Republican Asians

[Mr.Lum]

I supported action against Iraq not only because of WMD's. There's broken UN Resolutions, human rights violations, and the need to act before a missile is pointed towards my house or an airplane flying into my office building. And 22 million liberated Iraqis with one less terrorist haven isn't bad either.

There are broken resolutions, human rights violations in the Occupied Territories as well. There are those all over the world. There were no WMD either.

You can dig up the past all you want. You could say that countries like France, Russia, and to an extent the US has been backing Saddam in the 80's.
US and UK supported Saddam while he was killing the Kurds and abusing all those people and doing all those "evil" deeds. Britian aided him right up until the Gulf War. We aided Saddam in that terror.
A lot of people I know have a problem with hypocracy. Hypocracy is not a crime nor a sin. One has to deal with a situation as it is in the present instead of checking if it's consistant with the past. For instance, do we not deal with the Soviets in the 50's just because they were our allies? As much people despite the US for serving it's own self-interest, when was the last time a country didn't act in it's self-interest? France and Russia opposed the war because they had interest in Iraq that wanted to keep.

We could have said "look we fucked up and helped kill those people and we need to fix the problem" we didn't we removed ourselves from the whole picture because it would make us feel bad. I might have had some respect for the motivations Bush gave for the war if he had said something like that, rather than telling the truth about how he was able to kill those people. But he didn't. I don't like historical revisionism.
Saddam Hussein compensates the families of suicide bombers. Currently the "Iraqi Insurgents" consists of mostly foreign fighters and former Baathists.

I have no problem with compensating the families of sucide bombers.
And 22 million liberated Iraqis with one less terrorist haven isn't bad either
One less and several hundren thousnad more on the way. It's not really disputable that the Iraq war made us less safe and increased terrorist activity. Even the major conservative think thanks will tell you that. When I see free and fair elections, I will believe that the Iraqis are "liberated" and when I see US medling in their affairs ended, I will believe they are "liberated". It's too early to say that they are liberated. I know a lot of people form Iraq who lived under Saddam, who were kicked out and most of them are not grateful for the "liberation" because it made much Iraq unlivable (in their words) and unsafe and that at least they could travel around in Saddam's Iraq. There were other ways to "liberate" Iraq and better ways to plan it. I wonder why those inspecters were cut off so soon, it was because there were no WMD. They made that shit up.



you should know, chances are probably likelier that a liberal would think this, seeing as how liberals are pro-American-workers instead of pro-cheap-labour like conservatives.



I'm not talking about the ones who vote on issues, I'm talking about the ones who vote on "values" because they don't like negores or chinks in their party. It's been explained to me in detail before by several Republicans, "they are good for your values" I'm not about country values...at least not American country values.

You can't have a proper debate if you plan to dismiss all Republicans as racists and oppressors and people like me as haters.

I don't plan to have a debate. I stated how I view conservatives/Republicans. That's my experiance. I don't think all Republicans are racist either, I think many of the people they elect to office are. Either that or they are completely ignorant of racial issues. I don't dislike Republicans are individuals, but as a party, and as a group of people ruling me, I dislike them. I don't want to hear a bunch of bible thumpers enforce their narrow minded views on the nation in Congess or the Senate and I dont want my cusins loosing portions of their faces, arms and legs (too late tho) in some fabricated war fighting some fabricated threat. And I personally don't care about preserving Anglo-Saxon values or modes of life in America because other people have a brain or opinion. I'm not going to try to convince you out of being conservative. I find it is useless to argue with Republicans or those on the "right" or left because they tend to be pretty steadfast in their views. It's pretty useless. The only way to convince someone other wise is to let thier way play out and fail. And I am pretty convinced that the way the Republicans are moving (and have been moving) is leading to a very bad place. First it's my dad's mosque, then it's my church, then it's the unions, then it's the immigrants and it goes on until you are living in a Republican theocracy and you have very few rights and America is in the wrong and it all falls a part. But you won't be able to blame me.

[Kuchana]

Split this thread please! I'd like to reply to the two above posts but I don't want to hog this thread anymore than I am already.

[kimpossible]

Split this thread please! I'd like to reply to the two above posts but I don't want to hog this thread anymore than I am already.


ooh. should i try? oh my, it could get messy. now which button do i push?

edit: hope this is what you were looking for, Kuchana. if anyone would like a different title either PM me or post it and i'd be happy to change it.

[achtungbaby]

There are broken resolutions, human rights violations in the Occupied Territories as well. There are those all over the world. There were no WMD either.


US and UK supported Saddam while he was killing the Kurds and abusing all those people and doing all those "evil" deeds. Britian aided him right up until the Gulf War. We aided Saddam in that terror.

We could have said "look we fucked up and helped kill those people and we need to fix the problem" we didn't we removed ourselves from the whole picture because it would make us feel bad. I might have had some respect for the motivations Bush gave for the war if he had said something like that, rather than telling the truth about how he was able to kill those people. But he didn't. I don't like historical revisionism.

I have no problem with compensating the families of sucide bombers.

One less and several hundren thousnad more on the way. It's not really disputable that the Iraq war made us less safe and increased terrorist activity. Even the major conservative think thanks will tell you that. When I see free and fair elections, I will believe that the Iraqis are "liberated" and when I see US medling in their affairs ended, I will believe they are "liberated". It's too early to say that they are liberated. I know a lot of people form Iraq who lived under Saddam, who were kicked out and most of them are not grateful for the "liberation" because it made much Iraq unlivable (in their words) and unsafe and that at least they could travel around in Saddam's Iraq. There were other ways to "liberate" Iraq and better ways to plan it. I wonder why those inspecters were cut off so soon, it was because there were no WMD. They made that shit up.



I'm not talking about the ones who vote on issues, I'm talking about the ones who vote on "values" because they don't like negores or chinks in their party. It's been explained to me in detail before by several Republicans, "they are good for your values" I'm not about country values...at least not American country values.



I don't plan to have a debate. I stated how I view conservatives/Republicans. That's my experiance. I don't think all Republicans are racist either, I think many of the people they elect to office are. Either that or they are completely ignorant of racial issues. I don't dislike Republicans are individuals, but as a party, and as a group of people ruling me, I dislike them. I don't want to hear a bunch of bible thumpers enforce their narrow minded views on the nation in Congess or the Senate and I dont want my cusins loosing portions of their faces, arms and legs (too late tho) in some fabricated war fighting some fabricated threat. And I personally don't care about preserving Anglo-Saxon values or modes of life in America because other people have a brain or opinion. I'm not going to try to convince you out of being conservative. I find it is useless to argue with Republicans or those on the "right" or left because they tend to be pretty steadfast in their views. It's pretty useless. The only way to convince someone other wise is to let thier way play out and fail. And I am pretty convinced that the way the Republicans are moving (and have been moving) is leading to a very bad place. First it's my dad's mosque, then it's my church, then it's the unions, then it's the immigrants and it goes on until you are living in a Republican theocracy and you have very few rights and America is in the wrong and it all falls a part. But you won't be able to blame me.
There's no need to demonize them. I would just ask them, as I would anyone who supported the charade against Iraq: Be honest, don't you feel lied to? Don't you feel at least a bit cheated...? I'll even give the President some benefit of the doubt...sometimes he looks as surprised and dumbfounded as the rest of us, like, "...that's what I was told!!!"

So...when are we invading North Korea? Anyone here think that our policy of closing off communication with them has actually encouraged them to be compliant with regards to WMD?:)

There were times right before we officially invaded Iraq that I thought to myself, "Maybe there is some truth to the allegations of WMD...only because the administration's sudden finger pointing at Iraq seemed so absurd that it couldn't have been scripted or engineered.

[yoMAMA]

My boss is asian and he's a republican.

[nola]

i used to be an asian republican until i started really thinking about stuff at 22 or so.

[rakovlam]

There's no need to demonize them. I would just ask them, as I would anyone who supported the charade against Iraq: Be honest, don't you feel lied to? Don't you feel at least a bit cheated...? I'll even give the President some benefit of the doubt...sometimes he looks as surprised and dumbfounded as the rest of us, like, "...that's what I was told!!!"

Nobody lied. It's called making a judgement based on bad information. Information, by the way, that the President had, that the Senate Intelligence Committee had, the intellegence France, Britain, and Russia had, the same intelligence Bill Clinton used when he attacked Iraq, the same intellegence that got a majority of Congress to vote for action against Iraq (which Kerry, Edwards, and a bunch of other Democrats voted for), and the same intellegence the entire world had. It's called acting on bad information, much different from lying.

