Liberal vs. Conservative

[Bagar-]

Wasn't meant to be funny or witty. I was just saying based on what you said, you are a socialist. That's all.

Using the same logic as above stated, one can also conclude that you're a fucking moron.

[Noysyrump]

Why waste time trying to convert someone? Especially idiots.

You're right, just keep building those roads.. you know, the ones that are basically outdated before they're completed. Because after all, there's unlimited space to build an infinite amount of pavement and parking spaces. Give me a 8 lane highway outside my front door bitch! Don't forget the infinite amount of money to maintain those roads, the infinite amount of dependence on mid-east countries for oil, and unlimited atmosphere to handle all of the emissions. A mass transit system that's cleaner and more efficient? Fuck that!

How often do you take the trolly/tram/train whatever mass transit your city has compared to driving or getting driven? I drive evrywhere, along with 99% of the rest of the population. The Few places where mass transit really works, its because You can get anywhere or dont need to go far, such as the subways in tokyo or new york.


And a road is a lot cheaper to maintain than a monorail wouldnt you agree?

[Zaelath]

Have you ever lived anywhere with decent mass transit? Even if I'm just visiting Sydney, I take the train everywhere that isn't walking distance. Same with Melbourne (though it's more trams there, since there's no underground). And neither of them is world's best. Hell, in Melbourne you can get a public transport all-day ticket that's cheaper than parking...

Again, monorails are a poor attempt at late planning for mass transit systems and a straw man in the argument of "road v's mass transit".

[Sueven]

How often do you take the trolly/tram/train whatever mass transit your city has compared to driving or getting driven?

80-90%

[Kaldaur]

Edinburgh is another city with wonderful mass transit. The rail system in Britain (not familiar with Europe's) is wonderful, as you can get anywhere in the country, Ireland excluded, in about 4 hours. Day passes, 10 ride passes, full time passenger passes all exist and serve as a huge method of transportation for its citizens. When I was on their highways, there weren't that many cars out, at least compared to America's. The trains, in comparison, were always full.

Take it for what you will. I don't think that's a particularly apt way to judge conservative versus liberal. It's more of a "this is a part of our society and we take advantage of it". American society developed differently than Britain. Don't use that as an excuse for someone's political leanings. If the system is there, I'll take it. Doesn't mean I'm a tree hugging liberal or a fiscally responsible conservative. Here's an idea for this topic: how about we stop labeling each other and instead try to get some meaningful work done in our society? We spend so much time trying to figure out how many percentile points someone has on the neocon charts or the Kucinich Gauge that we don't get anything actually accomplished.

[Truant]

You're a socialist.

Why do you feel the need to label people?

[Siji]

How often do you take the trolly/tram/train whatever mass transit your city has

My city doesn't have it, so it's not an option for me. However if it was, I'd use it as much as possible. Gas is too expensive and the roads are too crowded. Taking a direct 'mass transit' system like a trolly/tram/train would be the fastest possible method to get somewhere.

And a road is a lot cheaper to maintain than a monorail wouldnt you agree?

No, I wouldn't. Go find your own numbers, but I'd place a bet that building and maintaining a monorail system is vastly less expensive than building and maintaining the same distance of road or highway. Especially since people are usually paying tolls/fees to ride those monorail systems.

[Funkmasterr]

When it comes to mass transit, another thing to keep in mind is places like NY, Chicago, etc have had that mass transit for time out of mind. Take MN for example, it is so costly to move businesses/houses/roads/etc to build the light rail that we are starting to build that it is going to be (according to their plans) about another 30-50 years before it's a good enough infrastructure to replace driving for your average person. I would have to imagine that in many places it is just plain not possible to rearrange the infrastructure to support mass transit.

That isn't to say I'm against it, because I'm not - I would love to be able to take a train to work (if I could walk to it from home, I wouldn't be interested if I had to park & ride as I'm only a 15 minute drive from downtown Minneapolis where I work anyhow) however, I like fast luxury cars and speeding down the highway, and I'll never cut driving out of my life entirely, the commute to work is the only thing that would change.

