SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (26807)5/8/2004 1:09:14 PM
From: X Y Zebra  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
I consider it normal that the interests of America and other countries will sometimes diverge. In almost all cases, it is not a national security problem.

including the imposition of rogue and violent dictators to 'guard' said American interests?

is that diverging enough to consider it an act of barbarism ?

I am not proposing vast expansion of American forces, and neither is anyone in the Administration that I know of.

was I talking expansionism... ? or could it be interventions at will on the business of others?

but now that you mention it...

how about this...?

newamericancentury.org

___________________________

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.


____________________________

is that "expansionist" enough for you ?

maybe not... right ?

Sometimes, that made for unsavory involvements, on the grounds that the insurgents were allied with the Soviet Union and would have introduced an even more thoroughgoing apparatus of repression.

Oh I see...

So Somoza, (not associated with communists) Stroesser, (same), Galtieri (same) and Pinochet (same)

were kind governments and the US had no reservation in assisting them....

right ?

Besides....

What did the US achieve in Vietnam ? uh ?

LOL so much for .. what did you cal it...?

"rational discussion is not my strong point"

go ahead... cover your ears and repeat "

I cannot hear you ... I cannot read you...

you are a pompus arse, not for the reasons somebody else said, but your selective choice of application of words and convenient ignorance of others...

Your "main stream" whatever... does not make the applicable actions correct, equitable, or fair... nor the world accepts them.. regardless whether you see it or not, or whetehr you say... I do not give a damn what the world says....

and, after all... equitable and fair is what American ideology is all about right ?

or... once again...

damn the rules and let the CIA handle it...

the Communist regime in Vietnam was far more repressive than the Thieu regime, although it has mellowed somewhat. I do not, however, deny that some of these alliances may have been mistaken. I just think that it is natural that some mistakes were made.

indeed...

so why repeat them with impunity? over and over and over... just because it is convenient and becuse the US can ?

very civil indeed.

have no idea what you are talking about, in relation to impeachable offenses. Bush has Congressional authorization for Iraq, and for the increase in expenditures.

of course you don't... let's see...

might this help ?

thefourreasons.org

cooperativeresearch.net

newamericancentury.org

criminals ? or was it a "mainstream historian accepted practice" [or whatever crap you said about the nuking of H & N]

Being that the majority are a bunch of imbeciles, do not make it right....

whitehouse.gov

serendipity.li

I do not think that Bush has lied. And I do not see anything wrong with prayer.

roflol ok.... continue repeating it....

wrong with prayer... no, if it is in the confines of YOUR church, YOUR home or YOUR head.

but it is F' wrong if it is in the context of decisions that matter WAR and OUR government.

-repeat it ten times until you understand the difference between ....

YOURS

and

OURS

DUH !

Again, if you follow the whole sequence of posts on the topic, my aim was to demonstrate the criticisms of revisionist historians like Aperowitz leveled by mainstream historians.

Regardless of your stream of posts... my beef with you was and continues to be... your so posted 'aproval' of the nuking of TWO Japanese cities... the rest is noise that I really do not care for... your 'approval' makes you a barbarian in my eyes, regardless of your 'justifications'.

You smug assumption that it has been demonstrated that the bombings were bogus is simply wrong.

Uh ? say what ?

show me the post where I say or make the assumption that...

"it has been demonstrated the bombing were bogus"

do you actually read the posts ? or you are just mumbuling rubbish ?



To: Neocon who wrote (26807)5/8/2004 1:50:27 PM
From: X Y Zebra  Respond to of 93284
 
Just in case this get lost in the melee...

You smug assumption that it has been demonstrated that the bombings were bogus is simply wrong.

say what ?

please show me the post where I say, imply, or assume that... (quote)

"it has been demonstrated the bombings were bogus"