well, no, not if the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. It's like when one reads stories about how elite units of our military are training insurgent groups in Iran. Sure, it'd be nice to not to have to deal with the Iranian elite, but do you really know what you're attempting to replace them with?

 

My gripe is less with the wartime support and more with the virtual abandonment of our supposed allies almost as soon as the Soviets were gone. That's infinitely more damaging than supplying them with money ad weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets. Hell, we're almost doing it again now. By the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan was already an afterthought. Outside of a few isolated areas where we have troops, the place is still wild and unchecked, and we seemingly have zero problem leaving that way. Ooooh, their leader looks like Ben Kinglsey and he wears funny hats and he seems so nice when he comes to DC...everything must be fine! WE WON!

 

Bah. We don't give a rat's crap about "hearts and minds."

[OleMissCub]

We are still the most benign superpower of all time. To the Europeans, we are a country of Christian zealots. To the Islamic world, our people are disgusting sexual deviants and our government is run by Jews. I don't think the United States can win in anything we do.

 

I'm not sure how that relates to anything here, but it was just a thought that I had.

[Sammy Sofa]

We are still the most benign superpower of all time.

 

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is.

 

What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all.

[OleMissCub]

We are still the most benign superpower of all time.

 

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is.

 

What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all.

 

My post had zero to do with your post. It was just a random thought.

[Sammy Sofa]

We are still the most benign superpower of all time.

 

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is.

 

What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all.

 

My post had zero to do with your post. It was just a random thought.

 

And it's a random thought that is ultimately unrealistic since the world isn't a static, non-subjective place. There's really no way you can definitevely come to a point and say we're "the most good." There's also no point in ever bothering to rest on our laurels since our goal should always to be doing better since our capacity to do good is so great, as is our capaciy to do "bad."

Edited January 16, 2008 by Sammy Sofa

[OleMissCub]

And it's a random thought that is ultimately unrealistic since the world isn't a static, non-subjective place. There's really no way you can definitevely come to a point and say we're "the most good."

 

It's my opinion. Name a superpower more benign in human history.

 

There's also no point in ever bothering to rest on our larels since our goal should always to be doing better since our capacity to do good is so great, as is our capaciy to do "bad."

 

Not sure why you are on the attack on this issue. I said nothing about resting on our laurels. Didn't even come close to saying anything like that.

[Sammy Sofa]

And it's a random thought that is ultimately unrealistic since the world isn't a static, non-subjective place. There's really no way you can definitevely come to a point and say we're "the most good."

 

It's my opinion. Name a superpower more benign in human history.

 

That's what I'm talking about when this is too broad and subjective. What are we comparing?

 

There's also no point in ever bothering to rest on our larels since our goal should always to be doing better since our capacity to do good is so great, as is our capaciy to do "bad."

 

Not sure why you are on the attack on this issue. I said nothing about resting on our laurels. Didn't even come close to saying anything like that.

 

Because declaring ourselves to be "the best superpower" seemingly implies we've reached some kind of finish line and we can declare ourselves the winner. How can we be the "most good" or "best" or "most benign" if our run isn't even done?

[OleMissCub]

That's what I'm talking about when this is too broad and subjective. What are we comparing?

 

I'm comparing the good and the bad that superpowers in human history have contributed. I think America has done more good than bad. It's not a fact declaration but it's just my opinion on the matter.

 

 

Because declaring ourselves to be "the best superpower" seemingly implies we've reached some kind of finish line and we can declare ourselves the winner. How can we be the "most good" or "best" or "most benign" if our run isn't even done?

 

I disagree. My comment wasn't meant to be a statement of finality or anything such as that. It was merely a comment based upon the fact that I think the America-bashing that we see in this country and abroad is not totally in tune with the reality of the situation.

 

And don't pretend like I'm being some ultra-nationalist whacko by saying this. I'm obviously not beyond attacking my own country's past and present. I have SUPER problems with our foreign policy decisions. We should have never even BEEN over in Afghanistan in the 80's.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's what I'm talking about when this is too broad and subjective. What are we comparing?

 

I'm comparing the good and the bad that superpowers in human history have contributed. I think America has done more good than bad. It's not a fact declaration but it's just my opinion on the matter.

 

Fair enough. My argument is that in the less than 100 years we've been a superpower, we've been arguably responsible for more deaths than most, maybe all, other superpowers throughout history. To me, that alone right there keeps us from really being too benign.