[Canelek]

Now that I live downtown, I take the light rail in to work 3 out of five days. I will up that to 4 or 5 days/week once I am settled in. It's pretty fucking cool since I can walk down to the MAX station with a nice view of Mt St Helens. Hop on the westbound, and be at work 20 minutes later.... my stop is actually adjacent to my work parking lot.

Need to get a decent backpack for grabbing groceries now...

[Noysyrump]

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Gary Hubbell is a regular columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly.

And therin lies the problem with "liberal" politics. Pandering to special intrests and ignoring the majority. I had no idea this guy actually knew me, but many of those points are me to the tee.

[Fash]

Hehe.. I like that article, but I wonder... is the Angry White Man vote enough to decide the election as he says?... I'm not so sure.

[Spang]

The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American...

There's the first problem with the above article. There may be more problems within the article, but I stopped reading it after the above quote.

The race and gender of a person shouldn't factor into any of this.

The article should have read:

The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Someday we will get there. For now, it is a groundbreaking first time event. To not say it would be dishonest.

[Chidoro]

And therin lies the problem with "liberal" politics. Pandering to special intrests and ignoring the majority. I had no idea this guy actually knew me, but many of those points are me to the tee.

So conservative politics/ians don't pander to special interests?

a. you can't just blanket a person's opinion over the multitude of topics as conservative, liberal or the various other forms of thought.
b. you really are a dope and there is so much proof of that just in this thread alone.

[Noysyrump]

Well I disagree with the article too, mainly the title. To think it's only white people who feel this way, or think this would of course, be incorrect.

But it discusses the very point, I was trying to make with the whole subject of mass transit vs. vehiclular traffic. When a special intrest group stops something that 90% of the people want or need, and we allow it, nothing good or needed can be done. The whole subject of mass transit is mute, I only use that as an example. It shares the stage with endless other topics that we allow some minority to withhold from the people as a whole. Whether it be health care, green taxes, gay rights to marriage, etcetera, we need to realize that when we 'do good for some group' it is often at the expense of the majority.

[Animale]

I thought protection of minority rights from a fickle majority was one of the founding principles of the U.S.A. (the Senate being the main mechanism of this). Silly ol' me.

Of course, everybody is a minority somewhere in some manner...
Animale

[Sueven]

Hahahhaa...

I like how the "Angry White Man" might be "a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green," he might be "dirt-poor to filthy rich," live any lifestyle from "urban sophisticate to rural redneck." OK, so we've got a really inclusive category.

Of course, this inclusive category is defined in the following ways:

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country.

“Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to... hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys

He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books.

He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational

Right...

Listen, the article describes a certain demographic of angry white men, but that's a misleading term to apply. This describes angry white republican men.

Find me a "filthy rich" "urban sophisticate" from "the left coast" who's a member of the Green Party and knows that his wife is an irrational, emotional creature, enjoys hunting deer and calling turkey, knows how to weld a new bumper for his truck, and gets really pissed off when he sees Spanish employed and I'll eat my socks.

I'm not saying that the interests of angry white republican men aren't valid or that they're not a politically important group. I'm just saying that acting like this is some broad consensus is absurd. Angry white republican men are a minority group with a particular agenda just like any other.

[Noysyrump]

And therin lies the problem with "liberal" politics. Pandering to special intrests and ignoring the majority. I had no idea this guy actually knew me, but many of those points are me to the tee.

So conservative politics/ians don't pander to special interests?

a. you can't just blanket a person's opinion over the multitude of topics as conservative, liberal or the various other forms of thought.
b. you really are a dope and there is so much proof of that just in this thread alone.

A conservative, no. A republican, yes.

a) when it is a conservative viewpoint of 'the good of the majority' then yes, I belive you can.

b) yes resort to namecalling of those that don't agree with you, seems to be the liberal way.

[Fash]

I'm not saying that the interests of angry white republican men aren't valid or that they're not a politically important group. I'm just saying that acting like this is some broad consensus is absurd. Angry white republican men are a minority group with a particular agenda just like any other.

