@XxFightinDirtyxX If you didn't notice, this was made before Obama took office and before the Republicans became the party of blocking every type of major legislation he has attempted to pass. Democrats are pissed because Obama is too bipartisan and can't pass any bills, Republicans are pissed that he wants to actually help low-income people in this country by taxing the multi-millionaires a bit more. Too bad he's too nice...he should have been more of a tyrant like Bush W.
show obamas approval rating its awefull dont give me this stuff about bush being worse. This is not true there both evil puppets man u really think ones better then the other there doing the same stuff obama just sounds nice keep hopeing for change. You will get change but its gona be towards the downfall of mankind....
@RaDleySkidbeater Of course Bush was worse, HE was the guy that handed down Obama this mess? What's so sad is how Fox News is changing history and this country is just going to grow up even more ignorant than it already is. It's the ignorant American people who believe he could have fixed it all up in two years. You have not a clue of the horrific things Bush Co. did. What, tell me one single thing that Obama did that was worse than Bush.
@RaDleySkidbeater Please provide a single example please. Statements like these need to be backed up with evidence. If you can provide more than one piece of evidence, then that would support your claim.
@RaDleySkidbeater So now you want to dictate what I can say and what I can't? You guys talk about freedom but you don't know what it is. I just stated the facts to you. Also I never said I like Obama so get a life loser, you just need to know the facts.
@altaqqadum96 Yes, Universal Health Care (how can you not want that?). We're ranked 37th in the quality of health care; socialized medicine is a step in the right direction. Carbon Tax? You're worried about carbon taxes? hahaha, how about Wall Street??? The Defense Budget? Corporate Tax Loopholes? Seems to me you're quite good at gobbling up that right-wing propaganda.
@HoboZombie Pretty horrible. It's so pathetic how stupid half of our country is. How could so many millions of people actually vote for republicans after what they did to us with Bush? They only have plans to help the super wealthy and corporations, NOTHING to help the majority of the country. What a pathetic country we've become.
To be fair, I don't believe either of them are qualified. The only true difference is Obama is more eloquent, but when it comes down to it, they both work for the same people doing the same thing in different ways.
@samanthalynn6790 I beg to differ. There is no doubt the Democrats are bought by much big business as well, but just look at the policies each have implemented (or tried to). Bush's healthcare hooked Big Pharma up and millions more went w/o healthcare, Obama's healthcare ripped them one and provided healthcare to millions. Bush's tax cuts helped the top 1% while reducing middle class's mean income $2000; Obama's will hurt the 1% and help middle class. HUGE differences.
"Why did they attack? Do you know why? Because we are in THEIR country forcing OUR ideals on their culture. You can even watch BinLaden say this. We have bases in over 135 countries, the biggest proponent of Globalization...OTHER people are affected, not us, isn't this worse than 9/11?"
Never has there been a more clear example of cultural relativism. Americans need to shed this bogus philosophy, but particularly those of us on the left who want to maintain any degree of credibility.
This isn't philosophy, this isn't theoretical, this is fact.
Have you ever listened to BinLaden tapes? I'm not saying he is justified in killing innocent people, but I am making it clear that the U.S. has a heavy hand in stirring up world culture and maybe we shouldn't so much.
Yes, I've heard many of the tapes and have read his "Letter to the Americans". I'm well aware that we are living in Dhar Al-Harb as well.
That all being said do you condemn or condone the things "they" have done in the name of Islam? It's not so clear when you say "Because we are in THEIR country", etc. etc.
Bin Laden doesn't even recognize or respect the concept of the nation-state.
Do you think it's invalid to value one thing over another.... say democracy over a sharia law?
Some Americans believe we shouldn't "stir up cultures".
Some Americans initially supported the Ayatollah because he represented true Iranian culture... but then criticized him for violating human rights. What he did was in the name of Islam. His critics would insist there are universal principles limiting the rights of Islam. When the critics of the U.S. in the name of culture and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights are the same person, they wish to have their cake and eat it too.
I like the idea of a U.N. that would help in the decisions of when is morally just to intervene, but unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. I don't think we, unilaterally, should go around doing what we think is right (because we inevitably do it for our own self interest, not for them).
Ok, now that we've established that there are moral truths, can you elaborate on this idea whereby a moral truth is rendered obsolete because a culture or geography is different?
For example, is it morally correct for another culture outside of the United States to own slaves?
I absolutely condemn his violent actions, but I do understand some of his reasoning.
I do think it wrong for us to decide what is right and what is wrong for another culture. We should not impose (or rather force) our beliefs on others.
In due time, cultures change and adapt; give them time. Look at Iran, half the country loves the U.S. way of life, it's just the old conservatives which are holding them back. Give them another 25-50 years on their own without forced regime change.
We have decided as a society, over time, that slavery is wrong. It's pretty much a world accepted moral now, just like condemning genocide; two examples of something the U.N. should not put up with.
Though the way a government/culture is run hasn't reached world consensus yet and so it's not for us to decide.
"We have decided as a society, over time that slavery is wrong. It's pretty much a world accepted moral now"
I'd recommend revisiting the Lincoln - Douglas debates. Lincoln thought, correctly, that slavery was a moral wrong. He did not however, think that this moral judgement was altered by geography. If slavery was wrong, it was wrong for all men, everywhere at all times.
It sounds as though your thinking is more in line with Douglas. Am I mistaken?
I read about those debates recently in the Smithsonian, Lincoln was awesome. It's easy for us to say now that slavery is wrong, but it wasn't so back then. Societies condoned it for thousands of years with it being "wrong".
One day we may think that killing any animal is "wrong". Most people think it's ok to kill animals, but maybe one day society will have changed to deem that as wrong and immoral too.
Morality is relevant given the era. There are no universal rights/wrongs.
"Morality is relevant given the era. There are no universal rights/wrongs".
That statement is logically in opposition with your having conceded that there are in fact moral rights and wrongs.
Moral propositions are categorical in nature rather than hypothetical or contingent. They speak of the things which are right or wrong at all times. Moral propositions have this force because they are drawn as implications from the logic of morals itself.
Morality changes as society changes. We decide what is right and wrong given the moment in time. As of right now, most of human society sees slavery and genocide as being wrong, but that may change over time as we've seen so many other social issues change.
You say morals "speak things of things right or wrong at all times"...
But it was once morally right to perform human sacrifices, now it's not (as another example).
Yes it is problematic if autocratic nations are going to be able to make human rights decisions, but we have far more democratic sympathizing ones consisting of the majority and in charge.
All countries should have a say, but as time is telling, democracy is sweeping the world. It's only a matter of time before the autocracies are gone.
"Yes it is problematic if autocratic nations are going to be able to make human rights decisions, but we have far more democratic sympathizing ones consisting of the majority and in charge"
In charge of what, exactly?
As recently as 2002, Libya (a regime charged with trafficking in human slavery) was nominated chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
I can't think of a more effective way of quashing investigations into Libyan human rights violations than having them as chair.
We have human slavery here in the U.S. too. Sex slave traders have been found all along the boarder in the south and many illegal immigrants are held captive as well (paying off never ending debt).
It's not that Qaddafi is responsible for the trafficking, nor Bush.
How many chair positions are their at the U.N.? It's not like they're all like Libya or Sudan; most are not.
The example of Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission just goes to illuminate why morality by consensus is a bankrupt endeavor.
I don't mean to sound like a scold, but you really ought to re-visit the Lincoln/Douglas debates, as what you're arguing here is essentially the same reasoning as Douglas.