My initial reaction when I found out the CIA screwed up was... "aw crap!" But then a minute later, I'm thinking, "So here we got rid of a brutal dictator, saved the lives of thousands of people, ended any plans of acquiring WMD's, and got Libya falling over itself for us, does a lot of crappy intel change all of that?" My opinion on the Iraq War is what the Courts would call a "concuring opinion". In other words, I agree with need to take action on Iraq but for a different reason GW (a majority opinion) had in mind. So no, I do not feel cheated because it doesn't take the President to convince me on my own opinion. As a matter of fact, I should be the one convincing the President to broaden the case for war to include broken UN Resolutions, human rights violations, and terrorist links (in general). But like I said, we may agree on the same thing, but reasons differ.

[SunWuKong]

"So here we got rid of a brutal dictator, saved the lives of thousands of people, ended any plans of acquiring WMD's, and got Libya falling over itself for us, does a lot of crappy intel change all of that?"

well i don't know, the US and coalition forces have killed, directly or indirectly, about ten thousand innocent Iraqi civilians so far. yeah, it's a war and a lot of people will get killed - but that rationale should be used to prevent a war, not to justify the continual support of one.

and WMDs? please. the US has more than anybody else (maybe except Russia?). and i'll bet you there are some ultra conservatives that are not opposed to using them. so which country is it that really needs to be put under control?

for all the American emphasis on freedom, what does this country do? continually interfere with the business of and now occupy a country, justifying it with some self-subscribed form of superior morality. what would Americans themselves want? freedom, or a foreign occupation that tells us they know what's best for us? for all the comments about being un-American if you oppose the war, personally i find this war in and of itself pretty un-American.

[yoMAMA]

Nobody lied. It's called making a judgement based on bad information. Information, by the way, that the President had, that the Senate Intelligence Committee had, the intellegence France, Britain, and Russia had, the same intelligence Bill Clinton used when he attacked Iraq, the same intellegence that got a majority of Congress to vote for action against Iraq (which Kerry, Edwards, and a bunch of other Democrats voted for), and the same intellegence the entire world had. It's called acting on bad information, much different from lying.

My initial reaction when I found out the CIA screwed up was... "aw crap!" But then a minute later, I'm thinking, "So here we got rid of a brutal dictator, saved the lives of thousands of people, ended any plans of acquiring WMD's, and got Libya falling over itself for us, does a lot of crappy intel change all of that?" My opinion on the Iraq War is what the Courts would call a "concuring opinion". In other words, I agree with need to take action on Iraq but for a different reason GW (a majority opinion) had in mind. So no, I do not feel cheated because it doesn't take the President to convince me on my own opinion. As a matter of fact, I should be the one convincing the President to broaden the case for war to include broken UN Resolutions, human rights violations, and terrorist links (in general). But like I said, we may agree on the same thing, but reasons differ.

While we are at it, why don't we get rid of Jiang Zemin as well?

I mean, he's a brutal dictator that has direct control on real WMDs.

[achtungbaby]

Nobody lied.
Sure he did. You and I may be afforded that excuse, but he's the President. And for Christsakes, if you're not completely sure, wait until you have maybe one shred of real physical evidence before preemptively attacking another nation.

My initial reaction when I found out the CIA screwed up was... "aw crap!" But then a minute later, I'm thinking, "So here we got rid of a brutal dictator, saved the lives of thousands of people, ended any plans of acquiring WMD's, and got Libya falling over itself for us, does a lot of crappy intel change all of that?"
One thing I despise about Democrats is that they're spineless. Republicans? It's so hard for you to admit you're it when you're wrong:) I will give you credit though...Christ, to the damn bitter end you will try and be loyal to your boss?:)

The consequences of 'crappy' intel: over 900 Americans killed since the war ended, military operations are costing about $4.7 billion a month...not to mention any irrational anti-American sentiment that folks in the region harbored is now guaranteed to become hatred that will last for well after our generation.

As a matter of fact, I should be the one convincing the President to broaden the case for war to include broken UN Resolutions, human rights violations, and terrorist links (in general). But like I said, we may agree on the same thing, but reasons differ.
Well it's easy for us to play armchair superpower strategist, but keep in mind every 'kickin-ass that seems either routine or carries little costs will always seem that way to the folks who have nothing to lose anyway.

What I don't understand is why it's so incongruent for loyal Republicans to be seriously pissed that the President decided to choose Iraq over Al-Qaeda and Osama. Maybe the administration doesn't wanna have to rely on that Saudi money any longer:P

Final add: I don't care whether you're Republican, Democrat, Green or Blue...just don't be 'for' the war. It's just a shame that Democrats were still in their 'thank you mr. president may we have another mode' when they signed off on it.

Yep, you betcha. Reaganomics? Tacitly accepted by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

[VV o n g B a]

As a matter of fact, I should be the one convincing the President to broaden the case for war to include broken UN Resolutions, human rights violations, and terrorist links (in general). But like I said, we may agree on the same thing, but reasons differ.including broken un resolutions would then require intervention in israel as there have been numerous resolutions against them.

i do feel lied to tho. i supported the war towards the end when colin powell made his case at the UN. i felt that if colin was onboard, there must have been overwhelming evidence. but it turns out that the intelligence that colin got from the cia and dod and cheney was all bad. and thats after he threw out a ton of other garbage. its a disgrace.

i would feel less angry if bush had made even a slight apology. a slight admittance that he justified a war on false presumptions. even if he truly believed the presumptions and did not feel like he was exaggerating the threat in any way whatsoever, he ought to own up to believing a falsehood. but he can't do it. it's like those cartoons where the character can't say "i'm sorry" even under extreme pressure.

[damashii]

Nobody lied. It's called making a judgement based on bad information. Information, by the way, that the President had, that the Senate Intelligence Committee had, the intellegence France, Britain, and Russia had, the same intelligence Bill Clinton used when he attacked Iraq, the same intellegence that got a majority of Congress to vote for action against Iraq (which Kerry, Edwards, and a bunch of other Democrats voted for), and the same intellegence the entire world had. It's called acting on bad information, much different from lying.
Its obvious Bush is a pawn, and is not making any decisions. Cheney I believe is the main pupeteer, while Rumsfeld, Bremer, and friends play stage crew. If you look at the testemonials of McGovern and other Intelligence officials, the Bush administration used the intelligence given them SELECTIVLEY, to support an invasion of Iraq. This SELECTIVE information was given to congress, and other nations to support war. So yes the Bush administration lied.

My initial reaction when I found out the CIA screwed up was... "aw crap!" But then a minute later, I'm thinking, "So here we got rid of a brutal dictator, saved the lives of thousands of people, ended any plans of acquiring WMD's, and got Libya falling over itself for us, does a lot of crappy intel change all of that?" My opinion on the Iraq War is what the Courts would call a "concuring opinion". After Desert Storm there was a large Shiite uprising that would have effectivley removed Saddam from power if the US were to support it. The US did not, and Bush Senior was president at the time, why did he not remove Saddam then?

What about the millions suffering in the US, with no adequate healthcare, and declining support for education for the working class? one reason for war is to take the attention off of what is going on in our own country. The Bush administration is having a field day with the laws it is passing.

"concuring opinion" can be dangerous especially when less than admirable intentions are guised as honourable intentions.

As a matter of fact, I should be the one convincing the President to broaden the case for war to include broken UN Resolutions, human rights violations, and terrorist links (in general). But like I said, we may agree on the same thing, but reasons differ. The UN resolutions where made so this exact sort of thing would not happen. One country (Administration) acting in its own interest. The resolutions were a guide line to exhaust all possible measures to avoid the taking of innocent lives.

Human rights violations? These are taking place all over the world including the US, it is a social ill, and in this case war just compounds it.

Pre-Iraqi invasion, it was concluded that there were no terrorist links with Iraq. Of course now there are probably numerous links.

Any ways people are dying on both sides, and its mostly the Iraqis who are being devestated. Why take war so lightly by trying to come up with reasons to support it?


SuKwong

and WMDs? please. the US has more than anybody else (maybe except Russia?). and i'll bet you there are some ultra conservatives that are not opposed to using them. so which country is it that really needs to be put under control?I think Dick Cheney wants to develop a knew "usable" nuclear weapon. Scarey stuff.

[kitty]

and WMDs? please. the US has more than anybody else (maybe except Russia?).


i don't think so... watching ... 'fog of war?' (i forget what it was called, maybe something else of war, but it was the documentary with mcnamara), he said that after the cold war, they discovered that russia was nowhere near the number and technology of WMD that the U.S. was. We were on overkill, because we didn't know what Russia had, we assumed the worst. It turns out that, while they were developing weapons, we easily ended up outgunning them.

[hooligan]

i don't think so... watching ... 'fog of war?' (i forget what it was called, maybe something else of war, but it was the documentary with mcnamara), he said that after the cold war, they discovered that russia was nowhere near the number and technology of WMD that the U.S. was. We were on overkill, because we didn't know what Russia had, we assumed the worst. It turns out that, while they were developing weapons, we easily ended up outgunning them.
Doesn't it go along that Cold War theory that we outspent the Russians and thus Reagan won the Cold War?