Granted, but I think the point was that their agenda is only about being able to do what they want, not stopping others from doing what they want... and that the playing field should be fair, not cater to specific groups.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'm not saying that the interests of angry white republican men aren't valid or that they're not a politically important group. I'm just saying that acting like this is some broad consensus is absurd. Angry white republican men are a minority group with a particular agenda just like any other.

Granted, but I think the point was that their agenda is only about being able to do what they want, not stopping others from doing what they want... and that the playing field should be fair, not cater to specific groups.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field.

Amen.

[Nick]

Granted, but I think the point was that their agenda is only about being able to do what they want, not stopping others from doing what they want.

I think about 700,000 dead Iraqi's may feel a little differently about that particularly idiotic remark (you know, if they were alive and could actually feel anything anymore).

[Sueven]

Granted, but I think the point was that their agenda is only about being able to do what they want, not stopping others from doing what they want... and that the playing field should be fair, not cater to specific groups.

Sure, if by "fair" you mean "entrenching the status quo." Just because the world is arranged in a particular way does not mean that the arrangement is "natural" or "fair" or that maintaining the arrangement is somehow the "fair" thing to do.

If you and I are in the midst of playing a series of games of basketball, and each of my baskets is worth two points and each of yours is worth one, maintaining that arrangement is not inherently "fair" simply because it represents the status quo.

In life generally, it's very important to be able to answer any question that begins with "why" with something other than "that's the status quo."

That said, there is something to be said for the status quo, and it should not be changed without justification and consideration of consequences.

If you care to discuss further, we can take it to PM's.

edit: And Nick's point is a fair one.

[Noysyrump]

Find me a "filthy rich" "urban sophisticate" from "the left coast" who's a member of the Green Party and knows that his wife is an irrational, emotional creature, enjoys hunting deer and calling turkey, knows how to weld a new bumper for his truck, and gets really pissed off when he sees Spanish employed and I'll eat my socks.

Whether or not he's republican, is debatable.

[Chidoro]

And therin lies the problem with "liberal" politics. Pandering to special intrests and ignoring the majority. I had no idea this guy actually knew me, but many of those points are me to the tee.

So conservative politics/ians don't pander to special interests?

a. you can't just blanket a person's opinion over the multitude of topics as conservative, liberal or the various other forms of thought.
b. you really are a dope and there is so much proof of that just in this thread alone.

A conservative, no. A republican, yes.

then you are stupid.

a) when it is a conservative viewpoint of 'the good of the majority' then yes, I belive you can.

then you are stupid

b) yes resort to namecalling of those that don't agree with you, seems to be the liberal way.

you'd be surprised about what my opinions are since there are a multitude of stances I have that can be considered liberal/conservative/green/libertarian/etc. But since you are stupid, why bother.

ps. yes, you are stupid
pps. you're too stupid to know that you are stupid

[Sueven]

Find me a "filthy rich" "urban sophisticate" from "the left coast" who's a member of the Green Party and knows that his wife is an irrational, emotional creature, enjoys hunting deer and calling turkey, knows how to weld a new bumper for his truck, and gets really pissed off when he sees Spanish employed and I'll eat my socks.

Whether or not you're willing to accept Arnold's self-identification as a Republican, he's certainly no green.

I've also never heard anything indicating that any one of the listed characteristics are applicable to him.

[Noysyrump]

Granted, but I think the point was that their agenda is only about being able to do what they want, not stopping others from doing what they want.

I think about 700,000 dead Iraqi's may feel a little differently about that particularly idiotic remark (you know, if they were alive and could actually feel anything anymore).

Killing 700,000 Iraqis is not my agenda. Who said it was? Securing my country from further attack is, and to that end, perhaps killing those 700,000 worked, because noone destroyed any buildings in the homeland since. Now now, I know that's not what did it, well not likely, however the administration does what it can. And if someone did it wrong, then they should answer for there mistakes.

Do I think invading iraq was wrong? For the stated reason, perhaps. But on the grand stage, no. Hussein wasn't going to live forever, and had we not gone in, it's likely Iran would have. And a reunited persia with such an unstable Gov't at it's head would have been something far more dangerouse to millions more.

