user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Too early to tell Cathexis. What's at the crux of the BD is #4, whether or not we can spark lasting change that brings the Middle East into the 21st Century, squashing their retrograde movement of fundamentalist governments and sheep-like citizenship. All of the other movements of the Bush doctrine are predicated entirely on the hope that we can turn this region around. This will take 20, 30 maybe 50 years to realize.
Just because we live in an instant-gratification culture, does not mean we need to engage in instant-gratification politics.
Interesting choice of word there. Spark. As if America just needs to spark revolutions into happening. The reality is quite different. America needs the spark, the bullet and the barrel to carry out its stupid foreign policies that only achieve death.
We don't have the credibility to spark ANY form of change these days. Our VAUNTED democracy is being represented by those thugs at Abu Ghraib, by the mindless chain of command that insists that those actions were the decisions of a few low-level personnel, by an administration that repeatedly lies about its reasons for starting this war, flying clearly in the face of mounting evidence that refutes those reasons. We need to dispose of both the policy AND the policy MAKERS. But, as much as I HATE to admit it, we're going to be UNABLE to change horses in mid-stream, as the policy views of the Dems are too radically different from those of the Republicraps, and the state of affairs can't HOPE to survive the turn in dynamic. We're STUCK here. God help us all...
Only 3 is wrong. We can't just stand by if the cowards in Western Europe don't have the balls to fight.
Churchill called for preemptive, unilateral action against germany in the 30s, he was condemned as a warmonger and largely ignored. Chamberlain wanted to avoid war at any cost, and he was praised across europe. Which one does history record as being correct? Which one's plan would have saved millions of lives? This is why history is taught, so we can learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. However, it doesn't seem to be working.
herz: I would balk at drawing many comparisons with the threat of Nazi Germany on the move vs in-the-dumps Iraq.
In the early 30s germany was down on the dumps, only a few people actually considered them a threat, and in fact they only became a threat after years of being left to rearm unhindered by the international community. It was frances job to see to it that germany didn't build weapons of war, forbidden by the treaty of versaille. But they kinda dropped the ball on that one, then sixty years later they made the same mistake.
Why do you always compare the present situation to an event in history that suits your argument, herzog? There are other events in history that don't support destroying everything in the middle east. Much as you would like that to happen.
Way back in 1724 there was a man who kept comparing the events of the day to historical heppenings. Everyone thought he was dick.
Ok cretin, find me a historical event that shows leaving a powerhungry madman in power and allowing him to build up his military has been a GOOD thing.
cretin, in a nutshell, you just admitted to not buying into the relevance of history. So, with what do you use to formulate your suggestions for the future course of society? Hunches, perhaps? Maybe you go with whatever sounds controversial? How can anyone claim to have perspective on anything then?
I'll wait patiently for a mean-spirited remark.
cretin-
At the risk of sounding trite
"He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it".
I'm not discounting the importance of history, but herzog is using an historical event as proof of the supposed validity of his arguments. History is written by the victors, too so of course all the losers were power hungry madmen. All these historical comparisons leav out the fact that Saddam was and probably still is a creation of American secret services. You can compare anything to a historical event that suits your particular argument. And when that argument is that Bush is doing the right thing it sho' is particular.
herz: Not a good analogy. In Iraq, we face myriad problems that were never threatening in the German scenario: the ethnic and sectarian friability of the state, the suspicion of outsiders, the role of religious fanaticism, and, not incidentally, the roles of Syria and Iran.
In germany we did have to deal with religious fanaticism, of a different sort. There where people who remained loyal to hitler even after death who kept fighting the occupation. And I doubt sharing a border with the USSR made life any easier. No, it's not a perfect analogy, analogies never are, but it's close enough.
So cretin, hitler got a bad rep because he lost, and if he'd won we wouldn't think so badly of him? Doubtful.
History is useful, as I said, to learn from mistakes. Leaving dicators who've shown they want to conquer their neighbors in power is not a good thing, the longer you leave them to fester the more people end up dying in the long run. And as many of those people are invariably americans I'd rather not see that happen.
And have you find a historical analogy that would suggest leaving saddam in power would have saved lives and promoted peace?
herz: Most of the world looks at Bush by that criteria.
Then most of the world is full of idiots.
Don't give me straightlines, young man! ;-)
|
|
