103 replies to this topic

[Godeskian]

Ogami, on Jul 23 2004, 07:57 PM, said:

Acting pre-emptively is a crime. Not acting pre-emptively is also a crime, we're now told.

Depends if the only action you can think of is 'invade country'

[Ogami]

Beldame wrote:

Oooh, those evil socialists. You do know that Tony Blair is the leader of a socialist party....?

Yes, and he's doubly admired in my country for his courageous moral stance. Britain supports our mission in Iraq because it is, and was, the right thing to do. End of story.

The man's politics might have leaned towards the Jacques Chirac stance. But principle won out over crass opportunism. My country is supremely grateful for Blair's assistance in this endeavor. And it is a noble endeavor, no matter how much the "peaceful" protesters shriek and howl and spit and condemn.

But I also support the right of those who disagree to protest without being classed as screaming psychos

The shoe fits. Screaming, psychotic, drugged-out, hate-crazed peaceniks. We saw these same wackos protesting Reagan in the 1980s, I see the same group, message, and motivations today from these people. The old KGB called these people "useful dupes", so they persist today.

-Ogami

[Beldame]

Quote Ogami:
One of the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission report yesterday was that our leaders (that's Blair and Bush) need to be "creative" in anticipating threats in the war on terror. Be pro-active, anticipate possible troublespots and troublemakers, and deal accordingly.

Well for for once I'll agree you've got a reasonable point there. Of course now it seems that they identified the wrong country though. It's Iran that is closer to nuclear capability and Iran that seems to have had links with 9/11 terrorists.

[Ogami]

Beldame wrote:

Well for for once I'll agree you've got a reasonable point there. Of course now it seems that they identified the wrong country though. It's Iran that is closer to nuclear capability and Iran that seems to have had links with 9/11 terrorists.

Thanks, but this is the same old refrain. Leading up to Gulf War II, we had a thousand liberal columnists screaming that North Korea was the greater threat, they had WMD, why weren't we invading there?

Or Liberia. Or the Sudan. Now it's Iran.  

One gets the feeling it wouldn't have mattered which countries we liberated. The left would simply go by their tired playbook "Why did you invade country X when you should have invaded country Y??????"

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 23 July 2004 - 02:13 PM.

[Delvo]

Beldame, on Jul 23 2004, 01:02 PM, said:

Of course now it seems that they identified the wrong country though. It's Iran that is closer to nuclear capability and Iran that seems to have had links with 9/11 terrorists.

True and very interesting... but neither of those things was known before, and that doesn't mean Iraq wasn't  making WMDs and didn't have terrorist ties, so it doesn't effect the soundness of the decision with the information we had back then. The interesting question then is: Would Iran have been a better target if we had known? I say no, but that's a different thread, I think.

[prolog]

Beldame, on Jul 23 2004, 06:47 PM, said:

You do know that Tony Blair is the leader of a socialist party....?

Is Labour really that socialist anymore?  My understanding is that after Blair took the reigns, the part went from being pretty left wing to being pretty centrist.

[Ogami]

I'd have to agree with prolog, Blair is closer ideologically to Bill Clinton than Bush. Thus it was an extraordinary bit of leadership to side with Bush rather than the status quo over Iraq. Blair made a decision and has stood with us, for better or for worse.

[Drew]

Beldame, on Jul 23 2004, 02:02 PM, said:

Of course now it seems that they identified the wrong country though. It's Iran that is closer to nuclear capability and Iran that seems to have had links with 9/11 terrorists.

Lest we forget, Iran was part of the "Axis of Evil" comment that put all the chattering class in an uproar. Bush knew what he was talking about back then. This shouldn't have been a surprise at all.

And no matter who gets elected this fall, that person is going to have to deal with Iran.

[prolog]

^ Agreed, and probably North Korea, too.  They've got a dozen screws loose.

[Kosh]

Quote

Screaming, psychotic, drugged-out, hate-crazed peaceniks.

That's an exaggeration. Those guys haven't really exsisted since the late 60's or early 70's.

[Drew]

Kosh, on Jul 23 2004, 02:53 PM, said:

Quote

Screaming, psychotic, drugged-out, hate-crazed peaceniks.

That's an exaggeration. Those guys haven't really exsisted since the late 60's or early 70's.

Umm. . . I've seen "peace" demonstrations this year that were so full of hatred they frightened me. (Particularly the one where the speaker had everyone shouting "Long live the intifada!") Maybe drugs aren't as prevelant, but the hatred certainly is.

[Ilphi]

Quote

prolog said:
Is Labour really that socialist anymore? My understanding is that after Blair took the reigns, the part went from being pretty left wing to being pretty centrist.

Being glib here, but: Blair is the best conservative PM we've had since Thatcher. Heh, I kid, I kid, but party labels don't really mean much when it comes to New Labour, hence why the Old Labour crowd despise what their parties become with the trade unions not being involved. Most people think that Gordon Brown is only there to appease some Old Labour supporters. Anyway, traditionally I'd support the conservative party, but after Howard's U-Turn on the Iraq war I've lost any respect for him. I'd vote for Blair if he ran again.

[Kosh]

Drew, on Jul 23 2004, 03:02 PM, said:

Kosh, on Jul 23 2004, 02:53 PM, said:

Quote

Screaming, psychotic, drugged-out, hate-crazed peaceniks.

That's an exaggeration. Those guys haven't really exsisted since the late 60's or early 70's.

Umm. . . I've seen "peace" demonstrations this year that were so full of hatred they frightened me. (Particularly the one where the speaker had everyone shouting "Long live the intifada!") Maybe drugs aren't as prevelant, but the hatred certainly is.

Hatred I'll grant you.That's the one thing that seems to be plentiful in the USA, on both sides of the issue.

[Ogami]

Kosh wrote:

That's an exaggeration. Those guys haven't really exsisted since the late 60's or early 70's.

(chuckle) I thought someone was going to point out that Limbaugh was the one on drugs.

-Ogami

[Kosh]

Ogami, on Jul 23 2004, 03:12 PM, said:

Kosh wrote:

That's an exaggeration. Those guys haven't really exsisted since the late 60's or early 70's.

(chuckle) I thought someone was going to point out that Limbaugh was the one on drugs.

-Ogami

What happened to him can happen to anyone. I've known people who got hooked on Nasal Spray of all things.

[Ogami]

I'm hooked on plain M&Ms and Arizona Green Tea.

[prolog]

Hooked or just "damn, this stuff is good!"?

[Drew]

Kosh, on Jul 23 2004, 03:11 PM, said:

Hatred I'll grant you.That's the one thing that seems to be plentiful in the USA, on both sides of the issue.

I must disagree about "both sides."

[Delvo]

Kosh, on Jul 23 2004, 02:11 PM, said:

Hatred I'll grant you.That's the one thing that seems to be plentiful in the USA, on both sides of the issue.

Not really. Ex Isle has Ogami and G1223, but I have yet to see even one parallel to that anywhere else outside of Ex Isle. Meanwhile, Ex Isle's equally vociferous liberals have parallels abounding pretty thickly everywhere else outside of Ex Isle as well... and often in important positions that clearly call for a different sort of person from that.

[Delvo]

BTW, has anyone noticed the disappearance of the Rush story? Despite all the liberal hyperventilating on the subject and the rampant invention of lies about it right here when it first came out, it's turned out that there was never a shred of evidence of any crime involved, and the DA's just begging for more chances to try to come up with something. That's why it's not being reported on anymore; what's turned out to be the case is not what they wanted it to be and wanted to report.