Debate and Discussion

Brutal anti-war Senate ad...
bobhhh at 5:30PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Here is a graphic ad being aimed at pro war senators up for reelection in ‘08.

I’m not sure how I feel about it, but the message is so much more direct and forthright than Democrats and progressives usually can manage.

Impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No6HxEt2qg&mode=related&search=
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
mapaghimagsik at 5:37PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Fixed your link.

bobhhh
Here is a graphic ad being aimed at pro war senators up for reelection in ‘08.

I’m not sure how I feel about it, but the message is so much more direct and forthright than Democrats and progressives usually can manage.

Impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No6HxEt2qg&mode=related&search=
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 7:43PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Thanks, I'm a bit code stupid!!
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 8:47PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
bobhhh
Here is a graphic ad being aimed at pro war senators up for reelection in ‘08.

I’m not sure how I feel about it, but the message is so much more direct and forthright than Democrats and progressives usually can manage.

Impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No6HxEt2qg&mode=related&search=



People lost a lot more than arms the last time the United States ran away from a fight.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Shar at 8:56PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Vindibudd
bobhhh
Here is a graphic ad being aimed at pro war senators up for reelection in ‘08.

I’m not sure how I feel about it, but the message is so much more direct and forthright than Democrats and progressives usually can manage.

Impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No6HxEt2qg&mode=related&search=



People lost a lot more than arms the last time the United States ran away from a fight.

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But just to be sure. Exactly what conflict is this from ?
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
bobhhh at 9:05PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
bobhhh
Here is a graphic ad being aimed at pro war senators up for reelection in ‘08.

I’m not sure how I feel about it, but the message is so much more direct and forthright than Democrats and progressives usually can manage.

Impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No6HxEt2qg&mode=related&search=



People lost a lot more than arms the last time the United States ran away from a fight.

I love that cowboy stuff! “ran away from a fight”? What is this the fucking sandbox?? The peace and prosperity of the planet are at stake. Would it kill our government to try honest negotiations and gestures of peace instead of ill conceived, pre-emptive violations of international sovereignty?? Hell that would be stupid, somebody might call us chicken.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
warren at 10:13PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
I don't think the message is really that bold or risky. A veteran loses an arm. While visceral, it carries a very simple message. But very tame in today's time.

If one wants to pander to an emotional response, you can't beat the LBJ Daisy Ad. That's the sort of thing that really evokes feelings.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
Vindibudd at 10:16PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Shar
Vindibudd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But just to be sure. Exactly what conflict is this from ?


The Killing Fields.

That was the result of the U.S. leaving Vietnam.

Not quite calling a person a NAZI. Sorry to disappoint you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 10:20PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
bobhhh
I love that cowboy stuff! “ran away from a fight”? What is this the fucking sandbox?? The peace and prosperity of the planet are at stake. Would it kill our government to try honest negotiations and gestures of peace instead of ill conceived, pre-emptive violations of international sovereignty?? Hell that would be stupid, somebody might call us chicken.

Or it could just be that the U.S. leaving Iraq could lead to World War III because of the absolute lack of stability as a result of the U.S. leaving prematurely. But hey, who cares if Iran invades Iraq and then Israel attacks Iran and then China rolls in to back up Iraq and then the U.S. has to go right back there to support Israel and then Israel nukes Iran while Pakistan invades Afghanistan.

I mean, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Shar at 10:35PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Ahh i wasen't calling you a nazi :<

Godwins law only states that the longer a argument online progresses the higher the chance that someone will make a omparison to nazi's or the second world war.

:)
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
ozoneocean at 10:38PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
Vindibudd
That was the result of the U.S. leaving Vietnam.
That's not not precisely true, that's just from The US president's latest speech about Iraq.
Hmm. Cambodia was a separate conflict, but in the mean time US forces were still in South East Asia in various forms actually contributing to the problems there in various ways. But then again that's not really such a huge blight on the US specifically because it all occurred within the framework of the greater cold war manoeuvrings, as well as the original existing cultural and nationalistic tensions, the collapse of monarchies, the hangovers from post colonialism etc.

In the end though; no, the US scaling down the attack on Vietnam didn't precipitate the deaths in Cambodia and keeping the US forces in strength in Vietnam would have only meant more US, Australian and Viet deaths, not less Cambodian deaths.

It was simplistic and wrong of GW to imply that was the case. And frankly, I was very annoyed by the implications. Politicians have to stop exaggerating and lying like this in order to support militaristic ambitions and behaviour. Give it to us truthfully, in an educated, balanced way, or don't talk about it at all! I firmly believe that. Rallying people with the use of skewed interpretations of history should be left to talk radio hosts and columnists (if that), not elected representatives who should behave to a much better standard (especially ultimate ones like the US president).
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
bobhhh at 10:50PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
bobhhh
I love that cowboy stuff! “ran away from a fight”? What is this the fucking sandbox?? The peace and prosperity of the planet are at stake. Would it kill our government to try honest negotiations and gestures of peace instead of ill conceived, pre-emptive violations of international sovereignty?? Hell that would be stupid, somebody might call us chicken.