[deez nuts]

to paraphrase the canadian ambassador from south park the movie:

This is not aboot diplomacy
this is aboot dignity
this is aboot respect

[Kuchana]

I'll post a reply on this thread later since I have a headache. For now here's a quote.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. ...A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice—a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "
-John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America

[kitty]

y'know, i'm hard pressed right now to think of anything i would wantonly kill for. Just because I wouldn't murder another human being because of my beliefs, doesn't mean my beliefs aren't strong. It simply means that one of my chief convictions is that killing another person will not improve the strength of my own beliefs.

not that war is NEVER just, but it is rarely worth the massive level of death and destruction.

[rakovlam]

Another reason why I'm not a Democrat. They have no solutions of their own. It's always, "roll back the tax cuts" or "roll back the PATRIOT ACT" or "let America be America again". On foreign policy, "it's lets do the same thing we've been doing in the 90's." During the convention, you could barely spot a free-trader. It's the same complaint about "fairness" and "outsourcing". The Democratic platform can be summed up as, "let's undo everything GW has done then impliment them again". Really, how does the Democratic Party exist nowadays without President Bush?

So to you Democrats and liberals and progressives here, do you have any new ideas? It's obvious you do not like ours but let's hear how would you deal with the economy or national security (assuming you recognize there is a threat to our national security). Doing thing like back then doesn't count as a new idea.

[SunWuKong]

I'll post a reply on this thread later since I have a headache. For now here's a quote.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. ...A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice—a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "
-John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America


hey, i think you can use this quote to apply to Iraqis that accept American occupation.

here are some other quotes which i like:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
--Dwight Eisenhower 1953 speech

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
--Plato

You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
--Jeannette Rankin first woman Member of Congress

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

But in modern war you will die like a dog for no good reason.
--Ernest Hemingway

So to you Democrats and liberals and progressives here, do you have any new ideas? It's obvious you do not like ours but let's hear how would you deal with the economy or national security (assuming you recognize there is a threat to our national security). Doing thing like back then doesn't count as a new idea.

i don't consider myself a democrat or a liberal, but the solution is very simple. get rid of Bush and the world will be a better place naturally.

[kimpossible]

i don't consider myself a democrat or a liberal, but the solution is very simple. get rid of Bush and the world will be a better place naturally.

most of the world would agree with you and they are not Democrat or liberal by American standards either. some of us just want to travel without being utterly despised because of Curious George.

[SunWuKong]

most of the world would agree with you and they are not Democrat or liberal by American standards either. some of us just want to travel without being utterly despised because of Curious George.

well, i was just kidding. but you are right about the traveling. i actually find myself defending the US government when i'm overseas. imagine that.

[kimpossible]

well, i was just kidding. but you are right about the traveling. i actually find myself defending the US government when i'm overseas. imagine that.


shit, i'm thinking about sewing a Canadian flag onto my baggage.

[kitty]

Another reason why I'm not a Democrat. They have no solutions of their own. It's always, "roll back the tax cuts" or "roll back the PATRIOT ACT" or "let America be America again". On foreign policy, "it's lets do the same thing we've been doing in the 90's." During the convention, you could barely spot a free-trader. It's the same complaint about "fairness" and "outsourcing". The Democratic platform can be summed up as, "let's undo everything GW has done then impliment them again". Really, how does the Democratic Party exist nowadays without President Bush?


yeah, get rid of the patriot act as a means of identifying terrorism. deal with terrorism not as a symptom of middle eastern men but a global phenomenon, and identify actual behaviour associated with possible terrorists rather than racial associations. check not only 'suspicious behaviour' in airports (paying by cash, buying a ticket last minute, no luggage), but also use some of the money we're spending now beefing up airport security to ridiculous extremes to instead increase border patrols and checking of cargo at various ports around the world and in airports. instead of checking everyone's shoes, let's perhaps replace dwayne, the one guy who patrols 500 miles of beach on the east coast, with a small squadron of dwaynes.

rather than to deny or approve of illegal immgiration, or outsource, how about implementing social progams to make it a little easier for those who want to immigrate to do so, under the proper conditions and for those who have come to this country illegally to become naturalized without fear of deportation? (i.e., to create a system where thsoe who are now immigrating illegally, immigrate legally and at least get counted and dealt with).

how about rather than pumping our military budget to ridiculous levels, funnelling some of that money to social programming, so that we're not spending american taxpayer money to improve the lives of impoverished non-americans, but using that money to improve the lives of impoverished americans in underserved, underprivleged neighbourhoods.

hell, there are a ton of ideas out there. the problem is that bush has done so many terrible things that really anything that must be done must be correcting a mistake that he has made. it's not like anything the bush adminsitration has done is really a novel idea -- the patriot act was originally mutated from a resolution put forth by the democratic party, but mutated into the civil rights' destroying form that it is today rather than the original form.

[rice cracker]

I'll post a reply on this thread later since I have a headache. For now here's a quote.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. ...A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice—a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "
-John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America

A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
Dorothy L. Sayers (1893 - 1957)

Oooh, burn! Oooh, burn!

RC: 1
Kucha: 0

*does the cabbage patch*

Just picking on ya, no offense meant ;) I'm just an immature brat, please don't take it personally.

[Mr.Lum]

for all the American emphasis on freedom, what does this country do? continually interfere with the business of and now occupy a country, justifying it with some self-subscribed form of superior morality. what would Americans themselves want? freedom, or a foreign occupation that tells us they know what's best for us? for all the comments about being un-American if you oppose the war, personally i find this war in and of itself pretty un-American.
I find it very American, "manifest destiny" type stuff. I wish that our retoric would match our actions for once tho. I mean damn.



well, i was just kidding. but you are right about the traveling. i actually find myself defending the US government when i'm overseas. imagine that.


Try going to Saudi Arabia, that's a trip. I don't defend it tho. After a while, I came to figure that they weren't mad at me, they were mad American politicans and soldiers and businessmen. They'll tell you flat out theyer mad at the "Amerki", American, but "American" to them isn't me, its white people. That's the government. I don't defend things I don't believe in. The Saudis I talked to were majorly pissed at America and thier monarchy. When my mom was at work, I went into a McDonalds there one day and I ended up talking to this old guy. He started yelling about how bad America was, and I asked him "are you mad at me....?" and he told me "no" and he looked over to this white dude (I dont even know if he was American or not) and said "them" and spit on the floor (pretty firgging gross). As far as I am concerned I only favor the US on this stuff because I live here. If I wasn't living here, I wouldn't give a damn. It's not even my battle for the most part.

[SunWuKong]

Try going to Saudi Arabia, that's a trip. I don't defend it tho. After a while, I came to figure that they weren't mad at me, they were mad American politicans and soldiers and businessmen. They'll tell you flat out theyer mad at the "Amerki", American, but "American" to them isn't me, its white people. That's the government. I don't defend things I don't believe in. The Saudis I talked to were majorly pissed at America and thier monarchy. When my mom was at work, I went into a McDonalds there one day and I ended up talking to this old guy. He started yelling about how bad America was, and I asked him "are you mad at me....?" and he told me "no" and he looked over to this white dude (I dont even know if he was American or not) and said "them" and spit on the floor (pretty firgging gross). As far as I am concerned I only favor the US on this stuff because I live here. If I wasn't living here, I wouldn't give a damn. It's not even my battle for the most part.

well, a lot of times they just don't understand how the American system of government works, and they automatically assume all Americans support the government's decisions.

[Mr.Lum]

^That's very true. That's the problem with "democracy", people think everyone wants the crap the politicians do, it's no consensus.

[DragonKnight]

My mom is Republican, but she's voting Democrat during the elections. :biggrin:

[Kassandra]

most of the world would agree with you and they are not Democrat or liberal by American standards either. some of us just want to travel without being utterly despised because of Curious George.

For those of us who are American, it's really quite inescapable. Years of bad foreign policy on through our invasion and occupancy of Iraq aren't going to make us very popular with the rest of the world. That coupled with Puppetboy Bush's woodie for finding new ways of alienating our allies has done immeasurable damage. I think threatening to bomb The Hague were an American brough to trial for war crimes is an all time low for this country. How many Americans even know, much less care about that?

[deez nuts]

i've voted for clinton over bush sr and dole.

[mndeg]

lol, who threatened to bomb The Hague?

[truMp]

i would feel less angry if bush had made even a slight apology. a slight admittance that he justified a war on false presumptions. even if he truly believed the presumptions and did not feel like he was exaggerating the threat in any way whatsoever, he ought to own up to believing a falsehood. but he can't do it. it's like those cartoons where the character can't say "i'm sorry" even under extreme pressure.

It would be impossible for Bush to ever say sorry towards the country, you know what type of effect that would have on the confidence of the US population? There would be no trust anymore; by anyone. It would kill off his chances at re-election.

[Kassandra]

lol, who threatened to bomb The Hague?

Puppetboy Bush, in the event any American's were brought before tribunal for war crimes.

[Faithless]

John Pippy. A native of Thailand.

Pa. senator's war record puts him in the spotlight (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9568140.htm?1c)
NEW YORK - With Iraq and the war on terrorism centerpieces of President Bush's reelection campaign, State Sen. John Pippy is a delegate in demand.

Since returning from the Iraq war, Pippy has rocketed from relative obscurity as a freshman senator from Moon Township near Pittsburgh to Republican celebrity.

At the Republican National Convention this week, Pippy made his debut on the national stage. Swept up in a sudden whirlwind schedule of public appearances, he has hardly had time to fit in much political business.

Pippy did turns on Hardball and ABC World News Tonight and C-SPAN. Even the History Channel booked him. Only the Al-Jazeera interview fell through the cracks.

"They all want to know what I think about Iraq," he said.

Things got so busy on Tuesday that Pippy had to bow out of a delegation community-service project that he had organized to introduce retired Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a private luncheon.

"His is a compelling story," said David La Torre, a GOP consultant working with the state committee. "He has a unique perspective, having lived and worked in Iraq."

Lawmakers and political activists who saw his potential long before the convention say he reminds them of another politically ambitious Army veteran from Western Pennsylvania: Tom Ridge, the former governor and current secretary of homeland security.

Pippy was raised in public housing. Like Ridge, he graduated from an elite school, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and served three years active duty in the Army.

He won the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq and Kuwait last year as captain of an engineering unit in the Pennsylvania National Guard.

At 34, Pippy, a native of Thailand and an environmental engineer, is the youngest member of the state Senate and the first Asian American to hold a seat in the Senate. He and his wife, Katherine, have two children.

When he won a special election last year, shortly before leaving for Iraq, he had already served four terms in the state House.

"He is a rising star in the party," said U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.). "He's won races in tough districts. He's very articulate, and he's got lots of charisma."

Pippy spent eight months in Iraq and Kuwait in charge of a unit that was repairing the supply route linking the two countries.

As an active-duty officer, he had to get Army permission to serve as a state legislator.

And as a lawmaker, Pippy said, he could have gotten permission from the Army to opt out of the overseas assignment.

But he said he couldn't bear the thought of his Guard unit going to war without him.

"It would be like sending your family away without you," Pippy said.

He said that although his unit saw no combat, surviving in a war zone has changed him - for the good.

"I'm more laid back," Pippy said. "Things that used to bother me don't anymore. We forget how fortunate we are."

In Iraq, the road-rebuilding project took Pippy to the ruins of the ancient city of Ur, a sacred site for three of the world's major religions.

"It makes you humble to think you are a small part of things," he said. "It also makes you realize there has been fighting over religion for 3,000 years and freedom is the only way to end it."

President Bush's Iraq policy has his vote of approval.

"The first thing you have to do is establish stability and then turn over control. The model is South Korea," he said. "What's happening in Fallujah is just that. The Iraqis are starting to take control."

[Kuchana]

There's no need to demonize them. I would just ask them, as I would anyone who supported the charade against Iraq: Be honest, don't you feel lied to? Don't you feel at least a bit cheated...? I'll even give the President some benefit of the doubt...sometimes he looks as surprised and dumbfounded as the rest of us, like, "...that's what I was told!!!"

So...when are we invading North Korea? Anyone here think that our policy of closing off communication with them has actually encouraged them to be compliant with regards to WMD?:)

There were times right before we officially invaded Iraq that I thought to myself, "Maybe there is some truth to the allegations of WMD...only because the administration's sudden finger pointing at Iraq seemed so absurd that it couldn't have been scripted or engineered.

While I may not agree with some of the reasons for the war I do think that by getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. In regards to the WMDs, well I think to myself, Saddam was such a ruthless and smart man. Look at how many freaking body guards he had around, all because he was paranoid that someone was out to assassinate him. I believe because he stayed in power for so long, (due in part to the Western powers as well), that he wasn't stupid enough to let the WMDs be discovered. In fact I would not be surprised at all if some of those weapons are hidden in Syria since Syria let members of Saddam's regime cross the border before the war even started. Yeah I know some people are going to raise an eyebrow at my response and think it's another conspiracy allegiation, blah blah but I believe it nonetheless that he did something with them, which is why they cannot be found now. But there's also the fact that he used them and I have no doubt he would have used it again if given the chance. Of course he was stupid enough to be captured by the troops in a hole no less!

N.Korea needs to be addressed. Pronto.

well i don't know, the US and coalition forces have killed, directly or indirectly, about ten thousand innocent Iraqi civilians so far. yeah, it's a war and a lot of people will get killed - but that rationale should be used to prevent a war, not to justify the continual support of one.

and WMDs? please. the US has more than anybody else (maybe except Russia?). and i'll bet you there are some ultra conservatives that are not opposed to using them. so which country is it that really needs to be put under control?

for all the American emphasis on freedom, what does this country do? continually interfere with the business of and now occupy a country, justifying it with some self-subscribed form of superior morality. what would Americans themselves want? freedom, or a foreign occupation that tells us they know what's best for us? for all the comments about being un-American if you oppose the war, personally i find this war in and of itself pretty un-American.

and how many did saddam kill? of iranians? of his people? even starving them no less? that i think is a far greater crime than any. i know you may think that doesn't relate to what you're saying but i very much think it does.

unfortunately war cannot be prevented as some presume. sometimes it is the last answer.

and don't tell me the liberals don't have the same sentiment as conservatives regarding nuclear weapons. i wouldn't think it sits well with people if we lacked the weapons while other countries, especially terrorists do.

i don't see it as us being a foreign occupation dictating to the iraqis what's best for them. instead what i see is that our soldiers are there, fighting terrorists, which is a viable threat to be dealt with, and providing freedom for the iraqis, something that cannot be easily achieved. elections are coming up and i'm more than thrilled because at last the iraqis will be able to have their own government to govern instead of having had saddam.

While we are at it, why don't we get rid of Jiang Zemin as well?

I mean, he's a brutal dictator that has direct control on real WMDs.

If only it was that simple!

Its obvious Bush is a pawn, and is not making any decisions. Cheney I believe is the main pupeteer, while Rumsfeld, Bremer, and friends play stage crew. If you look at the testemonials of McGovern and other Intelligence officials, the Bush administration used the intelligence given them SELECTIVLEY, to support an invasion of Iraq. This SELECTIVE information was given to congress, and other nations to support war. So yes the Bush administration lied.

Oh and you don't think that McGovern and other Intelligence officials would lie, too to cover their backs? :rolleyes: It's funny but the same intelligence you're referring to, Bush showed to Congress, whereby they granted him the authority and I repeat the authority to use military action in Iraq. Not declaring war directly but still meaning the same thing. So Congress was lied, too as well? Oh yep Congres is stupid.

After Desert Storm there was a large Shiite uprising that would have effectivley removed Saddam from power if the US were to support it. The US did not, and Bush Senior was president at the time, why did he not remove Saddam then?

One phrase my friend. Balance of power. Bush Sr. and the U.S. as well as the other Western powers felt that if he took Saddam from power, the Shiites would take over and thereby disrupt the balance in the Middle East of Sunnis outnumbering the Shiites, which Saudia Arabia (a key ally) did not want, especially fearful of Iran's influence.


The UN resolutions where made so this exact sort of thing would not happen. One country (Administration) acting in its own interest. The resolutions were a guide line to exhaust all possible measures to avoid the taking of innocent lives.

You forget we did go through the U.N. and with a resolution no less. But the only reason why it was not approved the second time was due to France, Germany, China, and Russia. Why? Because they had their own business interests in Iraq where they didn't want to lose them.


Pre-Iraqi invasion, it was concluded that there were no terrorist links with Iraq. Of course now there are probably numerous links.

All the more reason to explore them.

Any ways people are dying on both sides, and its mostly the Iraqis who are being devestated. Why take war so lightly by trying to come up with reasons to support it?.

Simply because to give hope and freedom to the Iraqis. Yeah so laugh off at my sense of idealism but that's what I believe in and hope for.


Try going to Saudi Arabia, that's a trip. I don't defend it tho. After a while, I came to figure that they weren't mad at me, they were mad American politicans and soldiers and businessmen. They'll tell you flat out theyer mad at the "Amerki", American, but "American" to them isn't me, its white people. That's the government. I don't defend things I don't believe in. The Saudis I talked to were majorly pissed at America and thier monarchy. When my mom was at work, I went into a McDonalds there one day and I ended up talking to this old guy. He started yelling about how bad America was, and I asked him "are you mad at me....?" and he told me "no" and he looked over to this white dude (I dont even know if he was American or not) and said "them" and spit on the floor (pretty firgging gross). As far as I am concerned I only favor the US on this stuff because I live here. If I wasn't living here, I wouldn't give a damn. It's not even my battle for the most part.