Just because Libya has a chair, doesn't mean that the U.N. can't be functional. Their moral judgments may be different in some cases, but that shouldn't excuse them from participating. I mean, we allow anyone to run for president in this country, freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that that point of view will be accepted.
You're right that it's not accepted here, as it's not accepted in Libya. You're right that they don't mind in Sudan, they're carrying out genocide, that's why it's a perfect example of a government that must be intervened.
Slavery is not just "not accepted", it's understood to be immoral and it's illegal.
In the Sudan, it's not necessarily thought of as immoral.
Still you're not explaining how in this case how an intervention by the U.S. wouldn't be in violation the principle you'd laid out earlier which says morals are dictated by democratic consensus.
"I do think it wrong for us to decide what is right and what is wrong for another culture"
You've stated this a few times now and I fail to see how this isn't an articulation of cultural relativism.
If another culture is partaking of slavery and genocide, then by your statement here, we're not do anything because to make such a judgement is to "stir up cultures".
It sounds hypocritical, but I'm trying to explain that under certain world-widely accepted moral scenarios, such as slavery and genocide, intervening should be allowed despite it interfering with culture.
These morals are new to this world, slavery used to be accepted, but now most of human culture has evolved to see it banned. Therefore when it is found to be happening, a multilateral effort should have a consent to stop it (not unilateral).
"It sounds hypocritical, but I'm trying to explain that under certain world-widely accepted moral scenarios, such as slavery and genocide, intervening should be allowed despite it interfering with culture".
So what's the governing principle underlying that notion?
On what basis is multilateralism somehow acceptable whereas unilateralism is not?
Democracy. Agreement on behalf of the majority of a functional U.N.
They have agreed to try and stop genocide, because the the majority accept it as morally justified. They haven't accepted forced regime change based on a country harboring terrorists (Iraq) or having a dictatorship that destroys its own country (Zimbabwe).
I'm actually not sure about Zimbabwe, the majority may condemn it but can't do anything (too much red tape?), and so this is why the U.N. sucks right now.
So in the case where a governed body decides that either slavery or genocide or cannibalism is morally acceptable, then, in accordance with your democratic consensus theory, it's therefore morally acceptable for that community to partake of what they wish.
The U.N. has never prevented a war. I certainly can't name one.
I already admitted that the U.N. doesn't function properly. Though if it did, that would be an ideal way to make these regime changing decisions.
It is morally acceptable for that community to partake in anything they wish that fits their interpretation of what right and wrong is at that time. Back in the old west, it was acceptable to challenge people to duals, not it's not. It was right then, not now.
So you admit that your method of dealing with moral evils is to be fully invested in an institution which has a proven track record of not being able to ameliorate such evils?
If you say "It is morally acceptable for that community to partake in anything they wish that fits their interpretation of what right and wrong is at that time" then you're simply turning a blind eye to evil.
Sorry to play semantics, but I'd rather not use the word "evil". We're dealing with right and wrong here.
There are many different interpretations of things that are right and wrong depending on the culture. There are a few 'rights' that are now widely accepted (no to genocide). Right now, we should stop it, since the majority condemns it.
But forcing democracy on different countries as we see it is totally unacceptable because it's not widely accepted.
So let's say the governed community you find yourself in (let's just call it Oceana) decides, democratically to allow individuals to confiscate by force, the private property of other individuals and to consume their flesh.
On what grounds could you, as a member of that governed community, object?
I'd have to say that I'd sit here on the computer making mini-documentaries to try to spread the word and wait for some great community organizer/leader to lead the way for me to follow. I say that because that's what I did these last 6 years while Bush was over in Iraq killing a 100,00 innocent people. I'd like to think that I'd do something as "active" as the WU to stop the war, but I just don't have that courage. Does that answer your question?
I'm not so sure what a domestic terrorist organization has to do with your inability to demonstrate a testable proposition.
It's quite clear to anyone who might happen to read this comment thread that you've either no use for reason or that you believe that the Enlightenment was something to do with the Dalai Lama.
So you think that there is no such thing as evil?
There's still the question earlier which you've either overlooked or intentionally ignored....
How would it not be a violation of your principle, laid out earlier, (which posits the idea that morals are dictated by democratic consensus) for an intervention by the U.S. in the Sudan?
There's nothing illogical here. Since Sudan's actions violate the globally accepted moral understanding that genocide is wrong, then it would be fine for the U.S. to intervene. The U.N. agrees, but can't do anything because they suck with all of the BS bureaucratic red tape they go through.
But the U.S. can't just do anything they want because they aren't right about everything in the world's view.
Majority Rules. This is how society decides on what is right and wrong, by what the majority sees fit; whether it's a small society (like the U.S.) or a large one (like the world).
Since most countries are united (ie. UN or EU), signed peace treaties (etc.); we are now thought to be a unified entity (like a big country). The logic is simple. As the majority of the US forced the end of slavery, now the WORLD condemns slavery to end it too.
So, if back in the old days in the old west you say it was moral to participate in duels. What if it were immoral in the old east to participate in duels?
Which was moral and which was immoral?
Remember, morals are by their nature universal and not contingent on geography or time.
WHAT? I've given you MULTIPLE examples!!! 1. Slavery 2. Women's rights 3. Death Penalty 4. Gays and Civil Rights. 5. Animals Testing 6. Polluting the environment 7. An eye for an eye > turn the other cheek 8. Duals in the west 9. Polygamy Morality depends upon where&when you are. There are tribes, cultures, civilizations throughout time that all have their own code of morals. It CHANGES! One day, it may be totally IMMORAL to kill animals for food. We're learning how they feel pain.
These are examples of events which demonstrate a change in the mindset of society; from initially believing something to be perfectly fine, legit, moral to being completely against it (or vice versa).
Morals change throughout time. What might be morally acceptable now may not later (such as killing animals).
It is IMMORAL for us to decide what is right for another country if the majority doesn't approve.
You're merely reciting events in lieu of demonstrating the truth of the proposition that "morals change over time".
Perhaps you'd do well to consider a Philosophy introductory course so you'd gain an understanding of the importance of reason, logic and evidence in the intellectual history of the West.
Your comments have no substance or pertinence to the argument. What does philosophy have to do with any of this? You've been so far off the topic, accusing me of lacking intelligence and logic when I've merely stated facts that you don't believe in. It's your logic which is faulty.
Get back to the topic: Do you believe 9/11 would have happened to us if we we didn't have military bases all over the world, all up in their land going after their resources?
The fact that six years after the fact youve not even familiarized yourself with the document shows that youre not serious enough about the issue to have done your
I am totally willing to condemn my country and family when they do wrong; that does not mean that will not do my best to support them or try to make them better. I also made those videos BEFORE Obama...he hasn't screwed us or the world up yet as many of our previous governments have. I just hope we finally have a more morally responsible government than we ever have before. In terms of moral character, he blows McCain out of the water.
I'm Canadian and I'd dispute what you say about the U.S. screwing up the world, it has been an overwhelmingly positive force in the world. You think dissent makes you an intellectual, that the only way to move forward is to be self-loathing. Surely, America can do wrong, but listening to you, one would believe it can do no good, and never has.
dispute all you want. I wouldn't say "overwhelming positive force"...did you even watch my American Imperialism Timeline? Of course we've done great things, but I hear those too often, and most people forget or ignore what we do WRONG. That's all I'm pointing out. Nobody is self-loathing here. I'm not about to spend my time saying all the good things the U.S. does when virtually NOBODY knows any of the BAD things it does.