Or it could just be that the U.S. leaving Iraq could lead to World War III because of the absolute lack of stability as a result of the U.S. leaving prematurely. But hey, who cares if Iran invades Iraq and then Israel attacks Iran and then China rolls in to back up Iraq and then the U.S. has to go right back there to support Israel and then Israel nukes Iran while Pakistan invades Afghanistan.

I mean, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yeah and the Russki's are gonna drop the bomb if we're not careful.

It's thinking like this that got us in so much trouble to begin with. We are not the world's police, and you know, no one appreciates our efforts to that end. You could go down the line and point to the blowback of all our international gerrymandering and see how things could have been different if we had only acted responsibly. I dont' mean appeasing Hitler, but friends Hussein was no hitler, he wasn't even a credible Il Duce. He was fairly insignifcant as a threat until we double crossed him on Kuwait and even then there wasn't much he could do to us.

At some point enough is enough, if we want to force everybody to play nice, then just drop some nukes and be done with it. Don't send our soldiers overseas as grease for the gears of multinational corporations. I want our servicemen and National guard to protect us, not to make it easier for Exxon and Halliburton to post record profits.

If we really want to live in a peaceful world, then we have to dump this outmoded thinking that says I would rather be feared than respected. You want to ease global conflict, how about feeding the bazillions poor people around the world and build up their infrastructure and make them partners in the world community??? Sure is a hell of a lot cheaper than killing them.

Oh no!! Can't do that, we may not be able to steal their resorces if they stopped starving long enough ask questions. Or maybe its just that “they hate our way of living, they hate freedom” as if bluejeans, Coke and microwave ovens are what they hate. Hell that's probably all they do like about us, cuz usually when they think American, they think about how we are helping some brutal dictator or plutocrat rape their country, like when we supported Saddam and the Shah, because its politically convenient for us.

I tire of hearing calls for peace being treated as naive from people like you, when in fact it is truly naive to believe as we enter a nuclear proliferation era, that we may act as if we can unilaterally continue to bully people into behaving responsibly.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
SpANG at 5:53AM, Aug. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
I really love the way the conservative base is now taking the WRONG lesson away from Viet Nam. I really do.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:05AM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I'm unimpressed with claims that we must stay in Iraq and finish the job because honestly, we haven't started the job. This sort of nation building is a huge undertaking, and we have not taken it on at all.

If we were going to succeed in Iraq, we would need to do more than “hold the line” - we would need to make a massive effort. Not a “surge” - a real ramping up. A serious effort.

I don't see that happening. i don't mean “It won't happen” I mean literally, i do not see that happening now. If the administration was serious, it would be ramping up military spending. It would be raising taxes and issuing war bonds. We would be growing the army and building new arms factories. We'd have been doing that all this time, for years now.

We've done it before, when we wanted to win a war. It's late, but the US could decide tomorrow to mobilize the nation and get moving.

It isn't happening. More to the point, the architects of the Iraqi war never even tried for such an effort. I do agree - there will be terrible consequences for our failure in Iraq. Just as there were terrible consequences when we went into Iraq.

I was against going into Iraq, because I did not think the country was up to the massive effort it would require. If you don't have a parachute - don't jump.

I was right - we didn't have a parachute. We weren't sufficiently serious about the effort. Starting the fight in Iraq and then pulling out is a coward's errand, and every US citizen should be ashamed of our failure. But mostly, all I see is the right and the left arguing over who is going to be blamed. The current administration totally screwed this up - and now they are desperate to make it clear that they are not at fault.

They are at fault, actually, but it doesn't matter. History will just record that arrogance is no replacement for willpower. Or Competence. Or courage.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
mlai at 2:43PM, Aug. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Huh… if you actually read the Wiki link about the killing fields, it says this:
Someone
The massacres ended in 1979, when Communist Vietnam invaded the country, which at that time was officially called Democratic Kampuchea, and toppled the Khmers.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:59PM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
SpANG
I really love the way the conservative base is now taking the WRONG lesson away from Viet Nam. I really do.

Its not about lessons for them. Its all about getting what they want. Until we realize we're dealing with people without conscience, we'll probably keep falling for the cheap bait.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Ronson at 6:05PM, Aug. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Before someone goes on to blame the aftermath of Viet Nam and Cambodia on a US withdrawal, has anyone checked to see how many deaths occured while we were involved in those wars versus how many deaths occured afterward? It seems if less people in a year after we left versus a year while we were there then this might be a less substantial argument. I don't have any idea how to even begin that research though…

And furthermore, could the US have afforded a longer occupation of Viet Nam? It seems to me that things were getting out of hand over there, as they may be now in Iraq.

