More oddities in the U.S. "debate" over Israel/Gaza

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

As it relates to our interests and our national security, it sure as hell is.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[DeadPoolX 9]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

I do wonder why, then, do we behave like we own the planet yet want to wash our hands of its problems. Interesting dichotomy indeed.

I think it's because the U.S. is expected to lend a helping hand in every situation. Of course... when we do, we're often harshly criticized, but if we don't do anything, we're also criticized too. Since we'll be made out as the "bad guys" in nearly every situation, I'd say we should save our money and effort when it comes to international issues and use both at time. If the rest of the world is going to hate us no matter what we do, we might as well choose the option that benefits Americans.

[Rollover post 1/4]

Expectations can be falsified. Just looking at our international interventions that earn us that title of bully, we can say that its not commitments that have the common good of man at stake.

One thing is to defend our democracy and another is to convince ourselves we're doing so by some rather odd logic.

Our priorities should be to the United States (or whatever country you call home). It's unrealistic to expect any country to motivate itself to act when there's nothing to gain. I say this because more often than not, the U.S. is expected to provide both the majority of funds and personnel to any cause. Doing so diverts those resources away from home.

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

I do wonder why, then, do we behave like we own the planet yet want to wash our hands of its problems. Interesting dichotomy indeed.

It's called "national self-interest" - a concept alien to many Democrats, I'm sure.

War is a legitimate means to pursue the economic and political goals of a nation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How funny to hear people say we have no vested interest let alone responsibility in making the world safer.

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

As it relates to our interests and our national security, it sure as hell is.

[HAL 9000 96]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

I do wonder why, then, do we behave like we own the planet yet want to wash our hands of its problems. Interesting dichotomy indeed.

I think it's because the U.S. is expected to lend a helping hand in every situation. Of course... when we do, we're often harshly criticized, but if we don't do anything, we're also criticized too. Since we'll be made out as the "bad guys" in nearly every situation, I'd say we should save our money and effort when it comes to international issues and use both at time. If the rest of the world is going to hate us no matter what we do, we might as well choose the option that benefits Americans.

[Rollover post 1/4]

Expectations can be falsified. Just looking at our international interventions that earn us that title of bully, we can say that its not commitments that have the common good of man at stake.

One thing is to defend our democracy and another is to convince ourselves we're doing so by some rather odd logic.

Our priorities should be to the United States (or whatever country you call home). It's unrealistic to expect any country to motivate itself to act when there's nothing to gain. I say this because more often than not, the U.S. is expected to provide both the majority of funds and personnel to any cause. Doing so diverts those resources away from home.

[Rollover post 2/4]

That's what happens when you use cheap and largely false excuses and pretenses for using military and financial power abroad when we well know it has nothing to do with those 'reasons' to use them. People abroad will therefore come to expect us to ante up every time a 'similar problem' arises that fits the description we use to do what we do.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

As it relates to our interests and our national security, it sure as hell is.

Mark, do you need a history lesson to recognize that we don't always act of our own self interests? I know that's a foreign concept to you, but the US has worked towards making the world a safer place out of altruism. Wasn't it you the other day who talked about Bush helping Africa with it's AIDS epidemic?

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

As it relates to our interests and our national security, it sure as hell is.

i never thought i'd see you advocating intervention overseas.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's what happens when you use cheap and largely false excuses and pretenses for using military and financial power abroad when we well know it has nothing to do with those 'reasons' to use them. People abroad will therefore come to expect us to ante up every time a 'similar problem' arises that fits the description we use to do what we do.

It's dishonest, I agree - they should have just told us that the Iraq war for really for oil.

Many people (including myself) would have still supported it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

As it relates to our interests and our national security, it sure as hell is.

i never thought i'd see you advocating intervention overseas.

I've never advocated isolationism, Charles. The issue is what kind of intervention.

[HAL 9000 96]

That's what happens when you use cheap and largely false excuses and pretenses for using military and financial power abroad when we well know it has nothing to do with those 'reasons' to use them. People abroad will therefore come to expect us to ante up every time a 'similar problem' arises that fits the description we use to do what we do.

It's dishonest, I agree - they should have just told us that the Iraq war for really for oil.

Many people (including myself) would have still supported it.

[Rollover post 4/4 * Done for the day*]

Lucky us in that case, Congress would not have been as misled to vote to authorize the war.

[mawilson 2,133]

Mark, do you need a history lesson to recognize that we don't always act of our own self interests? I know that's a foreign concept to you, but the US has worked towards making the world a safer place out of altruism. Wasn't it you the other day who talked about Bush helping Africa with it's AIDS epidemic?

It's only meant to improve our image abroad so we can keep doing what we're doing - nothing more.

[DeadPoolX 9]

That's what happens when you use cheap and largely false excuses and pretenses for using military and financial power abroad when we well know it has nothing to do with those 'reasons' to use them. People abroad will therefore come to expect us to ante up every time a 'similar problem' arises that fits the description we use to do what we do.

It's dishonest, I agree - they should have just told us that the Iraq war for really for oil.

Many people (including myself) would have still supported it.

[Rollover post 4/4 * Done for the day*]

Lucky us in that case, Congress would not have been as misled to vote to authorize the war.

Let's be honest here: Congress played a large role in this and is far from being guilt free. If any there truly believe that Bush was up to no good, they could've investigated it themselves. I'm sure senators and representatives know how to do a little research. Believing whatever someone says -- regardless of who they are -- is probably unwise.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

As it relates to our interests and our national security, it sure as hell is.

i never thought i'd see you advocating intervention overseas.

I've never advocated isolationism, Charles. The issue is what kind of intervention.

"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal.

If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative.

If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate.

If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mark, do you need a history lesson to recognize that we don't always act of our own self interests? I know that's a foreign concept to you, but the US has worked towards making the world a safer place out of altruism. Wasn't it you the other day who talked about Bush helping Africa with it's AIDS epidemic?

It's only meant to improve our image abroad so we can keep doing what we're doing - nothing more.

I really wonder sometimes if you are a sociopath....or a vulcan.