Skip to main content

View Diary: Why you should switch to John Edwards (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ok point by point (0+ / 0-)

    I did indeed explain the reasons i believe hte populace finds southern candidates more attractive.

    Strength

    Northern candidates tend to work hard to be "consensus" people. Tend to offer 12 paragraph answers to a yes and no question. Southern politicians are the opposite. If they werent they couldnt get elected here. Dukakis mondale and Kerry are the epitomy of that. Thus why reagan and bush get spun as "southerners" when they are anything BUT. It has nothing to do with racism or really where a candidate is from. It is about hte perception of 'strength' and southern culture values that and promotes that image. "Northern" cultures value other things.

    I'll sidestep your perfectly reasonable request on the other two to rephrase the argument.

    Our failure in iraq is because we claimed to be there to help iraqis but that was Never on our agenda. Were we there to help we would have eliminated Hussain then called in the UN to oversee clean elections while we sent most of our forces to pakistan to KILL bin ladin. Instead we set up a rigged election and commenced to making iraq  part of the american oil empire. Began stealing their natural resources and using iraq as a funnel to enrich gop supporters, oil companies and the defense industry and killing anyone who got in our way including astronomical numbers of innocent civilians.

    In germany and japan after world war two we did just the opposite. We worked honestly to restore those nations, to aid their peoples, and install legitimate democratic governments.

    Thats the difference between world war two and Iraq. Motive. Corruption and deciet are evil and lead to evil. Morality and honesty lead to the same.

    Now hopefully we can stop talking past each other as i quite enjoy some of your other posts.

    And RE Korea: the only way we could have achieved objective victory there would have been to directly engage China and the soviet union in an all out land war. A war which we would have lost because despite the bullshit spun to americans we were always Vastly superior to the soviets in intercontinental nuclear capabilty and always inferior in conventional capability. Theyd have devoured our ground forces and it would have become nuclear quickly afterwards.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

    by cdreid on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 06:22:31 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not quite... (0+ / 0-)

      .... finished

      Northern candidates tend to work hard to be "consensus" people. Tend to offer 12 paragraph answers to a yes and no question. Southern politicians are the opposite. If they werent they couldnt get elected here. Dukakis mondale and Kerry are the epitomy of that. Thus why reagan and bush get spun as "southerners" when they are anything BUT. It has nothing to do with racism or really where a candidate is from. It is about hte perception of 'strength' and southern culture values that and promotes that image. "Northern" cultures value other things.

      I agree that style plays a role. But that alone can't explain the difference. Anyway, our opinions will never converge on this and it wasn't a point I was looking to debate. Someone hinted that we need to appeal to moderates and should therefore nominate a Southerner. That's what got me on that tangent. I'm comfortable in my assessments in this regard, as I am sure you are in yours.

      Our failure in iraq is because we claimed to be there to help iraqis but that was Never on our agenda. Were we there to help we would have eliminated Hussain then called in the UN to oversee clean elections while we sent most of our forces to pakistan to KILL bin ladin. Instead we set up a rigged election and commenced to making iraq  part of the american oil empire. Began stealing their natural resources and using iraq as a funnel to enrich gop supporters, oil companies and the defense industry and killing anyone who got in our way including astronomical numbers of innocent civilians.

      In germany and japan after world war two we did just the opposite. We worked honestly to restore those nations, to aid their peoples, and install legitimate democratic governments.

      My disagreement was not whether democracy was ever possible. It is possible anywhere. It was a question about need and cost. You addressed neither because what you gave me what was in some sense a litany of post-war horrors that have not been immune to other conflicts. Profiteering by the military industrial complex is nothing new.

      Cost:

      You intimated that if we'd handed everything over to the U.N after defeating Saddam, everything would have worked. If that is what you believe, removing Saddam was the right thing to do (which, trust me, I'm fine with since you're not on the ballot :)).

      Need:

      You cited Nazi Germany as a moral precedent for removing Saddam (you never used it as a cost argument before). I don't believe Saddam's regime had reached to the level where the moral imperative to invade was as great as it was with Germany. Moreover, even as a cost argument, Nazi Germany is a poor precedent. In terms of lives and money, WWII was more 'expensive' than Iraq.

      Thats the difference between world war two and Iraq. Motive. Corruption and deciet are evil and lead to evil. Morality and honesty lead to the same.

      Now this GETS TO THE CRUX of our discussion. I don't believe motive is the biggest difference between the two instances. I don't think the Iraq war could be justified even if our motives were the right ones. Saddam Hussein never came close to becoming a threat on the level of Nazi Germany or Japan. Do you think going to war would have been the right call if we had achieved a sustainable democratic entity in the region?

      I can't vote for a candidate who thought voting for the war was right 'in theory'. I can only vote for someone who believes, in hindsight at the very least, that it was unnecessary. I'm not sure which on best describes JE's beliefs. When I do, my choice will be easier.

      Good day.

      "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

      by crazymoloch on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 07:32:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You got me wrong (0+ / 0-)

        i was willing to give bush the benefit (tired of fighting and losing honestly) though i knew the rationale was a lie. If it were up to me we'd use force to remove the dictators we put in place and in places like Darfur, Rwanda, et al. But i was never pro-war. I became pretty much almost universally anti-war when i put on a uniform back in the day and realised my friends could die for bullshit.

        However once we were there i do believe it could have been salvaged if it had been done legitimately. Executing a tyrant and his supporters is never a bad thing. But to do so we had to give up all that lovely oil, power, and the chance to play all our empire game theories out. But as far as using force to combat evil by killing dictators i have zero problems with that. the whole "power vacuum" bullshit is merely an excuse by people wanting to play games to use other peoples lives as pawns.

        You're mistakenly assigning the believe that i believe imminent threat is the only rationale for the use of violence. I dont. And im glad the french didnt 195 years ago or 232 years ago.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

        by cdreid on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 07:51:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid

          There's a difference between conflicts on the order of Vietnam and actions on the order of Kosovo (where we chose not to engage on a scale akin to Iraq). I realize this isn't a very clear distinction. My belief is that conflicts on the order of an Iraq are only justified in the face of an imminent threat. I need to ascertain that anyone I vote for believes that.

          But, I think this conversation has come an unexpected and pleasant conclusion.

          "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

          by crazymoloch on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:06:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We both overreacted (0+ / 0-)

            Happens.

            I'm in the middle of a diary full of flat out brainless trolls so it put a wee bit of perspective back on our disagreement.

            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

            by cdreid on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:10:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  If you don't mind my asking.... (0+ / 0-)

        ..... when did you serve in the military?

        "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

        by crazymoloch on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:09:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site