Oh yeah blame the white guy. That will solve your problems easily! :rolleyes:

Puppetboy Bush, in the event any American's were brought before tribunal for war crimes.

Please provide a quote because there's no way in hell I would believe the president would say such a thing. Prove your sources first.

US and UK supported Saddam while he was killing the Kurds and abusing all those people and doing all those "evil" deeds. Britian aided him right up until the Gulf War. We aided Saddam in that terror.

Different time, different presidents and governments.

We could have said "look we fucked up and helped kill those people and we need to fix the problem" we didn't we removed ourselves from the whole picture because it would make us feel bad. I might have had some respect for the motivations Bush gave for the war if he had said something like that, rather than telling the truth about how he was able to kill those people. But he didn't. I don't like historical revisionism.[/quote[

I hardly think even an apology from Bush would have gained an apology from you. He's acknowledged there's a problem and that we'll fix it. What do you mean by we removed ourselves from the whole picture?

[QUOTE=Mr.Lum]I have no problem with compensating the families of sucide bombers.

I do! It is not an honor to think that by killing yourself to kill others, you gain the blessing of God. Rubbish!

One less and several hundren thousnad more on the way. It's not really disputable that the Iraq war made us less safe and increased terrorist activity. Even the major conservative think thanks will tell you that. When I see free and fair elections, I will believe that the Iraqis are "liberated" and when I see US medling in their affairs ended, I will believe they are "liberated". It's too early to say that they are liberated. I know a lot of people form Iraq who lived under Saddam, who were kicked out and most of them are not grateful for the "liberation" because it made much Iraq unlivable (in their words) and unsafe and that at least they could travel around in Saddam's Iraq. There were other ways to "liberate" Iraq and better ways to plan it. I wonder why those inspecters were cut off so soon, it was because there were no WMD. They made that shit up.

I shall hold my opinion until a free and fair election is held in Iraq before giving judgment. There were better ways to liberate Iraq? Pray tell me how, considering it wasn't liberated for a LONG LONG time under Saddam for 12+ freaking years. Tell me how liberation was supposed to come since it obviously was not going to come within! Better ways my foot. The U.N. tried to stop Saddam but their actions amounted up to nothing with their resolutions, which Saddam continuously violated because he knew they could do nothing to stop him. I wonder why Saddam kicked the inspectors out and I wonder why Iraq was with a tyrant for so freaking long and why the U.N. did nothing despite their stupid resolutions; pointless! There was WMD before. What makes you think it's still there but cleverly taken away? Even I wouldn't put it past Saddam to have done something with them before the war started.


I'm not talking about the ones who vote on issues, I'm talking about the ones who vote on "values" because they don't like negores or chinks in their party. It's been explained to me in detail before by several Republicans, "they are good for your values" I'm not about country values...at least not American country values.

You are being misguided by your obvious biased opinion against Republicans. The ones who don't like negros or others in my party are not the ones I agree with, neither the Democrats who don't like them either I don't agree with either.

[Mr.Lum]

I do! It is not an honor to think that by killing yourself to kill others, you gain the blessing of God. Rubbish!



They didn't give money to the bomber. They gave it to the family who is now without anything and likely no longer has a home. That's mroe noble than anything the US has done for anyone in the region. I don't support the bomber, but he's gonna do it anyway and the Israelis are gonna knock over his mama's house. I'd rather her have a place to stay. It'd be nice for no sucide bombers, but that's not how the world is.


Different time, different presidents and governments.



Same country. Condeming someone for something you aided and condoned many many years after the fact is moronic. Condemn those Americans as well. Saddam did not act alone. He was accompanied by America to help out at the UN while he used chemical weapons on the IRanians and murdered Kurds.

I shall hold my opinion until a free and fair election is held in Iraq before giving judgment. There were better ways to liberate Iraq? Pray tell me how, considering it wasn't liberated for a LONG LONG time under Saddam for 12+ freaking years. Tell me how liberation was supposed to come since it obviously was not going to come within! Better ways my foot. The U.N. tried to stop Saddam but their actions amounted up to nothing with their resolutions, which Saddam continuously violated because he knew they could do nothing to stop him. I wonder why Saddam kicked the inspectors out and I wonder why Iraq was with a tyrant for so freaking long and why the U.N. did nothing despite their stupid resolutions; pointless! There was WMD before. What makes you think it's still there but cleverly taken away? Even I wouldn't put it past Saddam to have done something with them before the war started.


I would not put it past him to not have been able to develop them. And Saddam would eventually have died and the next leader would not have the same kind of footing and it would have been much easier to overthrow him. If the US really wanted what was best for the Iraqis, they would have done something with a minimal amount of fallout, a coup using foriegn dissenters. Not just taking out the only authority in the country and destroying it's infustructure. Furthermore, 'liberation" is not needed in every country. It's nice to think it is, but unity is better than chaos. Iraq was safer under Saddam, there were no islamists or foreign terrorists, yes there was a horrible regime, but that regime was better than what they've go now.




Oh yeah blame the white guy. That will solve your problems easily!



I don't have any problems. When abroad, I don't associate with fat, white Americans. That's just smart. Nobody wants to kill a 'local". There ahuntin for "Ameriki", when they come lookin, I'm "ana Arabyy!" peace.



You are being misguided by your obvious biased opinion against Republicans. The ones who don't like negros or others in my party are not the ones I agree with, neither the Democrats who don't like them either I don't agree with either.


I wouldn't call it"misguided". It's no mistake that I live in a neoconservative Republican America and hate it. Government full of hicks. Rural, fuckers. And appearantly it's wrong to be from the North east because it doesn't fit in with that set of settlers in the midwest's values. Majoritarian dictatorship is what they want. But I doubt they ahve a majority so they tell us that their values are superior. "Defend marriage" what the fuck from? 18 years old, got to get the fuck out.

[Kuchana]

They didn't give money to the bomber. They gave it to the family who is now without anything and likely no longer has a home. That's mroe noble than anything the US has done for anyone in the region. I don't support the bomber, but he's gonna do it anyway and the Israelis are gonna knock over his mama's house. I'd rather her have a place to stay. It'd be nice for no sucide bombers, but that's not how the world is.

But isn't giving this money a way of still showing support to the bomber and what he did? Wouldn't you think that this kind of behavior further encourages other wannabe bombers to end up in the same fate? Furthermore, it doesn't hurt with the good possibility that the family gets taken care of, too.


Same country. Condeming someone for something you aided and condoned many many years after the fact is moronic. Condemn those Americans as well. Saddam did not act alone. He was accompanied by America to help out at the UN while he used chemical weapons on the IRanians and murdered Kurds.

Oh I would love to condemn everyone involved. Not only Saddam, the U.S., GB, France, and everyone else. But you know those powerful countries are sure not going to be held accountable for their actions committed in the past.



I would not put it past him to not have been able to develop them. And Saddam would eventually have died and the next leader would not have the same kind of footing and it would have been much easier to overthrow him. If the US really wanted what was best for the Iraqis, they would have done something with a minimal amount of fallout, a coup using foriegn dissenters. Not just taking out the only authority in the country and destroying it's infustructure. Furthermore, 'liberation" is not needed in every country. It's nice to think it is, but unity is better than chaos. Iraq was safer under Saddam, there were no islamists or foreign terrorists, yes there was a horrible regime, but that regime was better than what they've go now.

I highly doubt it would have been much easier to displace the next ruler after Saddam. Not after all the years that Saddam stayed in power. There would have been only another rule just as bad as him, even worse possibly and the same pattern would have repeated itself all over again. How successful would have been the coup really, especially with Saddam's numerous bodyguards? Plus too many people I bet feared him to rise against him. i.e. the unsuccessful Shi'ite uprising during the first Gulf war. Nope. Saddam definitely taught everyone a lesson there not to try anything stupid by murdering the ones who dared to do so. As for Saddam's regime. I am darn glad he's gone and his regime with him. Just because of the fact that his was a horrible regime does not justify what Saddam did. Iraqis may be going through dark times now but progress will be made, if not soon then later. That's more than I can say under Saddam's regime.


I don't have any problems. When abroad, I don't associate with fat, white Americans. That's just smart. Nobody wants to kill a 'local". There ahuntin for "Ameriki", when they come lookin, I'm "ana Arabyy!" peace.

And I suppose I'm supposed to be grateful that "I" don't have the general characteristics of an American with my Asian face if I'm travelling abroad? :rolleyes:


I wouldn't call it"misguided". It's no mistake that I live in a neoconservative Republican America and hate it. Government full of hicks. Rural, fuckers. And appearantly it's wrong to be from the North east because it doesn't fit in with that set of settlers in the midwest's values. Majoritarian dictatorship is what they want. But I doubt they ahve a majority so they tell us that their values are superior. "Defend marriage" what the fuck from? 18 years old, got to get the fuck out.

