Power to the Purple Finger.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:17 pm

Interesting assumption that "election going well" line. That's the exact point I was debating - did it really go well or not? My definition of an election going well would be participation by all peoples, not just two out of three. How about yours?

I'm not bitter about the election. I'm annoyed at imperialistic fanboys claiming victory when there is none. Having an election is not a victory. Having an election with buy in from all ethnic groups would be.

As for leftist stance? None here, unless you count anything left of McCarthy as "leftist"?

Dd

Burz · Post by **Burz** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:22 pm

Ddrak wrote:My definition of an election going well would be participation by all peoples, not just two out of three. How about yours?

Never gonna see one then.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:18 pm

I'm only mostly dead.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:08 am

Dang we cant go through her pockets looking for loose change I guess. =(

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:21 am

After the elections, some leftists are questioning their opposition to the war.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cs ... own01.html

Good to see them take a hard look at themselves.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:45 am

I think it's interesting that if one is opposed to imperialism and more in favor of isolationism that suddenly the neocon shills are using the term "leftist". I'm sorry, but opposition to invading a country is a very conservative position to take - something the a true right wing moderate should be proud of.

Personally I'm proudly conservative in my stance that the war was unjustified at the time and I challenge anyone to show how it held up to conservative ideals to invade a country on the little information available.

All that aside, people should always question their beliefs, however the tone of the article seems to imply that even if some good comes out of this then it was justified. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. There's never been any question that good *may* come out of the premature invasion. The question was always whether invading prematurely was the right move at the time - and I'm firmly in the camp that says waiting would have been far more in America's interests.

Remember - the current Republican party has all but abandoned conservatism. To oppose the GOP policy means you are not a neocon, which is not the same thing as being "leftist".

Dd

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:45 pm

Very, very well said, Ddrak.

I'm really surprised about how many points on which I thought there was broad agreement between Republicans and Democrats have become anathema to the neocons.

Viyre · Post by **Viyre** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:08 pm

If it costs the United States over 1000 lives and over 100 billion dollars so that a country halfway around the world can have some sort of a election then it isnt worth it in my opinion. I just dont understand how anyone (that can think for themselves) could see otherwise. Honestly, who gives a fuck if they didnt have a democracy before? There are many countries around the world that are not democratic, so should we invade those countries too? I think not.

V

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:02 pm

The point wasn't to spend those lives and dollars to bring about "an election". The point was to cause an ideological shift in the region. And to a small extent, you can already see that starting to occur.

Viyre · Post by **Viyre** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:50 pm

The point was to cause an ideological shift in the region

Thats real fucking funny because I dont remember that ever being mentioned by Bush in any of his pre-war speeches. Maybe he meant to tell us that but just forgot.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:07 pm

Well, Bush is also an idiot- so why even bother rehashing his opinion?

Yet, that is indeed why we invaded in the manner in which we did. If our aim was merely to destroy, we could have nuked the place from orbit and saved ourselves all the time, money, and souls. When you tell the current incarnation of the US military to take on the specific job that it was asked to in Afghanistan and Iraq, it can possibly serve only on purpose: altering the region fundamentally and drastically.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:02 pm

Viyre wrote:
The point was to cause an ideological shift in the region
Thats real fucking funny because I dont remember that ever being mentioned by Bush in any of his pre-war speeches. Maybe he meant to tell us that but just forgot.

What part about "regime change" didn't you understand?

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:19 pm

Except for those little parts about 'imminent danger' and 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'security council resolutions'.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:22 pm

There is a difference between legal wrangling and intended effect of action.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:40 pm

There's a difference between what you say before you do something and what you say afterwards to justify it, too.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:42 pm

Look, you can be all angry and pissy about Bush's foreign policy justification if you like. Good for you. But, it really doesn't touch on what I'm saying.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:46 pm

Much as I usually hate to say it, Vaulos and Embar are correct. The neoconservative agenda was to bring about American style democracies in the Middle East in the hopes that those nations would be more friendly to US interests than OPEC interests and hence reduce the US dependancy on OPEC and more specifically Saudi Arabia for oil. They whole thing was spelled out before 9/11 and even before Bush was in power in the "New American Century" document (google it).

Just remember, neoconservatism and the "New American Century" are not true conservative right-wing values. They are actually quite opposed to them in many ways, which is hardly surprising given the ideology was actually morphed from a leftist group in the beginning..

Dd

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:54 pm

I don't know if you intended it that way, but your statement sounded downright conspiritorial. At any rate, I've never read this document, nor would I espouse your suggested reasoning for the action. I would also doubt that any government arising from our invasions would result in a "more friendly" government than that of the Saudi's. However, 'distrustful democracies' in Iraq, Palastine, and Afghanistan will result in a greater degree of safty in the US and the Middle East in general. Perhaps not in the next 10-15 years, but certainly within a generation.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:23 pm

It's not conspiratorial at all. The founding members of the PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and Dan Quayle. It's pretty hard to have a conspiracy when your mission statement is out there in the open - to strengthen the military and use it to promote American interests overseas. It's even more difficult for it to be a conspiracy when you get elected to office and follow through on your mission statement that had been promoted since 1997.

Essentially, the current administration said they were gonna do something in the Middle East, and then did it. That's not a conspiracy at all.

Dd

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:33 pm

Well, at any rate, I think thier premises are wrong.

Brell Rants

Power to the Purple Finger.

Re:

Re: