War and the Left

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Are you willing to see Israel invaded because of it's three decade ignoring of UNSC Resolution 242?

Actually, Israel is in compliance with 242. They agreed to a final peace treaty with Egypt (as referenced in 242) and returned to their 1967 borders vis-a-vis Egypt.

Should the United States be invaded for ignoring the judgement against it by the World Court?

Sure, let's go! Viva México!

This war is about showing the world that no one is allowed to disobey the United States, not the United Nations. Pax Americana is no more acceptable than Pax Romana.

Somebody has to be in charge. Have you got any better candidates? And Pax Whoevera is better than barbarians running amok.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe your assessment of my commits is in error. I have attempted to sum up the situation here in California to the best of my abilities and I have portrayed the parties involved as I have observed them.

Clearly then, your own prejudices have coloured your opponents to be some kind of unsavory, knee-jerking bleeding heart idiots who oppose everything that stands for Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way.

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is not trying to paint my opponents black it is simply examining people's motivations and the root causes of their actions.

That is laudable, but you have not given any due considerations to their motives before writing them off with a broad stroke.

Originally posted by Oerdin
If you would reread my previous posts you may notice that I have taken several stands against GWB's policies I however, unlike you, do not reject every policy he proposes out of hand and actually support those policies which coincide with my own political beliefs.

Your login field indicates you signed up on September 2001. That's right around 9-11. From 9-11 we got the invasion of Afghanistan, then with a leap of faith GWB arrived at the silly Axis of Evil. After that, it's picking on Saddam Hussein time. Pardon me, but which one of Darth Bush's policy did you object to?

But, before you list them, it behooves you to show evidence for this assertion:

I however, unlike you, do not reject every policy he proposes out of hand

If not, I'll chalk it up to yet another pathetic attempt of character assassination.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Neo-Conservatives.

Thanks.

[DuncanK]

Bush is a very conservative hawkish president, of course we are going to hate him. The war might be over before Bush is out of office. Then we will still have to deal with Bush. He campaigned as a moderate and executes like conservative. I hope people remember his horrible presidency and never elect a Republican again.

[Arrian]

Clinton was helping the economy... not destroying it.

ARRRRRG! Why oh why do Presidents get credit when the economy is doing well and get criticized when it isn't, when the President has an extremely limited effect on the economy???? This drives me NUTS! The economy, being a capitalist one, has booms and busts - it's a cycle for chrissakes, and the government doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with it.

()*@&#%@$_)*(!!!

-Arrian

p.s. For the record, I do not agree with Bush's tax cut plan.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Somebody has to be in charge. Have you got any better candidates? And Pax Whoevera is better than barbarians running amok.

I don't think so. Over 100 years of US imperialism hasn't helped anyone but the US.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is there something about Republicans that makes you get your butt in gear then?

You didn't see much of an anti-war movement against Operation Enduring Freedom. If we returned to going after the states that aid al-Qaeda, I doubt you'd see much of one now (though the usual suspects would still be out). I would not be opposed to seeing the NorthWest Territories of Pakistan get a taste of American fire and steel nor would I be opposed on moral grounds of getting the Saudis (though I think it would be a horrible idea practically). Al-Qaeda is an enemy of all humanity, and needs to be destroyed root and branch.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian


ARRRRRG! Why oh why do Presidents get credit when the economy is doing well and get criticized when it isn't, when the President has an extremely limited effect on the economy???? This drives me NUTS! The economy, being a capitalist one, has booms and busts - it's a cycle for chrissakes, and the government doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with it.

()*@&#%@$_)*(!!!

-Arrian

p.s. For the record, I do not agree with Bush's tax cut plan.

Arrain, Clinton had to ballance the budget from the last Republican **** up. He did so and kept the economy intact. I think he deserves a little credit.

[SlowwHand]

Correction. All along, Bush has spoken quite clearly and plainly.
Many, let's use here as an example, made fun of how he talks, choosing to laugh and ignore

That's one reason I like Bush.
One always knows where he stands, and he doesn't take crap off terrorists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why oh why do Presidents get credit when the economy is doing well and get criticized when it isn't,

Because they're the Chiefs of State. They are the representation and personification of the government and its policies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
All along, Bush has spoken quite clearly and plainly.

Actually, Bush has lied quite a bit. You merely choose to believe his lies.

[DinoDoc]

You didn't answer my question, che. Why was it pointless to oppose the aggressive war on Serbia?

[RGBVideo]

ARRRRRG! Why oh why do Presidents get credit when the economy is doing well and get criticized when it isn't, when the President has an extremely limited effect on the economy???? This drives me NUTS! The economy, being a capitalist one, has booms and busts - it's a cycle for chrissakes, and the government doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with it.

This tenet is overvalued.

I want the world to listen when the UN speaks.

Flag : United States

...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I don't think so. Over 100 years of US imperialism hasn't helped anyone but the US.

So whose imperialism would you prefer? Or how about a bunch of nuclear armed rogue states, extending the Pakistan-India dynamic in dozens of new directions? And it's been at least 167 years of US imperialism, since you gringos stole half of México.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And it's been at least 167 years of US imperialism, since you gringos stole half of México.

Thier fault for attacking the American patrol in the Rio Grande area.