[mike777]

Winston the more important question is do you and other posters think there is a war with radical Islam? What I think, one old man, is unimportant.

You are the youth that will make the important decisions.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 14 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

Based on the views expressed here my guess is most others have the view  be Happy, Make love!

it's funny how our perceptions of what others mean differ... you see the above, i see something more along the lines of: a sovereign united states has lost importance, it's much better to aim for a one world gov't... that one world gov't will be under the auspices of the u.n., under it's laws, etc... nat'l interests are passe, the rights of the many (countries) outweigh the rights of the few (countries)

Interesting, from my view what I see is an expression of the importance of a sovereign U.S. but an equal importance of a sovereign Iran and a sovereign Iraq and a decided negative view of U.S. imperialism. I see no evidence at in support for a one-world government.

[pbleighton]

"Winston the more important question is do you and other posters think there is a war with radical Islam? What I think, one old man, is unimportant.

You are the youth that will make the important decisions."

He's three years older than you, Mike

Of course, you know this, and are just punking out again

Peter

[mike777]

Winston is older than me..no did not know this...no wonder you guys do not read what I write.... I thought he was much much younger.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 07:57 PM, said:

Winston the more important question is do you and other posters think there is a war with radical Islam? What I think, one old man, is unimportant.

You are the youth that will make the important decisions.

First of all, Mike, age is unimportant. With years can come much wisdom - and also a little Alzheimer's at times.

I am no spring chicken - 56 next month.

I don't think there is a war - I know there is a war - it was declared by President Bush.

Do I think radical Islam is equal to the threat of the old U.S.S.R.? No. Not even close. It's silly to even compare the two. The U.S.S.R. was equal to the U.S. in military might, a true world power. For the most part, the radicals of Islam are the poor who grasp at extremism to give meaning to their lives - sure, there are some in positions of power, but to claim their threat is anywhere close to the bombardment of ICBMs that the U.S.S.R. could have launched is ludicrous.

The war declared by Bush will only increase our risk, not diminish it - we live in a dangerous world, no doubt, but our focus should be on prevention of internal terrorism instead of taking the war overseas. To me, the fight against terror is best fought with intelligence agencies and prevention instead of armies and aggression.

What is so very odd to me in this whole scenario is what this administration failed to do - not what it has done. The focus, IMO, should be on how 9-11 came to pass, the failures that allowed the successful attack. Instead, this administration did all it could to slow down and thwart a thorough investigation.

Without knowing the failures of that day and the days leading to it, how can we prevent a recurrence?

[mike777]

".....Do I think radical Islam is equal to the threat of the old U.S.S.R.? ......"

Heck I did not know you are a senile old coot...ok..so much for ugly personal attacks...

As usual you have really hit the main debate point.


For sake of discussion let's assume the threat is equal or greater......
if greatly minor...Bush is insane.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 14 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

Interesting, from my view what I see is an expression of the importance of a sovereign U.S. but an equal importance of a sovereign Iran and a sovereign Iraq and a decided negative view of U.S. imperialism. I see no evidence at in support for a one-world government.

i will assume you mean what you say, that the sovereignty of iran and iraq are equally important to you as is that of the u.s. ... i don't see it that way at all... part of a sovereign u.s. (imo) is to weigh our nat'l interests against those who our elected officials see as threats... our interests outweigh those of others... as for the one world thing, i thought i've seen many posts that point toward letting the u.n. handle things

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

[Winstonm]

Quote

For sake of discussion let's assume the threat is equal or greater......

Mike, this seems to be where we differ: I don't think this can be assumed - I think this IS the debate.

[mike777]

3 cases
1) equal or greater
2) sign.. less
3) insanely less

oh and the posters stand where?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jan 15 2007, 05:53 AM, said:

3 cases
1) equal or greater
2) sign.. less
3) insanely less

oh and the posters stand where? 

Mark me down for insanely less

If at some later point in time nano-tech really takes off I might get a bit more scared.
Then again, if nano-tech really takes off, I'm gonna be scared of everyone, not just the muslims.

[mike777]

that looks like a half vote for me....tech....

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 14 2007, 09:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 14 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

Interesting, from my view what I see is an expression of the importance of a sovereign U.S. but an equal importance of a sovereign Iran and a sovereign Iraq and a decided negative view of U.S. imperialism.  I see no evidence at in support for a one-world government.

i will assume you mean what you say, that the sovereignty of iran and iraq are equally important to you as is that of the u.s. ... i don't see it that way at all... part of a sovereign u.s. (imo) is to weigh our nat'l interests against those who our elected officials see as threats... our interests outweigh those of others... as for the one world thing, i thought i've seen many posts that point toward letting the u.n. handle things

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

Jimmy, let me address these points one at a time. It may come as a shock but I would classify myself as leaning more toward isolationism than one-world government, and have a strong belief in the concepts of the constitution - I believe, because human nature does not change, that the reasons for the strong separation of powers in the 18th century are just as valid today.

My views begin with the individual - the best any of us can hope to do is to control our own actions. We have absolutely no control over what another person chooses to do. This extends to countries, as well.