Obama worked as a community organizer + pro-bono lawyer.
What are you comparing America too? America has been the most benign superpower in history, go ahead, compare it.
America & its allies defeated fascism, it stood up against Soviet expansionism (REAL imperialism that actually swallowed sovereign countries), & is now fighting Islamic totalitarianism (ideologues with global ambitions, but more irrational, suicidal and itching to acquire and use WMDs).
Your timing to weaken the home team by pointing out irrelevent historical atrocities is poor.
I don't think there ever a bad time to learn the truth...seriously, are you kidding? If Bush Co. was still in power, I'd be VERY scared of us attacking another country with the support of ignorant/mainstream America that is thirsty for "islamic totalitarianism" blood.
We need to educate America so that our current ideologies don't repeat our past ones.
It's also hard to claim we are the most 'benign' superpower after all of those examples I gave in the American Imperialism Timeline.
Obama thinks there is, that's why he's withholding photos of further abuse at Abu Ghraib. He believes it puts the lives of soldiers in danger by providing the enemy with propaganda. Since you gush over him constantly, can I assume you agree with his policy?
Don't be immature, the only Islamic totalitarian country invaded was Afghanistan, and only after the worst terrorist attack in U.S., and world history. You're scared of the wrong people.
Good point on the Abu Ghraib photos...I'm not sure though, WHEN should they come out then? 75 years from now when we're all friends? Or just let them out to show America what we're truly made of?
Why did they attack? Do you know why? Because we are in THEIR country forcing OUR ideals on their culture. You can even watch BinLaden say this. We have bases in over 135 countries, the biggest proponent of Globalization...OTHER people are affected, not us, isn't this worse than 9/11?
If you think a military base set up during the gulf war with the consent of the government in Saudi Arabia is reason to kill 3000 americans, then you're perverted.
Al-Qaeda objected to those bases simply because they believe infidels violate the purity of the land with their presence..
"let them out to show America what we're truly made of?"
That's really what you believe America is made of? In case I'm mistaken, America was also the country that brought those sadistic guards to justice.
Obviously it wasn't just a few guards, and we have been conducting and allowing torture all over the place, even approved from officials high up. It's disgusting and despicable.
Our presence then shouldn't be in their land. We should NOT try to rule the world unilaterally but with an international democracy, like the U.N. Sure it's an embarrassment now, but that's what we should put our energy into making work properly.
I obviously don't agree with killing 3000 people (don't be rude)
You think bases being built in other countries is a sign of unilaterialism? It's multilateralism. Those bases are there at the consent of the governments in question, which is cooperation. What is NATO if not multilateral? The problem with U.S. multilaterialism has been the unwillingness of allies to contribute substantially to any joint efforts, like in Afghanistan, which is why 10 000 more U.S. soldiers are being sent to fill the void.
And France's interests, for example, layed with Saddam.
Ha, "the consent of the governments". You think that makes it OK? You think that means that it's automatically the best interest in the countries? Jesus man, it's not about "unwillingness of allies" it's cutting unfair trade deals and regulations so we can get what we want for the cheapest cost as soon as possible, before these countries are even ready to play ball.
10,000 more U.S. soldiers are going to try to fix the ORIGINAL problem that BUSH Co. left undone and screwed up.
"You think that means that it's automatically the best interest in the countries?"
Not necessarily, but the job of government is to pursue national interests.
You seem, btw, to think foreign policy should be dictated by terrorists. If they blow something up, some say: "we have to stop making them angry". As if to say; "Let's run everything by Bin Laden first to make sure he's ok with it, so he won't mass murder us."
Bush sought more contribution from NATO for Afghanistan, they refused.
Just because I think there should be multilateral democracy, SHOULDN'T lead you to the ridiculous Glenn Beck conclusion of us [Democrats] letting foreign policy be "dictated by terrorists".
We need to stop conducting regime changes in our interest, but rather have the world helping support decisions and subsidies.
Rumsfeld said the Iraq war would cost at most $15 Billion or even "pay for itself". The original name was Operation Iraqi Liberation, OIL !!! IT"S ALL ABOUT USA, USA, USA!
Uhh, what led me to that conclusion was that you suggested, not subtly, that the U.S. was 1. worse than Al-Qaeda, and 2. That al-Qaeda are only angry and mass murderers because of U.S. foreign policy, and so the U.S. should alter its foreign policy so they can no longer conceive any irrational cassus bellis.
Look at what the U.N. gets Darfur. Look at how the U.S. had to send 10 000 more troops to AFG, because NATO members, 28 in-all, wouldn't pull together to contribute any more troops.
NATO is short on resources AND many countries don't want their soldiers on the front line getting blown up for the MISTAKE the U.S. made. This is ALL Bush/Cheney's fault, leaving AFG early. If we were really that righteous, WE would help Darfur...maybe if we weren't busy with 2 unnecessary wars we'd help Darfur. The U.N. needs fixing.
the U.S. SHOULD alter it's foreign policy (but not just because of Al-Qaeda). Actually the U.S. IS responsible for FAR more INNOCENT deaths than AQ.
"This is ALL Bush/Cheney's fault, leaving AFG early."
The U.S. never left Afghanistan since liberating it.....
"NATO is short on resources"
Nato is made up of the most industrialized and modern countries in the world. The truth is, many of those countries don't consider fighting Al-Qaeda to be in their interest, so they send a negligeable couple of hundred troops to fulfill their treaty obligations and let American soldiers die instead. That's your naive multilateralist fantasy in practice.
You're right the U.S. didn't leave AFG entirely, but they did turn their focus toward Iraq, leaving the Talban to regain control or at least some power. If you haven't learned that or don't believe that, then you're probably watching Fox News too much.
Hmm, maybe if we didn't go into this "war on terror" by ourselves for our own selfish reasons, then we'd have more sentimental allies.
Maybe Obama, with negotiations, can win back some of them. Like his speech in Egypt was a GREAT start.
"Hmm, maybe if we didn't go into this "war on terror" by ourselves for our own selfish reasons"
National security is a selfish reason... It's supposed to be.
The "War on Terror" has never been fought alone.
You claim the U.S. went to Iraq selfishly for oil. But, France was doing illegal oil deals with Saddam, that's why they opposed the war. "you're probably watching Fox News too much. "
That's so cliche, man, honestly. You're like the zillionth person to regurgitate that.
"National security is a selfish reason" - you think we actually went into Iraq because of National Security??? That's just what our government SAID why we were going in. What was illegal about France's deals?
The "war on terror" is a bullshit term to justify anything. It's like the "war on drugs" or "war on poverty"...it'll always be there.
Sorry about the Fox News comment; I just know WAY too many people that watch it and spout similar comments as you. My bad on the assumption.
"you think we actually went into Iraq because of National Security?"
Yes, Saddam openly funded jihadists, & never proved the complete destruction of his WMDs to U.N. inspectors. He was a man anxious to settle a score with the U.S., & there were high level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. What hasn't been proven is operational links, but there were meetings, that's not disputed.
Yes, it's a misnomer, it's not a war to get rid of all terrorism, but to get rid of state-sponsored terrorism.
I'm sorry you (and half of America) thinks that. Man, this is scary what you believe...THERE WAS NEVER A LINK TO AL QAEDA + NEVER WMDS! There were NO "meetings" either, there was NOTHING between AQ + Iraq. Those claims WERE disputed.
Actually, Saddam was even MORE afraid of Iran than us. You can't use "anxious to settle a score" to justify pre-preemptive war...just about every country wants to "settle a score".
