| Welcome to Cloud x Aerith forums! 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: |
| U.S. Elections | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 6 2006, 01:33 AM (1,203 Views) | |
| Sadhana | Nov 8 2006, 10:55 PM Post #31 |
![]()
capitalism is dead
|
About that link, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is actually not about LSD. It was about a drawing his son, Julian, drew at school about a girl named Lucy. And the drawing was entitled "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
'Cause everyone who listens to John Lennon is a pothead hippy. I must smoke hash and not even realize it. And my dad who was a huge Lennon fan and a hippy didn't help make the future any brighter when he founded and opened one of the most renowned private schools on Long Island. Or when he helped found an elementary school in Philidelphia that offered a free education to special ed students and children who had been emotionally/sexually abused. Nope, he filled the future with reefer addicts. And yet you said that living in a targeted area would probably make people feel differently. I tell ya, New Yorkers just loooove everything being done in the name of security.
I consider it a civil liberty to be able to clothe and feed illegal immigrants without being arrested for it. I consider it a civil liberty to have private e-mails, phone conversations, and internet searches without wondering if the government is spying on me. I consider the writ of habeas corpus to be a civil liberty. All of these things have been attacked in the name of safety. That's why I mention it. Because you keep talking about safety. Cracking down on illegal immigration is a start on securing the country? Hmm, I'd have to disagree. I think we face far greater threats than Mexicans who hop the border because they want greater economic opportunities. Illegal immigration threatens the country in so many more potent ways than in terms of terrorism (although I still think all of this wall stuff between America and Mexico is just an act of xenophobia). |
![]() |
|
| Miss Yukari | Nov 9 2006, 01:17 AM Post #32 |
|
Fabulously Lazy
|
Well, Raist has pretty much everything covered, and has said some things that I wanted to say, albeit in a much more well-thought out manner than I would have. :lol: But I do have a few things I'd like to mention.
You assumed that terroism has 'instilled so much fear' in me that I 'don't have the will to fight'. (Raist's response to that says it so much better than I ever could.) Look at what you said up there. Don't you think you're being a little paranoid? After 9/11, do you honestly think that anyone will be getting complacent anytime soon? I've got to wonder whether your belief that the terrorists are just sitting there waiting for the right moment to attack is something that has been instilled in you by the media's scaremongering.
How is accepting that terrorism isn't going to go away the same as accepting defeat? As long as there are people in this world, as long as there are disagreements and resentment and hatred, there will always be the potential for violence and acts of terrorism. But fighting will not solve the problem. It may delay things for a few months, or years, but it will not solve the problem. I will always favour compromise and open minded discussion over violence.
*sigh* Not gonna touch that comment. |
![]() |
|
| Bremic | Nov 9 2006, 02:25 AM Post #33 |
|
Member
|
lol the song really had nothing to do with the pic. Just made sense putting Beatles music in I suppose.
Did I say that?
Yeah, I suppose you could count that as a right. And yes, many immigrants who come here are hard working people. But there will always the be percentage who will try to steal from you, etc. What burns me is the ones who risk everything to get here, then two weeks later are waving their Mexican flags and saying how much the U.S. sucks. Like how once in school this hispanic kid kept giving me crap about the country was "all his." I almost said "f*** you" but decided he wasn't worth my time. A lot of them could be a little nicer...
I dont call it paranoid, I call it awareness. And its interesting how you said before...
You say that the worst is over and not to worry as much, but then you say not to become complacent. Doesnt that kind of contradict itself?
