Why does Zarqawi sound like my Democrat friends??

That's true, but because he's now claiming that he's former military, I'm interested whether he knows anybody promoting what he considers and defines as a "left" position in the military. He's answered that question, but his answer is his local, insulated truth. There's all kinds of people in the military, including those who serve not towards unlawful employment of the armed forces, but towards the lawful honorable engagement of such. Honor may be found in the situational dynamics our forces face, but the order that sent them to that place was unlawful, less than honorable, and ultimately will never solve the problem it's ostensibly meant to address. The so-called "left" (this doesn't include the Democratic party, which is center-right in the main as compared to the far-right of the Republican party and the fascist-right of the Executive) seems to be interested in solving the problem.

I'm trying to figure out precisely what the so-called "right" stands for, in terms of our armed forces, other than a berating of the so-called "left?" Just like most right/Republican arguments, they seem wholly and utterly founded not on any type of authentic thinking, but, rather, on a mouth-foaming "I'M NOT LIBERAL/LEFT!" ranting that positions their position solely as NOT something else, without actually telling anyone what they actually stand for.

So, far from the so-called "left" answering a damn thing, the group of folks who BACK this Executive must answer the charge that they, in affirmation of this Executive STAND FOR:

(1) Ends justifies the means foreign policy (a mindset not unlike, sadly, terror-mongers)
(2) Torture
(3) Killing of innocents
(4) Abandonment of law
(5) Lies of omission and commission
(6) Profferance of secret and hidden quasi-legal processes, without due process of law


This, and more, is what the so-called right CURRENTLY STANDS FOR, seemingly PROUDLY. Given that, there's not a damn thing that anyone else has to answer for; they have to explain themselves.

Oh, by the way, fear of death isn't good enough. In fact, it's pathetic, as a reason for the above. It's pathetic b/c the very nation these folks CLAIM to love was BUILT (in its founding and in the extension of the Constitutional franchise from just white male landowners to almost everyone almost all the time) by people, groups and movements placing the best Ideas of America, and a commitment to them, ABOVE THEIR LIVES. In climates where death was FAR more local, and likely, than death is from the current boogeymen to which the Executive demands we react, murderously, based on fear. Children, workers, women, blacks, gays...all these groups, in standing fast for what they beleived in were - ARE - far more likely to suffe from hown-grown, local American terrorism than any of us are likely to suffer from UBL and his small horde of fanatics.

So no, your fear of death, so-called "right-wingers," your making a feath of death PRIMAL in your life, is pathetic and unacceptable.

There are LOTS of things worse than death, as our betters, in BUILDING the damn nation, made clear in that process. We are supposed to continue that process, because it isn't complete. Not in fear, in the promotion of torture, in the abandonment of law, in the duct-taped, terror-altered promotion of fear.

Rather, in the best traditions which have gone forward. Gulf of Tonkin? Lusitania? Maine? NOT the best traditions.

But certainly traditions, traditions in perfect alignment with those the so-called "right" claim today. Traditions that they must answer for, and soon, and answer a DAMN sight earlier than any call from them to the so-called "left" to explain a mother********ing thing, b/c the so-called "left"'s position is clear, in understood, and HAS been understood, for YEARS now.

So, IF the so-called "right" can explain the above in the best traditions of the American Experiment, which, by definition, demands a lack of fear-mongering and a call to the best spirit and codification and reliance upon the law; IF the so-called "right" can explain the above in ways the demonstrate HOW, exactly, wanting my cousin and his compatriots to handover this nightmare misadventure of the neo-fascist Executive to a multinational body grounded in an established consensus that has Iraq and Iraqis at the utter forefront of the project (note: 14 permanent bases? NOT, ironically, doing such...); IF the so-called "right" can explain the above torture and murder in torturous effort, the rendition, the disappearing, the holding of persons without due process, (not to mention the placing at the forefront of such activity militarized, kill-sanctioning perversion of a nonviolent god who preached, lived and died nonviolently) in the best traditions of the nation...

...then, possibly, they might, conditionally, deserve a REPEAT explanation of the utterly different vision of the so-called "left." You and I will ALL be the culinary delight of terrestrial worms before any reasonable commencement of that will even take place.

So, for me, the reason why, in the most crippled comparisons, one might offer that Zarqawi sounds like Democrats is couched in the manifest truth that Democrats are simply less slavering versions of the same "ends justifies the means" intent SHARED by the Executive AND terror-mongers like Zarqawi.

People don't like it, and I don't give two ********s, but there IS no denying it: When Bush, and Blair, state, and men like Kerry affirm that "Well, persons may differ on how we got to this point, but noone on our side of events can say the world isn't better off with Saddam out of power," they are using the ends - Saddam out of power - to justify the means - doing whatever the ******** they wanted to do, including lying to Congress and the American people. That IS, undeniably and truthfully, the SAME frame on ideation that terror-mongers use. "Well, persons may differ on how we get to our objectives - suicide bombings, murder of innocents - but noone on our side of events can say that the ends - producing our vision of the world - isn't better than the current state of events."

Whether or not we kill less innocents, claim smart-bomb tech, and paint schools is not the issue. Of course we could have been worse; of course we could have beheaded people but didn't!

