Who said this?

Beefy

Beefy

Worst gambler ever
Who said this? When? What is the context, and what are the implications as you see them relative to today's political climate?

"We are about to do to you, the United States, the worst thing that could happen, we are going to take away your enemy."
 
Georgie ?? something or other, maybe Abramov? I know he was a Jewish political leader in the Soviet Union, and he made the comment in regard to Perestroika, at the end of the Cold War.

In relation to today's political climate?... let me guess? The War on Islamofascists, and how you and some other pinheads think we should defeat them the same way?

It might be valid if the Islamofascists were confined to one country, or group of countries in a region, but that is not the case with this enemy. While they are largely concentrated in the ME, they are a global entity, their objectives and motivations are rooted in deep religious ideology, and they will be difficult to defeat with such a simple strategy.

The concept of democratization is viable, given time. We, ourselves, can never make these people embrace democracy, they have to 'fall in love' on their own. They have to personally realize the rewards of capitalism, and understand they created it themselves. Given time, with the economic prosperity brought through democracy, that will be an actuality. This could take 50-100 years, but it will eventually work, if we stick with the concept and don't abandon it.

The real problem is spoiled Americans who can't get their mind around the idea of something taking 50-100 years, and don't have the patience or faith in democracy. Everyone wants a 'quick fix' to the problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism, and there is no such resolution. This problem didn't develop overnight, and it can't be solved overnight.

If you want to take the general idea of what Georgie said, you can see where a democratic stable middle east, would certainly go a long way in 'taking away the enemy' from the radicals. They motivate suicide bombers by pointing to the poverty and oppression of their people, and blaming it on US Policies. Of course, while the past policies of the US are partially to blame, the crux of the problem is corrupt totalitarian regimes, which drain the wealth that would otherwise go to the people in a democracy.

I hope I didn't spoil your trivia quiz here, but it's not like these pinheads were going to guess the answer anytime this decade.

Smart questions, though!
 
The concept of democratization is viable, given time. We, ourselves, can never make these people embrace democracy, they have to 'fall in love' on their own. They have to personally realize the rewards of capitalism, and understand they created it themselves. Given time, with the economic prosperity brought through democracy, that will be an actuality. This could take 50-100 years, but it will eventually work, if WE stick with the concept and don't abandon it.


They must embrace democracy on their own, but it will eventually work only if WE stick with it?

That is a nonsensical paragraph.

Are you suggesting that we need to keep following repeated doses of shock and awe with military invasions, conquests, and occupations all around the globe for the next century? What part of "them" embracing democracy on their own is something "we" need to stick with, if not that?
 
Dix apparently thinks the Islamic people are somehow substandard humans and need to be led and taught like children ?
 
maineman said:
The concept of democratization is viable, given time. We, ourselves, can never make these people embrace democracy, they have to 'fall in love' on their own. They have to personally realize the rewards of capitalism, and understand they created it themselves. Given time, with the economic prosperity brought through democracy, that will be an actuality. This could take 50-100 years, but it will eventually work, if WE stick with the concept and don't abandon it.


They must embrace democracy on their own, but it will eventually work only if WE stick with it?

That is a nonsensical paragraph.

Are you suggesting that we need to keep following repeated doses of shock and awe with military invasions, conquests, and occupations all around the globe for the next century? What part of "them" embracing democracy on their own is something "we" need to stick with, if not that?
Click to expand...

We need to stick with the concept of promoting and instilling democracy in that region. Supporting democratically elected governments, and condemning totalitarian regimes. We can't personally make them accept anything, we can instill the principles, we can support the concept, we can help the ones who are making an honest effort to form democracy, and eventually, the Arab/Muslim people of the region, will begin to realize the power of democracy. They will not view it as something being forced upon them, rather something they have made work for themselves, eventually they will change their own hearts and minds, not us.
 
We need to stick with the concept of promoting and instilling democracy in that region. Supporting democratically elected governments, and condemning totalitarian regimes.

Please stop lying.

You and Bush hated and oppossed the democratically elected government in Venezuela, Palestine (Hamas), and Lebanon (Hezbollah).
 
Dixie said:
We need to stick with the concept of promoting and instilling democracy in that region. Supporting democratically elected governments, and condemning totalitarian regimes. We can't personally make them accept anything, we can instill the principles, we can support the concept, we can help the ones who are making an honest effort to form democracy, and eventually, the Arab/Muslim people of the region, will begin to realize the power of democracy. They will not view it as something being forced upon them, rather something they have made work for themselves, eventually they will change their own hearts and minds, not us.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.... the way you have promoted for doing that is to shock them, awe them, invade them, conquer them, and occupy them. Are you suggesting that your methods for promoting and instilling democracy are to be continued for the next century?
 
the way you have promoted for doing that is to shock them, awe them, invade them, conquer them, and occupy them.

No I haven't. This was a military strategy used to topple Saddam Hussein, it has nothing to do with instilling democracy in the Middle East, or countering the ideology of radical Islam with democracy.
 
Dixie said:
the way you have promoted for doing that is to shock them, awe them, invade them, conquer them, and occupy them.

it has nothing to do with instilling democracy in the Middle East, or countering the ideology of radical Islam with democracy.
Click to expand...

you can say that again.... I would suggest that shock, awe, invasion, conquest and occupation are, in fact, profoundly counterproductive to instilling democracy in the Middle East and our having done those things has set the cause of democracy back decades. Good JOB, all you chickenhawk neocon fighting keyboardists!
 
I would suggest that shock, awe, invasion, conquest and occupation are

You are like a broken record, you just keep repeating these words, over and over and over and over and over. Are you trying to make a point through osmosis or something? It certainly appears that way to me.

Operation Shock and Awe was the military strategy used to topple the Hussein regime in Iraq, it had nothing to do with anything else.

Invasion was the means by which we toppled Saddam Hussein.

Conquest is a subjective term, we did not conquer the nation of Iraq, we don't now OWN the nation of Iraq, it is not a part of our possessions, it is not a US Territory, and in the traditional sense of "conquest" it is anything BUT.

We are currently occupying space in Iraq, so there is an "occupation" and it would be virtually impossible to invade and conquer a tyrant dictator, without occupation.

I know that you like using these powerful words, because they cause an emotive reaction. This has been transparently obvious from the beginning, and I could even understand it during the elections when you were having to politicize the war, but the elections are over, and there is really no need to continue fostering emotive responses.

I am beginning to wonder if you have some mental disorder, which keeps you from understanding rationality and reason . James Baker and Lee Hamilton managed to compile a complete report on Iraq, without ever using the emotive words you continue to throw out. Why is that? Perhaps it's because they understand, we can't just continue to throw mud and pretend we are in the middle of an election season, we have to find reasonable ways to resolve the issues in Iraq now. The time for the emotive responses has passed and the rest of us have moved on, when are you going to join us?
 
I am saying that shock, awe, invasion, conquest and occupation has been counterproductive to our nation's goals of instilling democracy in the middle east..... and I will keep saying it as long as you keep denying it.

Like I will periodically remind you that 820 (as of yesterday) Americans have died in Iraq since the day you predicted we'd be out of Iraq and done losing men there before we lost 500 more.

This war has been a debacle. You claimed it would be wonderful. I was right. you were wrong. dead wrong.
 
and I personally think that you and your gaggle of neocon morons that got us INTO this shithole have lost the right to participate in the discussion as to how we should get OUT.
 
and America certainly agreed that you had lost your right to govern, which is why you were turned out of the majority in Congress and why a democrat will be elected in '08. I'd bet you on that, but I know that I would stand zero chance of getting paid by a welching reneging loser like you.
 
maineman said:
and I personally think that you and your gaggle of neocon morons that got us INTO this shithole have lost the right to participate in the discussion as to how we should get OUT.
Click to expand...

Too bad you feel that way, it's certainly not the case in America, and never has been. Maybe you should move to Russia or China, if you don't like the idea of people having the right to participate in discussion?
 
Oh, I think that people should have the right to discuss.... but when assholes like you have gotten us so deep into the cesspool, I think you deserve a "time out" where you have to go sit in the corner and not play with the other children until you think about what you did wrong for a period of time
 
Dixie said:
Georgie ?? something or other, maybe Abramov? I know he was a Jewish political leader in the Soviet Union, and he made the comment in regard to Perestroika, at the end of the Cold War.

In relation to today's political climate?... let me guess? The War on Islamofascists, and how you and some other pinheads think we should defeat them the same way?

It might be valid if the Islamofascists were confined to one country, or group of countries in a region, but that is not the case with this enemy. While they are largely concentrated in the ME, they are a global entity, their objectives and motivations are rooted in deep religious ideology, and they will be difficult to defeat with such a simple strategy.

The concept of democratization is viable, given time. We, ourselves, can never make these people embrace democracy, they have to 'fall in love' on their own. They have to personally realize the rewards of capitalism, and understand they created it themselves. Given time, with the economic prosperity brought through democracy, that will be an actuality. This could take 50-100 years, but it will eventually work, if we stick with the concept and don't abandon it.

The real problem is spoiled Americans who can't get their mind around the idea of something taking 50-100 years, and don't have the patience or faith in democracy. Everyone wants a 'quick fix' to the problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism, and there is no such resolution. This problem didn't develop overnight, and it can't be solved overnight.

If you want to take the general idea of what Georgie said, you can see where a democratic stable middle east, would certainly go a long way in 'taking away the enemy' from the radicals. They motivate suicide bombers by pointing to the poverty and oppression of their people, and blaming it on US Policies. Of course, while the past policies of the US are partially to blame, the crux of the problem is corrupt totalitarian regimes, which drain the wealth that would otherwise go to the people in a democracy.

I hope I didn't spoil your trivia quiz here, but it's not like these pinheads were going to guess the answer anytime this decade.

Smart questions, though!
Click to expand...

The problem in your way of thinking is intrinsic in the fact that you are as much of an idealogue as the radical Islamists insofar as your diametric opposition to any viewpoint that differs from your own.

In the world of Islam, they are the ones that have been freed from the "bondage" through their religion. It is us that is oppressed by our own need for instant gratification. In their view, we are the lost souls, and they are the ones that have found the right way. They believe this so deeply that many of them will blow themselves up to advance their belief system.

If you think that they really want our freedoms, but are incapable of earning it themselves, that they need us to go in there and blow enough shit up to the point where they finally "get it", then your 100 years is a pipe dream, 1,000 years is a pipe dream. What you don't seem to understand is that you cannot change thousands of years of culture simply by pointing a gun in its face.

Iraq is not, and never ever was a threat to the United States, as much as you really wish it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top