Err....I beg to differ. Aren't you forgetting you're living in a Democrat vs. Republican America? There's two sides in this country. And really the hick word is totally unnecessary. If by any means, you can consider me one, too! Excuse me but I think you're missing out the South, too since Texas is technically part of the South. By the way, what the heck is up with people having all these negative stereotypes about the Midwest? If I was from there, I'd be pissed off. Sheesh.

[Mr.Lum]

But isn't giving this money a way of still showing support to the bomber and what he did? Wouldn't you think that this kind of behavior further encourages other wannabe bombers to end up in the same fate? Furthermore, it doesn't hurt with the good possibility that the family gets taken care of, too.

I could be taken that way. But it's better than a bunch of homeless ladies.


Oh I would love to condemn everyone involved. Not only Saddam, the U.S., GB, France, and everyone else. But you know those powerful countries are sure not going to be held accountable for their actions committed in the past.




They are never accountable. France, not for the rape of Algeria and the murder of God know how many civilians by their president himself, not the US for helping to maim so many people and not GB for all the BS they started. Just don't forget, Saddam did not do any of that on his own. And he didn't even do it recently. That's just crap to get you to want him out of power.

Not after all the years that Saddam stayed in power. There would have been only another rule just as bad as him, even worse possibly and the same pattern would have repeated itself all over again.

Not judging by other regimes similar to his. For example Hafez al-Assad, his son came in (current president Bashar al-Assad of Syria) and is making pretty big reforms, slowly, but they're moving towards freedom. The long rule of a man like Saddam makes it easier to change. Difficult for the people to accept a new ruler.

How successful would have been the coup really, especially with Saddam's numerous bodyguards? Plus too many people I bet feared him to rise against him. i.e. the unsuccessful Shi'ite uprising during the first Gulf war. Nope. Saddam definitely taught everyone a lesson there not to try anything stupid by murdering the ones who dared to do so.

How successful was the invasion? They hype his security up too much. IT was enough to pacify a bunch of people who were scared shitless because of propaganda and torture but not enough to resist an American made coup. The only man who can escape such a fate is Castro. LOL. As for the Shi'a that was mainnly because the US failed to back them up. They didn't expect they kind of burden falling on them, that's like telling a body builder, "here this is 250lbs" and then gving him 500lbs.

That's more than I can say under Saddam's regime
Iraq under Saddam had one of the best education systems, healthcare and public services in the Arab world. That's mroe than I will say for the American neo-colony. They don't even have lights.



And I suppose I'm supposed to be grateful that "I" don't have the general characteristics of an American with my Asian face if I'm travelling abroad?




Hell if I know. All I know is that as long as you aren't white and make sure not to be fat, loud, or make stupid comments, people will either think you are local or are from some developing country.


Err....I beg to differ. Aren't you forgetting you're living in a Democrat vs. Republican America? There's two sides in this country. And really the hick word is totally unnecessary. If by any means, you can consider me one, too! Excuse me but I think you're missing out the South, too since Texas is technically part of the South. By the way, what the heck is up with people having all these negative stereotypes about the Midwest? If I was from there, I'd be pissed off. Sheesh.

There is one side that has two colors in this country. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats get the black vote and act like they're civilized in the House and Senate. I did forget the South, the Republican disease is strongest there, and it's tenticals infest the uneducated, angry white men, and rich businessmen all over America. Don't forget tho, we are lead by Emporer Bush, and his Republican House and Democratic bitches who are about as useful as the Roman senate when it comes to representing and serving the people. Most Americans are stupid, and belive the fairy tales on the side bars in their civics textbooks about that little brown girl who grew up and helped the community and how they can do it too. But that doesn't happen in America, or at least this America. As long as those parties exist, we might as well call the House and Senate the Politburo.

[Faithless]

Just because they're Asian doesn't mean they have to be included in this Asian group.

Asian-American legislators rap Democrat-only caucus (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/10501564.htm?1c)
Posted on Sun, Dec. 26, 2004

ASSOCIATED PRESS


SACRAMENTO - Two Asian lawmakers are asking to be admitted to the Legislature's Asian-Pacific Islander Caucus or be given money to start a club that will include Republican lawmakers.

Republican Assemblymen Alan Nakanishi of Lodi and Van Tran of Garden Grove said they're being unjustly excluded from the Democrat-only caucus, even though members of the vast Asian community in California have many varied political views.

"It's very partisan," Nakanishi told the Stockton Record. "They talk about equality, but then they exclude us."

Now that the state Legislature includes three Asian-American Republicans -- Nakanishi, Tran and Shirley Horton, of Bonita, whose mother is Japanese -- Nakanishi plans to ask Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez to open the caucus to Republican members or to give them money to form a Republican version.

"I think the caucus represents only 50 percent -- if that -- of the (Asian) constituency," Tran said. "It should live up to its spirit, as Speaker Nunez said, to represent the great diversity of California. As it stands right now, it does not."

Asians are the state's fastest growing ethnic group, and California is home to 4.35 million residents of Asian descent.

Asian Caucus Chairwoman Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park, said the group debated whether to include Republicans when it formed in 2001, but members ultimately decided to be Democrats-only.

"It's something we had a great deal of discussion on," Chu said. "I've gotten to the point where I think this is the best course of action."

Having Republican members would prevent the caucus from taking a stand on some issues, she said.

For example, Nakanishi opposed a bill Chu authored two years ago requiring companies to use one language when negotiating and signing contracts. Some firms had been talking to customers in Chinese, but forcing those customers to sign contracts in English, contracts that sometimes were not what had been verbally agreed on.

Nakanishi said it would increase the cost of doing business with non-English speakers.

The Assembly Democratic Caucus pays $100,000 a year to support the Asian caucus, which covers a full-time staff person, meetings and other incidental costs. Chu said if Nakanishi, Tran and Horton want to form their own caucus, they should ask GOP leadership to pay for it.

But neither Tran nor Democrat Leland Yee of San Francisco think separate Asian caucuses is the answer.

Yee said that while he wished all Asians in this country were Democrats, he knows the reality is different.

"If this caucus is going to represent all the Asians, then it is extremely important for the Republican Asians to be involved," Yee said. "There are partisan issues that enter into the (Asian) caucus. My argument is that we should work them out."

[Shuriken]

A few years ago on another Asian American Internet Web site, I had a debate with a conservative Republican. He had previously posted all of these bad things that had happened to Asians or Asian Americans under Democratic presidencies (the Japanese American internment, the war in Vietnam, etc.) and all these pro-Asian good things that had happened under Republican presidents (Nixon's opening to China, signing of internment redress, etc.). The gist of his post was that there was something inherently anti-Asian about the Democratic Party that didn't taint the Republicans.

In a lengthy response, I made some points of my own — such as that the Philippines was colonized by the U.S. under a Republican president but achieved independence peacefully under a Democratic one, and that no Republican lawmaker in Washington ever spoke out against the internment while it was going on. I tried to be as thorough as I could. Several weeks went by without any direct answer to my post. I thought that this was an implicit admission of defeat; if he had any further arguments to make against my post, he should have written them on the same thread beneath my comments. I thought I had won the day.

But soon afterwards, on another forum on the same site, he made the same anti-Democratic post that he made before. He did not take any of my comments or points into account. I think that this is a microcosm of debating with most Republicans today: even when you're right and truth is on your side, the Republican will ignore you and repeat the same factually incorrect things that he's been saying all along.

[hooligan]

A few years ago on another Asian American Internet Web site, I had a debate with a conservative Republican. He had previously posted all of these bad things that had happened to Asians or Asian Americans under Democratic presidencies (the Japanese American internment, the war in Vietnam, etc.) and all these pro-Asian good things that had happened under Republican presidents (Nixon's opening to China, signing of internment redress, etc.). The gist of his post was that there was something inherently anti-Asian about the Democratic Party that didn't taint the Republicans.

In a lengthy response, I made some points of my own — such as that the Philippines was colonized by the U.S. under a Republican president but achieved independence peacefully under a Democratic one, and that no Republican lawmaker in Washington ever spoke out against the internment while it was going on. I tried to be as thorough as I could. Several weeks went by without any direct answer to my post. I thought that this was an implicit admission of defeat; if he had any further arguments to make against my post, he should have written them on the same thread beneath my comments. I thought I had won the day.

But soon afterwards, on another forum on the same site, he made the same anti-Democratic post that he made before. He did not take any of my comments or points into account. I think that this is a microcosm of debating with most Republicans today: even when you're right and truth is on your side, the Republican will ignore you and repeat the same factually incorrect things that he's been saying all along.

It's because most liberals live in a fact-based reality and conservatives nowdays seem to exist in one of those weird fox news commentaries. pfft fox.

