1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Paranoid shift

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by poncho, Jun 30, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
    Poncho are you the next Monk!

    That would depend on your definition of Monk. It really would in this case because I haven't a clue as to what a monk is. [​IMG]

    Emphasis. [​IMG]

    [ July 05, 2005, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]
     
    #41 poncho, Jul 5, 2005
  2. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I've never heard the Straussian "Nobel Lie" spun quite like that before Ken. Good neocon, feel free to help yourself to a Scoobie snack for that one :D

    Emphasis. [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [ July 05, 2005, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]
     
    #42 poncho, Jul 5, 2005
  3. TisHerself

    TisHerself Guest

    Clinton may have initiated that law, but Bush is the one who put our sons and daughters in danger. Seems Bill was willing to take his time and Bush was not. He even disregarded his own father's warnings on the matter.

    Anyone who cannot choose good counsel, anyone who cannt discern between what is good information and what is not, anyone who can initiate a pre-emptive strike based on such shoddy information, should not be POTUS.

    I find it amusing that Clinton is still being blamed for so much that is going wrong now, even though BushII has been "in power" over four years.
     
    #43 TisHerself, Jul 5, 2005
  4. TisHerself

    TisHerself Guest

    Can you provide proof that Hussein was still in violation just prior to the pre-emptive strike? And further, can you provide dates? Seems to me I remember him providing the UN with all they asked at that time.
     
    #44 TisHerself, Jul 5, 2005
  5. TisHerself

    TisHerself Guest

    Thanks, Poncho:)

    Yes, I did know that. Forgive me, I was actually leading Ken to the inevitable:) Bush Sr. wanted to go after Hussein too, but understood the folly his son so blatantly ignored. Yes, Saddam is a very bad man, but you don't go blowing people up and killing children (theirs and ours) over flimsy evidence. Had Bush Sr. or Clinton had FIRM evidence, I'm sure they would have carried out their plans. But no, they were wise enough to keep themselves and their egos in check long enough for verification. IMHO, a country should not initiate war on another unless there is a clear and present danger. It was absolutely not the case here. If we deem it acceptable for a country to behave that way, then we can have no objection to another country doing the same.
     
    #45 TisHerself, Jul 5, 2005
  6. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Your welcome TisHerself and welcome to the board. May we call you TisH? [​IMG]
     
    #46 poncho, Jul 5, 2005
  7. TisHerself

    TisHerself Guest

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! I love it, Poncho! My new nick name! How sweet!
     
    #47 TisHerself, Jul 5, 2005
  8. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    There is a very strange school of thought lurking amongst our political and academic leadership which holds that lying to the public is necessary and moral in war. Specifically, these thinkers hearken back to FDR and Woodrow Wilson as examples of presidents who were forced to lie to the American people for the "greater good." This theory contends that the citizenry is too simpleminded and selfish to realize when wars need to be fought. As a result, the enlightened mandarins in Washington often need to tweak the truth in order to encourage the masses to go along with the latest military crusade (hence, we were spoon-fed absurd stories like Saddam’s chemical-spraying drones preparing to attack New York).

    This school of thought (or at least its current neoconservative manifestation) holds that President Bush may well have bent the truth a bit, but he had to confront "Islamofascism," lest it overwhelm America in the future. Therefore, just like FDR in the 1930’s, Bush was justified in dishonestly maneuvering our nation into the Iraq War.

    I consider this line of thinking to be morally bankrupt and utterly indefensible. If our leaders are going to ask Americans to fight and die in an overseas conflict, then the people deserve an honest, straightforward explanation of the reasons why the war is necessary. There is no legitimate place for lies and propaganda. In war, young people must kill and die. People lose their sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers. Soldiers are maimed, cities are destroyed, and innocent civilians lose their lives.

    If the President of the United States believes that a war is necessary, then it is incumbent upon him to take an honest case to the people. There is a chance that, despite his best efforts, the people will disagree and decline to fight.

    If that is the case, then the president doesn’t get his war.

    This is what the Founders meant by self-government. If it turns out later that the people made a mistake and should have fought a particular war, then it is the people who will live to regret their decision.

    But either way, Americans deserve the truth. We deserve to know why this war was started and who started it. We deserve to hear an accurate assessment of the current situation, and what the future options are

    The troops are well aware of the controversy surrounding the instigation of this conflict, and the least they deserve (at long last) is the unvarnished truth.

    Any more dishonesty will be devastating to the troop’s morale.

    SOURCE
     
    #48 poncho, Jul 6, 2005
  9. TisHerself

    TisHerself Guest

    Bravo and bless you, poncho! Excellent post.

    Yes, I can see how mixing lies with truth would confuse our soldiers and make them hesitant and cause them confusion and pain. We need to know that our Commander in Chief will not put our youngsters in harm's way without just cause.

    Mixing lies with truth... hmmmm... doesn't that sound a bit like Satan?
     
    #49 TisHerself, Jul 6, 2005
  10. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Sounds Machiavellian to me.


    Machiavellian

    of, like, or befitting Machiavelli.
    being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.
    characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty: Example: He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead.
    a follower of the principles analyzed or described in The Prince, esp. with reference to techniques of political manipulation.

    Source: The Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Copyright © 1997 by Random House Inc.

    The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

    Michael Ledeen (neocon advisor) loves Machiavelli so much so he wrote a book about him. Machiavelli on Modern Leadership : Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago
     
    #50 poncho, Jul 6, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...