|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In the February before the election was stolen from him, he gave a speech demonizing Saddam Hussein to such an extent it made Bush look like a lightweight. There is no question that had he been elected, there still would have been a war against Iraq. |
There's some faulty logic here. Can you point to a speech by any leading American political figure of the time that defended Saddam Hussein?
The link between a speech criticizing Saddam and invading his country is highly tenuous. |
Exactly. Further, many American politicians have attacked other political leaders, and yet we haven't invaded their countries. We can condemn without attacking. In most cases, we should condemn without attacking.
Obviously, I can't say with certainty Gore would have refrained from attacking Iraq, but given the man's character, I do consider it far less likely. The war in Iraq was totally unnecessary and seemed very linked to the Bush Administration's agenda specifically. Even a different Republican with a different administration in the same situation very possibly wouldn't have done it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In the February before the election was stolen from him, he gave a speech demonizing Saddam Hussein to such an extent it made Bush look like a lightweight. There is no question that had he been elected, there still would have been a war against Iraq. |
There's some faulty logic here. Can you point to a speech by any leading American political figure of the time that defended Saddam Hussein?
The link between a speech criticizing Saddam and invading his country is highly tenuous.
At least as plausible: Gore would have paid more attention to security threats in his first months in office and the 9/11 attack would never have happened, thus the invasion of Afghanistan would not have happened either. On top of those two 'victories' he wouldn't have squandered the budget surplus and would have clamped down on financial reform so we would never have had this economic melt down. In short, Gore would have ushered in a modern utopia. |
Most politicians at the time were ignoring Saddam. The only need to war-monger stems from the idea to invade Iraq which had been in the planning for years before 9/11. See Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1998 The Grand Chessboard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Most politicians at the time were ignoring Saddam. The only need to war-monger stems from the idea to invade Iraq which had been in the planning for years before 9/11. |
Really? Who, then, was doing all that talk about economic sanctions and fly-over zones and no-fly zones, oil for medicine deal, etc. back then? Ignoring? I don't think so. In a presidential campaign most candidates want to sound tough on foreign policy so they aren't accused of being soft on the (fill in the blank).
While there is something to be said for the impersonal forces of history, the trends of the times, there is also something to be said for the importance of individual choice. I see no reason to absolve Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld for their choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
You do realize that this "massive spending abroad" on "wars for profit" is our primary export?
We trade security for debt. We go and solve the world's security problems, they purchase our treasury bill and provide cheap consumer goods. |
I guess you'd be a strong proponent for exporting jobs abroad and outsourcing. We'll go into debt to protect the world so we can send our jobs abroad!
If you ever run for office, you wouldn't get many American votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Most politicians at the time were ignoring Saddam. The only need to war-monger stems from the idea to invade Iraq which had been in the planning for years before 9/11. |
Really? Who, then, was doing all that talk about economic sanctions and fly-over zones and no-fly zones, oil for medicine deal, etc. back then? Ignoring? I don't think so. In a presidential campaign most candidates want to sound tough on foreign policy so they aren't accused of being soft on the (fill in the blank).
While there is something to be said for the impersonal forces of history, the trends of the times, there is also something to be said for the importance of individual choice. I see no reason to absolve Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld for their choices. |
I'll grant you that about the sanctions and no-fly zones, but they had been going for years and were at some sort of equilibrium. Only some opportunistic politicians were really advocating going further and warmongering.
And as I am sure you and many others know by now, I'd be the last person to absolve the Cheney/Bush/Rummy cabal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
These are the first and truest representatives of self-conscious Conservative thought. For a host of reasons neither of them would support the American Constitution. Plop one of them in present-day America and you'd have a specimen more opposed to the status quo, and more in favour of change, than any progressive. |
I'm confused, who does the 'neither of them' here refer to? Because I'm pretty confident a Burkean would not be opposed to the status quo. |
It might clarify things if you read 'Burke' instead 'Burkean Conservative' in my first paragraph. Burke's thought has threads of principled communitarianism, elitism, and natural law which make it antipathetic to the atomism and egalitarianism of modern America. You seem to be implying that Burke was a 'law and order' historicist or relativist; if so you are misinformed. If you'll make your case, I'll reply to it. |
Its been awhile since I've read Burke, and what I read was 'Reflections on the Revolution in France.' I don't mean that Burke would be for the status quo just because it was the status quo. I meant that if the status quo were reasonably accomodating of liberty and the protection of property, Burke would support its foundations and work within it for change. Because the Constitution is the source of America's guarantee of liberty and the rights of the few (against the tyranny of the many), I'd imagine Burke would support it, even if he believed that the ultimate source of the rights were natural, and not constitutive either by being upheld by social contract or by being legal rights. |
That's correct. No argument here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