[deez nuts]

A few years ago on another Asian American Internet Web site, I had a debate with a conservative Republican. He had previously posted all of these bad things that had happened to Asians or Asian Americans under Democratic presidencies (the Japanese American internment, the war in Vietnam, etc.) and all these pro-Asian good things that had happened under Republican presidents (Nixon's opening to China, signing of internment redress, etc.). The gist of his post was that there was something inherently anti-Asian about the Democratic Party that didn't taint the Republicans.

In a lengthy response, I made some points of my own — such as that the Philippines was colonized by the U.S. under a Republican president but achieved independence peacefully under a Democratic one, and that no Republican lawmaker in Washington ever spoke out against the internment while it was going on. I tried to be as thorough as I could. Several weeks went by without any direct answer to my post. I thought that this was an implicit admission of defeat; if he had any further arguments to make against my post, he should have written them on the same thread beneath my comments. I thought I had won the day.

But soon afterwards, on another forum on the same site, he made the same anti-Democratic post that he made before. He did not take any of my comments or points into account. I think that this is a microcosm of debating with most Republicans today: even when you're right and truth is on your side, the Republican will ignore you and repeat the same factually incorrect things that he's been saying all along.


maybe he/she didn't care about what you had to say because you're not asian. it happens.

[Mr.Lum]

^burn.

[kimpossible]

Several weeks went by without any direct answer to my post. I thought that this was an implicit admission of defeat; if he had any further arguments to make against my post, he should have written them on the same thread beneath my comments. I thought I had won the day.


I don't even know if it's possible to 'win' an argument on the internet but I wouldn't interpret lack of response as defeat.

[kpih]

I don't even know if it's possible to 'win' an argument on the internet but I wouldn't interpret lack of response as defeat.

Sometimes it is simply time to disengage. If the exchanges bear no prospect of producing any discussions of value then what is the point?

Or may be my intellectual capacity is simply far inferior to some other supreme beings...

[nola]

maybe he/she didn't care about what you had to say because you're not asian. it happens.How did you figure that out?

[Mr.Lum]

I had forgotten all about this thread...

[Faithless]

And then there's David Chu (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/chu_bio.html) -- Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness -- who has the unfortunate distinction of having a name ready for bad puns, and setting himself up for them at that. :frown:

Veterans Find Some Things Hard To Chu (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/segel/2005/segel021505.htm)
February 15, 2005
by Thomas D. Segel

Anyone wishing to stir up the anger of veterans and members of the retired military community need only mention the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu. From that point onward, outrage will take the place of polite conversation.

What causes all this veteran anger? According to Colonel Harry Riley, U S Army (Ret) it is because “Mr. Chu, without rational justification, makes broad and sweeping statements identifying military retiree benefits as the enemy of our active force.”

Chu has made comments like “Benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to afford financial incentives for today’s military,” He has continued on that theme saying,
“Congress has gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits.” His claim is the benefits are now a heavy burden. “They are starting to crowd out two things: First, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq or Afghanistan. Second, they are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, ten 15 years from now.”

Colonel Riley muses, “I wonder if Mr. Chu ever considered how ‘hard’ it was at Normandy, in the jungles of the South Pacific, or the freezing battlefields of Korea as he sits in his office and denigrates these old warriors seeking benefits they earned?’

Some readers may not be familiar with the workings of Dr. David S. C. Chu. or his role within the Department of Defense (DoD). He is a product of the Ivy League, earning his Doctorate in Economics from Yale in 1972. He was commissioned and served two years in the Army, including a tour of duty with the Office of the Comptroller, Headquarters, and 1st Logistical Command, in Vietnam. From that point on he has been in and out of government, accruing more than 18 years of federal service. He was named to his current position on June 1, 2001.

Since taking his DoD post, David Chu has served as the designated “attack dog” for the administration. He has testified before Congress, given speeches and written articles for the media on numerous occasions. If the topic relates to veterans issues, retired military personnel or military dependents benefits his approach has repeatedly been negative. In fact, some of his public comments have actually displayed distain for those who, in the past, served their country with honor. He has been particularly vicious in arguing against expenditures for veteran and retiree health care. At the same time it should be noted he will receive a federal pension and medical benefits when he retires from federal service. Some say these are even more generous benefits than are awarded to military retirees.

Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF (Ret) has some serious observations about Dr. Chu’s conduct. He says, “The point Dr. Chu misses is that honoring the solemn obligations of our nation to veterans makes a direct contribution to national security even if he chooses to ignore the moral strictures that bind us to promises. Having served more than 36 years on active duty and with 6 sons who have served or are serving in the armed forces, I can testify that every failure to honor those obligations diminishes the value of a military career to those who are serving and those who might serve in the future. If through misguided parsimony we are no longer able to attract the right people, we can’t provide for the security of the nation.”

Those unfamiliar with the workings of Washington might feel Chu was just a loose cannon running off at the mouth. This is anything but the case. The Under Secretary of Defense has only two bosses. He answers directly to the Secretary of Defense and by extension to the President. This means that anything he places in testimony, writes in press releases or utters by mouth has been completely staffed and awarded official blessing. At the same time, Chu understands by not attributing his remarks to any other individual he gives the senior leadership a degree of deniability, should the heat build up to an unbearable degree.

Another Air Force retiree agrees with that observation. Brigadier General Robert Clements writes from his California home, “Mr. Chu’s remarks appearing in the Associated Press and in papers all over the country didn’t happen by accident. Chu, who has been on the Washington scene as a bureaucrat since the Carter administration, knows through years of experience and spouting off the same rhetoric, that traditionally military retirees, up until recent times, were very weak in demanding and protecting those benefits they were promised and given by law. He also knows from previous experience, they are very slow to band together in protecting those benefits. He is the willing lip-syncher for the Secretary of Defense and the President. Both the President and the Secretary of Defense know this and use him as a valuable tool.”

Why attack veterans and military retirees? The answer can be found in knowing how Washington operates. Congress must appropriate all monies and decide who and what are granted funds. Senators and Representatives believe their primary function is getting reelected, and that process starts the day members take their first oath of office. They win reelection by buying votes with tax dollars. Those dollars are dispensed to constituencies, which pledge to help keep the incumbent in office.

Thus, money flows freely to farmers, teacher groups, unions, minority groups, the poor, senior citizens, etc., etc. It should be noted however, that most money flows in the direction of those who yell the loudest. Until very recent times veterans and military retirees have not had a very loud voice in the battle for tax dollars. In fact, they have been reluctant to speak out in their own interest. Many remain quiet, even today, even though their only desire is to receive those things promised to them by their own government.

This brings us back to Dr. David Chu. He has been assigned the task of framing all who served in uniform as whining, greedy individuals who feel the government owes them ever-increasing bounty. He has even hinted at their disloyalty, by demanding tax dollars be spent on their personal needs, while at the same time denying the needs of those on active duty.

Historically the end game of DoD is to delay, deny, or cast doubt on any and all veteran or retiree claims. According to Charles Clark, Director of Communications for the National Association of Atomic Veterans, Chu was party to the work of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and a group titled Nuclear Test Personnel Review. Though charged with determining which veterans had been exposed to radiation and honoring their claims for treatment, the end result has been quite different.

“My claim has been batted around since 1995”, reports Clark. “I still await the truth. Others and I have watched Chu and Dennis Schaeffer of the Nuclear Test Group for a long time, wondering if our government is attempting to cover up this type of problem. Imagine 450,000 exposed veterans and only 50 claims decided. What a waste of tax payer monies.”

As Congress was debating the issue of resending a 100 plus year rule that denied disabled military retirees disability compensation without a dollar per dollar offset from their military pension, Chu often overestimated the cost of such legislation. Again he claimed it would drain DoD resources.

When the Class Act Group, led by Medal of Honor recipient Colonel “Bud” Day was fighting for the earned medical care promised military retirees, all the voices of the Department of Defense, including David Chu, first denied there was any such promise made to service personnel and then claimed the cost drained funding from active duty forces.

Cries of funding drain still continue with Chu lamenting the cost of the military retiree Medicare supplement Tricare for Life.

Says Gary Garavaglia, a World War II and Korean War veteran and military retiree, “We find Dr. Chu’s comments to be unconscionable. After surviving WWWII and Korea my wife and I have been forced to pay for our healthcare until Tricare For Life was finally passed. Now we need the rest of the promises that were made and not kept.”

What he is referring to is a comment made in a pre-inaugural address, January 19, 2001 by President-elect George W. Bush. He said “In order to make sure that morale is high with those who wear the uniform today, we must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the past…We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.”

It should be noted that David Chu has also directed his attacks at support for Veterans Administration care. Retired Navy Chief Finis McComas lives in Grayville, Illinois. “Were Dr. Chu to come to this area he would see long lines at the Evansville VA Clinic. I can hardly stand on my feet. The other day I went to the clinic. It was crammed and every chair was taken. There was no place to sit. I had to leave and get my local doctor to take care of the problem.”

