View Full Version : What exactly is wrong with talking with world leaders?
So wait a minute....
A lot of people demonized Barack Obama because he said that he would talk to world leaders from dictatorships such as Iran and NK.
What exactly is wrong with talking with world leaders?
I thought that is what a head of state does - i.e. talk with other heads of state.
By not having dialogue aren't we just setting up ourselves for more conflict and war? Or is that the aim?!?
kc2orw
02-27-2008, 06:32 PM
It is one of the main reasons I support Barack Hussein Obama, I added it because his middle name does not bother me, is willing to include dialog and statesmanship as part of how we deal with the rest of the world.
ad4mg
02-27-2008, 07:26 PM
So wait a minute....
A lot of people demonized Barack Obama because he said that he would talk to world leaders from dictatorships such as Iran and NK.
What exactly is wrong with talking with world leaders?
I thought that is what a head of state does - i.e. talk with other heads of state.
By not having dialogue aren't we just setting up ourselves for more conflict and war? Or is that the aim?!?
Yes, it is. You can verify this at the PNAC website. Their doctrine concerning world domination is quite frightening. It's difficult to digest the fact that it was written by americans (of the neoconservative variety).
It explains much about the neocons and why they are like they are.
Should we have spoken to Hitler, or destroyed him, was he not a "world leader". Seems to me a world leader did talk to him, his name was Neville Chamberlain, aka, the appeaser.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.".....Winston Churchill.
k2gsp
02-27-2008, 07:34 PM
Obama gets hell for a get tough with Pakistan policy, which has shown to be the correct move, and then you want to accuse him of being an appeaser. So which is it?
So wait a minute....
A lot of people demonized Barack Obama because he said that he would talk to world leaders from dictatorships such as Iran and NK.
What exactly is wrong with talking with world leaders?
I thought that is what a head of state does - i.e. talk with other heads of state.
By not having dialogue aren't we just setting up ourselves for more conflict and war? Or is that the aim?!?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with talking with world leaders.
What actions come out of those talks are of concern. If as a result of these talks the US begins taking actions on good faith to change policy or military presence -- we as a nation and are allies could be very much at risk of the folks on the other side are just giving lip service.
The barriers old GW put in place, starting with the axis of evil speech, are high and we need to do much better to move the world closer to peace.
However, there are folks that would love nothing better to see us reduce our guard to do more attacks (they have tried and failed so far) -- dialogue must be tempered with the fact that ultimately the President of the United States is duty bound to protect this Nation and the people living within her boarders.
kc2orw
02-27-2008, 07:40 PM
Should we have spoken to Hitler, or destroyed him, was he not a "world leader". Seems to me a world leader did talk to him, his name was Neville Chamberlain, aka, the appeaser.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.".....Winston Churchill.
I see you have no ability or talent for history Hitler was engaged in armed conflict with allies. Cuba, as an example, at the moment has done nothing that we could really complain about in decades. Heck, with Cuba we even have a prison where we can do dubious things to prisoners and get away with it.
With Afghanistan we had enough legitimacy to go after them. Unfortunately with Iraq we have bad intelligence and/or outright lies followed by changing the mission from defense to liberation.
Even Winston had dealings with Joe Stalin whom he probably didn't trust. Done properly much can be accomplished done not at all you end up with the USA placing itself in jeopardy by fighting wars it didn't have to fight.
Obama gets hell for a get tough with Pakistan policy, which has shown to be the correct move, and then you want to accuse him of being an appeaser. So which is it?
Hold your breath. He's going to answer... Any minute now.
Wait....
No. I guess not. Sorry. I thought Danno would answer a simple question.
I guess not.
kc2orw
02-27-2008, 08:04 PM
Hold your breath. He's going to answer... Any minute now.
Wait....
No. I guess not. Sorry. I thought Danno would answer a simple question.
I guess not.
Not unless he can find a link that provides a boilerplate answer to the statement. Oops Rush didn't cover that one today, maybe tomorrow :D
wa8rti
02-27-2008, 08:08 PM
By the XR logic Nixon was wrong to go to China to talk and Eisenhower was wrong to talk with Khrushchev. Those old time Republicans just didn't meet today's neocon standards of illogic. :D
kc2orw
02-27-2008, 08:11 PM
By the XR logic Nixon was wrong to go to China to talk and Eisenhower was wrong to talk with Khrushchev. Those old time Republicans just didn't meet today's neocon standards of illogic. :D
Thanks for reminding us of that one, easy to forget considering other aspects of the less then stellar Nixon presidency.
W3MIV
02-27-2008, 08:20 PM
Should we have spoken to Hitler, or destroyed him, was he not a "world leader". Seems to me a world leader did talk to him, his name was Neville Chamberlain, aka, the appeaser.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.".....Winston Churchill.
I am astonished that you continue to post this stuff without suffering terminal embarrassment.
Sure, we can talk to this nut job.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=655548&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1
kc2orw
02-27-2008, 10:32 PM
Sure, we can talk to this nut job.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=655548&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1
Sure we can talk to him that doesn't mean anything will get done. Of course we could use the George Bush Method and set off the worlds "nucular" arsenal thus ensuring that everyone is dead on the planet including us... Good thinking :rolleyes:
Should we have spoken to Hitler, or destroyed him, was he not a "world leader". Seems to me a world leader did talk to him, his name was Neville Chamberlain, aka, the appeaser.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.".....Winston Churchill.
There is a difference between Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad (sp?) and Adolf Hitler!
Hitler started a massive genocide and extermination program called the holocaust.
We stepped in and fought a war because it was a friggin' Emergency and millions of people were dying.
Apparently neocons don't get that - WAR is for emergencies. You resolve your problems FIRST then go to war if you can't!
When dictators talk to or have discussions with world leaders, particularly US representatives or ambassadors, it is made into a circus with the express purpose of providing positive propaganda for the dictator.
Dictators once dictators always.
K2WH
There is a difference between Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad (sp?) and Adolf Hitler!
Hitler started a massive genocide and extermination program called the holocaust.
We stepped in and fought a war because it was a friggin' Emergency and millions of people were dying.
Apparently neocons don't get that - WAR is for emergencies. You resolve your problems FIRST then go to war if you can't!
And thats why we went into Iraq. After numerous orders and declarations by the U.N. and after being ignored numerous times by Saddam Hussein (Hmm same as Barack), I think it was time to declare your "Emergency" situation. 100's of thousand were being killed. Again fits your criteria for war making.
Hence the war which no one else in this world had the stomach for. Praise Bush for having the guts to do the unpopular thing. A sign of a strong leader.
K2WH
ad4mg
02-27-2008, 11:57 PM
And thats why we went into Iraq. After numerous orders and declarations by the U.N. and after being ignored numerous times by Saddam Hussein (Hmm same as Barack){<--- bigoted neocon display of stupidity}, I think it was time to declare your "Emergency" situation. 100's of thousand were being killed. Again fits your criteria for war making.
Hence the war which no one else in this world had the stomach for. Praise Bush for having the guts to do the unpopular thing. A sign of a strong leader.
K2WH
That's the dumbest post I've ever seen you make. Show me where "hundreds of thousands" were being killed by Saddam following the first Gulf War.
Neocon rhetoric. Just repeat it 11 more times, Bill, and someone, probably '3XR, will embrace it as the truth.
After all, it does appear on da internets.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft. :mad:
No genicide here, why this is a rational leader....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea/print
kc2orw
02-28-2008, 12:42 AM
No genicide here, why this is a rational leader....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea/print
Yes he is almost as irrational as you are :D
[QUOTE=kc2orw;1147977]I see you have no ability or talent for history Hitler was engaged in armed conflict with allies. QUOTE]
Speaking of history, your lack of knowledge on the subject is amazing. Check to see when the war against Britian's allies began and thus their entry into WW 2 and when the talking took place.
Prime Minister
Chamberlain confronted the threat to peace posed by Germany and Italy. Seeking to appease Adolf HITLER and Benito MUSSOLINI, he first negotiated a treaty with Italy accepting the conquest of Ethiopia on condition that Italy withdraw from the Spanish Civil War. Turning to the Czech question, Chamberlain conferred with Hitler and Mussolini. In the Munich pact (1938), signed also by France, Chamberlain accepted Hitler's territorial claims to predominantly German areas of Czechoslovakia. Though Chamberlain assured Britain that his concession had brought "peace in our time, Hitler soon broke his agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.
After Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Chamberlain honored a pledge to stand by Poland and led Britain into war two days later. Although his policies were discredited, he held on as prime minister until May 1940, when he resigned and was succeeded by Winston CHURCHILL. He died in Heckfield on Nov. 9, 1940.
Character and Political Philosophy
As befitted the son of the most famous Liberal Radical of the late 19th century, Neville Chamberlain was keenly interested in the amelioration of social conditions.
The last sentence sounds much like the discussion here doesn't it?
http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_chamber.html
KU0DM
02-28-2008, 01:01 AM
And thats why we went into Iraq. After numerous orders and declarations by the U.N. and after being ignored numerous times by Saddam Hussein (Hmm same as Barack), I think it was time to declare your "Emergency" situation. 100's of thousand were being killed. Again fits your criteria for war making.
Hence the war which no one else in this world had the stomach for. Praise Bush for having the guts to do the unpopular thing. A sign of a strong leader.
K2WH
It doesn't fit his, and MY criteria.
Did we try and work it out with Hussein? No.
We didn't even try to work it out with him!
I am sure he would've have "seen" us if we threatened him with the force we have, instead of using the force we have against him.
I have no doubt in my mind we would've gone to war with Cuba AND the U.S.S.R. if we had a conservative in office during the Cuban missile crisis, that is a perfect example of how things CAN be accomplished by talking. We were in more danger THEN, then NOW. However J.F.K. and his cabinet THOUGHT about the situation, and made the right choice to make an assertive decision, and statement that was well thought out, serious, and a hint of "we're not going to hesitate to kick your a** in his statement, that Cuba and U.S.S.R responded to us positively, not a shot fired.
If Bush had tried that on Hussein, I am sure we wouldn't be were we are now, thousands of U.S. citizens killed, thousands of innocent civilian killed, and climbing oil rates.
It doesn't fit his, and MY criteria.
Did we try and work it out with Hussein? No.
We didn't even try to work it out with him!
I am sure he would've have "seen" us if we threatened him with the force we have, instead of using the force we have against him.
I have no doubt in my mind we would've gone to war with Cuba AND the U.S.S.R. if we had a conservative in office during the Cuban missile crisis, that is a perfect example of how things CAN be accomplished by talking. We were in more danger THEN, then NOW. However J.F.K. and his cabinet THOUGHT about the situation, and made the right choice to make an assertive decision, and statement that was well thought out, serious, and a hint of "we're not going to hesitate to kick your a** in his statement, that Cuba and U.S.S.R responded to us positively, not a shot fired.
If Bush had tried that on Hussein, I am sure we wouldn't be were we are now, thousands of U.S. citizens killed, thousands of innocent civilian killed, and climbing oil rates.
Rose colored glasses. Convincing Hussien was like trying to seduce and ex-wife.
KU0DM
02-28-2008, 01:57 AM
How do you know?
We never tried. You must have done so in your free time. Based on some conclusions here, that would make YOU a terrorist for meeting with someone who is a terrorist or enemy of the government.
Propaganda (http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=154296)
You'll notice the headline is Obama once visited with 60s' Radicals
kc2orw
02-28-2008, 02:24 AM
As befitted the son of the most famous Liberal Radical of the late 19th century, Neville Chamberlain was keenly interested in the amelioration of social conditions.
He tried to avoid it he failed we tried to avoid it and eventually we went to war.
There is still no equivalency between WWII and Iraq we know you want and desire war. But alas there is no WWIII it is all a creation of George Bush and Company. There were no WMD and went there in defense of country on at the very least bad evidence and at the worst lies. The country is now in a very bad defensive position we can't afford to continue this just to appease some people who have some anger management problem.
kc7jty
02-28-2008, 06:51 AM
What exactly is wrong with talking with world leaders?
nothing, as long as they are Israeli leaders.
W3MIV
02-28-2008, 11:34 AM
nothing, as long as they are Israeli leaders.
That being the case, why does your theory not seem to hold up among the leaders of Arab states or of Iran?
A little Hitler, in need of a shave.
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=080228105322.ylw1j5ia&show_article=1
kc7jty
02-28-2008, 09:03 PM
That being the case, why does your theory not seem to hold up among the leaders of Arab states or of Iran?
We're not talking about talking uncle we're talking about WRONG with talking.
Besides, how long we been talking to Iran since Shah?
Looks like the candidate, formerly know as Barry Hussein, talks to quite a few folks.
http://www.jewishpress.com/print.do/30283/Obama_Served_On_Board_That_Funded_Pro-Palestinian_Group.html
ab1ga
02-29-2008, 12:06 AM
Of course talking to dictators leads to nothing but trouble. Mr. Cheney spoke at length with Saddam Hussein, and look what it got us!
:):p
That's the dumbest post I've ever seen you make. Show me where "hundreds of thousands" were being killed by Saddam following the first Gulf War.
Neocon rhetoric. Just repeat it 11 more times, Bill, and someone, probably '3XR, will embrace it as the truth.
After all, it does appear on da internets.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft. :mad:
Hussein used Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."
There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.
The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell — of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.
DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.
Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000.
Tell me we should have talked instead of killing this bastard.
K2WH
KU0DM
02-29-2008, 01:49 AM
How come GWB's Daddy didn't do it?
If you conservatives have know it was the right thing to do since forever, how come it took till just now to do it? If it was the right thing to do, how come GWB had to wait for something to happen from that REGION, not Iraq, that REGION to take action?
Answer these questions please.
I don't care what Bill Clinton didn't do between that time, is he a conservative? No. I am asking about the conservative response to this.
He tried to avoid it he failed we tried to avoid it and eventually we went to war.
There is still no equivalency between WWII and Iraq we know you want and desire war. .
The subject is talking to leaders, not the equivalency of one war vs. the other.
How come GWB's Daddy didn't do it?
If you conservatives have know it was the right thing to do since forever, how come it took till just now to do it? If it was the right thing to do, how come GWB had to wait for something to happen from that REGION, not Iraq, that REGION to take action?
Answer these questions please.
I don't care what Bill Clinton didn't do between that time, is he a conservative? No. I am asking about the conservative response to this.
GWB did something Clinton didn't, he tried to work with the UN. Needless to say, that didn't work for some reason. Blocked by the French, who had financial ties. Blocked by the Russians, who had financial ties. Meanwhile Hussien continued for years to attack our airmen flying under the mandate of the UN.
Plain enough for you.
ad4mg
02-29-2008, 02:08 AM
GWB did something Clinton didn't, he tried to work with the UN. Needless to say, that didn't work for some reason. Blocked by the French, who had financial ties. Blocked by the Russians, who had financial ties. Meanwhile Hussien continued for years to attack our airmen flying under the mandate of the UN.
Plain enough for you.
The death toll from those horrible attacks was staggering.
The Pentagon says more than 280,000 sorties have been flown in the near decade since the no-fly zones were imposed, without a single loss of aircraft to hostile fire.
KU0DM
02-29-2008, 02:22 AM
GWB did something Clinton didn't, he tried to work with the UN. Needless to say, that didn't work for some reason. Blocked by the French, who had financial ties. Blocked by the Russians, who had financial ties. Meanwhile Hussien continued for years to attack our airmen flying under the mandate of the UN.
Plain enough for you.
LOL. I knew it, you couldn't reply without saying "well yeah, but he did this!"
Sure didn't stop us in Desert storm.
The death toll from those horrible attacks was staggering.
Hummmm, seems we had a better air force than Hussein had missiles. Also he didn't have encouragement from some here. Thank goodness we spend a sufficient amount to stay ahead of despots, now if we could just get our people to stop encouraging them. Even the pols who are foreign policy challenged.
kc2orw
02-29-2008, 03:36 AM
The subject is talking to leaders, not the equivalency of one war vs. the other.
So what is your premise for not talking to anyone again... a desire to set off nukes?
ad4mg
02-29-2008, 10:31 AM
Hummmm, seems we had a better air force than Hussein had missiles. Also he didn't have encouragement from some here. Thank goodness we spend a sufficient amount to stay ahead of despots, now if we could just get our people to stop encouraging them. Even the pols who are foreign policy challenged.
Hmmmmmmm. 0 casualties. And this is why we invaded a sovereign nation?
Then you proceed to chide "our people" for "encouraging" "them".
1. Who is "our people"?
2. What constituted "encouragement"?
3. Who is "them"?
"Also he didn't have encouragement from some here." I'm confused ... you later state there was encouragement. You seem to be talking in circles.
