"Shoes Fly, Don't Bother Me" soundtrack to Bush's (R) latest visit to Iraq

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Redux
Now I would like to know if you think it matters how citizens of other countries perceive the US as a nation and the president as a world leader?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not one fucking bit.

Cool. [Withdraws troops from Afghanistan]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Cool. [Withdraws troops from Afghanistan]

Yea, I have made my feelings about that situation known.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

Clearly, you have no interest in doing that.

Enjoy your rampage across the political forum. I really hope it does make you feel better about yourself.

One thing everyone should understand is Redux's central motivation is capital-letter White Liberal Guilt. It underlies everything he writes about politics. He imagines this neurotic misbehavior to be the road of virtue. It is not. Were it virtuous, I would practice it. Instead, I hew to the opposite, and thus can oppose tyranny more successfully than he, which is of course the more virtuous road, and one he'd much rather I didn't take. I'm pretty loud and clear about it too.

So Redux's little sneer at the end of his post is really pretty hollow stuff, intended solely to make himself feel good about his second-rater life choices. This kind of posturing is why I am neither leftist nor Democrat: I am too grown up and too solid of spirit for this kind of playing around.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

One thing everyone should understand is Redux's central motivation is capital-letter White Liberal Guilt. It underlies everything he writes about politics. He imagines this neurotic misbehavior to be the road of virtue. It is not. Were it virtuous, I would practice it. Instead, I hew to the opposite, and thus can oppose tyranny more successfully than he, which is of course the more virtuous road, and one he'd much rather I didn't take. I'm pretty loud and clear about it too.

So Redux's little sneer at the end of his post is really pretty hollow stuff, intended solely to make himself feel good about his second-rater life choices. This kind of posturing is why I am neither leftist nor Democrat: I am too grown up and too solid of spirit for this kind of playing around.

i'm very content with my life

Not to say there are not a few things I would do differently in retrospect, but not the core values that broughtt me to where I am today.

I just came here for the infotainment, to exchange opinions and ideas, not engage in personal attacks, but I guess you play the hand you're dealt here.

SO deal the cards, dude and perhaps for once, you can respond to the issues and my direct rebuts to your posts (the corrupt Bush DOJ - remember that one?, the failed neo-con policies, and the most bizarre of all - your contention that gun control leads to genocide) and not the personalities of those who dont share your views.

What is so hard about focusing on issues and opinions and not character assassination?

Start with this one on the concept of creating democracy by force of invasion/occupation....or this one on the JPFO basis to oppose even reasonable gun control.

I've been waiting for you.

Or will it just be another hit and run?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My dear boy, you can't convince me there was ever such a thing as a failed neocon policy. The greater part of their policy ideas weren't even tried, and the few that were had a fair measure of success. GWB was never considered one of their own by the neos. Do some more objective reading.

Looks like this is the thread I should put my demolition of your ignorant assertion that connecting gun control to genocide is somehow bizarre. Good enough.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So are you willing to accept in the same level of understanding that someone might hate Obama enough to oppose him and his policy in public, on a forum, or as one of the 75,000 who protested against him this week on the Mall? Or do you just push that off as another group of racists?

Oh I can see why people might hate him. I don't necessarily think opposition to Obama is race-based (I don't know that it isn't either).

And you are willing to defend a Child Pedophile but not a soldier. WOW, that speaks volumes.

As opposed to some other kind of paedophile? :P Does it also speak volumes that I am a regularly attending and paid up member of the Royal British Legion? Through which organisation I have many veteran soldier friends, of all ages. Some from recent conflicts and some old soldiers.

This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about Merc. It's unreasonable to leap so easily to condemnation or defence. Soldiers are not gods nor are paedophiles monsters. They're all just people. Soldiers can and do commit crimes, paedophiles can and do commit good acts. the very thought that someone might have paedophile desire renders them subhuman in your view, regardless of if they've ever acted on those thoughts, yet you cannot see how someone might have seen their daughters or wives suffer at the hands of soldiers and feel aggrieved.

I don't condemn soldiers. I do more than the average person to support them. But nor do I deify them. In war, terrible things are done and crimes are committed. Some soldiers rape and kill innocents. It happens in every major conflict, in every warzone, in every occupied land. Yea even unto the dawn of humanity. Recognising that fact and understanding how that might impact upon the victims of it is not a condemnation of all soldiers.

But hey: you stay comfortable in your little bubble, where hero soldiers do no harm.