What do WE CLAIM IS THE DIFFERENCE?

That we're ruled by law; that the terror-mongers are lawless.

But when you not ONLY discard the law with "Well, people may disagree on how we got to this point - but lie to everyone DURING that process of discardment - the DSM and its concomitants, affirmed in their truthfulness by Blair and fastidiously skirted by a media that is solely a megaphone to political power and a siren song to citizen slovenliness, you become lawless at the most critical - and most secret - point.

On that which is most important - the rule of law, in the place where the law MATTERS MOST - with a fork in the road in front of you, you CHOOSE NOT the road that leads to affirmation of law, but that road more like the terror-mongers.

As a result, my cousin and his compatriots are in a space and place, exsiting in a CONTEXT, that did not have to be the case at all.

So-called "right," YOU have to answer for this. It's your duty to explain how these, as one example, fit into the best traditions of the United States of America whose decision-rules I swore to protect and serve.

Neither I, nor anyone else, has to "explain" a mother********ing thing. You know where I, and those like me, stand. We stand next to the Constitution and the Declaration, and kneel beside the graves of those who thought that the former could become the latter if we were fearless enough.

 

I think you've missed the biggest difference between democrats and Zarqawi and his ilk.

Democrats voted against Bush. AZ and his crew wanted Bush to beat Kerry. They want more bloodshed, and a president who does not denounce the evil things (torture/murder/disrespect) that agents of his administration do. Bush is a walking recruitment poster for more terrorism, and more support for AZ.

Don't believe me? There have been numerous quotes from AZ and Al-Quada that say they want someone like Bush to oppose, because they have no fear of losing to that ignoramous, and because Bush furthers the agenda of the islamofascists. This was well-documented on these boards in the lead up to our election.

 

I've decided that Damon Esquire and Mel Brennan are the opposite kind of posters. One's posts are short and read over and over. Each time one finds a new meaning that forces an interaction between the writter and the reader. New ideas pop out as the mind is opened and forced to think new thoughts to explain what the writer was writing. The other causes the mind to close as the same ideas are decorated with news words and having to ignore the decoration, one ends up ignoring whatever new idea might have found itself used as part of the wrapping.

 

Well...I dunno about the 80's but in 1970 when rank and file started getting home from VietNam and coming to college, the ones who showed up at mine split around 4-1 to the left; and half those who were on the right were navy guys who never saw dirt at all... The real curiosity to me was that we had but two students who had served elsewhere (both moderate lefties-- Mediterranean and Germany). And the often overlooked aspect to the shift in public opinion on VietNam is that that shift was driven in large part by the opinions of people returning from service there... It was easy for our parents to ignore our arguments, but not the eye-witness stories of guys with scars.

I never once heard a vet from either side of the political spectrum refer to "the Communist enemy;" that was something politicians did. I did hear even extreme left vets refer to "gooks." In fact now that I think of it I can't remember ever hearing anything about the war discussed in terms of ideology... only culture. However lefty and antiwar we were, you know, there was a tendency to listen rather than tell around the guys who had gone... and they were trying to understand their experience in human terms, not propaganda/political ones...

(Incidentally I thought of myself then and now as "righty"-- the sixties were about wanting less government interference, not more... the Democrats managed to emphasize the anti-fascist aspects of that world view and persuade hippies that they were liberal when they were nothing of the sort... and Nixon just encouraged that...)

My town has recently welcomed home our national guard unit which was extended twice and was primarily in the trucking business there; thankfully they all came back. The stories so far have been about how screwed up everything is in Iraq, but pretty much devoid of political opinion. Of course its a lefty town, so they were probably lefties by your standards when they got on the planes...

 

I don't guess that's true. I remember the lead up to the election and I don't remember any AQ statement like "We like to oppose Bush". Not to say that they didn't but I think it's a story the Left likes to hear and has projected onto the statements of AQ.

If I remember correctly, AQ recognizes that it is in a war against a democracy and hopes to change the majority's opinion, making the war too costly and grizzly for Americans to withstand.

I do think that AQ and the Left share many of the same objectives. Most importantly, an isolationist United States. AQ beleives it's objectives are more noble and the Left thinks the US's objectives are too foul. AQ beleives America is too soft and the Left thinks the world is too rough.

The purpose of the attack on the WTC was not to have the US be strong, clean up Afghanistan and start a democracy in the center of the Arab world. The purpose was to force the US to overextend itself, Soviet style trying to "take over" Afghanistan. We had no intention of "taking over" Afghanistan, instead perfering to help a democratic government of for and by the Afghani people.

 

Do you have any vegetarian friends? If so, I'd be really careful around them. They sound just like Hitler.

 

You know what? Every thread on this NSR board is the same. There is always one person who can be associated with the "right" who posts an opinion backed up by facts that he/ she gathered. It progresses to a person representing the "left" who will offer their own opinion backed up by their own facts that they gathered.

