I received this from the NRC, and thought it was very interesting. It makes me sick to think how there are people on this nation that come up with this garbage. Comparing 9/11 to the tragic and unfair treatment of Iraqi POW's is an insult to the families of those who died in the WTC. How far are the liberals going to go? It's one thing to criticize the current administration, but to say that Americans are terrorists is way out of line. The sad thing is that there's people who applaud this crap. :thumbdown

Soros is insane he's so far left. He's an extremist that essentially wants America to be socialist.

This guy survived the Nazi occupationt. I think he has a slight bit of authority to talk about tragedy as opposed to a sheltered comforted person who speaks with some authority when the highest adversity theyve ever faced is having to sacrifice buying an SUV because he hates poor people.

Come one F_M, you know better than this though.

 

I sure hope you don't agree with him because that is an insane comparison.

 

You can't deny that he is way far left and if I was you I sure as heck wouldn't be supporting anything he said.

 

Maybe you're blinded by the fact that he gives so much money to the democratic movement and funds moveon.org though.

 

Do you agree with the comparison or do you not?

No I dont agree with him. I think he is wrong to make that comparison. I do take offense to fishfanpr labeling all liberals as having this view because they dont. But I understand why Soros would feel this way.

I don't agree with his comparisson and I understand why it may seem so offensive. Please don't lump as all liberals in the same "rabid liberal" category. I try (really hard) not to lump all conservatives in the "pseudo-con Right wing nut" category.

They're right FishFan, you can't take what Soros says and classify all liberals under his beliefs because like I said he is very very far left.

The people considered "liberal" on this board generally seem to have a much less leftist foreign policy perspective as opposed to people outside of the US. Its interesting because Ive gotten into pretty vicious arguments with people from other countries in which Ive defended the US policies and its general populace.

The people considered "liberal" on this board generally seem to have a much less leftist foreign policy perspective as opposed to people outside of the US. Its interesting because Ive gotten into pretty vicious arguments with people from other countries in which Ive defended the US policies and its general populace.

OMG me too! I've had ferocious arguments with some people from other countries that see the US and its entire population as a nation of fascists. It gets worse when this people start telling me how great Cuba is because of Castro... If I could strangle someone through the computer. :plain

 

This is the mistake many conservatives make, they think that all liberals want a communist country and redistribution of property. I do not want that. I want re-distribution of wealth through social programs created with a capitalist economy; there is a huge difference. As long as I can kick out my president through my vote, I'm a happy camper.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200406031106.asp

 

 

for your convenience...sorry.

"But there is, I'm afraid, a direct connection between those two events, because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators."

 

I agree with this assertion though. :confused

No I dont agree with him. I think he is wrong to make that comparison. I do take offense to fishfanpr labeling all liberals as having this view because they dont. But I understand why Soros would feel this way.

Sorry for that f_m, I should've been more clear in my expressions. Not all liberals are like this, but the truth of the matter is that in recent years, the extreme left has had more exposure in the American media, prompting some conservatives to reach the ERRONEOUS conclusion that this kind of comments are supported by the liberal political community. It's also very sad to see conservative extremists make equally irrational comments.

 

 

What is alarming though is that Hillary Clinton invited this a**hole. Hillary Clinton, as we all know, is an elected official, and as you well said, the majority of liberals scorn this line of comments. It's ridiculous to see how we have liberal extremists who infect the American citizenry with this kind of demagoguery.

 

Again, there's also conservative hard liners, so I can't and won't generalize....

The people considered "liberal" on this board generally seem to have a much less leftist foreign policy perspective as opposed to people outside of the US. Its interesting because Ive gotten into pretty vicious arguments with people from other countries in which Ive defended the US policies and its general populace.

OMG me too! I've had ferocious arguments with some people from other countries that see the US and its entire population as a nation of fascists. It gets worse when this people start telling me how great Cuba is because of Castro... If I could strangle someone through the computer. :plain

 

This is the mistake many conservatives make, they think that all liberals want a communist country and redistribution of property. I do not want that. I want re-distribution of wealth through social programs created with a capitalist economy; there is a huge difference. As long as I can kick out my president through my vote, I'm a happy camper. Yeah its super frustrating. Its like we get it from both sides. :banghead

 

 

And fishfanpr, first off look at the source and the advertisments on the page.

 

Second, Soros' even says the events arent of the same magnitude. But his point is still valid and one with which I tend to agree. The way Bush has conducted his war on terror has caused us to loose a lot of moral authority that was given to us after 9/11. Sorry to say it, but liberals dont like terrorists either. But attaining success and doing it without destroying goodwill are not mutually exclusive.

"But there is, I'm afraid, a direct connection between those two events, because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators."

 

I agree with this assertion though. :confused how does the war on terror convert us from victims to perpetrators? I don't know about you, but from what I've heard, the people in the WTC where working, not producing weapons or whatever. The terrorists attacked US, and we have every right in the world to DEFEND ourselves. It may sound a little harsh, but as has been said countless times, when you face this kind of evil threat, you have two options....either retreat because you're scared of further retaliation, or fight the enemy until you defeat it. American resolve inspires us to fight the enemy, and we will do that.

The people considered "liberal" on this board generally seem to have a much less leftist foreign policy perspective as opposed to people outside of the US. Its interesting because Ive gotten into pretty vicious arguments with people from other countries in which Ive defended the US policies and its general populace.

OMG me too! I've had ferocious arguments with some people from other countries that see the US and its entire population as a nation of fascists. It gets worse when this people start telling me how great Cuba is because of Castro... If I could strangle someone through the computer. :plain

 

This is the mistake many conservatives make, they think that all liberals want a communist country and redistribution of property. I do not want that. I want re-distribution of wealth through social programs created with a capitalist economy; there is a huge difference. As long as I can kick out my president through my vote, I'm a happy camper. Yeah its super frustrating. Its like we get it from both sides. :banghead

 

 

And fishfanpr, first off look at the source and the advertisments on the page.

 

Second, Soros' even says the events arent of the same magnitude. But his point is still valid and one with which I tend to agree. The way Bush has conducted his war on terror has caused us to loose a lot of moral authority that was given to us after 9/11. Sorry to say it, but liberals dont like terrorists either. But attaining success and doing it without destroying goodwill are not mutually exclusive. Why exactly have we lost moral authority with the war on Irak? If anyone here has lost moral authority, and has shown the world their hipocritical nature it has been the left, represented by France, Germany and Russia. The only way for Bush to have kept the U.S. moral authority in front of the world's eyes would've been to stay home, like Spain did. The leftist European movements lose more and more credibility as this war on Iraq rages on. Every minute that passes, we take a step towards democracy, freedom and government for and by the Iraqi people. We have the moral authority to fight this war, I'm convinced of this. Fighiting a ruthless dictator that has killed thousands automatically gives us the moral authority. Have you ever seen the pictures/videos of the hundreds of Kurdish kids and babies gased and later thrown in massive graves? have you ever heard an ex political prisioner talk about the tortures he was submitted to only because he resisted the nepharious political regime of his country? The realy hypocrites and demagogues are France, Germany and Russia. All three had millions of dollars in business with the murderer Hussein. Instead of doing the right thing and stand up for the people of Iraq, stand up for human rights and publicly condemn the abuses of the regime, they decided to fill their pockets with money. This war hasn't embarassed the USA...the liberal media has, and they always will criticize everything America does. This was has and will continue to embarass those who for years mantained a despotic regime who butchered Iraqi's rights and dreams....those are the ones who have lost the moral authority...not us, we're only stronger now. :plain

"But there is, I'm afraid, a direct connection between those two events, because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators."

 

I agree with this assertion though. :confused how does the war on terror convert us from victims to perpetrators? I don't know about you, but from what I've heard, the people in the WTC where working, not producing weapons or whatever. The terrorists attacked US, and we have every right in the world to DEFEND ourselves. It may sound a little harsh, but as has been said countless times, when you face this kind of evil threat, you have two options....either retreat because you're scared of further retaliation, or fight the enemy until you defeat it. American resolve inspires us to fight the enemy, and we will do that. Nobody is saying we shouldnt fight fishfan. Almost every liberal and people like Soros agreed with what we did in Afghanistan. But that doesnt mean everything done after a tragedy should be veiled in the cloth of justice. If after 9/11, Bush rounded up every middle eastern person and executed them, could it be justified under the war on terror? No way. I know thats a bit extreem but thats the point Soros is making. Bush defends things under the guise of the war on terror. These things have very weak links with attaining justice for 9/11 and have caused much more trouble than they have solved. This isnt the opinion of people like Soros either. Its quickly becoming the opinion of moderates too.

Every minute that passes, we take a step towards democracy, freedom and government for and by the Iraqi people.

 

Do you seriously think the Iraqi people can elect their own leaders? People like Al-Sadr, who want to turn Iraq into Iran, will not be allowed to have power.

We have the moral authority to fight this war, I'm convinced of this. Fighiting a ruthless dictator that has killed thousands automatically gives us the moral authority. Have you ever seen the pictures/videos of the hundreds of Kurdish kids and babies gased and later thrown in massive graves? have you ever heard an ex political prisioner talk about the tortures he was submitted to only because he resisted the nepharious political regime of his country? The realy hypocrites and demagogues are France, Germany and Russia. All three had millions of dollars in business with the murderer Hussein. Instead of doing the right thing and stand up for the people of Iraq, stand up for human rights and publicly condemn the abuses of the regime, they decided to fill their pockets with money.

 

No, its an expose of the hypocrisy on the part of the neocons. Why dont we care about N Korea as much?

 

Please fishfanpr, explain this to me. If you care so much about people who are suffering, then why hasnt this gone on the front pages:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/02....who/index.html

 

Why doesnt super righteous Bush do anything about this? Where are the neocons demanding action? Dont get mad at liberals because they arent totally and uterally falling for the rhetoric Bush and the neocons put out. Give up the "good v evil" stuff. Im sorry liberals realize things cant be simplified into "good v evil."

 

This war hasn't embarassed the USA...the liberal media has, and they always will criticize everything America does. This was has and will continue to embarass those who for years mantained a despotic regime who butchered Iraqi's rights and dreams....those are the ones who have lost the moral authority...not us, we're only stronger now.?

 

Absolutely wrong. What America does is not always what GWB does. That might be hard to believe but try and realize this. Critisizing George Bush is not an attack on America, its a defense of America.

Every minute that passes, we take a step towards democracy, freedom and government for and by the Iraqi people.

 

Do you seriously think the Iraqi people can elect their own leaders? People like Al-Sadr, who want to turn Iraq into Iran, will not be allowed to have power.

We have the moral authority to fight this war, I'm convinced of this. Fighiting a ruthless dictator that has killed thousands automatically gives us the moral authority. Have you ever seen the pictures/videos of the hundreds of Kurdish kids and babies gased and later thrown in massive graves? have you ever heard an ex political prisioner talk about the tortures he was submitted to only because he resisted the nepharious political regime of his country? The realy hypocrites and demagogues are France, Germany and Russia. All three had millions of dollars in business with the murderer Hussein. Instead of doing the right thing and stand up for the people of Iraq, stand up for human rights and publicly condemn the abuses of the regime, they decided to fill their pockets with money.

 

No, its an expose of the hypocrisy on the part of the neocons. Why dont we care about N Korea as much?

 

Please fishfanpr, explain this to me. If you care so much about people who are suffering, then why hasnt this gone on the front pages:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/02....who/index.html

 

Why doesnt super righteous Bush do anything about this? Where are the neocons demanding action? Dont get mad at liberals because they arent totally and uterally falling for the rhetoric Bush and the neocons put out. Give up the "good v evil" stuff. Im sorry liberals realize things cant be simplified into "good v evil."

 

First off, we both know the United States is the largest provider of humanitarian aid in the world, so don't come with this. The Bush administrations's foreign policy hasn't beenp perfect, I'm just talking about Irak. It's evident that we abandoned the Lybians even when they cried out for our help, and we won't intervene in Sudan either. Yet, the UN aid received by the Sudanese is largely in part thanks to U.S. shipments of aid. Also, Taiwan is something I always criticize, and you could use that to your advantage...yes, I recognize this!

 

Still, I just hate it when liberals who oppose the war come to me and tell me that they oppose war on Iraq because we haven't done anything in N.Korea. Personally, if you ask me, I'd bomb the crap out of the communists in Korea, but it's not up to me. But what I want to say here is: don't contradict yourself, please! If you're against the war on Iraq for whatever reasons you have, don't even attempt to tell me or imply that we should take actions against N.Korea. You have to admit that, if you're against war, you're against it, period...even if it is in Korea, Iraq, wherever it is. Trying to oppose a war on Iraq by talking about N. Korea is nonsense.

 

Second, what do you expect us to do, bomb the hell out of every nation we don't like? Liberals have repeated their comments about Korea, but I assure you today, that if we were to bomb or increase our hostility towards them, YOU and all LIBERALS would also condemn that action, even though you ask yourselves WHY NOT? today.

 

 

bottom line is: don't fight war by asking for more war...it doesn't make sense.

Thats the problem in this country. Its either one of two choices. You either support Bush and his cowboy justice BS or youre a full fledged peacenik. Like Ive said, Ive defended US policy numerous times but I wont sit here and defend Bush and the neocons who want to hijack a credible justification for their own well being. My point is that the thrust of a lot of conflicts has never been to help people. Should I sit here and say, yeah Bush went in for moral reasons and the end result of a moral consequence? Well a large part of me did feel this way. But Ive realized that things have to be done with sensibility and with other factors taken into account. You cant sit there and simplify things. The consequences of this conflict have caused me to realize that doing something that is right and doing it correctly arent always concretley linked. The end result could be worse than what you intended to do. So by allowing any motive to justify that end, I now know that terrible things can result. Iraq has been that lesson. Things can be done and done right but the Bush and the neocons have stiffled the progress in that direction by hijacking it for his own purpose.