[Nick]

perhaps killing those 700,000 worked, because noone destroyed any buildings in the homeland since.

Now now, I know that's not what did it

?

[Noysyrump]

Killing 700,000 Iraqis is not my agenda. Who said it was? Securing my country from further attack is, and to that end, perhaps killing those 700,000 worked, because noone destroyed any buildings in the homeland since. Now now, I know that's not what did it, well not likely, however the administration does what it can. And if someone did it wrong, then they should answer for there mistakes.

Jesus Christ nick. take a pill then read what I write.

Your off your nut I think man. maybe mid is right. teen angst.


EDIT. hahha never mind nick deleted post. Obviosly he isnt insane.

[Noysyrump]

perhaps killing those 700,000 worked, because noone destroyed any buildings in the homeland since.

Now now, I know that's not what did it

?

Sarcasm. thats what that was. Sorry if you folk didnt get it.

[Nick]

Except I'm in my mid twenties. That one's still worth a try when you're an old fart I guess?

I'm fed up with people trying to justify the murder of nearly a million people because "it saved the US" when it had fuck all to do with the security of the US except possibly to invite another terrorist attack. Didn't anyone point out to these people that "The war on terror" doesn't actually exist and is bullshit anyway, 1 isolated event does not equal = war.

If it did, you would have had a civil war after Timothy mcVeigh blew up that building in Oklahoma. The sheer mind bogglingly simple propoganda some of you fall for is depressing, hence the "angst"

[Noysyrump]

Except I'm in my mid twenties. That one's still worth a try when you're an old fart I guess?

I'm fed up with people trying to justify the murder of nearly a million people because "it saved the US" when it had fuck all to do with the security of the US except possibly to invite another terrorist attack. Didn't anyone point out to these people that "The war on terror" doesn't actually exist and is bullshit anyway, 1 isolated event does not equal = war.

If it did, you would have had a civil war after Timothy mcVeigh blew up that building in Oklahoma. The sheer mind bogglingly simple propoganda some of you fall for is depressing, hence the "angst"

Like I said, the stated reason for the war was dubiose at best. However, I saw a different reason to do it, in wich I agree that it should have been done, so I am not against this war, nor will/would I be against Iran.


edit: oh yeh, it is still possible to have the 'angst' in your twenties, I know I did. and before you make fun of my age, just remeber I said this; The next ten years of your life are going to go by REAL FAST.

[Nick]

What possible rational reason do you have to be for the war? It is ideologically flawed, blatantly filled with lies, murderous, hurts your pocket and opens up your country for international loathing and isolation (not to mention shithead lunatic radical islamists wanting to blow you up).

[Animale]

Ooo, gotta keep those war drums a beating! Of course, never mind that our military is currently stretched pretty thin occupying Iraq (a place which is MUCH easier to occupy/conquer than Iran - just ask Saddam... oh wait, he's dead). The personnel just aren't in place to accomplish anything other than a quick military victory in Iran... which the military is probably capable of doing but it would by a Pyrrhic victory at best due to the majority (or a significant minority) of the civilian population directly opposing us? The reality of the situation is that we blew our load (both militarily and diplomatically) in Iraq and have little left of consequence to oppose Iran in a direct, long-term, conflict without significant help from the rest of the world.

<Hint> The rest of the world doesn't want military conflict with Iran, thus the point of invading/occupying them with a "coalition of the willing" is moot.

You'd think people would learn the lesson from Iraq... military victory does not equal absolute victory. Imagine how bad things have gone in Iraq, and multiply by an unknown factor (~10x I'd guess) and you'll have an idea about how bad things would go (both in blood and treasure) if we attempt to occupy Iran. Iraq was a one time thing, and the rest of the world is onto us... you can't pull the same trick twice I'm afraid.

Animale

[Fash]

How about Liberal vs Conservative when it comes to the Pre-Emptive Strike doctrine and Iran?

I don't like the titles so I don't call myself anything... here goes.