"Spinning", if you will.
This is the hate machine in action. Attempting to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation for pitiful attempts to shoot down our planes flying at over 20,000 feet.
The new conservatives. And the head chimp said it was all about WMD's.
What's going to be the next lie used to justify the trillion dollars and countless thousands of deaths wasted in this debacle?
What I find most amazing is that there are still horribly uninformed people on this planet who will still stand proudly by the worst president in history during his quest for death and destruction. Flag draped coffins really excite you people for some sick reason.
Oh, my bad. We're there to fight the terrorists (who weren't there until we invaded).
Oh my, 70% of Afghanistan, you know, the place we actually had justification to invade, remains totally out of control. Record poppy production. Where terrorists abound, still. Why is it that we couldn't just fight the terrorists there (where they already were)?
William Buckley was absolutely correct. Iraq is the Republican's Vietnam War.
Gee, he was a conservative. A real conservative.
Please do continue your spin. It has no entertainment value, but it does help identify your total lack of reasoning ability.
United States — Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Given that number and Bush's job approval rating ~ 30% means about 110,000,000 people believe Bush is doing a good job. No small number. The remaining population are just delusional or live in California.
K2WH
United States — Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Given that number and Bush's job approval rating ~ 30% means about 110,000,000 people believe Bush is doing a good job. No small number. The remaining population are just delusional or live in California.
K2WH
It also means that 220,000,000 people believe he's NOT doing a good job, which last I checked is a larger number.
KA8DKT
02-29-2008, 09:30 PM
There is a difference between Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad (sp?) and Adolf Hitler!
Hitler started a massive genocide and extermination program called the holocaust.
We stepped in and fought a war because it was a friggin' Emergency and millions of people were dying.
Apparently neocons don't get that - WAR is for emergencies. You resolve your problems FIRST then go to war if you can't!You clearly don't understand. Defense industries don't make anywhere near as much money from peaceful talks as they make from a war.
-gary
It also means that 220,000,000 people believe he's NOT doing a good job, which last I checked is a larger number.
We don't run this governement by the numbers. Clinton did but not Bush. We run it by what is right. BTW, I never hear you on 40.
K2WH (Neocon)
It's not OK because it only results in posturing and photo ops for the enemy, terrorists or whatever. Usually it is simple propaganda and gets nowhere.
K2WH (Neocon)
It's not OK because it only results in posturing and photo ops for the enemy, terrorists or whatever. Usually it is simple propaganda and gets nowhere.
K2WH (Neocon)
So right you are!
People forget that most of the world doesn't have the freedom of speech and press that we enjoy. Any opportunity to exploit any communication or relationship with the United States will be taken advantage of by known despotic leadership we carefully and rightfully avoid.
The President made that clear today during a televised event.
73.
KA8DKT
03-01-2008, 03:26 AM
Correcto mundo. Dialog with other world leaders does not help us gain domination over the world using our military might...the expressed goal of the PNAC and dick cheney.
Of course there is nothing wrong with this because we are the good guys...
-gary
Of course there is nothing wrong with this because we are the good guys...
-gary
Of course we have been, are, and will be for awhile to come... as long as we have a few [leaders] willing to pull the wagon -- charting new capitalistic directions and insuring liberties persist, instead of a country full of freeloadin' wagon riders, pining for their unearned government pittances and downward directed tyranny.
Don't forget it!
ad4mg
03-01-2008, 09:18 AM
So right you are!
People forget that most of the world doesn't have the freedom of speech and press that we enjoy. Any opportunity to exploit any communication or relationship with the United States will be taken advantage of by known despotic leadership we carefully and rightfully avoid.
The President made that clear today during a televised event.
73.
Right, and under the control of the "New World Order Conservatives", our country has become much weaker than before. Words actually do extreme damage now, where during the course of our history, little regard was given to such things.
We have truly lost something as a country when this sorry state of affairs exists. In the world of the "New World Order Conservatives", bombs are always preferred over diplomacy.
For clarification, the term "Neocon" has never been totally correct, by strict definition, so I've coined the term "NWOC", or "New World Order Conservatives" as a replacement. The group formerly referred to as "Neocons" are now more properly called "NWOC's". As I penned earlier, the term more correctly suggests the PNAC inspired, war mongering, uber right-wing, borrow and spend zealots hell bent on destroying this country. Like the Neocon, the NWOC bears little resemblance to a real conservative.