If you think it was to rid terrorism, why not N.Korea, Sudan or Zimbabwe?
"THERE WAS NEVER A LINK TO AL QAEDA + NEVER WMDS!...."
What I pointed out was the lack of operational links. Basically, there was no evidence that AQ was operating on behalf of Saddam, or in concert with him. There was, however, proof of high level contacts as conceded by the 9\11 commission.
Saddam was supposed to dismantle his WMDs after the gulf war, 12 years passed and he refused to provide evidence of their complete destruction, precisely because he wanted people to think he had them.
I don't agree with any "operational links" or "high level contacts"...it's obsolete. There was never a SIGNIFICANT connection between the two, that's everyone knows and admits... those were FALSE accusations.
"supposed to dismantle WMDs"...there WERE NONE!
From his 10th day in office, Bush wanted to go into Iraq and so he did EVERYTHING he could to do so. Europe didn't support him because they didn't like him and 99% of all intelligence said there was NOTHING there.
Well, I think any contact between Saddam's intelligence service and Al-Qaeda is "significant", and they made contact several times (in the 90s), what was concluded by the 9\11 commission (read it) was that the meetings weren't fruitful. But it'd be foolish to think that Saddam's previous support for jihadists wouldn't eventually extend to a group who delivered the worse single blow to the U.S. since Pearl Harbour.
"Europe...didn't like him", you're right, they preferred Saddam.
So you're making quite an incredible assumption that these contacts in the 90's are pertinent. NOBODY even questions these to mean anything. They are obsolete (if they even existed). Remember, WE created Bin Laden.
Saddam didn't attack another country, killing over 100,000 innocent people...Bush did. I wouldn't say they preferred Saddam, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld just didn't have any evidence and was war hungry and wanted to take advantage of oil and Halliburton. Everyone knew that!
As the State Department's 2003 report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism" points out:
The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan--where the IIS operates--is well documented.
Ansar al-Islam is an independent group that even Saddam Hussein was fighting against; both a Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq and the Defense Inelligent Agency conclude there was no
sign of Saddm harboring any of these terrorists as they were a threat to his own regime.
You say "well documented", that's B.S...Colin Powell hyped up that connection to go to war, the retracted it with Barbara Walters...He now admits he has never seen a connection anywhere.
All that Observer article said was that 3 PRIVATE corporations made deals with Iraq and they were charged. It then said "U.S. HAWKS accused France of opposing the Iraq war to protect its vast oil interests" ...of course they would, they're against EVERYONE who isn't with them on this...but that doesn't mean that they were right.
It wasn't just France that was against the war, it was basically the ENTIRE WORLD that was against the U.S. invasion (all but a few insignificant countries).
#2 reason: Link with Al Qaeda........proved invalid
# 3 reason: Saddam was bad.........proved invalid
You know there's no point in arguing, even the republicans admit this was a mistake. Colin Powell admitted he has never seen ANY evidence and he helped lead the damn thing.
Are you kidding? Healthcare? Environment? War strategies? Education? Guantanamo? Civil Rights? Guns? You're lost in a world of FOX propaganda. Good luck with that.
Guantanamo. Is more then likely going to stay open(no where to put them). We are still in Iraq until they can take care of themselves. You simply state campaign arguments. That all changes when they get into office. Bush cared SO MUCH about education... what happened? Shit changes
There are plenty of places to put detainees, seeing as how many of them aren't nearly as dangerous as many of the inmates we already have in prison. If Bush cared about education, he wouldn't have attempted Vouchers or "No Child Left Behind"...each were obvious failures. He didn't listen to educational expertise advice, just the political advice.
"shit changes" because he made horrible decisions...but we knew that would happen given his unqualified history.
Great video-a picture (with a biting caption) IS worth a thousand words....Bush's "approval" rating is currently 19%. I guess that makes his disapproval rating 81%.
@XxFightinDirtyxX If you didn't notice, this was made before Obama took office and before the Republicans became the party of blocking every type of major legislation he has attempted to pass. Democrats are pissed because Obama is too bipartisan and can't pass any bills, Republicans are pissed that he wants to actually help low-income people in this country by taxing the multi-millionaires a bit more. Too bad he's too nice...he should have been more of a tyrant like Bush W.
damoninsky 3 months ago
show obamas approval rating its awefull dont give me this stuff about bush being worse. This is not true there both evil puppets man u really think ones better then the other there doing the same stuff obama just sounds nice keep hopeing for change. You will get change but its gona be towards the downfall of mankind....
RaDleySkidbeater 1 year ago
@RaDleySkidbeater Of course Bush was worse, HE was the guy that handed down Obama this mess? What's so sad is how Fox News is changing history and this country is just going to grow up even more ignorant than it already is. It's the ignorant American people who believe he could have fixed it all up in two years. You have not a clue of the horrific things Bush Co. did. What, tell me one single thing that Obama did that was worse than Bush.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky obama has done more harm then bush already and this whole handed down mess from bush is getting old sorry man this guys evil as it gets
RaDleySkidbeater 1 year ago
@RaDleySkidbeater Please provide a single example please. Statements like these need to be backed up with evidence. If you can provide more than one piece of evidence, then that would support your claim.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@RaDleySkidbeater Largest Conributors to the Federal Deficit
2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts: 1.7 trillion over a decade.
Wars in afghanistan and iraq: 1.3 trillion since 9/11
2003 Medicare perscription drug plan: 369 billion over a decade
CoDisafishy 6 months ago
@CoDisafishy did i say you can talk go worship obama wars more wars health care bailout yes thank you obama im sure your incharge
RaDleySkidbeater 6 months ago
@RaDleySkidbeater So now you want to dictate what I can say and what I can't? You guys talk about freedom but you don't know what it is. I just stated the facts to you. Also I never said I like Obama so get a life loser, you just need to know the facts.
CoDisafishy 6 months ago
@CoDisafishy cool story bro your facts are awesome
RaDleySkidbeater 6 months ago
@RaDleySkidbeater And the're true. You people are so stubborn that you aren't willing to admit you're wrong ever.
CoDisafishy 6 months ago
@CoDisafishy hahah talking to your self???? your just another head
RaDleySkidbeater 6 months ago
@RaDleySkidbeater You're so stupid it amuses me. I know when I'm wrong. You clearly don't, I gave you facts and you still argue pointless things
CoDisafishy 6 months ago
@damoninsky UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, CARBON TAX, DO I NEED TO CONTINUE? APPARENTLY LIKE ALL THE GUYS WHO VOTED FOR HIM YOUR A DRONE.
altaqqadum96 8 months ago 2
@altaqqadum96 Yes, Universal Health Care (how can you not want that?). We're ranked 37th in the quality of health care; socialized medicine is a step in the right direction. Carbon Tax? You're worried about carbon taxes? hahaha, how about Wall Street??? The Defense Budget? Corporate Tax Loopholes? Seems to me you're quite good at gobbling up that right-wing propaganda.
damoninsky 8 months ago
@RaDleySkidbeater AND OBAMA GOT INTO HARVARD WITH A 2.9 CAUSE HES A BLACK. OBAMA IS A RETARD PLAIN AND SIMPLE SCUM SUCKING FREAK
altaqqadum96 8 months ago
How'd that election go? Scoreboard.