Here's where it starts to spiral out of control. Soon after the thread starts, the same usual trolls come out and start the bashing and personal attacks. They bring in the same stock arguements every time which all end the same way; "Bush is the worst President ever..." and it only gets worse and more personal and off topic from there. Here's a message to all those folks: We get it. You don't like the President of teh United States. You guys sit here and post on these boards all day thinking that your position is so correct when the reality is that there is a counter-arguement to everything you write on here. The only reason no one representing the other side never posts on here is because the same trolls gang up every time.

Just an observation.

 

It wasn't part of the official AQ platform or talking points, but statements from key leaders were quite clear about how Bush's actions and attitudes were to AQ's advantage.

You have something here, but I think you've misinterpreted leftist attitudes. Dems are not isolationist and still have their hopes of establishing their ideals in other countries - they're just picking which battles to fight (Balkans, Somalia, Sudan, Haiti), and which opponents are a bad idea (middle east).

I fail to see the true difference between the propoganda the soviets had - "helping a poor, backwoods country establish a modern communist state", and the american aim - "helping a poor, backward country establish a modern democratic state". The soviets built schools, hospitals, centralized government etc - just like we are. Their soldiers ventured out from their bases to pacify the countryside and had their helicopters shot down and convoys ambushed - just like today.

So it seems that just like in the soviet era, there are groups of islamically driven tribes that care little for either communism or democracy, and are willing to stick with the doctrines of tribal groups jockeying for power in a perpetual war.

 

Really, just an opinion. I like how you go from that center-seeking criticism of both the so-called "left" and "right" to "...We get it. You don't like the President of teh United States." Who is "we," by the way?

In addition, since you claim that "...the reality is that there is a counter-arguement to everything you write on here," I'd like the facts that exist counter to the indictment of lawlesness that is articulated by this work, itself only a compilation of memos this Executive themselves wrote.

I look forward to you offering such, and, as a result of your evident erudition, raising the bar on the discussion 'round these parts...

 

The difference being that the Soviets tried to impose the will of communisim on Afghanistan and we are helping the Afghani people impose their will on themselves. The Afghanis will pick solutions that have little to do with schools, hospitals or themselves being "poor". Yes you think of them as "poor" and their problems could/should be solved with money. They themselves see different problems requireing different solutions.

 

Thanks for a good level headed reply. The occasional respectful discussion of perspectives is great.

I'm not trying to say we're doing "bad" in Afghanistan. We are over there trying to do good. But weren't the soviets (or at least their propoganda) saying the exact same thing? In the eyes of God, is there a difference between Hamad Karzai (educated in western world), and whichever afghan leader 20 years ago who was educated in soviet universities? Both of us want to better afghanistan, by reforming their government. The soviets probably wanted the rule of AK-47s replaced with the rule of the central communist party. We want the rule of AK-47s to be replaced with the rule of multiparty elections and the secret ballot box - because we think that is the best solution. Surely the soviets felt the same.

Me - I dunno what afghanis want. I guess businessmen in the cities want to be able to get richer, and like capitalism and the ability to enter government. I guess rural farmers want to be able to grow as many poppies as they can. I guess tribal leaders want to maintain their own local power, and doing so with a combination of gifts and guns is the only game they know (and more reliable than ballots). I guess the religious wackos want to make everyone follow their rules.

So what is the "will" of the disparate Afghani people? Do they want a democratic capitalist state any more than a communist one? We can/should encourage that - why not? But if they don't - are we willing to tolerate their different wishes as long as the terrorists don't come back?

 

Why don't you just say it, Liberals are terrorists.

 

Yeah, what a great idea. Maybe next time, you might actually listen to the little voice in your head and not start threads like this.

 

But the exodus of intelligent conservative posters may also just be indicative of the hordes of republicans who find it incredibly difficult to agree with or defend the adminsitration, and cannot piece together a counterargument that logically defends the adminsitration (through no fault of the poster).

Or not. We wimpy liberals are great at making conservatives cower, aren't we?

So why not buy yourself one of these, jack?

 

ok, once and for all:

republicans are not as bad terrorists (or are in any way like hitler)
democrats are not as bad as terrorists (or are in any way like hitler)

can we please move on? This accusatory shi-t is juvenile at best and demeans us all.

 

A good point and well articulated.

 

Have you tried crying about it? That always works for me.

 

Me: Wow, we sure tasted the meat missile against San Jose last week.
You: So you're an Earthquake fan.
Me: ...
You: It doesn't bother you that you're saying the same things as Earthquake fans?
Me: ...
You: I'm just saying, it's like you're getting your talking points straight from the Casbah.
Me: *head explodes*

 

So it's ok to call Republicans and Conservatives Nazis, but don't you DARE call a liberal or a Democrat a terrorist


Ok I get it now - double standards are kool

 

Talk about shock and awe. Maybe this post will finally shut these nimrods up once and for all.

 

You wouldn't happen to have Tim McVeigh's voter registration card, would you?

 

No we shredded that at Militia HQ before he left that day

 

cough, cough Feminazi cough cough

Well, we're all familiar with Godwin's law & Hitler/naziism.

Can I propose a new law?

"Anyone who compares (democrats, liberals, leftists, lefty moonbats, or just plain anyone you disagree with) to terrorists is as lame as a nazi name caller".

Bush's law? Gonzales's law?