 

 

Because declaring ourselves to be "the best superpower" seemingly implies we've reached some kind of finish line and we can declare ourselves the winner. How can we be the "most good" or "best" or "most benign" if our run isn't even done?

 

I disagree. My comment wasn't meant to be a statement of finality or anything such as that. It was merely a comment based upon the fact that I think the America-bashing that we see in this country and abroad is not totally in tune with the reality of the situation.

 

And don't pretend like I'm being some ultra-nationalist whacko by saying this. I'm obviously not beyond attacking my own country's past and present. I have SUPER problems with our foreign policy decisions. We should have never even BEEN over in Afghanistan in the 80's.

 

I don't think you're a whacko. I just don't think it's an assertion that can be made so simply.

[OleMissCub]

Fair enough. My argument is that in the less than 100 years we've been a superpower, we've been arguably responsible for more deaths than most, maybe all, other superpowers throughout history. To me, that alone right there keeps us from really being too benign.

 

What? I can name 4 superpowers in the past century alone that have caused more death than us: the Empire of Japan, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China.

 

What millions upon millions of people has the United States been directly responsible for killing?

[Sammy Sofa]

Fair enough. My argument is that in the less than 100 years we've been a superpower, we've been arguably responsible for more deaths than most, maybe all, other superpowers throughout history. To me, that alone right there keeps us from really being too benign.

 

What? I can name 4 superpowers in the past century alone that have caused more death than us: the Empire of Japan, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China.

 

What millions upon millions of people has the United States been directly responsible for killing?

 

Actualy, that's a good point, I wasn't thinking...I meant to say prior to other modern superpower, the USSR, but I screwed up. I was thinking from the viewpoint of sustained empires throughout history, a la the Persian, British, Spanish or Roman.

 

The other two are where you run into with what I find too subjective about this. Most historians wouldn't count Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany as comparable superpowers or even empires to what we're talking about with post-WW2 America, USSR, or even other superpowers/empires throughout history. Of course, you could also argue that what we generally believe is a "superpower" didn't exist prior to 1945. If that's the case, you could even further argue that China was by no means a superpower during Mao's time and has only relatively recently reached the point where it could even be considered a superpower. That leaves the only models for superpower-dom as the USSR and the USA, in which case my more deaths point falls apart. But at the same time, is being more benign than the Soviets any great feat?

 

The subjective part I throw out there with the deaths is how can you even accurately judge it? If our money or weapons are involved in conflict, aren't we arguably responsible for the deaths? No, you're not gonna trump Stalin's numbers, not even close, but again, does that really make us truly "benign?" I'd still argue we have easily been responsible to varying degrees for millions of deaths over the last 60+ years. Is that truly benign? We've shown no qualms with pushing other nations into conflict, or choosing sides in them and supplyin them with weapons, resources money or even military aid/advising. We've entered more international, large scale armed conflicts ourselves than any other nation or superpower since WW2. Is that really benign? Do we do a ton of good? Of course. Are we benign? In my opinion, not even close.

[seanimal]

But are we malignant?

[frostwyrm]

Eh, so bin Laden was crawling around in the 90's. That kinda sidesteps my point, which is that the 90's were a once-in-a-lifetime set of super favorable circumstances for a president. As presidential assignments go, the 1990's were a hanging curveball over the heart of the plate.

[satxcubfan]

We are still the most benign superpower of all time. To the Europeans, we are a country of Christian zealots. To the Islamic world, our people are disgusting sexual deviants and our government is run by Jews. I don't think the United States can win in anything we do.

 

I'm not sure how that relates to anything here, but it was just a thought that I had.

 

 

Hey! Leave me out of it! :twisted:

 

and, don't count out Rudy in the GOP... My bet's still on him to receive the nomination... He's moderate enough to win the whole ball of wax, IMO.

[Banedon]

Eh, so bin Laden was crawling around in the 90's. That kinda sidesteps my point, which is that the 90's were a once-in-a-lifetime set of super favorable circumstances for a president. As presidential assignments go, the 1990's were a hanging curveball over the heart of the plate.

 

Like I said in the post where I pointed out the bin Laden thing...I knew I was nitpicking. :P

[Skyballer]

The worst democrat is still better than the best republican ;)

I think Derwood is suffering from Dyslexia. :wink:

[Sammy Sofa]

Stop skyballing.

[Roast]

Stop skyballing.

:lol: I dont know why i still think that's so funny.

[Derwood]

The worst democrat is still better than the best republican ;)

I think Derwood is suffering from Dyslexia. :wink:

 

How's Tom Tancredo doing in the polls this week?