HoboZombie 1 year ago
@HoboZombie Pretty horrible. It's so pathetic how stupid half of our country is. How could so many millions of people actually vote for republicans after what they did to us with Bush? They only have plans to help the super wealthy and corporations, NOTHING to help the majority of the country. What a pathetic country we've become.
damoninsky 1 year ago
To be fair, I don't believe either of them are qualified. The only true difference is Obama is more eloquent, but when it comes down to it, they both work for the same people doing the same thing in different ways.
samanthalynn6790 1 year ago
@samanthalynn6790 I beg to differ. There is no doubt the Democrats are bought by much big business as well, but just look at the policies each have implemented (or tried to). Bush's healthcare hooked Big Pharma up and millions more went w/o healthcare, Obama's healthcare ripped them one and provided healthcare to millions. Bush's tax cuts helped the top 1% while reducing middle class's mean income $2000; Obama's will hurt the 1% and help middle class. HUGE differences.
damoninsky 1 year ago
Why argue over puppets?
dudor89 2 years ago
word up
mjship11 2 years ago
"Why did they attack? Do you know why? Because we are in THEIR country forcing OUR ideals on their culture. You can even watch BinLaden say this. We have bases in over 135 countries, the biggest proponent of Globalization...OTHER people are affected, not us, isn't this worse than 9/11?"
Never has there been a more clear example of cultural relativism. Americans need to shed this bogus philosophy, but particularly those of us on the left who want to maintain any degree of credibility.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
This isn't philosophy, this isn't theoretical, this is fact.
Have you ever listened to BinLaden tapes? I'm not saying he is justified in killing innocent people, but I am making it clear that the U.S. has a heavy hand in stirring up world culture and maybe we shouldn't so much.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Yes, I've heard many of the tapes and have read his "Letter to the Americans". I'm well aware that we are living in Dhar Al-Harb as well.
That all being said do you condemn or condone the things "they" have done in the name of Islam? It's not so clear when you say "Because we are in THEIR country", etc. etc.
Bin Laden doesn't even recognize or respect the concept of the nation-state.
Do you think it's invalid to value one thing over another.... say democracy over a sharia law?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Some Americans believe we shouldn't "stir up cultures".
Some Americans initially supported the Ayatollah because he represented true Iranian culture... but then criticized him for violating human rights. What he did was in the name of Islam. His critics would insist there are universal principles limiting the rights of Islam. When the critics of the U.S. in the name of culture and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights are the same person, they wish to have their cake and eat it too.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
You're right, it's a difficult spot to be in.
I like the idea of a U.N. that would help in the decisions of when is morally just to intervene, but unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. I don't think we, unilaterally, should go around doing what we think is right (because we inevitably do it for our own self interest, not for them).
damoninsky 2 years ago
"I like the idea of a U.N. that would help in the decisions of when is morally just to intervene"
So you do agree there's a moral right and a moral wrong to be defined?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Of course.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Ok, now that we've established that there are moral truths, can you elaborate on this idea whereby a moral truth is rendered obsolete because a culture or geography is different?
For example, is it morally correct for another culture outside of the United States to own slaves?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
I absolutely condemn his violent actions, but I do understand some of his reasoning.
I do think it wrong for us to decide what is right and what is wrong for another culture. We should not impose (or rather force) our beliefs on others.
In due time, cultures change and adapt; give them time. Look at Iran, half the country loves the U.S. way of life, it's just the old conservatives which are holding them back. Give them another 25-50 years on their own without forced regime change.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"I do think it wrong for us to decide what is right and what is wrong for another culture"
To say that is to articulate moral relativism.
If it's wrong to decide what is right or wrong for another culture, what's to say that slavery is right or wrong for any culture?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
We have decided as a society, over time, that slavery is wrong. It's pretty much a world accepted moral now, just like condemning genocide; two examples of something the U.N. should not put up with.
Though the way a government/culture is run hasn't reached world consensus yet and so it's not for us to decide.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"We have decided as a society, over time that slavery is wrong. It's pretty much a world accepted moral now"
I'd recommend revisiting the Lincoln - Douglas debates. Lincoln thought, correctly, that slavery was a moral wrong. He did not however, think that this moral judgement was altered by geography. If slavery was wrong, it was wrong for all men, everywhere at all times.
It sounds as though your thinking is more in line with Douglas. Am I mistaken?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
I read about those debates recently in the Smithsonian, Lincoln was awesome. It's easy for us to say now that slavery is wrong, but it wasn't so back then. Societies condoned it for thousands of years with it being "wrong".
One day we may think that killing any animal is "wrong". Most people think it's ok to kill animals, but maybe one day society will have changed to deem that as wrong and immoral too.
Morality is relevant given the era. There are no universal rights/wrongs.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"Morality is relevant given the era. There are no universal rights/wrongs".
That statement is logically in opposition with your having conceded that there are in fact moral rights and wrongs.
Moral propositions are categorical in nature rather than hypothetical or contingent. They speak of the things which are right or wrong at all times. Moral propositions have this force because they are drawn as implications from the logic of morals itself.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Morality changes as society changes. We decide what is right and wrong given the moment in time. As of right now, most of human society sees slavery and genocide as being wrong, but that may change over time as we've seen so many other social issues change.
You say morals "speak things of things right or wrong at all times"...
But it was once morally right to perform human sacrifices, now it's not (as another example).
damoninsky 2 years ago
What's your reasoning?
I understand that over time there can be communities whose opinions change, but that observation doesn't address my question.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "reasoning."
I'm no sure what your question is either.
Those opinions are the morals. Morals change over time.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Do you understand what reason is?
Do you know what the Enlightenment was?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Do you find anything problematic in the notion of morality by consensus?... particularly as it pertains to the U.N.?
For example, mightn't it be problematic for undemocratic/autocratic regimes to head up the human rights chair in the U.N?
Or, should one be troubled by a consensus arrived at within a democratic body (the U.N.) which is comprised of undemocratic nations?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Yes it is problematic if autocratic nations are going to be able to make human rights decisions, but we have far more democratic sympathizing ones consisting of the majority and in charge.
All countries should have a say, but as time is telling, democracy is sweeping the world. It's only a matter of time before the autocracies are gone.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"Yes it is problematic if autocratic nations are going to be able to make human rights decisions, but we have far more democratic sympathizing ones consisting of the majority and in charge"
In charge of what, exactly?
As recently as 2002, Libya (a regime charged with trafficking in human slavery) was nominated chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
I can't think of a more effective way of quashing investigations into Libyan human rights violations than having them as chair.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
We have human slavery here in the U.S. too. Sex slave traders have been found all along the boarder in the south and many illegal immigrants are held captive as well (paying off never ending debt).
It's not that Qaddafi is responsible for the trafficking, nor Bush.
How many chair positions are their at the U.N.? It's not like they're all like Libya or Sudan; most are not.
damoninsky 2 years ago
The example of Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission just goes to illuminate why morality by consensus is a bankrupt endeavor.
I don't mean to sound like a scold, but you really ought to re-visit the Lincoln/Douglas debates, as what you're arguing here is essentially the same reasoning as Douglas.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Just because Libya has a chair, doesn't mean that the U.N. can't be functional. Their moral judgments may be different in some cases, but that shouldn't excuse them from participating. I mean, we allow anyone to run for president in this country, freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that that point of view will be accepted.
damoninsky 2 years ago
We don't have slavery in the U.S. as an accepted and legal practice.
But you could get a nice Christian slave boy in the Sudan and nobody would mind.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
You're right that it's not accepted here, as it's not accepted in Libya. You're right that they don't mind in Sudan, they're carrying out genocide, that's why it's a perfect example of a government that must be intervened.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Slavery is not just "not accepted", it's understood to be immoral and it's illegal.
In the Sudan, it's not necessarily thought of as immoral.