I mean, if anyone thinks our inevitable withdrawal will be bloodless, they're nuts. The question is whether we are are keeping an unstable situation unstable or whether our presence is doing any actual good.

As long as we're occupying Iraq, the Iraqi government will be unstable. It will certainly seem that any government they have is at least propped up by our soldiers.

The choice? I don't know because they all seem awful. Immediate withdrawal will lead to instant chaos. Splitting the country up into three parts might make it stable enough for us to withdraw, but will inevitably become an obvious civil war. Handing it over to an international peacekeeping force doesn't even seem possible right now, and the UN is very toothless anyway.

Every choice leads to more deaths, it's a false choice to pretend that our staying isn't going to do that as well. The question is which one leads to less deaths, and I certainly don't know. I do know that the Joint Chief of Staff is in for a limited withdrawal of half of our forces. And that most advisors say we can't keep the current levels up indefinitely.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 7:00PM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Ronson
Before someone goes on to blame the aftermath of Viet Nam and Cambodia on a US withdrawal, has anyone checked to see how many deaths occured while we were involved in those wars versus how many deaths occured afterward? It seems if less people in a year after we left versus a year while we were there then this might be a less substantial argument. I don't have any idea how to even begin that research though…

The numbers are fuzzy because just like in this conflict, we don't do body counts.

And furthermore, could the US have afforded a longer occupation of Viet Nam? It seems to me that things were getting out of hand over there, as they may be now in Iraq.

Sure, we could have *afforded* it, but the general idea is that pulling out of Vietnam put us in a better position to deal with the Cold War.

I mean, if anyone thinks our inevitable withdrawal will be bloodless, they're nuts. The question is whether we are are keeping an unstable situation unstable or whether our presence is doing any actual good.

Don't forget the chance our presence is increasing the violence.
As long as we're occupying Iraq, the Iraqi government will be unstable. It will certainly seem that any government they have is at least propped up by our soldiers.

Nevermind, you got it.

The choice? I don't know because they all seem awful. Immediate withdrawal will lead to instant chaos.

Its already chaos. We don't know, because all reports are either whitewashed, or data we don't manage. So all we're doing at this point is spouting conventional wisdom. Most Iraqis want us out.

Splitting the country up into three parts might make it stable enough for us to withdraw, but will inevitably become an obvious civil war. Handing it over to an international peacekeeping force doesn't even seem possible right now, and the UN is very toothless anyway.


You think Turkey will put up with Kurdistan?

Every choice leads to more deaths, it's a false choice to pretend that our staying isn't going to do that as well. The question is which one leads to less deaths, and I certainly don't know. I do know that the Joint Chief of Staff is in for a limited withdrawal of half of our forces. And that most advisors say we can't keep the current levels up indefinitely.


I think the chief of staff is playacting again. They could pull the troops if they wanted – deciding that the decider is batshit crazy.


last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Phantom Penguin at 7:00PM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
The Cambodians killed their own people during The Killing Fields. It was their own Khmer Rouge government.


My opinion on the war: We fucked everything up, now we have to unfuck it.

Or to make it easier? When you were a kid and spilled something all over the carpet and ran away without doing anything about it, what happened? You got in more trouble. If we stay and clean up the mess we made, we will be better off.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 7:30PM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Phantom Penguin
The Cambodians killed their own people during The Killing Fields. It was their own Khmer Rouge government.


My opinion on the war: We fucked everything up, now we have to unfuck it.

Or to make it easier? When you were a kid and spilled something all over the carpet and ran away without doing anything about it, what happened? You got in more trouble. If we stay and clean up the mess we made, we will be better off.

That's the Pottery Barn excuse, which I don't quite buy, because lets say the kid's in a china shop, and breaks something. Every time he tries to pick it up, he breaks something else.

So enough with the analogy. Its all great to be willing to unfuck it, but no one knows how. More than that, nobody wants to . We're having too much fun playing soldier with other people's kids.

And, most Iraqis *want* us out. Maybe its time to go and let the people who really can restore some sort of normalacy do it – the Iraqi people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:27PM, Aug. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
mapaghimagsik
Phantom Penguin
The Cambodians killed their own people during The Killing Fields. It was their own Khmer Rouge government.


My opinion on the war: We fucked everything up, now we have to unfuck it.

Or to make it easier? When you were a kid and spilled something all over the carpet and ran away without doing anything about it, what happened? You got in more trouble. If we stay and clean up the mess we made, we will be better off.

That's the Pottery Barn excuse, which I don't quite buy, because lets say the kid's in a china shop, and breaks something. Every time he tries to pick it up, he breaks something else.