Your accepting defeat by doing what the terrorists want. The way terrorist organizations function is to threaten you, making you back down. And no, terrorism and its roots will never be fully destroyed. But it is possible to severly weaken them by taking major regimes that support them out of power. And im all for "discussion," but there is never any assurance that these organizations will act in good faith. |
![]() |
|
| Andina | Nov 9 2006, 02:28 AM Post #34 |
|
~Absurd~
|
I just have to link this as someone decided to insult John Lennon and The Beatles. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds I am glad there will be some changes in the US. It's about time everyone can see what the Democrats can do if anything. I doubt there will be any miracles, but when one party is in charge for as long as the Republicans were it's not good for the country, at least in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Bremic | Nov 9 2006, 02:35 AM Post #35 |
|
Member
|
My idea of the Beatles is like the one about Micheal Jackson (Thriller ftw). Awesome music? Yes. Weird people? Yes. That pic was just too funny though. |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Nov 9 2006, 02:42 AM Post #36 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Bremic Nearly half of the U.S./Mexico border is left unfenced, not to mention the entirely unprotected Canada border. Im not talking about shutting out all immigrants, only the illegal ones. That is an issue that would be a concern regardless of the times. I have very little knowledge of the political and social implications involved with immigrants crossing that border and so I don't feel strongly about commenting on it, though I have to say that questioning the unprotected Candian border is almost suggesting that Canada's security is so lax as to allow terrorists with nucler weapons to walk in. My point was only that illegal immigrants are not something that can be easily stopped and there are limits to why you should do so. Australia has been struggling with it for years. With increased military activity we can catch 'boat people' (a derogatory comment if I've ever seen one. Brilliant politics, though) before they hit the country, but we can't turn them back with a good conscience on boats that were lucky to make it so far in the first place. Secondly, we've come under fire from human rights organisation for how they've been treated considering they are refugees. We hear the same concerns of terrorist threats to justify the acts but little has stuck and again we come back to their being little evidence that terrorists choose this method to infiltrate nation states. Illegal immigrants are not as easy to stop as you are suggesting. I am saying that to do so one needs to give up many of the freedoms that make our lives as good as they are. Is that worth it? Particularly, when this solution seems ad-hoc and redundant anyway. Would I completely seal up the borders in normal times? No. But the reality is these aren't normal times. Also, I dont need evidence, the possibilty of it is enough for me. Im really not wanting to take that risk. I also notice, by the way, that you are from Australia. If you aren't, just say so. But from what ive seen Australia isn't exactly the terrorist's target. If you actually lived in one of these American cities, you might think differently about it. There have been a few incidents of suggested threats against some major Australian cities recently. I live in the most isolated city in the world so we haven't been brought into it too much, but I know that some people in the eastern states have been a little concerned. I'm not sure how much truth there was to any of the supposed threats but that's been the case over the past five years. Ambiguity and misinformation. However, we were the focus of the Bali bmobings in 2003. Not nearly as devastating as 9/11, certainly, but still shows that we have been targets of terrorist attacks. Funnily enough, this happened not long after (if I remember correctly) Australia agreeing to enter the War on Iraq. I cannot say that I feel the fear that some might feel in major US cities, though some other Australians most likely can and do. But that is not entirely relevant to this debate. This question of safety needs to be weighed up with what it sacrifices and so often I think that goes back to Sadhana's Benjamin Franklin quote. It simply isn't worth it. Are you suggesting that the possibility of something occurring is enough to draw you into action? You don't require adequate evidence to make a decision on something? Do you realise how dangerous a sentiment that is? Especially from someone planning on entering the military. We should effectively never move without adequate evidence for a decision. The War on Iraq should be reason enough for that. The point about these not being normal times is rather ambiguous. I agree, they certainly aren't, but why? Terrorist attacks have to be considered but I keep coming back to the fact that there is an atmosphere of fear in the air. Fear that is fueled by the media and politicians. It changes countries, changes ideals and takes us away from the very culture and values we are supposed to be fighting for. These may not be normal times but that does not mean we being to use measures that run against the grain of our ideals. Because no one has come up with a better one. And from what I know about Radical Islam, they're not exactly into the whole peace thing. Do you realise that that is not an answer to my question? I asked you why you continue to think this idea will work. You said the above. That says nothing about why the current plan is supposed to work. You're intentionally diverting the focus onto the supposed failings of other parties in order to make your case seem stronger. What you have there is no argument at all. Again, I will ask you. Why do you think the current strategy against terrorism will work? As for there being a better idea, I suggested one in my last post that you haven't commented on. I'd ask you to read it and critique it if you don't mind. Otherwise I can't help but feel that you're skipping a major part of this debate. You know what piece of history reminds me of this situation? World War 2. Before Hitler made any huge moves, he went around making peace treaties with everyone, and promising to them he wouldn't attack them. Poland was first. The rest of the world thought "well, maybe if we just leave him alone, he won't come after us." Hitler kept systematically taking over every country in Europe. By the time people actually realized what was happening, Europe was already screwed. I'm sorry to say this is a terrible analogy. There are far too many differences between the two situations for this parallel to be used. I think Sadhana presented the differences adequately but I would like to add one point. World War II was a war that could be won. It had a defined end that would come somewhat linearly. Thankfully, it came in our favour. This current war is not so obvious and will not have so finely ordered conclusions. Clear sides are difficult to determine and what exactly everyone is fighting is unclear. But one thing can be said for both times. We are fighting for our values and our culture as much as we may be fighting for ourselves. The moment we draw away from that we lose any justification we have to fight in the first place. Thats the problem I see with your idea. Say we do step down. Say they dont. If we kept taking their attacks, we would eventually be worn down, easy victims to our enemies. And I can guarentee you that if that happens, the U.S. wont be the first and last target. Why do you keep assuming we simply step down? Unfortunately I think politics requires some kind of political action after any terrorist attack but why is it always a war? They just aren't effective in stopping terrorist activity, nor in stopping terrorist fervour. I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested simply standing down and hoping they give up. The idea is that we begin to talk openly with these organisations and try to make compromises. Regardless of what the media might be suggesting radical Islam is a major minority. However, it is growing with the continued actions of the US and the 'Coalition of the Willing' (both a piece bad politics and god-awful writing) against these nations. As we've said before. Knee jerk invasions do nothing to stop terrorist attacks, they only create further hatred that increases their future likelihood and potential to cause damage. You keep saying that no one has offered a better solution but you don't tell us why they are not better solutions. It is difficult to tell what their success would be without testing them, yet you are so adamant against this. Your current plan is effectivey trying to jam a square block into a triangle shaped hole. It won't work. It will never work. To continue in this venture is shortsighted. It seems that our arguments so far have been appealing to a sense of rational desire to change our plans. We are arguing from reason to a goal that we think might offer better solutions. We are not saying they will, we are just hoping they will be attempted. While you continue to argue from fear. Your every argument says nothing about a solution or what may be the end result of all these campaigns but just that 'if we don't do this we'll all die'. Could you please start telling us how this war is going to end using the current game plan? I would also like to make one point in regards to John Lennon. References to him personally have little to nothing to do with this debate. Sadhana quoted a line from his most famous song to attempt to show what her ideal is. You attacked John Lennon personally in a way that is not relevant to her actual point. That's a classic ad hominem fallacy and doesn't have a place in cogent debate. Then you argued against him from his association with drugs (LSD in particular) and again this an ad hominem fallacy and also a fallacy by association. Can we please leave John Lennon out of this debate? I have on further question to ask you, Bremic. How do you feel about torture? Should we (well they are in Guantanamo Bay, but I won't get into that) be using torture on captured terrorists to gather information? How do you feel about this? I think this is a good analogous consideration for the entire War on Terror. Yukari You're far too kind, my dead. Sadhana has the best hold on this debate. She knows far more about political issues than I do. I haven't read a newspaper in weeks. Most of my work is with religion these days. You probably noticed the other threads. Anyway, back to study I go. |
![]() |
|
| Angelalex242 | Nov 9 2006, 03:15 AM Post #37 |
![]()
Keeper of the Intimacy of Aerith's soul living in Cloud
|
Let me just redirect this. The elections are over, and the votes are, for the most part, counted. Democrats retook the house, and it seems like they might, just barely, take the senate too. What, therefore, do you think of that? Do you think Congress will have the strength to force us out of Iraq whether Bush likes it or not? It is, in theory, possible for Congress to 'starve Bush out'...simply by refusing to vote for any more money for the war. At that point, Bush has to bring them home or they'll 'starve' for want of supplies. Democrats don't actually need the Senate to do that, of course. They just need to refuse to begin any revenue bills in the House. |
![]() |
|
| Bremic | Nov 9 2006, 03:31 AM Post #38 |
|
Member
|
The War on Iraq was based on bad intelligence. No one lied to anybody.
Um, I thought it was an answer. And isnt that what people do in debates? I suppose theres no guarantee it will work, I never said it was foolproof. But unless some sort of peace talks take place, im sticking with that. Also, I never meant you were talking about standing down completely, Im talking purely militarily.
Bah, was just a joke. |
![]() |
|
| Sadhana | Nov 9 2006, 03:45 AM Post #39 |
![]()
capitalism is dead
|
Thanks for bringing the convo back. I commented on this a little while back very briefly. It's hard to tell what we're going to do now in regards to the war. The Democrats have had fairly differing ideas on where to go with Iraq. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfled resigned today, so that at least means that the illusion of a new direction in Iraq is already beginning (they've got to set themselves up for 2008 ;) ). I think we're going to see some social changes. Defecit spending might shift from military to social programs which is what I've been hoping for.
Isn't there always more crime when people are in poverty?
Agh... *is ashamed that she's a Mexican American* Speaking as a Hispanic, I think that the encounters you've had with those kinds of people aren't really the ones who risked everything. Their parents were the ones who risked everything. And kids take things for granted a lot. Besides, they're probably just talking about American culture. They love America for its economic opportunity, despite whether or not they'll say it. |
![]() |
|
| Angelalex242 | Nov 9 2006, 04:26 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Keeper of the Intimacy of Aerith's soul living in Cloud
|
If they were smart, I think, they'd take the man of action approach, and cut spending from whatever it is in Iraq to 0. That, again, uses the 'starve 'em out of Iraq' policy, which will show they can make real results that can make a difference in a very short amount of time when they try. Which sets THEM up well for '08. If Iraq explodes into civil war after that, or whatever, then it's no longer OUR problem. They can go spill their own blood over it. |
![]() |
|
| Miss Yukari | Nov 9 2006, 08:16 PM Post #41 |
|
Fabulously Lazy
|
Where did I say not to become complacent? I said that no one would be likely to become complacent anytime after what happened on 9/11. There's a difference between learning from the past and keeping it in mind, and becoming paranoid.
If you see accepting that terrorism will always be around as backing down, then fine. I don't see how the two ideas connect, but meh. As for acting in good faith, there's never any assurance that anyone will act in good faith. That's where trust comes in. Not blind trust, but reasonable trust. [/tangent] Carry on, nothing to see here. |
![]() |
|
| Nevi | Nov 9 2006, 09:14 PM Post #42 |
|
let us be lovers.
|
Well, I'm just glad Sonny Perdue got re-elected in Georgia. |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Nov 10 2006, 02:21 AM Post #43 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Bremic The War on Iraq was based on bad intelligence. No one lied to anybody. When did I suggest anyone had? My point was that they never had sufficient evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction or sufficient evidence for any other good reason for invading. We should never as we did in circumstances where we are so ignorant of necessary details. I also find it strange that there was so much counter evidence at the time from external sources suggesting that perhaps those WMDs weren't around. Um, I thought it was an answer. And isnt that what people do in debates? I suppose theres no guarantee it will work, I never said it was foolproof. But unless some sort of peace talks take place, im sticking with that. People usually make argument and answer questions in debates. You continue to refuse to do so. I'll say it again. Why do you think the current method will work? I'm not asking in comparison to anything else. I'm asking why you think this current method will work to stamp out terrorism or ease tensions or whatever else you think it might do. Further, you say that until peace talks occur you're sticking with your above plan? Your attitude is exactly what's stopping peace talks from occurring. They have to be willed into action not miraculously appear at which you decide that perhaps you'll go that way now. It seems to me that you haven't truly considered any other options. Also, I never meant you were talking about standing down completely, Im talking purely militarily. But what does that mean? What is standing down entirely? Giving the western world to terrorists? I mean what are you suggesting that we were suggesting? We don't even have to have the military stand down entirely. We'll be stuck in Iraq for at least 10 years (I'm optimistic here) and will continue to help out as peacekeepers and other types of military defense in other countries. Defence is a military option that doesn't have to stand down. The suggestion is that we stop using the military to bring entire nation's into disrepute and further anger these terrorists that we're supposed to be fighting but always seem to miss. |
![]() |
|
| Sadhana | Nov 10 2006, 02:33 AM Post #44 |
![]()
capitalism is dead
|
Not totally true. In the State of the Union, Bush said that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from Africa when the CIA had insisted and told him many times that such a claim was false. He included it in the speech anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Angelalex242 | Nov 10 2006, 05:10 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Keeper of the Intimacy of Aerith's soul living in Cloud
|
Though I do note the Terminator coasted to re-election in California...and brought a lot of local representitives with him. Even if Bush had a bad night, the Governator is still Governating down there in California. |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lifestream · Next Topic » |









2:08 PM Jul 11