Still you're not explaining how in this case how an intervention by the U.S. wouldn't be in violation the principle you'd laid out earlier which says morals are dictated by democratic consensus.
How do you account for such illogic?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
"I do think it wrong for us to decide what is right and what is wrong for another culture"
You've stated this a few times now and I fail to see how this isn't an articulation of cultural relativism.
If another culture is partaking of slavery and genocide, then by your statement here, we're not do anything because to make such a judgement is to "stir up cultures".
Am I understanding you?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
It sounds hypocritical, but I'm trying to explain that under certain world-widely accepted moral scenarios, such as slavery and genocide, intervening should be allowed despite it interfering with culture.
These morals are new to this world, slavery used to be accepted, but now most of human culture has evolved to see it banned. Therefore when it is found to be happening, a multilateral effort should have a consent to stop it (not unilateral).
damoninsky 2 years ago
"It sounds hypocritical, but I'm trying to explain that under certain world-widely accepted moral scenarios, such as slavery and genocide, intervening should be allowed despite it interfering with culture".
So what's the governing principle underlying that notion?
On what basis is multilateralism somehow acceptable whereas unilateralism is not?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Democracy. Agreement on behalf of the majority of a functional U.N.
They have agreed to try and stop genocide, because the the majority accept it as morally justified. They haven't accepted forced regime change based on a country harboring terrorists (Iraq) or having a dictatorship that destroys its own country (Zimbabwe).
I'm actually not sure about Zimbabwe, the majority may condemn it but can't do anything (too much red tape?), and so this is why the U.N. sucks right now.
damoninsky 2 years ago
So in the case where a governed body decides that either slavery or genocide or cannibalism is morally acceptable, then, in accordance with your democratic consensus theory, it's therefore morally acceptable for that community to partake of what they wish.
The U.N. has never prevented a war. I certainly can't name one.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
I already admitted that the U.N. doesn't function properly. Though if it did, that would be an ideal way to make these regime changing decisions.
It is morally acceptable for that community to partake in anything they wish that fits their interpretation of what right and wrong is at that time. Back in the old west, it was acceptable to challenge people to duals, not it's not. It was right then, not now.
damoninsky 2 years ago
So you admit that your method of dealing with moral evils is to be fully invested in an institution which has a proven track record of not being able to ameliorate such evils?
If you say "It is morally acceptable for that community to partake in anything they wish that fits their interpretation of what right and wrong is at that time" then you're simply turning a blind eye to evil.
How can it be otherwise?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Sorry to play semantics, but I'd rather not use the word "evil". We're dealing with right and wrong here.
There are many different interpretations of things that are right and wrong depending on the culture. There are a few 'rights' that are now widely accepted (no to genocide). Right now, we should stop it, since the majority condemns it.
But forcing democracy on different countries as we see it is totally unacceptable because it's not widely accepted.
damoninsky 2 years ago
So let's say the governed community you find yourself in (let's just call it Oceana) decides, democratically to allow individuals to confiscate by force, the private property of other individuals and to consume their flesh.
On what grounds could you, as a member of that governed community, object?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Oceana, like in 1984, right on...
Well, I would be in the minority of that community. I would do everything in my power to stop it, if I couldn't, then that's when revolutions begin.
It's like putting ourselves in the 60's when the U.S. was in Vietnam...what do we do if we don't like it?
damoninsky 2 years ago
Again, you didn't answer the question.
I did ask what you would do, or what others would do.
I asked you... On what grounds could you, as a member of that governed community, object?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
I'd have to say that I'd sit here on the computer making mini-documentaries to try to spread the word and wait for some great community organizer/leader to lead the way for me to follow. I say that because that's what I did these last 6 years while Bush was over in Iraq killing a 100,00 innocent people. I'd like to think that I'd do something as "active" as the WU to stop the war, but I just don't have that courage. Does that answer your question?
damoninsky 2 years ago
I'm not so sure what a domestic terrorist organization has to do with your inability to demonstrate a testable proposition.
It's quite clear to anyone who might happen to read this comment thread that you've either no use for reason or that you believe that the Enlightenment was something to do with the Dalai Lama.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
You say "domestic terrorist organization."
I say "civil rights activist group."
You say Ayers was a murderer, even though he was never convicted and if it did happen it was a SINGLE person and an ACCIDENT....
I say the U.S. was a MUCH BIGGER murder, absolutely guilty on all counts of 100,000's and did it on PURPOSE.
You complain about an accidental death and overlook millions.
I think you have the inability to recognize reason.
damoninsky 2 years ago
So you think that there is no such thing as evil?
There's still the question earlier which you've either overlooked or intentionally ignored....
How would it not be a violation of your principle, laid out earlier, (which posits the idea that morals are dictated by democratic consensus) for an intervention by the U.S. in the Sudan?
How does one account for such illogic?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
There's nothing illogical here. Since Sudan's actions violate the globally accepted moral understanding that genocide is wrong, then it would be fine for the U.S. to intervene. The U.N. agrees, but can't do anything because they suck with all of the BS bureaucratic red tape they go through.
But the U.S. can't just do anything they want because they aren't right about everything in the world's view.
damoninsky 2 years ago
There is a logic problem here and again, you're not dealing with it.
If a governed community decides, by consensus that it's ok to own slaves, then by what right does another democratic body get to intervene?
Please try to demonstrate the logic of your principle on what constitutes a moral right and what constitutes a moral wrong.
And remember, morals are universal. By definition and by the logic of morals they are not contingent on time or place.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Majority Rules. This is how society decides on what is right and wrong, by what the majority sees fit; whether it's a small society (like the U.S.) or a large one (like the world).
Since most countries are united (ie. UN or EU), signed peace treaties (etc.); we are now thought to be a unified entity (like a big country). The logic is simple. As the majority of the US forced the end of slavery, now the WORLD condemns slavery to end it too.
MORALS ARE NOT UNIVERSAL!
damoninsky 2 years ago
So, if back in the old days in the old west you say it was moral to participate in duels. What if it were immoral in the old east to participate in duels?
Which was moral and which was immoral?
Remember, morals are by their nature universal and not contingent on geography or time.
Again... what is your reasoning?
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
No, this is what we're debating...I am saying that morals are NOT universal and that they change overtime.
It may be easier to send messages rather than these comments. Just a thought.
damoninsky 2 years ago
But you've failed repeatedly to demonstrate how that is true.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
damoninsky 2 years ago
You confuse the recitation of events with the act of demonstrating the truth of a proposition.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago 2
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.
"truth of a proposition"?
These are examples of events which demonstrate a change in the mindset of society; from initially believing something to be perfectly fine, legit, moral to being completely against it (or vice versa).
Morals change throughout time. What might be morally acceptable now may not later (such as killing animals).
It is IMMORAL for us to decide what is right for another country if the majority doesn't approve.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Yes, the truth of a proposition.
You're merely reciting events in lieu of demonstrating the truth of the proposition that "morals change over time".
Perhaps you'd do well to consider a Philosophy introductory course so you'd gain an understanding of the importance of reason, logic and evidence in the intellectual history of the West.
PersianGuileAgain 2 years ago
Your comments have no substance or pertinence to the argument. What does philosophy have to do with any of this? You've been so far off the topic, accusing me of lacking intelligence and logic when I've merely stated facts that you don't believe in. It's your logic which is faulty.