[DanaC]

Just as an aside: we're getting too hung up on the soldiers who have committed these acts. The fact is that even if a soldier is doing his job well, that doesn't mean the average person in Baghdad is going to feel it is fair enough if his family are wiped out by a bomb. To us it might be collateral damage: to them it is the wholesale slaughter of their nearest and dearest. In effect it must feel little different to the slaughtering of innocents by Saddam. When we bombed Baghdad back to the stone age; did we really think that ordinary people caught up in that bombing would welcome us? Might they not instead feel as if we'd dropped bombs all over their city? When one of our soldiers makes an understandable human error and mistakes a wedding party for a bunch of insurgents and bombs said party, might not the friends and relatives of those killed come away with an abiding hatred of us and our troops and see us as the enemy? Whatever our reasons for being there it was not at the request of the ordinary people of Baghdad: to many of them we were aggressors and our leaders warmongers. Even those who may have wanted assistance removing Saddam from his perch, doesn't mean they wanted their homes destroyed in the process. If you had a problem with rodents, and the exterminators blew up your house, you would not calmly thank them for ridding you of your rats. You might even throw something at them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Just as an aside: we're getting too hung up on the soldiers who have committed these acts.

That was the point.

The fact is that even if a soldier is doing his job well, that doesn't mean the average person in Baghdad is going to feel it is fair enough if his family are wiped out by a bomb. To us it might be collateral damage: to them it is the wholesale slaughter of their nearest and dearest. In effect it must feel little different to the slaughtering of innocents by Saddam. When we bombed Baghdad back to the stone age; did we really think that ordinary people caught up in that bombing would welcome us? Might they not instead feel as if we'd dropped bombs all over their city? When one of our soldiers makes an understandable human error and mistakes a wedding party for a bunch of insurgents and bombs said party, might not the friends and relatives of those killed come away with an abiding hatred of us and our troops and see us as the enemy? Whatever our reasons for being there it was not at the request of the ordinary people of Baghdad: to many of them we were aggressors and our leaders warmongers. Even those who may have wanted assistance removing Saddam from his perch, doesn't mean they wanted their homes destroyed in the process. If you had a problem with rodents, and the exterminators blew up your house, you would not calmly thank them for ridding you of your rats. You might even throw something at them.

I can't disagree.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

To me, you seem like the type who would offer a reward to someone who threw their shoe at Qadafi or Ahmadinejad. You might even throw your shoe at one of them yourself. Am I mistaken?

Yes

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Elspode

So what do you get when you call the President a liar?

I figure I'll try to answer since Redux apparently refused to do so himself. A lot of "noise" from all the left leaning media and his opponent gets money. Is that about right?

Originally Posted by Redux

Now I would like to know if you think it matters how citizens of other countries perceive the US as a nation and the president as a world leader?

Matters? Yes it does, to a degree. I think that is a very basic concept.

Originally Posted by Redux

Some dont see the value of one last attempt to negotiate with Iran and I assume would prefer a more belligerent US position. Is that more in our interest?
When did it become a bad thing to being liked AND respected beyond our own borders?

I never said it was a bad thing, but I also do NOT think it should be the primary reason to determine U.S. policy.

Originally Posted by classicman

I figure I'll try to answer since Redux apparently refused to do so himself. A lot of "noise" from all the left leaning media and his opponent gets money. Is that about right?

What appears likely is a "resolution of disapproval" presented on the floor of the House today. While I personally think it is political showmanship, the act did violate the formal and written rules of the House and to have the Congressional Record reflect that (since his apology was not done on the floor and thus not in the Record) is not all that bad of a precedent.

And the "resolution of disapproval" is far less harsh then the "resolution of censure" that the Republicans brought to the floor several years ago against MoveOn.org because they referred to General Petreaus as General BetrayUs.

Both resolutions represent the silly side of politics-- although one is expressing a disapproval of a violation of the "company" rules and the other is censuring free speech -- so maybe one was a just a little sillier.

Originally Posted by classicman

Matters? Yes it does, to a degree. I think that is a very basic concept.

I never said it was a bad thing, but I also do NOT think it should be the primary reason to determine U.S. policy.

Yep..thats what I said. It should never be a major factor in policymaking that could compromise or adversely affect national interests or national security in any way.

[classicman]

Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

Is that rhetoric appropriate?

SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.

h/t Brian Walsh

More, via Tim Grieve, from a 2005 Rolling Stone sit-down:

RS: You've called Bush a loser.

HR: And a liar.

RS: You apologized for the loser comment.

HR: But never for the liar, have I?

Whatever your personal opinion of what he said may be, this is not the first time its happened... nor the last.

What was Reid's punishment? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Originally Posted by classicman

Whatever your personal opinion of what he said may be, this is not the first time its happened... nor the last.

What was Reid's punishment? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I dont condone these types of attacks by our top elected officials, but it is a different playing field completely.

Reid's remarks were not on the floor of the Senate where such actions are prohibited.

Both were in poor taste, but only one went a step further and violated the commonly known and accepted policies of the organization as they apply within the physical boundaries of the organization.

[classicman]

Both were by elected members - I find them equally distasteful and unacceptable.
Where it was said matters MUCH less to me than what was said.