Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Momentum? CAFTA was a free trade agreement that was good for free trade. And no one really knows what deals Bush cut to get it passed. But I can say that if more supposedly "free trade" democrats had supported the bill then he wouldn't have had to cut any deals.

If you want to talk about the merits of CAFTA, I'm happy to do that. You seem to support anything that has the free trade label. My loyalties are not so blind. Why was CAFTA good for free trade? Business says so, and that's good enough for you. Not for me. CAFTA has, e.g., provisions concerning intellectual property that reasonable people can disagree about.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
his invtervention in Somalia

Bush I's intervention.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Because this is America, damnit, and it matters. This Republican pragmatic ends-justifying-the-means bullshit has got to stop. I was taught growing up that we are not a country that invades another on a pretense. We don't torture people, or come so close as to make it a question. We don't incarcerate people indefinitely without charging them. So please, Republicans, I'm begging you: STOP FUCKING UP ALL THAT IS AMERICA.

It matters because were the ones who saved the world from Nazis, and did so without torturing them. It matters because it is a mark of shame that we interned the Japanese. It matters because we melded postwar Europe and Japan in our own polical image and they believed what we told them about the fundamental rights of humanity. It matters because we inspired the people in Tianamen square to believe that the world could be better. It matters because we are the peace makers, not the war-mongering imperialists.

It just matters.

What is so Anti-American about getting rid of one of the most ruthless tyrants in history. Here is a man that gassed his own people, tortured thousands and had mass killing fields and graves. If you are going to get all idealistic, saying that we needed WMDs as an excuse to go in un-American. We did the right thing in WWII, in Serbia and in Iraq. What is so wrong with getting rid of dictators and stopping Genocide?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it matter what excuse Bush used. Either it was the right move or it was not. Who cares what Bush said. Bush's use of WMDs was to gain political support. It was a political move. The only bad political move is one that causes you to have bad political consequences. Bush won reelection, and that is when his using if WMDs as an excuse ceased to be an issue.

Why did it matter what lies Nixon told in his first term, or what happened at Watergate? Those were political things. Once he was re-elected, Watergate ceased to be an issue.

I thought this president was supposed to restore honor to the White House, and yet here you're arguing that there are no standards in politics, and no one should care.

But thank you for acknowledging the Bush used the WMD issue to gain political support. Many conservatives hereabouts are still pretending otherwise.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Bush I's intervention.

How far back do you disagree with Republican president's decisions. Penske points out most of your party might disagree with Lincoln's bravest decision.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Have you heard of WWI?

Yes - are you aware that WWI happened almost a hundred years ago? Had it occurred to you that the geopolitical military strategic situation might have changed just a little bit in the past one hundred years? Does Russia have a joint defense pact with Serbia, France and Great Britain? Is Russia about to go to war with a country over Serbia that is going to start sinking our merchant fleet?

Lets try and raise the IQ here just few points - OK.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes a short and stupid answer. Instability in the Balkins? Like something has changed? We let the massacres occur in Bosnia and did that negatively effect our national security: No. The reason why we bombed Serbia into stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo is because we felt guilty about what happened in Bosnia. It had absolutely nothing to do with national security or even strategic interest. We have no strategic or national security interest in the Balkins. During the cold war maybe, but now they are about as important to us as the Falkland Islands. Don't get me wrong - we did the right thing and I am just sorry we did not do something about Bosnia. But if you think Human rights are not enough reason to commence military action then you should have been outraged over Clintons intervention in Serbia.

I disagree with almost all of the above.

The massacres in Kosovo did negatively impact our national security. While our European allies and the UN stood helplessly by, the Iranians were the only people to provide assistance to the Bosnians, and Islamacists now are far more influential in BH and Turkey than they were before.

We may have no direct interest in the region, but we also don't have an interest in Turkey and Greece going to war (which was a possibility when Macedonia declared its independence, and wouldn't change its name).

Refugees from a full-scale war in the Balkans could also destabilize Italy (they weren't too happy with all of the Croatians pouring across the border in the early-90s).

I imagine in early 1914 that Mister Asquith probably didn't think that internal strife in the Balkans was a big deal, either.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is so Anti-American about getting rid of one of the most ruthless tyrants in history. Here is a man that gassed his own people, tortured thousands and had mass killing fields and graves. If you are going to get all idealistic, saying that we needed WMDs as an excuse to go in un-American. We did the right thing in WWII, in Serbia and in Iraq. What is so wrong with getting rid of dictators and stopping Genocide?

Nothing. Except balt's referring to torture aka Abu Graib, which happened after SH was toppled. And the illegal incarcerations are ongoing, even though SH now is not only captured but on trial. These things had and have nothing to do with getting rid of SH.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Did we start a war with the Japanese?

Well, we were seriously fucking with their strategic supply chains (particularly energy & steel) while they were at war with someone else. And directly supplied their opponents, for that matter.

An act of war? Probably not, given that it was technically economic action rather than overtly military. But not exactly an act of a neutral party.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
It was all purely partisan B.S. just like the WMD complaining is purely partisan BS.

What partisan BS.

As you may recall from back when the time that the Constitution was so important that we were required to read parts of it in law school, only Congress has the power to declare war. Imminent threat of WMDs was the justification given to Congress by the Executive Branch to pass the resolution authorizing the president to go to war in Iraq. Lying about the nature of the threat in order to secure congressional approval completely subverts the constitutional process.

I used to think that seeing as a bad thing the Constitution being shat upon was not a partisan issue.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky

Lets try and raise the IQ here just few points - OK.

You first.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How far back do you disagree with Republican president's decisions. Penske points out most of your party might disagree with Lincoln's bravest decision.

I agreed with intervention in Somalia. I was just pointing out that it was Bush I's intervention, not Clinton's. I think we've covered this before.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Please compare the situation in Serbia with the current situation in Cuba. I don't see it.

For the past forty years Castro has condemned his entire nation to abject poverty. In addition, to stay in power he has imprisoned thousands and tortured thousands. He is one of the top human rights abusers in the world. He also has tried and keeps trying to promote his wonderful system of government throughout the world.

The main reason for not taking him out before was his backing from the Soviet Union. He no longer has that backing. His military is pathetic and his people don't support him (otherwise he wouldn't have such a problem with calling elections). Taking him out would not be that difficult.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
The main reason for not taking him out before was his backing from the Soviet Union. He no longer has that backing. His military is pathetic and his people don't support him (otherwise he wouldn't have such a problem with calling elections). Taking him out would not be that difficult.

Perhaps we could land a force of anti-Castro exiles on one of their lovely beaches. Surely, once the freedom-loving Cuban people see armed resistance to the tyrant, they will flock to the banner, and likenesses of US Sugar and Lucky Luciano will be carried in joy down the streets of Vedado by the liberated populace.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Perhaps we could land a force of anti-Castro exiles on one of their lovely beaches. Surely, once the freedom-loving Cuban people see armed resistance to the tyrant, they will flock to the banner, and likenesses of US Sugar and Lucky Luciano will be carried in joy down the streets of Vedado by the liberated populace.

that's like saying because Carter let several troops die in an Iranian desert there was no way to free the hostages. Shit all Reagan needed to do was take office and they got out, because they knew he wouldn't pull the plug on something he started. Contrast -bay of pigs- you don't watch Oliver Stone movies?