Nov Election Predictions

45degreeN · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject:

Do you contend that all the media got it completely wrong about the slur in South Carolina? That people since then have been chatting up some fiction, and that McCain's candidacy in 2000 just went south all by itself? It may have been one of Bush's close associates but it came from the Bush campaign and Bush took advantage of it. Back in 2000 I honestly considered voting for him. But things change. Your ability to ignore it doesn't make it go away.

It also doesn't make go away the fact that McCain has managed to have both positions on such controversies as Abortion and gay rights. Grant that an intelligent man may in fact change his mind when new information comes up, but it becomes suspicious when it is done by a presidential candidate during an election year (Yeah I know it wasn't this year.)

The heroics he performed were 35 years ago. No one disputes them, (not even me) but there is some time when 35 year old memories must be laid to rest. There is a whole new generation that have grown up since then. More recent wars and more recent stupid choices about who our enemies are.

The whole neo-con movement started in the Reagan administration and has been providing fuel for the military industrial complex and reasons for war since then. They failed to learn the lesson of Eisenhower and now we are suffering the ills from not learning it the first time. Books have been written about them called "Conservatives without Conscience" and "Daydream Believers" amongst others. (I've read these at least)

McCain was (originally back in 2000) not a member of this club but he has recently done everything in his power to join it based upon the policies he now supports. The neo-con club is the group which developed the idea of attacking our enemies first, preemptive wars they call them. These preemptive wars are based upon promoting fear here in the US and they seem to follow the text of the book 1984.

The neo-cons reject diplomacy as being weak which to them is an invitation for the others to attack us. Of course they all gained access to the government while they worked in the defense department and they see military action as the only solution. Bush's latest stupid comment in the Knesset is a shining example of this miserable attitude.

What attracted me originally to McCain was his lack of this attitude he seemed to understand the lesson of Eisenhower but now he is so changed.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

45degreeN · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject:

Well you know me well enough to know when I grew up and its even accurate. How many anti-war protests during the 60's and 70's did I go to. That was another wasted war one started by democrats but still there were lies at the beginning and plenty of lies over the course of it. We had no reason to go there the 'domino theory' was as bogus then as 'preemptive wars' are now. Both are part of the military industrial complex getting more power and income.

Just 2 years ago, McCain publicly applauded Collin Powell for his negotiations with Syria. Newt Gingrich criticized him and suggested that we shouldn't be talking with Syria Now McCain suggests that any talk with any of our enemies is not only unpatriotic but appeasement. He fails to explain how we can possibly ever get peace in the middle East without some sort of negotiation. Maybe he would just kill off those evil Palestinians and then there would be peace (yeah sure). That is just so wrong. How can the same person applaud negotiations one year and condemn them 2 years later? Someone convinced him otherwise and it was a Neo-con.

In campaigns it is always the candidate who is responsible for comments of the hirelings, otherwise they owe an apology and in this case it was after the South Carolina campaign was over and after McCain lost that Bush apologized.

Trinity wrote:

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

holly102869 · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:34 am Post subject:

I want to play.

45degreeN · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:22 am Post subject:

The Neo-con's attitude is that we will attack on the presumption of guilt in other countries rather than proof. Their foreign policy is to attack first!

First:The US and the "West" starting in 1919 basically took over the job of telling the middle East how they should run their own business. In Iraq and Iran both. We installed the people in positions of power that we wanted for our own reasons and without any respects to the people and culture of the area. It will be 90 years soon. These are countries who have been national cultures for thousands of years, we've only been around for a little over 200 years. The Neo-cons have no idea of how offensive this way of doing things seems to these countries.

Second:Even the issue of Israel is only 60 years old. The Arab doctrines about purging their history books is only since the beginning of this decade. It is primarily a reaction to our own (Western) action of imposing our will on them.

Third: Oil is really hardly part of their culture even today, it is an add-on. Something that is done for our benefit and in the process it has in many cases seen as ruining their culture with the immense wealth and "western attitudes" at the highest levels of the country. The year I spent living in Audi Arabia almost every day there was someone who told me they would have preferred to remain in the old desert ways and to have never been forced to deal with our culture.

It is entirely understandable the offense taken by radical Islam. Doesn't make it right, and certainly we need to defend ourselves, but in which way? By controlling them? Or getting them to control themselves?

Akhmadenijah might, if he really believed us stop this whole way of doing things if he were convinced we would just leave his country alone to do things their own way. The problem is he doesn't. He has 90 years worth of interventionist policies from both Democratic and republican administrations which tells him not to trust us.Because of this history we have, there is little we can do that will advance our cause in his eyes. All we have right now is some belligerent blow hard (Bush) trying to force his country to do something that is in our best interest again.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

45degreeN · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:54 am Post subject:

Gee where do I begin?

First off yes all those presidents did in fact interfere with the Muslim countries as though they had the right to do anything they liked . Democrats and Republicans. Most off Western leaders have treated their counterparts in the Arab lands with disdain.

Secondly: Those neo-cons, try this link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con (it is a common and accepted description of this group of people.)

Third:In spite of Bush's claims to the contrary, over those 13 years (as you say) there were none found. So what does that mean? That they do exist???? Of course, what Bush never said was "We have the receipts" Saddam was secretly given WMD's in his war against Iran by US! Bush would not want to actually confess this fact would he?

Fourth: The Arabs sold every last acre of the land to the Jews that Israel claimed in 1948 (yes, they still have the receipts) so the Palestinian claims were bogus in the first place.

Fifth:I lived in Saudi Arabia from roughly June 1980-to January 1981. I spent those hot desert days in Ryadh at the airport as a technician for the air traffic control. Part of our contract was to train Saudis to take over the job we were doing and not a single person offered to be trained. (Forget passing this training) Yes in fact most of the people I was able to talk to (in English) expressed this desire to return to the old bedoin lifestyle even with the heat, they're used to it we're not.

your assessment of

holly102869 · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

45degreeN · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

45degreeN · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:29 am Post subject:

If you assume that the radical elements of Islam represent the whole of Islam then your logic might hold water. They don't though. Not by a long shot.

Look at the forces that sent the Ottoman empire into history's dustbin. You say 28 countries. Well 26 of them were suffering the effects of WWI and hardly even could muster the people to talk to the Turks. In principle it was those 28 but in reality it was seen as the non Muslim world. Which is exactly my point.

Iraq has some of the most Holy sites (to the the Shiites) in the whole world. For over 1000 years a non Muslin to go there was blasphemy.

As far as Saddam is concerned look at it from his perspective. How trustworthy is America's foreign policy if one day he is installed in power and the next thrown out of office. Sadly he isn't even the first one to have this happen. The same might just be said of the Shah in Iran we installed him in power because he was pro western and didn't lift a finger to protect the shah when revolution came to throw him out. (Need I mention Noriega also)

History is full of American interference in other countries and when the blowback comes we sit and wonder what happened. It is hypocrisy at the highest levels.