Today we have hundreds of new wounded and disabled veterans returning from war. They are going to these same clinics and VA hospitals. They too are standing in long lines, if able to stand. These warriors, who just months ago were championed by Chu and the Administration have now joined the ranks of those who are among the veterans, which ‘drain’ DoD funding.

Retired Army Sergeant First Class Francis Sementilli of Sebring , Florida along with Master Sergeant David Estrovitz, USMC (Ret) of St George, Utah; Senior Master Sergeant Jim Berrey, USAF (Ret) of Panama city, Florida, Master Sergeant Floyd M. Baird, USAF (Ret) of Flint, Michigan and Lieutenant Colonel Charles Revie, USA (Ret) of Las Cruces, New Mexico are among more than 20,000 veterans and retirees who have written to Congress and the President in recent days. Many express their rage at the utterings of Dr. David Chu. All express their pain about the denial of promised benefits. To date they have received few replies from Washington.

Lieutenant Colonel Revie closes most of his correspondence with a quote from the father of our country, General George Washington. “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their Nation.”

[Jung Rhee]

I am new here, but I want to say that I am a liberal democrat. How many Asian Republicans are in here?

[hooligan]

I am new here, but I want to say that I am a liberal democrat. How many Asian Republicans are in here?

Hey, I have a Asian Republican joke...

How many Asian Republicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

One, but the rest blame Clinton.

[Jung Rhee]

Hey, I have a Asian Republican joke...

How many Asian Republicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

One, but the rest blame Clinton.

Hooligan,

:biggrin: hehe

I don't care if they are Asians or Koreans or my cousins, as long as they are right wingers, they won't get my vote... at all. :wink:

[Arex]

^--- Good man!

RX

[Faithless]

Oh, man! Talk about this being a small world.

A few years ago, a friend's father-in-law was dating this Chinese American woman from Texas. This California Democrat must have been smitten with this long time public school educator named Martha.

Low and behold if this article isn't mentioning the same dahn woman! :eek:

Gay marriage issue a minefield for Houston Republican (http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/032905kvueGaymarriage-eh.1869f1cc4.html)

10:40 AM CST on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 * By Doug Miller / KHOU-TV *

Texas lawmakers are expected to begin debate this week on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And that's throwing Houston Representative Martha Wong into a political minefield.

Back in her home district, gay activists have been blockwalking for a cause dear to their hearts. And they're talking to neighbors about their state representative.

Wong could be the gay marriage swing vote on the State Affairs Committee.

So the activists are burning up shoe leather to get the message out to sympathetic voters.

"These people understand how destructive it is to have an anti-gay marriage amendment being discussed for the next six months," said Maria Gonzalez, president of the Houston Gay-Lesbian Political Caucus.

Representative Wong has twice convinced voters to send her to the state legislature in a district Republicans redrew to defeat a Democrat. But now, she faces a dilemma over gay marriage.

For Wong, this is a classic no-win situation. Her district is mostly Republican, but it includes the Montrose area -- the heart of Houston's politically active gay community. No matter how Wong votes in Austin, she's going to tick off a lot of her voters here in Houston.

"But, more importantly, I think some of her more moderate Republicans take a dim view of government regulating certain types of privacy issues," said 11 News political analyst Bob Stein. "We've seen this in the Schiavo affair and it may very well be that this may come back to haunt her."

Wong told us by phone she hasn't decided how to vote on the gay marriage amendment. She wouldn't talk to us on camera because she says she's trying to keep a low profile on this issue.

But gay activists won't let her.

They say they've printed up 5,000 door hangers, which they're circulating throughout Wong's district. They're targeting homes that they've previously identified as sympathetic to gay causes.

[Faithless]

Hi, can I sell you the American dream speech?

"In America everyone can own a big mall like this if you have a good idea and if you're willing to work hard and pursue the American dream.

"And no one proves that more everyday than the Asian-American community all over this country."
...
Asian Americans, particularly immigrants, should feel a natural tie to the Republican Party.

(You god-damned, hyphenated Americans, you! -- My sarcasm.)

Sounds like the republican party has done its homework on the Vietnamese American community. The so-called first generation, became republicans, supposedly. For the purpose of aligning with a republican party that supposedly hates communism.

But tthe second generation have been more Democrats.

GOP chairman courts Asian Americans (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002493395_republican14m.html)

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - Page updated at 12:27 AM

By David Postman * Seattle Times chief political reporter

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, launched his party's latest minority-recruitment drive in the Great Wall Mall in Kent yesterday, telling a small group of Asian Americans that they, and the mall, best represent the American dream promoted by President Bush.

It was Mehlman's first outreach effort with Asian Americans since he took over the party earlier this year.

"America is a country, as everyone here knows and lives every single day, where your aspirations matter more than your origins," Mehlman told about 75 people in the Imperial Garden Seafood Restaurant. "In America everyone can own a big mall like this if you have a good idea and if you're willing to work hard and pursue the American dream.

"And no one proves that more everyday than the Asian-American community all over this country."

Today, Mehlman travels to Portland for a similar event with Hispanic business leaders as he tries to broaden the party's ties with minorities.

His message yesterday was that Asian Americans, particularly immigrants, should feel a natural tie to the Republican Party. Mehlman talked about the roots of the party led by President Lincoln, its historical ties to the end of slavery and more-contemporary efforts by the party to fight communism.

Mehlman said in an interview that President Bush's foreign and domestic agendas should be attractive to all minority groups "who recognize the importance of sharing the American dream with people who didn't have it before."

Questions from the group on hand yesterday, though, showed some of the difficulties in selling that agenda.

Pham Huy Sanh, who heads a state group of former South Vietnamese military veterans, grilled Mehlman on the administration's Vietnam policy. He was particularly bothered by a potential official visit by Bush to Vietnam next year, and asked whether that was a sign of the administration shifting "toward the Communist Vietnam."

Mehlman said that Bush believes that if he can engage Vietnam "and at the same time speak truth to power ... we can make sure Vietnam is a free nation."

Ted Choi Tam, a veteran Republican activist, watched the exchange and said, "Almost everyone in here was a refugee at one point. The mother country is very important to us."

Mehlman said Bush would propose immigration changes that would "honor our heritage as immigrants" and, at the same time, "make sure the laws are enforced so all Americans are protected."

"In a world of 9/11 terrorists, if you're not controlling who comes to this country we're not safe," he told the group. "And we also need to make sure our system is compassionate, which is why this president believes there are going to be important jobs that Americans don't want, and for those jobs we ought to welcome people to take them, provided we know that the folks taking those jobs are not terrorists or drug dealers."

Democratic Party state Chairman Paul Berendt said he thinks Mehlman's trip is an attempt to deflect from the administration's problems in New Orleans.

"They are fanning out across the country having these so-called outreach meetings because they know they have suffered a giant PR disaster with the way they have handled the minority community in New Orleans," Berendt said.

Choi said he has been watching Republican outreach efforts since at least 1984. He said he thinks progress is being made, particularly with Bush's appointments of Asian Americans in his administration, including two Cabinet secretaries.

Christine Lee gave Mehlman a tour of the mall she owns with her husband. She considers herself an independent, voting for Republicans and Democrats in recent elections. She said any party will have to combat a cultural tradition that makes Asian Americans new to this country reluctant to get involved.

"Asians normally are very quiet and keep to themselves," she said.

She and her husband hold frequent civic events at the mall and in the Imperial Garden, which they also own, to encourage more involvement.

David Postman: 360-943-9882 or dpostman@seattletimes.com

[hooligan]

Sold on lies and myths. Did wong vote up or down?

[Faithless]

Sold on lies and myths. Did wong vote up or down?
Looks like she abstained.

House OKs proposal to ban gay marriage (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3152946)

April 26, 2005, 3:39PM * By CLAY ROBISON * Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

The measure to amend constitution now goes to Senate
After often-impassioned debate, the amendment was approved 101-29, winning one more vote than the 100 necessary for approval of a constitutional amendment. Speaker Tom Craddick, who rarely votes, cast a ballot for the proposal, and eight other House members abstained.
...
Republican Joe Nixon was absent, and Republican Martha Wong � whose Houston district includes heavily gay Montrose � and Democrat Sylvester Turner abstained.

[hooligan]

Easy way out, gotta stand for something.

[achtungbaby]

You mean there are still Asians registered as Republicans in America?!?

I thought we killed them all...

[yoMAMA]

You mean there are still Asians registered as Republicans in America?!?

I thought we killed them all...

it's weird...

but i'm leaning more and more towards the republican side....

[hooligan]

You mean there are still Asians registered as Republicans in America?!?

I thought we killed them all...

And you know what? We ate them! They taste like chickenhawk!

[Flow to Live]

damn my whole family are bush loving republican asians except me.

[theoutsider]

Republican Asians = ignorant.

Just like Republicans in general. 'Tis a pity.

[snailpoo]

Republican Asians = ignorant.

Just like Republicans in general. 'Tis a pity.

Any particular reason why, or is this more empty partisan rhetoric?