Iran and Iraq should be sovereign nations, and as such should decide for themselves what is best for them - to ask them to do what is best for the U.S. is a silly proposition, as no country will sacrifice its own interests for another. However, with that said, if a populace within a country is in the throes of a dictatorship and asks for help to overthrow that dictatorship, I see nothing wrong with supplying them with the arms to do so - but it is their conflict to win or lose and as such does not require the U.S. military.

If a sovereign nation attacks another nation, then there is cause for intervention and forcing a retreat - to invade because the government of another country is not what we would optimally like is imperialistic aggression.

I also have strong beliefs that the U.S. Congress should step up and assume their constitutional duty to declare war and stop allowing the president to involve troops in wars that are non-wars. If Congress agreed that an Iraq invasion was needed, they should have declared war on Iraq and not just acted as a bunch of bankers fincancing the president's new house.

I do not back the U.N. unilaterally, but I can understand the reasoning for having a world body where the nations can meet and attempt to resolve differences on a world stage.

And lastly, blindly supporting our leaders simply because they are elected to me is the antithesis of patriotism, as leaders are only in office a short time but the effect of their actions can destroy the country. I believe it our duty to be on constant vigilence against abuses of power and to constantly challenge our leaders motives.

IMHO.

[pbleighton]

"3 cases
1) equal or greater
2) sign.. less
3) insanely less

oh and the posters stand where?"

Both threats are (were) hugely overrated, but real.

Militarily, the old U.S.S.R. was orders of magnitude greater.

So, in military, "hard" terms, "insanely less".

As to the old U.S.S.R., the reality, of course, is that the doves were proven right. The so-called "cold war" was unnecessary, and was essentially invented by fanatics on both sides. Richard Nixon, of all people, did the most of any Westerner to diffuse the threat through detente.

Detente took years to work.

The same model won't work with radical Islam itself, since we cannot negotiate with Al Quaeda. We can, however, negotiate with Islamic governments, work on the Palestinian issue, and more importantly, stop being mass-murdering imperialists. The last thing, of course, will be the most difficult.

This process will probably take 50-100 years. If we could get our act together, it would be less, but we won't.

So, in cultural, "soft" terms, radical Islam is "greater than".

Reality's a bitch, isn't she?

Peter

[mike777]

"...... believe it our duty to be on constant vigilence against abuses of power and to constantly challenge our leaders motives......."

amen AMEN!
Darn you ex hippies


btw if you vote 3...insane...God help us ...we(me) elected him.......
we can only hope the Dem. Congress can save us!

[mike777]

Heck at least I was in Grant Park in 68 if front of the Hilton if that means anything to old guys......

[Winstonm]

As for what the president describes as protecting American lives, the cold war was so far above as to be in a class by itself - not only was the threat of the U.S.S.R. sending over their ICBMs, but you also had the threat of the U.S.A. sending their ICBMs - it was a gigantic game of chicken with the survival of the globe in the balance. All out nuclear war between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. would have ended the world as we know it.

A few poor religious-driven zealots blowing themselves up every now and again doesn't come close.

It would take, I would guess, around 20-30 more years for any country in the middle east to develope enough nuclear capacity to seriously damage the U.S. with a first strike, and even then they risk doing only partial damage while having themselves wiped off the planet by a counterstrike.

IMO, this entire middle eastern, Islamic fanatical story is a ploy to hide the actual reasons for war - to guarantee the perpituity of U.S. dominance by having access to oil. That is a sane reason, a legitimate reason, to go to war - not a reason I happen to agree with, but one certainly that has some logic to it, and one that can be argued does safeguard U.S. national security as without oil there is no U.S.A.

It also happens to be part of the plan of the PNAC, whose members happen to be littered throughout the Bush administration. Powerful men in powerful position planning powerful world-changing events is a lot easier for me to believe than an old Saudi na'er-do-well, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, orchestrating a world-wide terror organization intent on dismantling the U.S.A. with stolen airplanes and car bombs and tales of 44 virgins waiting in heaven for the faithful.

I don't think the National Inquirer would dare put that one on the cover.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

Heck at least I was in Grant Park in 68 if front of the Hilton if that means anything to old guys......

What did you do there?
I got high-igh
What did you touch there?
I touched the sky-ay
It's all too beautiful, it's all too beautiful

Oh, wait....that was Itchikoo Park. Never mind.

[mike777]

1) let's assume the USSR can kill 100 million with the push of one button
2) LET'S assume that radical Islam can only kill one million or less with the push.
3) let's assume radical islam is as dangerous(whatever that means) as the USSR.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 14 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

Heck at least I was in Grant Park in 68 if front of the Hilton if that means anything to old guys......

What did you do there?
I got high-igh
What did you touch there?
I touched the sky-ay
It's all too beautiful, it's all too beautiful

Oh, wait....that was Itchikoo Park. Never mind.

Hey i was in L.A. too.....and S.D a few months later

[mike777]

btw I am not surprised by your uninlightend.....responses to those of us in Grant Park to those of us fighting for your old fogeys rights....