So enough with the analogy. Its all great to be willing to unfuck it, but no one knows how. More than that, nobody wants to . We're having too much fun playing soldier with other people's kids.

And, most Iraqis *want* us out. Maybe its time to go and let the people who really can restore some sort of normalacy do it – the Iraqi people.

I agree to a extent. I want the Iraqi people to fix it, then it would be their victory, which would be great for national pride. But with their current government they wont do it. It will fall even further into Civil war, with or without us it seems.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
arteestx at 8:36PM, Aug. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Vindibudd
People lost a lot more than arms the last time the United States ran away from a fight.

I love how conservatives are now trying to rewrite history. What is it that we did wrong in Vietnam?

Did we not fight long enough? We were there longer than in WW2.
Did we not try hard enough? We dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in Europe during WW2.
Did we not give the South Vietnamese govt enough time to become stable? I ask anyone to point to evidence that suggests the govt was making progress before we pulled out.

Seriously, this “ran away from a fight” sounds tough, but what does it mean? What was the alternative? What should we have done in Vietnam that would have resulted in a stable situation?

When the liberals wanted to get out of Vietnam, the conservatives all said that there'd be a domino effect, that Asia would turn communist, that we'd end up with larger wars afterwards (maybe even World War 3!!). They did all they could to scare America into not pulling out or else there'd be DISASTER for all of us. And yes, there were more killings and instability. But none of the WW3, losing Asia, larger global wars ever came as a result of getting out of a war that we shouldn't have gotten involved in to begin with. Those dire predictions turned out to be a bunch of hooey. What could the US have done to make Vietnam end with a better result?

America never “ran away” from a fight. They got out of a messy unwinnable situation in the least-horrible way possible, and what we should have learned is never NEVER get into the same kind of mess again. Learning from history, not rewriting it, is what we should be doing.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
Vindibudd at 9:22PM, Aug. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
arteestx
What could the US have done to make Vietnam end with a better result?

America never “ran away” from a fight. They got out of a messy unwinnable situation in the least-horrible way possible, and what we should have learned is never NEVER get into the same kind of mess again. Learning from history, not rewriting it, is what we should be doing.

Vietnam was not an unwinnable situation. The reasons for withdrawal in that war basically amount to domestic politics where it was more important to bring down Nixon than it was to let the war be won with a Republican in charge. It was started by Democrats who didn't really want to fight to win and finished by Democrats who cared more about politics in the end than the lives of South Vietnamese.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Shar at 2:26AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Vindibudd
arteestx
What could the US have done to make Vietnam end with a better result?

America never “ran away” from a fight. They got out of a messy unwinnable situation in the least-horrible way possible, and what we should have learned is never NEVER get into the same kind of mess again. Learning from history, not rewriting it, is what we should be doing.

Vietnam was not an unwinnable situation. The reasons for withdrawal in that war basically amount to domestic politics where it was more important to bring down Nixon than it was to let the war be won with a Republican in charge. It was started by Democrats who didn't really want to fight to win and finished by Democrats who cared more about politics in the end than the lives of South Vietnamese.

I'm confused. Doesn't keeping in the war disregard the lifes of the people you are fighting ?
Or is one side worth more than the other ?
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
bobhhh at 2:40AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Phantom Penguin
I want the Iraqi people to fix it, then it would be their victory, which would be great for national pride. But with their current government they wont do it. It will fall even further into Civil war, with or without us it seems.

Agreed and while we're at it, why not let the other middle east countries take care of their problems? Let's not for get if we hadn't gone rushing into Kuwait to save the Saudis' cousins who were provoking Saddam Hussein, we wouldn't have pissed off Iraq in the first place and gained a new enemy. Hussein if you remember was a good soldier on the CIA payroll while he was at war with Iran.

I think it's time those people started rolling up their sleeves and settling their own regional conflicts. The sooner we get off the oil teat, the sooner we can divorce ourselves from centuries of blood feuds.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
mlai at 5:52AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
@ Vindibudd:

Are you implying that Nixon should have been allowed to stay in power?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
warren at 7:50AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
Nixon resigned.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
Vindibudd at 10:09AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mlai
@ Vindibudd:

Are you implying that Nixon should have been allowed to stay in power?

No, I am implying that the Democrats only had one thing on their minds.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 10:10AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Shar
I'm confused. Doesn't keeping in the war disregard the lifes of the people you are fighting ?
Or is one side worth more than the other ?

Yes, actually one side is worth more than the other. I'm not one of these people that thinks that there is no evil in the world.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
arteestx at 1:51PM, Aug. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Vindibudd
Vietnam was not an unwinnable situation.

Then again I ask; how could the U.S. have won Vietnam? What tactically, militarily, etc. could have been done after April 1975 that would have resulted in our winning?

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved