| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Army Under French Generals Command In Afghanistan; First time since WW1 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 29 2004, 02:54 PM (675 Views) | |
| jackd | Oct 29 2004, 08:04 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Member
|
I though Bush and Kerry were both vigorously in favor of a much stronger and broader coalition and participation of the UN and NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you imply that any country ready and willing to participate to a coalition has to surrender the command of their troops to the U.S command? I still can't see how this can become a major embarrassment for the Bush regime. JackD on edit: I just saw Sylvia's post. I think we're on the same wavelength on this. |
|
Walk in front of me, you lead me, Walk behind me, I lead you Walk beside me, you are a friend. | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Oct 29 2004, 09:11 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
Jack & Sylvia; The US has never been in favour of foreign Generals being in charge, from Pershing to Eisenhower to MacArthur, regardless of actual ability, so I don't see why this one would be any different. The doesn't mean your argument is without validity, just without reality. :stir: |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| jrf | Oct 29 2004, 09:15 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Member
|
Set your goals, build your team, devise a flexible plan, establish the responsibilities, and go for it. Communicate and Support one another. Simple. |
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Oct 29 2004, 09:15 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
Their leadership is needed so badly in the world. There is a chair waiting for them that is crying out for it to be filled. They turn their backs on us and leave the world to seek alternate methods. That is not blaming--it is just an appeal for them to know they are wanted and missed greatly. Sylvia |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 29 2004, 09:26 PM Post #35 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Jack "I still can't see how this can become a major embarrassment for the Bush regime." A large number of Bush's shrinking conservative base see the UN as an external entity and near enemy trying to dominate the US. The Bush Administration will not be embarrassed, but his campaign will be concerned about losing even more of that base. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Oct 29 2004, 09:50 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
But how did the UN get to be seen as an external entity by a large number of people that left them open to political persuasion? Was the distrust always there that politicians capitalized on? Sylvia |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Oct 29 2004, 10:26 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Member
|
It’s a conservative Republican thing. vs. the not so Republican NEO capitalists..
Conservatives are actually isolationists. This doesn’t play well with the NEO world economic domination. But there is a bond because of one point. It’s the idea that money growth is the objective of all human activity. The Neo’s promote the survival of the strongest, while the U.N. tends toward the Democratic persuasion.. That’s a conflict. Then there are the conservatives who want absolutely no government control of financial matters such as corporate law. That’s a U.N. Conflict. Kyoto agreement being a current example. It is as though they believe non human entities have rights. Humans don’t.. Unless that human is ME.. It becomes a war between the fictional idea of a Capitalist GOVERNMENT. As opposed to a true governing body.. The only personal right that is sacred to them is the one that belongs to them.. What puzzles me the most about die hard conservatives is that they will promote federal intervention into individual rights that conflict with their own personal ideals. There are hundreds of religions that read the same Bible. And none of them can agree on what it says. But some how they can gather together and agree on one particular political party. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 29 2004, 10:44 PM Post #38 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Buddy "What puzzles me the most about die hard conservatives is that they will promote federal intervention into individual rights that conflict with their own personal ideals." Was wondering when you'd get to the social conservatives. But they are not die hard, they are socialists in that they want the state to promote the social good, albeit their definition of good, depending on Biblical reading. Neocons are also ex-Troskyites. So the Reps stretch from right (fiscal conservatives, or capitalists, an economic system founded by liberals, classical) to left (neocons) to leftist (social cons). |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Oct 29 2004, 11:13 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Member
|
Chris There is no such thing as a social conservative.. Socialist ideals demand a democracy. A true conservative does not believe in democracy. He believes in the individual. Well except for one important matter. That would be the establishment of a currency. My suggestion to the first degree Anti-Federalists? Move to the mountains. And count your wealth in Pecans. Let the rest of us socialize. Party and have a good time.. Chris says: Neocons are also ex-Trotskyites. Buddy says: I though Troskyites, were Russian Jews that had turned against Stalin. What makes the NEO’s ex-Trotskyites. Except for the fact they are not Russian. About Trotsky: His ability and his logic did not always endear him to his comrades, but his oratorical and practical gifts did win him broad popularity among the urban workers and soldiers in late 1917 and during the Civil War. having failed as foreign commissar to put into effect his dialectical but quixotic policy of "no war, no peace," he had become war commissar, and his most brilliant success was achieved in organizing the finally victorious Red Army. As war commissar he clashed with Stalin, who ensconced himself at Tsaritsyn with some of his old friends from Caucasus days and flouted Trotsky's authority. However, Stalin was as yet no adversary in the field of theory and policy, which Trotsky considered fundamental. http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/course...StalinTrot.html |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 30 2004, 08:53 AM Post #40 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
buddy "A true conservative does not believe in democracy." Quite true. He believes in a republic, like we have, or used to what with the gradual slipping into democracy. As I just said on AtC: "we are still a republic, a constrained nation of laws, and not a democracy, an unconstrained nation of men, but I fear we trend more and more away from the former and toward the latter." "What makes the NEO’s ex-Trotskyites"? Some excerpts from The Godfather of Neoconservatism (on the Freeper site):
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Oct 30 2004, 09:15 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Member
|
Chris I don’t think the NEO’s are as concerned with society as many want you to belief. Their moral values may creep along with those of the Democrat party. But only for the purpose of seeking power. They have no unified morale values. Other than individual freedoms.. The following speaks volumes: "You have to care less about equality, because growth creates inequalities. Always. You can't have it both ways. Growth is better because everyone improves their position under growth, even if they improve it unequally. What you want is a revision of the whole taxation system, and the whole structure of the Israeli economy, which has already been happening. Buddy says. The NEO’s concern for the Society can be summed up as: Keep them feed, Keep them alive.. They are necessary for economic growth. I don’t attribute much humanitarianism to their philosophy. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 30 2004, 09:41 AM Post #42 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Good analysis. We do not disagree on that. We've both read and discussed many times their letters to Clinton and Bush and others in the lead up to Iraq invasion. Their goal, if you follow their elitist theories, is nothing short of totalitarian control achieved economically primarily, militaristically if need be to bolster the primary means. As Irving once said, a neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality. Whatever happened to Richard Perle? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Oct 30 2004, 10:40 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Member
|
He is still with the Defense Policy board. The last I heard from him was when this article was published. Iraqi Freedoms Are Sinister for Saudis  By "/scholars/filter.,scholarID.49/scholar.asp" Posted: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 ARTICLES News of the World Publication Date: June 27, 2004  On Wednesday the Coalition Provisional Authority will shut down and Iraq will be governed by Iraqis. This is welcome. Opinion surveys show 80 percent of Iraqis approve of the new interim government. And despite the desperate acts of those closest to Saddam's regime--car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and sabotage--things have improved. Schools and hospitals are up and running, children are being immunised against disease and 150 newspapers have sprung up under press freedom abolished by Saddam. The new interim government will operate under a transitional law more liberal than any in the Arab world, allowing freedom of speech, association and worship. Its task is to prepare the country for elections early next year. For the remnant of Saddam's reign of terror and Islamic fanatics from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and elsewhere, the dream of democracy is a nightmare. They know they cannot win at the ballot box. A legitimate Iraqi government will round them up or force them to flee. Abu-Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi--the terrorist responsible for recent kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq--has admitted that the establishment of democracy would be a catastrophic defeat for the cause of Islamic extremism. He and his allies will stop at nothing to destroy Iraqi hopes for a decent, democratic future. And dictatorships around Iraq know democratic success could bring demands for reform at home. Nowhere is the prospect of a decent Iraq more menacing than next door in oil rich Saudi Arabia. For years Saudis funded extremists preaching exclusion and intolerance. Now they are under attack from the monster they fed. Iraq has a bright future. Saudi Arabia may not. Richard Perle is a resident fellow at AEI. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 30 2004, 11:19 AM Post #44 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
The Iraqis have experienced liberal democracy, however socialist cum fascist, and will persue it again, despite local war lords, religious fanatics, common criminals, a number of foreign instigators (being shot in the streets of Falluja), and a handful of terrorists. Saudi Arabia is too closely tied to neoconservative imperialism and to religious fanatics all for the engrndisement of the House. You can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Oct 30 2004, 06:56 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Member
|
I read, NEO/Israel domination over the Middle East. In Perle’s letter.. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |








My Favourite Campsite



2:18 AM Jul 11