 

**disclaimer: this doesnt imply that other nations are some fine example either. Politicians are politicians and they will be that way across the board.

Coming from a liberal: War is sometimes justified. WWI, WWII, Gulf War I, Afghanistan... Were all justified causes in my eyes. Iraq is not a justified war to me. Bush said first we needed to go to Iraq because Saddam "financed" and had ties with Al-Qaeda, as well as possessed WMD's to "attack" America. Then he said (when no ties to Al-Qaeda were proven or WMD's were found) that it was to get rid of an evil dictator. Now this last sentence is what bothers us the most, not because we don't think it was a good thing to get rid of Saddam and "free" the Iraqui people but because of the utter hypocrisy of such statement... We know he is lying to his teeth, he has no credibility. This is "WHY" we ask in contrast to it, "if it was to get rid of an evil dictator, why not N. Korea's dictator, Cuba's dictator, etc?", because we know the truth behind the real reason for invading Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam being a murderous dictator... If it was, why didn't we do something before, why in hell did we give him weapons of mass destruction (Rumsfeld did btw), why did we allow for so long for him to kill his own people with the weapons we provided him with???? This is what kills us, the blatant lies, the distortions of the truth and ultimately the manipulation of people like you who sincerely think this was a good cause and that we are doing a good thing...

 

I wish the dream of peace in the middle east could be achieved, but the actions of this administration have squashed those hopes forever... We've created an army of billions that hate us and see us as invaders, murderers and now torturers and rapists.... :mad : For this and more I'm angry at Bush and his team or lying bastards.

"if it was to get rid of an evil dictator, why not N. Korea's dictator, Cuba's dictator, etc?"

The answer to this is obvious when you think about it.

 

Cuba's "threat" has been rendered non-existant since the Soviet Union collapsed and stopped pumping money/weapons into them as their proxy. The Cubans rather quickly halted their "adventuring" in the Carribean, Central America, Africa after the Soviet support dried up. In reality the only threat is to global warming because of Fidel's extended speeches full of hot air :lol

 

The DPRK's "threat" is somewhat more credible, but still very marginal in real terms. Geography limits them to exactly one path of territorial conquest since they certainly aren't going to try and carve off a piece of the PRC. This is a country with minimal "blue water" naval assets, so you can forget about any serious seaborn invasion threats to Japan (or anywhere else). In essence, the DPRK is reduced to sabre rattling against the ROK. Their long range missile and nuke weapon development is largely symbolic - an international "face saving" measure. They don't have the resources to ever develop enough to be a real threat.

 

Sure, they could launch a couple of missiles against the US, Australia, etc but to what end? This would be suicidal - they have nothing to prevent COMSUBPAC's boomers from turning the country into a glowing moonscape in response. You'd see a military coup before this happened.

 

The next DPRK "threat" (which is really a non-threat) is their WMD arms exports - and THIS is where the rubber really meets the road with the DPRK. This is their only CONCRETE bargaining chip, everything else is just public bluster they can't ever use in reality. But what advantage is there to the DPRK in exporting these arms to places that aren't really their ideological breathren? None really - its strictly an economic thing to pull some cash into their pathetic economy. THIS is what the DPRK's game is ultimately angling for - they want the world to pull them out of their self inflicted economic death spiral, and will be quite willing to give up all their "threats" if the aid largess is big enough.

 

The question to the US regarding the DPRK is do we want to allow them to extort us for a huge economic aid package in exchange for their dropping all these threats (that aren't really threats they can execute on anyway). The DPRK needs to "save face" internationally and internally, so they can't just come begging hat in hand. The USA needs to demonstrate that its unwilling to be so crudely extorted or else we could wind up setting a dangerous precedent and encouraging other flaky regimes to try the same thing. No, didn't answer the question, since Iraq's supposed threat, wasn't real nor imminent and the latest "explanation" (if you could call it that) has been "to get rid of an evil dictator". My question remains, if it was to get rid of an evil dictator why not Fidel or North Korea's dictator? and don't tell me because Fidel doesn't pose a threat to American interests, because we now know for a fact that Iraq didn't either.

"if it was to get rid of an evil dictator, why not N. Korea's dictator, Cuba's dictator, etc?"

The answer to this is obvious when you think about it.

 

Cuba's "threat" has been rendered non-existant since the Soviet Union collapsed and stopped pumping money/weapons into them as their proxy. The Cubans rather quickly halted their "adventuring" in the Carribean, Central America, Africa after the Soviet support dried up. In reality the only threat is to global warming because of Fidel's extended speeches full of hot air :lol

 

The DPRK's "threat" is somewhat more credible, but still very marginal in real terms. Geography limits them to exactly one path of territorial conquest since they certainly aren't going to try and carve off a piece of the PRC. This is a country with minimal "blue water" naval assets, so you can forget about any serious seaborn invasion threats to Japan (or anywhere else). In essence, the DPRK is reduced to sabre rattling against the ROK. Their long range missile and nuke weapon development is largely symbolic - an international "face saving" measure. They don't have the resources to ever develop enough to be a real threat.

 

Sure, they could launch a couple of missiles against the US, Australia, etc but to what end? This would be suicidal - they have nothing to prevent COMSUBPAC's boomers from turning the country into a glowing moonscape in response. You'd see a military coup before this happened.

 

The next DPRK "threat" (which is really a non-threat) is their WMD arms exports - and THIS is where the rubber really meets the road with the DPRK. This is their only CONCRETE bargaining chip, everything else is just public bluster they can't ever use in reality. But what advantage is there to the DPRK in exporting these arms to places that aren't really their ideological breathren? None really - its strictly an economic thing to pull some cash into their pathetic economy. THIS is what the DPRK's game is ultimately angling for - they want the world to pull them out of their self inflicted economic death spiral, and will be quite willing to give up all their "threats" if the aid largess is big enough.

 

The question to the US regarding the DPRK is do we want to allow them to extort us for a huge economic aid package in exchange for their dropping all these threats (that aren't really threats they can execute on anyway). The DPRK needs to "save face" internationally and internally, so they can't just come begging hat in hand. The USA needs to demonstrate that its unwilling to be so crudely extorted or else we could wind up setting a dangerous precedent and encouraging other flaky regimes to try the same thing. No, didn't answer the question, since Iraq's supposed threat, wasn't real nor imminent and the latest "explanation" (if you could call it that) has been "to get rid of an evil dictator". My question remains, if it was to get rid of an evil dictator why not Fidel or North Korea's dictator? and don't tell me because Fidel doesn't pose a threat to American interests, because we now know for a fact that Iraq didn't either. Strawmen. No one in the know ever said that this plan was simply "to stop an evil man". Stop using this "You aren't answering my question" bulls*** and try to take on Tonyi's point head-on.

Soros is doing the Republicans a great favor. No one wants a radical far left idiot representing a Party.

because we now know for a fact that Iraq didn't either.

American interests are a lot more than military. If someone can't understand this simple fact, then there's no way to communicate. Would you kindly explain to me what was it that justified for us to go invade Iraq when in fact we were fighting in Afghanistan... A war I and others like me were in agreement with????

 

No Iraq links to Al-Qaeda, no WMD's. Hussein wasn't invading Kwaiit like it did in the 90's when Bush Senior rightly launched an attack to kick his ass out. He wasn't doing anything to America. Give me a good, detailed explanation what the hell were this people thinking when ignoring several officials in his administration and outside of the administration that warned them of the consequences of taking this road. Tell me why? I still don't know and I bet you don't either.

because we now know for a fact that Iraq didn't either.

American interests are a lot more than military. If someone can't understand this simple fact, then there's no way to communicate. Would you kindly explain to me what was it that justified for us to go invade Iraq when in fact we were fighting in Afghanistan... A war I and others like me were in agreement with????

 

No Iraq links to Al-Qaeda, no WMD's. Hussein wasn't invading Kwaiit like it did in the 90's when Bush Senior rightly launched an attack to kick his ass out. He wasn't doing anything to America. Give me a good, detailed explanation what the hell were this people thinking when ignoring several officials in his administration and outside of the administration that warned them of the consequences of taking this road. Tell me why? I still don't know and I bet you don't either. I agree with you that there's been some blunders in the way that this administration has handled the situation in Iraq, but I'll ask you something: If Hussein had no WMD's or wasn't planning to build some, then why did he not allow U.N. investigators to search his military sites?? Saddam's reluctance to cooperate with the mandates of the U.N. is exactly what prompted the U.S. to realize that this guy posed a threat to our national security, and we therefore decided to attack. The U.S. is now at the offensive. Before 9-11, we were in a defensive mode, but we learned our lessons, and we won't allow the terrorists to strike first again!

 

 

:dont