J.F. - Americans were duped by the prez, and the press

Lewiston Morning Tribune ^ | 8/27/05 | Jim Fisher

[mo]

If you really believe what he espouses, and most of the Ivy League crowd does, it relieves one of the burden of spreading freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. It is the nastiest and most ingrained bigotry possible, hiding behind the fruits of the greatest gift to mankind, and refusing to extend the salvific branch to others....

[Steve Van Doorn]

“It is the nastiest and most ingrained bigotry possible, hiding behind the fruits of the greatest gift to mankind”

I completely agree with you.

I personally think he is a left wing fruitcake after reading some of his other posts on other threads.

[A. Pole]

[mo:] ........now I'm sure you will exactly explain to us how rich and how advanced the 13 colonies were in 1776, now. Inquiring minds would like to know. Thanks Mo.

Remind me later and I will be happy to explain. I have to go to sleep and go to work etc ... But I should be able to get back to this interesting question.

[Steve Van Doorn]

“"You see, democracy is a form of luxury, you can afford it when you are advanced and prosperous, either when you have large educated middle class or many slaves to support you (like in Athenian democracy).”

You already answered the question.

[Casloy]

Yeah, sure. Saddam was the Second Hitler, like Noriega and Milosevic.

The point is, when you ignore a problem it can, and often will, get worse. We will never know what Noriega and Milosevic might have done because we took them out . Had we and the rest of Europe stood up to Hitler early on, who knows what the world would be like today. Sticking your head in the sand the way Clinton did with the terrorism never works.

[zip]

And there were many reasons NOT to go.

I hope you share your wisdom here. Just post the list on this thread. I'm sure that I am not the only one who would like to see even one reason.

[zip]

"And there were many reasons NOT to go."

Yeah, but they had all been used before -- by Neville Chamberlain.

Great response. Thanks

[zip]

Care to make a list for our continuing education? Reasons for NOT going into Iraq (that make sense) 101.

Ditto , especially "that make sense".

[Just mythoughts]

Does this make him a commander in the terror movement?

[A. Pole]

You already answered the question.

But not about the North. Got to go :)

[AmishDude]

Your screenname is misspelled. There is a "P" where there should be an "H".

[zip]

Never engage in a battle of wits when your opponent is unarmed. It ain't fair.

[zip]

To: A. Pole

Your screenname is misspelled. There is a "P" where there should be an "H".

Literally ROTFLMAO.

[A. Pole]

Never engage in a battle of wits when your opponent is unarmed. It ain't fair.

You guys listen too much to Hush Bimbo. He flatters you that you are so smart listening to him. But you only get hypnotized by the rumblings from the "Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies" .

"Advanced" my a**

[Steve Van Doorn]

" But not about the North. "

The north had slaves. Typical DU lacking history lessons.

Why do you guys at DU insist at cramming your elitist views on us?

[KingofQue]

As Bugs Bunny would say,"What a Maroon!" That is the problem with liberals, they don't want to get involved because someone might get killed and then if you don't get involved they say, Why didn't you do something? You can't have it both ways. Spoiled children, just like removing the W,s from the computer keyboards.

[LexBaird]

Good catch. It seems we got ourselves a long term DU troll.

Nah. A. Pole and Billbears are hard core isolationist Patsies (as in Buchananites).

[LexBaird]

The chief reason for not going to Iraq was that Iraqi regime (authoritarian secularist nationalism) was the expression of natural equilibrium for the entity composed of three disparate societies and located in the middle of Muslim world.

Ahh, the old realpolitik argument. Better to have a stable brutal dictatorship, like, say Stalin, than a risky, unstable, unpredictable Democracy. After all, brutal dictatorships are so reliable in their actions that it gives comfort to the State Dept.

The devotés of realpolitik prefer the "stability" of an Iraq under Saddam to the risk of a failed Weimar. In 1938, you probably would have been arguing that National Socialism was an expression of natural equilibrium for the entity composed of "Greater Germany".

The problem with your outcomes that you outline is the Fallacy of False Dilemma. You go from "two most likely" to "second possible", denying the third through "n"th possible outcomes. Indeed, with the historical examples of postwar Germany and Japan having democracy thrust upon them compared with postwar East Germany and China with the "stability" of dictatorship, your analysis ignores the most recent large scale examples of success.

The stable dictatorship model has been tried in the Middle East for a hundred years, and is an abject failure. Time to do something that actually works once in a while.

[Steve Van Doorn]

” Nah. A. Pole and Billbears are hard core isolationist Patsies (as in Buchananites).”

Why does A. Pole say Carter was a very good president and calls Rush names even know there is/was a rule on FR not to do that?

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Better to have a stable brutal dictatorship, like, say Stalin, than a risky, unstable, unpredictable Democracy."

Your points are good but I like to point out, least Stalin wasn't killing Amaricans.