Get back to the topic: Do you believe 9/11 would have happened to us if we we didn't have military bases all over the world, all up in their land going after their resources?
damoninsky 2 years ago
The fact that six years after the fact youve not even familiarized yourself with the document shows that youre not serious enough about the issue to have done your
research.
larkydozer 2 years ago 2
Nobody has, they're obsolete.
I'm still waiting for them...enlighten us.
damoninsky 2 years ago
If they're "obsolete" then you're not honest in asking for them.
larkydozer 2 years ago
They are absolutely obsolete and I am indeed honest about seeing what you're talking about.
It's like someone saying they've captured an leprechaun or a ghost but refuse to show it even though everyone knows they aren't real.
It'll just be a waste of my time, but humor me anyways.
damoninsky 2 years ago
It's kind of disturbing that you like Obama when most of your vids are anti-american.
Re5Publica 2 years ago 2
Dissent is NOT unpatriotic.
I am totally willing to condemn my country and family when they do wrong; that does not mean that will not do my best to support them or try to make them better. I also made those videos BEFORE Obama...he hasn't screwed us or the world up yet as many of our previous governments have. I just hope we finally have a more morally responsible government than we ever have before. In terms of moral character, he blows McCain out of the water.
damoninsky 2 years ago
I'm Canadian and I'd dispute what you say about the U.S. screwing up the world, it has been an overwhelmingly positive force in the world. You think dissent makes you an intellectual, that the only way to move forward is to be self-loathing. Surely, America can do wrong, but listening to you, one would believe it can do no good, and never has.
In what way is Obama more moral than McCain?
Re5Publica 2 years ago
dispute all you want. I wouldn't say "overwhelming positive force"...did you even watch my American Imperialism Timeline? Of course we've done great things, but I hear those too often, and most people forget or ignore what we do WRONG. That's all I'm pointing out. Nobody is self-loathing here. I'm not about to spend my time saying all the good things the U.S. does when virtually NOBODY knows any of the BAD things it does.
Obama worked as a community organizer + pro-bono lawyer.
damoninsky 2 years ago
What are you comparing America too? America has been the most benign superpower in history, go ahead, compare it.
America & its allies defeated fascism, it stood up against Soviet expansionism (REAL imperialism that actually swallowed sovereign countries), & is now fighting Islamic totalitarianism (ideologues with global ambitions, but more irrational, suicidal and itching to acquire and use WMDs).
Your timing to weaken the home team by pointing out irrelevent historical atrocities is poor.
Re5Publica 2 years ago 2
I don't think there ever a bad time to learn the truth...seriously, are you kidding? If Bush Co. was still in power, I'd be VERY scared of us attacking another country with the support of ignorant/mainstream America that is thirsty for "islamic totalitarianism" blood.
We need to educate America so that our current ideologies don't repeat our past ones.
It's also hard to claim we are the most 'benign' superpower after all of those examples I gave in the American Imperialism Timeline.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"I don't think there ever a bad time...."
Obama thinks there is, that's why he's withholding photos of further abuse at Abu Ghraib. He believes it puts the lives of soldiers in danger by providing the enemy with propaganda. Since you gush over him constantly, can I assume you agree with his policy?
Don't be immature, the only Islamic totalitarian country invaded was Afghanistan, and only after the worst terrorist attack in U.S., and world history. You're scared of the wrong people.
Re5Publica 2 years ago 2
Good point on the Abu Ghraib photos...I'm not sure though, WHEN should they come out then? 75 years from now when we're all friends? Or just let them out to show America what we're truly made of?
Why did they attack? Do you know why? Because we are in THEIR country forcing OUR ideals on their culture. You can even watch BinLaden say this. We have bases in over 135 countries, the biggest proponent of Globalization...OTHER people are affected, not us, isn't this worse than 9/11?
damoninsky 2 years ago
If you think a military base set up during the gulf war with the consent of the government in Saudi Arabia is reason to kill 3000 americans, then you're perverted.
Al-Qaeda objected to those bases simply because they believe infidels violate the purity of the land with their presence..
"let them out to show America what we're truly made of?"
That's really what you believe America is made of? In case I'm mistaken, America was also the country that brought those sadistic guards to justice.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Obviously it wasn't just a few guards, and we have been conducting and allowing torture all over the place, even approved from officials high up. It's disgusting and despicable.
Our presence then shouldn't be in their land. We should NOT try to rule the world unilaterally but with an international democracy, like the U.N. Sure it's an embarrassment now, but that's what we should put our energy into making work properly.
I obviously don't agree with killing 3000 people (don't be rude)
damoninsky 2 years ago
You think bases being built in other countries is a sign of unilaterialism? It's multilateralism. Those bases are there at the consent of the governments in question, which is cooperation. What is NATO if not multilateral? The problem with U.S. multilaterialism has been the unwillingness of allies to contribute substantially to any joint efforts, like in Afghanistan, which is why 10 000 more U.S. soldiers are being sent to fill the void.
And France's interests, for example, layed with Saddam.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Ha, "the consent of the governments". You think that makes it OK? You think that means that it's automatically the best interest in the countries? Jesus man, it's not about "unwillingness of allies" it's cutting unfair trade deals and regulations so we can get what we want for the cheapest cost as soon as possible, before these countries are even ready to play ball.
10,000 more U.S. soldiers are going to try to fix the ORIGINAL problem that BUSH Co. left undone and screwed up.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"You think that means that it's automatically the best interest in the countries?"
Not necessarily, but the job of government is to pursue national interests.
You seem, btw, to think foreign policy should be dictated by terrorists. If they blow something up, some say: "we have to stop making them angry". As if to say; "Let's run everything by Bin Laden first to make sure he's ok with it, so he won't mass murder us."
Bush sought more contribution from NATO for Afghanistan, they refused.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Just because I think there should be multilateral democracy, SHOULDN'T lead you to the ridiculous Glenn Beck conclusion of us [Democrats] letting foreign policy be "dictated by terrorists".
We need to stop conducting regime changes in our interest, but rather have the world helping support decisions and subsidies.
Rumsfeld said the Iraq war would cost at most $15 Billion or even "pay for itself". The original name was Operation Iraqi Liberation, OIL !!! IT"S ALL ABOUT USA, USA, USA!
damoninsky 2 years ago
Uhh, what led me to that conclusion was that you suggested, not subtly, that the U.S. was 1. worse than Al-Qaeda, and 2. That al-Qaeda are only angry and mass murderers because of U.S. foreign policy, and so the U.S. should alter its foreign policy so they can no longer conceive any irrational cassus bellis.
Look at what the U.N. gets Darfur. Look at how the U.S. had to send 10 000 more troops to AFG, because NATO members, 28 in-all, wouldn't pull together to contribute any more troops.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
NATO is short on resources AND many countries don't want their soldiers on the front line getting blown up for the MISTAKE the U.S. made. This is ALL Bush/Cheney's fault, leaving AFG early. If we were really that righteous, WE would help Darfur...maybe if we weren't busy with 2 unnecessary wars we'd help Darfur. The U.N. needs fixing.
the U.S. SHOULD alter it's foreign policy (but not just because of Al-Qaeda). Actually the U.S. IS responsible for FAR more INNOCENT deaths than AQ.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"This is ALL Bush/Cheney's fault, leaving AFG early."
The U.S. never left Afghanistan since liberating it.....
"NATO is short on resources"
Nato is made up of the most industrialized and modern countries in the world. The truth is, many of those countries don't consider fighting Al-Qaeda to be in their interest, so they send a negligeable couple of hundred troops to fulfill their treaty obligations and let American soldiers die instead. That's your naive multilateralist fantasy in practice.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
You're right the U.S. didn't leave AFG entirely, but they did turn their focus toward Iraq, leaving the Talban to regain control or at least some power. If you haven't learned that or don't believe that, then you're probably watching Fox News too much.