If you can't attack first, it seems you're just waiting for the inevitable. If you've identified the target and you are not on speaking terms, that is pretty much all that needs to be said. Either you're going to attack them first and stop the threat or you're going to wait until they bomb you first before taking action, causing greater losses to both sides.

Iran is a threat to world peace. Can you deny this? It is their sworn intent to destroy Israel, to wipe it off the map, and they're heavily involved in nuclear research, missiles, and satellites. In addition, they hate us... They mock us (can't always blame them there), fund our enemies (which one did we fund?), and attack us in Iraq... They also hurt us indirectly through oil sales and conspire with the other 'axis' members which even increases the threat.

Is conflict with Iran inevitable?

Why should the US not attack Iran?

What does a 'conservative' think about this?

What does a 'liberal' think about this?

[Nick]

Anyone who's actually naive enough to think that Iran is going to nuke Israel, or think that the rest of the world outside the USA would care as much as the USA does about this, does not deserve the time of day.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

What does a 'liberal' think about this?

A liberal says you're wrong and Iran isn't bad. You are just painting them as bad. The US and Isreal are the evil scum of this earth.

or

Just close your eyes. Nothing will happen I'm sure. You just want to go to war because you love war. They prolly never said that about wiping Israel of the earth. LIAR!

or

You're a racist piece of shit. You just hate them because they are brown skinned.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Damn. Nick beat me to it. I was only close. Not close enough though. Man!

[Noysyrump]

The victory in iraq took 3 weeks. The continued occupation is just that, an occupation. Occupations require generations to quiet down.

Blew our load? HARDLY. Iran would fall just as fast, if not faster. Occupation afterwards would be more painful, yes. Likely war will not happen until Iran invades (or nukes) Isreal. Then the hand of war shall fall upon her from many states, not just this one.

It falls upon Isreal to decide on a first strike, not the US. It is their exsistance that lies in the balance.

[Zaelath]

I honestly believe the US is a greater threat to "world peace" (another construct that has never existed) than Iran.

However, I'm not actually against pre-emption if that means I can bitch slap Midnyte every 5 minutes because I suspect he's going to say something stupid. Fuck, too late again.

[Zaelath]

The victory in iraq took 3 weeks. The continued occupation is just that, an occupation. Occupations require generations to quiet down.

Blew our load? HARDLY. Iran would fall just as fast, if not faster. Occupation afterwards would be more painful, yes. Likely war will not happen until Iran invades (or nukes) Isreal. Then the hand of war shall fall upon her from many states, not just this one.

It falls upon Isreal to decide on a first strike, not the US. It is their exsistance that lies in the balance.

So I assume you'll also tell me if you ram a stick into the middle of an ants nest, thereby breaching it's defense totally, and kill of the queen, you have defeated the ants.

Spell Israel correctly; why is it always the people that are most concerned with protecting "Isreal" that can't even have the common courtesy to know how to spell it?

[Noysyrump]

I'd mispell my name if I wasn't careful. Its not a lack of respect, it's fat fingers on a tiny keyboard.

As a fighting force for prolonged resistance, yes You then have defeated the ants. They will soon die out regardless of if you walk away, or continue squashing individuals. But ants are not Iraq. Hence generations of occupation would be required (as in Duetchland or Nippon) before a "pull out" would leave a permanent ally.

[Nick]

Sorry Noysy could you please tell me what Iran has done to the usa to deserve total war?

You do understand what war is right? You remember WW1 and WW2 yeah?

Just checking.

[Animale]

Not saying Iran doesn't deserve a critical eye... just saying that talk of invasion is nothing more than that, talk. The reality is that we cannot invade and occupy Iran now or for the foreseeable future.

As for arming their enemies... we gave Iraq supplies of arms and cash in the 1980's to fight Iran in the Iraq/Iran war <shrug> so it's not like we have clean hands here on that matter.

The only way to deal with Iran in the current climate (because we have lost both military and diplomatic might with the Iraqi occupation) is through the auspices of the UN. And, since we cannot feasibly go it alone here, we have to be willing to play ball in the manner expected in the UN... and that includes not rattling our proverbial sabers whenever we don't get our way. Dialogue, confirm, and document through the international community... it's the only way we have got since we've painted ourselves into a corner with the Iraqi occupation (don't forget about our growing responsibilities in Afghanistan!). I just wish the administration didn't keep trying to fuck it up.