Right, and under the control of the "New World Order Conservatives", our country has become much weaker than before. Words actually do extreme damage now, where during the course of our history, little regard was given to such things.
We have truly lost something as a country when this sorry state of affairs exists. In the world of the "New World Order Conservatives", bombs are always preferred over diplomacy.
For clarification, the term "Neocon" has never been totally correct, by strict definition, so I've coined the term "NWOC", or "New World Order Conservatives" as a replacement. The group formerly referred to as "Neocons" are now more properly called "NWOC's". As I penned earlier, the term more correctly suggests the PNAC inspired, war mongering, uber right-wing, borrow and spend zealots hell bent on destroying this country. Like the Neocon, the NWOC bears little resemblance to a real conservative.
I know we don't agree on much politically, Luke. That being said, you really don't have much to worry about... the downward directed pittances known as unearned entitlements will continue, and you'll get your "unfair share" from us "stiffs" working the next 20 to 25 years. The Middle Class will bear the brunt of the Nation's tax pain, for our ever-expansive federal government know what's best; they will "rightfully" steal and redirect the soon-to-be 50% in taxes, or half of Americans' gross income, to ensure your retirement's comfortable.
So much for individual responsibility; we're becoming a new and shiny, suppressive and tyrannical, collective or Marxist Nation!
73.
ad4mg
03-01-2008, 11:39 AM
I know we don't agree on much politically, Luke. That being said, you really don't have much to worry about... the downward directed pittances known as unearned entitlements will continue, and you'll get your "unfair share" from us "stiffs" working the next 20 to 25 years. The Middle Class will bear the brunt of the Nation's tax pain, for our ever-expansive federal government know what's best; they will "rightfully" steal and redirect the soon-to-be 50% in taxes, or half of Americans' gross income, to ensure your retirement's comfortable.
So much for individual responsibility; we're becoming a new and shiny, suppressive and tyrannical, collective or Marxist Nation!
73.
You have much of that wrong, Steve. Number one, I have been self-supporting since the age of 17. I have never received one thin dime of "entitlement" from the government - ever. Even when temporarily unemployed, I reject the notion of unemployment benefits. I am firmly entrenched in the middle class, and detest most entitlement programs offered by the uber left-wing zealots.
So, number two should be obvious to you insofar as I will also "bear the brunt" of the pain and suffering that will continue to be inflicted upon middle class Americans, be it a result of the failed economic borrow and spend policies of the New World Order Conservatives or the tax and spend dimocraps.
Unlike yourself, Steve, I detest both ends of the political spectrum equally. I just reserve a special kind of hate towards the New World Order Conservatives who seem hell bent on the destruction of this country.
I would welcome the return of real conservative values to the Republican party. Alas, I can find no real conservatives left who have any political clout at all. The New World Order has infiltrated and assumed control of the Republican party.
With the exception of your slant towards war and conflict, which I personally find disturbing, you could fit my description of a real conservative. You would be shocked to know how many things we agree on. I just can't get my head into this war mongering thing. A strong national defense is one thing, but the PNAC inspired invasions of sovereign nations is yet another. If we'd only stopped after Afghanistan ...
N1LAF
03-01-2008, 01:14 PM
You clearly don't understand. Defense industries don't make anywhere near as much money from peaceful talks as they make from a war.
-gary
Wrong again -gary, funds used to develop and modernize systems are diverted to material spending to support war efforts, HURT the defense industry. Once a product is developed, it is manufactured, fixed price, minimal employees needed.
I think it is you that doesn't understand.
N1LAF
03-01-2008, 01:39 PM
So wait a minute....
A lot of people demonized Barack Obama because he said that he would talk to world leaders from dictatorships such as Iran and NK.
What exactly is wrong with talking with world leaders?
I thought that is what a head of state does - i.e. talk with other heads of state.
By not having dialogue aren't we just setting up ourselves for more conflict and war? Or is that the aim?!?
Ryan, there is nothing wrong with talking with world leaders, it is specific world leaders that are problematic. It takes two willing leaders to have a dialog, and some world leaders do not want dialog, but will use dialog for 1) Posturing, and 2)legitimacy.