Hmm, maybe if we didn't go into this "war on terror" by ourselves for our own selfish reasons, then we'd have more sentimental allies.
Maybe Obama, with negotiations, can win back some of them. Like his speech in Egypt was a GREAT start.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"Hmm, maybe if we didn't go into this "war on terror" by ourselves for our own selfish reasons"
National security is a selfish reason... It's supposed to be.
The "War on Terror" has never been fought alone.
You claim the U.S. went to Iraq selfishly for oil. But, France was doing illegal oil deals with Saddam, that's why they opposed the war. "you're probably watching Fox News too much. "
That's so cliche, man, honestly. You're like the zillionth person to regurgitate that.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
"National security is a selfish reason" - you think we actually went into Iraq because of National Security??? That's just what our government SAID why we were going in. What was illegal about France's deals?
The "war on terror" is a bullshit term to justify anything. It's like the "war on drugs" or "war on poverty"...it'll always be there.
Sorry about the Fox News comment; I just know WAY too many people that watch it and spout similar comments as you. My bad on the assumption.
damoninsky 2 years ago
"you think we actually went into Iraq because of National Security?"
Yes, Saddam openly funded jihadists, & never proved the complete destruction of his WMDs to U.N. inspectors. He was a man anxious to settle a score with the U.S., & there were high level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. What hasn't been proven is operational links, but there were meetings, that's not disputed.
Yes, it's a misnomer, it's not a war to get rid of all terrorism, but to get rid of state-sponsored terrorism.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
I'm sorry you (and half of America) thinks that. Man, this is scary what you believe...THERE WAS NEVER A LINK TO AL QAEDA + NEVER WMDS! There were NO "meetings" either, there was NOTHING between AQ + Iraq. Those claims WERE disputed.
Actually, Saddam was even MORE afraid of Iran than us. You can't use "anxious to settle a score" to justify pre-preemptive war...just about every country wants to "settle a score".
If you think it was to rid terrorism, why not N.Korea, Sudan or Zimbabwe?
damoninsky 2 years ago
"THERE WAS NEVER A LINK TO AL QAEDA + NEVER WMDS!...."
What I pointed out was the lack of operational links. Basically, there was no evidence that AQ was operating on behalf of Saddam, or in concert with him. There was, however, proof of high level contacts as conceded by the 9\11 commission.
Saddam was supposed to dismantle his WMDs after the gulf war, 12 years passed and he refused to provide evidence of their complete destruction, precisely because he wanted people to think he had them.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
I don't agree with any "operational links" or "high level contacts"...it's obsolete. There was never a SIGNIFICANT connection between the two, that's everyone knows and admits... those were FALSE accusations.
"supposed to dismantle WMDs"...there WERE NONE!
From his 10th day in office, Bush wanted to go into Iraq and so he did EVERYTHING he could to do so. Europe didn't support him because they didn't like him and 99% of all intelligence said there was NOTHING there.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Well, I think any contact between Saddam's intelligence service and Al-Qaeda is "significant", and they made contact several times (in the 90s), what was concluded by the 9\11 commission (read it) was that the meetings weren't fruitful. But it'd be foolish to think that Saddam's previous support for jihadists wouldn't eventually extend to a group who delivered the worse single blow to the U.S. since Pearl Harbour.
"Europe...didn't like him", you're right, they preferred Saddam.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
So you're making quite an incredible assumption that these contacts in the 90's are pertinent. NOBODY even questions these to mean anything. They are obsolete (if they even existed). Remember, WE created Bin Laden.
Saddam didn't attack another country, killing over 100,000 innocent people...Bush did. I wouldn't say they preferred Saddam, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld just didn't have any evidence and was war hungry and wanted to take advantage of oil and Halliburton. Everyone knew that!
damoninsky 2 years ago
As the State Department's 2003 report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism" points out:
The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan--where the IIS operates--is well documented.
larkydozer 2 years ago
Ansar al-Islam is an independent group that even Saddam Hussein was fighting against; both a Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq and the Defense Inelligent Agency conclude there was no
sign of Saddm harboring any of these terrorists as they were a threat to his own regime.
You say "well documented", that's B.S...Colin Powell hyped up that connection to go to war, the retracted it with Barbara Walters...He now admits he has never seen a connection anywhere.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Nice deflection from the 23 whereas clauses.
Colin Powell is not the author of State's report in 2003 and his remarks on B.Walter's show were not in response to the report .
larkydozer 2 years ago
Sorry for making two posts.
"What was illegal about France's deals? "
Articles to read on this are: "France's Saddam deals revealed" by Antony Barnett and Martin Bright for the Observer UK
and
"The Inspections Dodge" by Khidhir Hamza for the Wall Street Journal
Also: "Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power" by Carrie Satterlee for the Heritage Foundation
It should give some insight on why the biggest European powers protested the Iraq war.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
All that Observer article said was that 3 PRIVATE corporations made deals with Iraq and they were charged. It then said "U.S. HAWKS accused France of opposing the Iraq war to protect its vast oil interests" ...of course they would, they're against EVERYONE who isn't with them on this...but that doesn't mean that they were right.
It wasn't just France that was against the war, it was basically the ENTIRE WORLD that was against the U.S. invasion (all but a few insignificant countries).
damoninsky 2 years ago
There were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Authorization for use of military force against Iraq.
Perhaps one should familiarize themselves with that document rather than simply call the entire enterprise "bullshit".
larkydozer 2 years ago
So what are these 23 reasons?
So far...
# 1 reason: WMD's..........................proved invalid
#2 reason: Link with Al Qaeda........proved invalid
# 3 reason: Saddam was bad.........proved invalid
You know there's no point in arguing, even the republicans admit this was a mistake. Colin Powell admitted he has never seen ANY evidence and he helped lead the damn thing.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Actually there's no point in arguing with someone who demonstrates an unwillingness to argue the actual 23 whereas clauses in the document.
larkydozer 2 years ago 2
I asked you what they are. Do you even know? Lay'em down.
damoninsky 2 years ago
I like Obama ^ ^
BejingBB 2 years ago
And obama agrees with 45% of bushes polices... Fail? i think so.
whodank 2 years ago
Are you kidding? Healthcare? Environment? War strategies? Education? Guantanamo? Civil Rights? Guns? You're lost in a world of FOX propaganda. Good luck with that.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Guantanamo. Is more then likely going to stay open(no where to put them). We are still in Iraq until they can take care of themselves. You simply state campaign arguments. That all changes when they get into office. Bush cared SO MUCH about education... what happened? Shit changes
whodank 2 years ago
There are plenty of places to put detainees, seeing as how many of them aren't nearly as dangerous as many of the inmates we already have in prison. If Bush cared about education, he wouldn't have attempted Vouchers or "No Child Left Behind"...each were obvious failures. He didn't listen to educational expertise advice, just the political advice.
"shit changes" because he made horrible decisions...but we knew that would happen given his unqualified history.
damoninsky 2 years ago
Great video-a picture (with a biting caption) IS worth a thousand words....Bush's "approval" rating is currently 19%. I guess that makes his disapproval rating 81%.
kristabraven 3 years ago
Nice ending line! Obama certainly can't meet the Republican party standards.
MochiMC 3 years ago
Beautiful Video! 5 starz!
pnp2k6 3 years ago
Very nice vid..keep up the good work..
rainmaker2012 3 years ago