The thing about the "pre-emptive" doctrine is that it just seems like a way to bypass the international community's opinion on things. We strike first, they strike back, and now we're in it for the long haul no matter what because the dogs of war have been let loose. There has to be a better way to do business than going and killing people because we disagree on how they are building up their civilization (military, energy, etc.).

On another point... do you think a majority of American people would have supported going to war in Iraq if told up front that we'd be an occupying force for a generation? And if not, then why should the majority opinion here not have held sway when considering such a tremendous cost in blood and treasure?

Animale

[Noysyrump]

The victory in iraq took 3 weeks. The continued occupation is just that, an occupation. Occupations require generations to quiet down.

Blew our load? HARDLY. Iran would fall just as fast, if not faster. Occupation afterwards would be more painful, yes. Likely war will not happen until Iran invades (or nukes) Isreal. Then the hand of war shall fall upon her from many states, not just this one.

It falls upon Isreal to decide on a first strike, not the US. It is their exsistance that lies in the balance.

Ehem...

[Nick]

So if Israel invaded Iran would you go to war with Israel?

[Funkmasterr]

The victory in iraq took 3 weeks. The continued occupation is just that, an occupation. Occupations require generations to quiet down.

Blew our load? HARDLY. Iran would fall just as fast, if not faster. Occupation afterwards would be more painful, yes. Likely war will not happen until Iran invades (or nukes) Isreal. Then the hand of war shall fall upon her from many states, not just this one.

It falls upon Isreal to decide on a first strike, not the US. It is their exsistance that lies in the balance.

Ehem...

I can say with a fair amount of confidence that I agree. I could be wrong, but I am basing my reasoning off of the many friends I have in various branches of the military and what they have told me (and what they have been told.)

We have had nearly our entire naval fleet either around N Korea or Iran for a lot of years now, if they ever acted hostile towards Israel, we would be bombing the everliving fuck out of iran in a matter or hours whether people agreed with it or not. Now that's not to say whether I agree that that is what we should do or not, I'm just saying..

[Funkmasterr]

So if Israel invaded Iran would you go to war with Israel?

Not really. The government/US military feels (and for some good reasons, imo) that Iran is/could quickly become a large threat to the U.S. and other entities. They do not feel that way about Israel, so the outcome would be different. I'm not sure how it would be different, but I think that it would be.

[Nick]

Care to expand on what those good reasons may be?

[Noysyrump]

So if Israel invaded Iran would you go to war with Israel?

No.

We, as a nation, would back them. There may be some feigned offical protest. Many people in this country consider Israel the "51st state" and many of them are in a position of power. You better believe Israel would have the backing of the US and Great Britain should she start the war.

Now regardless of how you Celts feel about it, it is still the Angles that control GB, and it was under Anglo-American initiative that the Israeli state was built.

[Funkmasterr]

Care to expand on what those good reasons may be?

Well, I am about to leave work so this will be brief. I feel that their desire and continued development of nuclear technology is one of the major reasons we are so edgy when it comes to Iran, and when you take into consideration the high probability of said weapon falling into the hands of a terrorist group that would not hesitate to use it, that amplifies it quite a bit.

Now I will say that if the U.S. wants everyone else to back down their nuclear technology that we should do the same. I also know that isn't going to happen.

I also feel it is fairly obvious that the middle east in general (Iran included, but not them exclusively by any means) is infested with terrorist cells that have increasing desire to hurt us, which is why we are edgy with anyone there to begin with.

I may concede that some of this desire of theirs has been provoked by us, but I also don't think it is as easy as "the U.S. needs to keep their nose out of other people's business". There is a constant serious contradiction in opinion of what the U.S. should do depending on the situation, and I think we need to seriously rethink our foreign policy to help this situation.

I know I kind of side tracked there but I think it's all relevant, I hope that helps a bit. I'm leaving work now, will check back later.