Right now, we have a serious problem with Iran, Iran has made many derogatory remarks towards the US. Is there any willingness to dialog here? I don't think so. And to initiate dialog will help the stature of the opponent leader, and it is something we do not want to encourage.
North Korea is not one of those countries we do not dialog with. If you know and understand NK, you will understand what is at play here. looks like GWB did this one right. NK wants one on one talks with US, but the US position is that there are other parties of interest that should be involved. NK balked, and US did not enter into dialog. Now there is dialog with NK, US AND the other parties of interest. So there is strategy in dealing with certian world leaders. Usually the NK wants dialog when they need something. They started up the nuclear program until a deal was struck between US (Clinton) and NK. NK got more food and supplies, and the nuke program went into storage. NK uses this tactic as blackmail, and thus they did it again. NK isn't going to grovel, beg for assistance, they want a face saving measure, and the nuclear threat is the way they go. I am guessing that GWB this time do not want the US to be victimized by this blackmail, atleast not alone, and to share this 'burden' with the other nations of interest.
The bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with dialog, but it does require two willing leaders, and not in the face of economic and political blackmail, that there is a strategy being used, for the protection of the US in non-defense matters.
Hope this helps
vk6zgo
03-01-2008, 01:53 PM
There is a difference between Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad (sp?) and Adolf Hitler!
Hitler started a massive genocide and extermination program called the holocaust.
We stepped in and fought a war because it was a friggin' Emergency and millions of people were dying.
Apparently neocons don't get that - WAR is for emergencies. You resolve your problems FIRST then go to war if you can't!
Sorry to rain on your parade,but you didn't enter WW2 until after Pearl Harbour.
Between September 1939 & december 1941 you were neutral.(Although favouring Britain & her allies--Lendlease, etc)
Even then, you declared war on Germany because it was an ally of Japan.
73 VK6ZGO
W3MIV
03-01-2008, 02:49 PM
Even then, you declared war on Germany because it was an ally of Japan.
73 VK6ZGO
Wrong. Study your history before you spout off. Germany declared war on the US four days after Pearl Harbor, and the US did not declare war on Germany until after that declaration.
vk6zgo
03-02-2008, 01:40 AM
Wrong. Study your history before you spout off. Germany declared war on the US four days after Pearl Harbor, and the US did not declare war on Germany until after that declaration.
You are right of course,thank you for the correction.
That said,it does not affect the thrust of my posting,which was that the USA did not join the war because of the atrocities being carried out by the Nazis.
The USA joined the war simply because it was attacked.
Atrocities were being carried out prior to the beginning of WW2,( September 1939) so the other Allied participants don't have that reason either.
They declared war on Germany because of treaty obligations.
73 VK6ZGO
KA8DKT
03-02-2008, 01:57 AM
Wrong again -gary, funds used to develop and modernize systems are diverted to material spending to support war efforts, HURT the defense industry. Once a product is developed, it is manufactured, fixed price, minimal employees needed.
I think it is you that doesn't understand.
Yes, that explains how, for example, Halliburton's stock has more than tripled in value since just before our invasion to the present. Of course for Halliburton, it is easy to make a big profit when you don't need to bid on contracts.
Actually the defense industry much prefers wars. They can't sell a lot of munitions and hardware if it they not being used in battle.
-gary
N1LAF
03-02-2008, 02:02 AM
Yes, that explains how, for example, Halliburton's stock has more than tripled in value since just before our invasion to the present. Of course for Halliburton, it is easy to make a big profit when you don't need to bid on contracts.
Actually the defense industry much prefers wars. They can't sell a lot of munitions and hardware if it they not being used in battle.
-gary
Wrong again -gary
Halliburton is NOT a defense contractor, do a little research first.
Munitions and hardware is a fixed fee material, and not big profit. It goes to the lowest bidder.
What's interesting is the LIBS think Barry can handle the tyrants of the world, when he can't even deal with Fox News.
ad4mg
03-02-2008, 03:08 PM
What's interesting is the LIBS think Barry can handle the tyrants of the world, when he can't even deal with Fox News.
Who the hell is "Barry"? Are the uber right-wing zealots so stupid that they don't know the names of the candidates?
No wonder we had to suffer 8 years of the dick 'n boosh terrorist crime syndicate.
What's up Barry, thought you were going to talk to the "world leaders"??
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage