Is America a nation at risk?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I'll rebut your face.

Seriously, you're arguing with someone who wouldn't recognize right wing authoritarianism if it locked him in a cattle car and sent him to Auschwitz. Arguing is pointless.

[Aliantha]

I'm actually really curious as to how one goes about rebutting someone's face. lol

[Griff]

Well, first you remove the asshat...

[ZenGum]

Haggis in the office!

[Shawnee123]

'Rebut your face' just sounded so Flintonian!

[Clodfobble]

He's going to rebut-fuck you in the mouth!

[glatt]

There we go. That's Flint.

[Shawnee123]

Perfect!

[Flint]

Ha. Remember when Homer Simpson presented his rebuttal?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

What to rebut? Well, this tells me you're not thinking. I wonder what would happen if you actually concentrated? You ever wondered?

Anyway, post #22, per you:

Humanity, as usual.

You seem to contend I'm something inhuman. I call bullshit.

The reason you "don't have the gumption" is because you don't have the winning ideas, Shawnee. I do. Few of them are mine -- except in the sense that I sought them out and found them. I'm a beneficiary of some really wise people, and that's a pretty good way to make a life, I think.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Seriously, you're arguing with someone who wouldn't recognize right wing authoritarianism if it locked him in a cattle car and sent him to Auschwitz. Arguing is pointless.

Griff, this is the biggest flub I've seen you make. Don't forget that Radar (he's gone dark lately, it seems, having been shown that Obama was not indeed the "more libertarian candidate" he thought he was voting for) notwithstanding, I am a libertarian.

If by "right wing authoritarianism" you mean "Bush at war," your argument will have more holes than a badminton net. And now that the GWOT is being conducted in pretty much the same way by the Democratic Administration, the idea fails at the nonce. Sinks without a trace.

Arguing from bad initial premises -- that is what's pointless. At least if your goal is to persuade someone of the quality of your thinking.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...And now that the GWOT is being conducted in pretty much the same way by the Democratic Administration, the idea fails at the nonce. Sinks without a trace.

Arguing from bad initial premises -- that is what's pointless. At least if your goal is to persuade someone of the quality of your thinking.

UG...while there certainly are some continuations of the Bush/Neo-con approach to terrorism, more than I would like, there are also significant differences:

Ending the highly questionable (in terms of legality and effectiveness) policy of enhanced interrogation (ie torture) of detainees

A restoration of basic rights for detainees as proposed in the (preliminary) recommendation of Obama's Detention Policy Task Force including prohibiting the admission of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; providing detainees greater latitude in the choice of counsel; affording basic protections for those defendants who refuse to testify; reforming the use of hearsay by putting the burden on the party trying to use the statement...

The shutting down of CIA black prisons and the limiting extraordinary rendition (now prohibited to countries that torture their own citizens)

On the domestic front, ending the Bush administration program to expand the use of spy satellites by state/local law enforcement agencies.

And most importantly....restoring diplomacy and dialogue to gain the support of allies and engage adversaries rather than bullying, belligerency and unilateralism, resulting in the restoration of the US image among those allies and adversaries.

IMO, your characterization of those who disagree with your neo-con BS as weak-minded "pacifists" rather than having a respect for the rule of law, is another feeble attempt to justify a failed policy.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, if there is any BS to be found in the neocon approach to foreign policy, this has never come to the attention of anyone trying to actually execute it.

No one's ever been able to demonstrate that it's a "failed policy," either. They merely allege that it must be one, and solely because they disagree with it. How's that again?? It's the antidemocracy Left that's doing the grousing! Don't mistake rationalization for wise thought!

"More than I would like," quotha. How about democracy fucking winning and undemocracy fucking going extinct? Ever thought about that one?? I'll answer for you: you, Spexx, have never once thought in those terms, or evidence of it would appear as much in your posts as it does in mine.

If I'm wrong, show proof. Otherwise, amigo, the ash heap of history is out through the back door.

And pacifists -- they do have an incredible weakness in their philosophy which causes me to reject it as a way of life: pacifism does not help you stay alive in trouble. No other philosophy has that handicap. Under lethal attack, either the pacifist must die, or the pacifism must be abandoned. Either the pacifist or the pacifism must die then. Pacifism, it seems, sets human life at a higher value than human goodness. It doesn't take very much thought to see the weaknesses in this concept -- sociopaths have very little good in them, and the more pronounced the sociopathy the less the decency. Are such monsters to be kept in anything but a cage or the grave? Not on your tintype.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Actually, if there is any BS to be found in the neocon approach to foreign policy, this has never come to the attention of anyone trying to actually execute it.

No one's ever been able to demonstrate that it's a "failed policy," either. They merely allege that it must be one, and solely because they disagree with it. How's that again?? It's the antidemocracy Left that's doing the grousing! Don't mistake rationalization for wise thought!

"More than I would like," quotha. How about democracy fucking winning and undemocracy fucking going extinct? Ever thought about that one?? I'll answer for you: you, Spexx, have never once thought in those terms, or evidence of it would appear as much in your posts as it does in mine.

If I'm wrong, show proof. Otherwise, amigo, the ash heap of history is out through the back door.

And pacifists -- they do have an incredible weakness in their philosophy which causes me to reject it as a way of life: pacifism does not help you stay alive in trouble. No other philosophy has that handicap. Under lethal attack, either the pacifist must die, or the pacifism must be abandoned. Either the pacifist or the pacifism must die then. Pacifism, it seems, sets human life at a higher value than human goodness. It doesn't take very much thought to see the weaknesses in this concept -- sociopaths have very little good in them, and the more pronounced the sociopathy the less the decency. Are such monsters to be kept in anything but a cage or the grave? Not on your tintype.

UG...I (and others) demonstrated the failures in other threads and you ran away without responding. And you still haven't responded here..just more of the same "anti-left" rhetoric.

And once again, you ignored the facts (reversals of policy with greater respect for the law) that I noted above.

As to the broader neo-con policy issues, I will rerun the proof for you.

The failures of Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra fiasco (10 administration officials served jail time) and subsquent Bush (both) policies of supporting right wing thug "democracies" in the region ....the long term result of which was a growth in anti-American sentiment that resulted in the election of the same person that Reagan "defeated" and a stronger South/Central America and Caribbean (ALBA) alliance (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Dominica and, most recently, Honduras and to a lesser extent, Ecuador, Paraguay, Grenada, Belize....) with Cuba than the US.

The failures of the Reagan/GHW Bush policy to arm both Iran and Iraq. Please tell me what that accomplished?

And the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by G Bush. While it is too soon to know the long-term outcome, I will grant you that Iraq now has a democratically elected government. I prefer that democracy result from the will of the people, rather than the invasion and occupation of a foreign power.

The cost of the war against a country that posed no direct threat to the US, and leaving aside the $1 trillion and 4,000+ US lives and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives:

- the US invasion/occupation serving as a "cause celebre" (according to NIEs) for terrorist organizations around the world.

- the displacement of more than 4 million Iraqis from their homes, characterized by the UN as the worst refugee crisis in the Middle East in 40 years and resulting in more than an estimated 2 million Iraqis, many the former middle class, still living in refugee camps or slums in Syria, Jordan, etc. and afraid to return home or have no home to return to.

- the enhanced influence of Iran in Iraqi internal politics and thus greater influence on the politics of the region, with Iraq no longer serving as a buffer against the influence of the Iranian theocracy pulling the strings .

Added:
As to the "anti-democracy" left, I only speak for myself and as I said, I prefer democracies "of the people and by the people" and not imposed by force of invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, the unintended consequences of which are not always the cheery outcome you and the neo-cons suggest.

[DanaC]

Just as a small point: there are more positions available than just the two extremes of warmongering and pacifism.

I didn't agree with the Iraq war....that doesn't make me a pacifist. It just means I believe that particular war was wrong. Not that all war is wrong. Mind you: the word pacifism covers a range of views. Not all pacifists are against all war.

From wikipedia:

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.

Given the highlighted sentence, Urbane's contention that under lethal attack 'pacifism' must be abandoned is somewhat erroneous.