P&G Drops Imus

Its the second Cypress. Cheney does the same thing. Few would assert Cheney is stupid though.

These people act this way not because they are stupid but because they think their supporters are.
 
IHG:

Rice and Cheney are educated. They have formal book-knowledge.

But, they're still idiots. Look at iraq. They thought we would be greeted with flowers and parades. That a jeffersonian democracy would spring out of thin air.

My formal education is less than Rice's. But, I knew those dreams were baloney.
 
I guarantee you, that the current situation - civil war, half a trillion $$$ down the tube, and hundreds of thousand dead - is NOT what cheney anticipated.

Regardless of what he thought in 1991, Cheney had been listening to the Iraqi "exiles". The INC. Most of whom lived in London, and hadn't lived in iraq in decades. Cheney believed the rosy stories they were telling him.

Even a poor, public school boy like me, knew the INC had their own agenda, and ulterior motives to lie to us, and get us to invade.
 
But did you predict things would be this bad either. I know many of us didn't think it was going to be good but I doubt many thought it would be this bad.
 
IHG: I strongly suspected our occupation wouldn't be welcome, and that it would be resisted. I didn't think it would be this bad.

But, I was far closer to being right, than Cheney. And it's not even because I'm brilliant. It's because I'm smart enough to listen to foreign policy and academic experts on the middle east.

Cheney listed to the INC. What an idiot! ;)
 
I wish I could agree with you Cypress. I can forgive stupidity. No I think Cheney was completing a plan set from before and would do anything possible to get it moving.

In the buildup to war what alarmed me so much about it was the push for war at all costs.
 
I believe that they had, and have, a plan to spread Democracy and believe it will solve all the world's problems. I believe that they think that it is worth any cost.
 
Cypress said:
Condi Rice is either NOT intelligent, or she's a liar.

Anyone who continues to think the Iraq war was a great idea is a fool. Or worse, a congenital liar.

Either one is not flattering to Rice.

What are her significant accomplishments in government? I can't think of one. Virtually everything around her and her policies is a disaster.
Click to expand...

condi is a liar. She has gotten more polished, you used to be able to listen and watch her and spot the lies, but no more.
 
Damocles said:
I believe that they had, and have, a plan to spread Democracy and believe it will solve all the world's problems. I believe that they think that it is worth any cost.
Click to expand...
Any such plan is inherently immoral, IMHO. It literally doesn't matter whether the ideology to be spread is "democracy" or "fascism" or "capitalism" or "communism": if you think it's a universal panacea and should be forced on people for their own good then you're fucked. Or should be.

That's an indeterminate, editorial "you," not a personal "you", just to be clear. :)
 
Let's be clear - and honest - about this.

Bush has no intention to spread "democracy". This is an insidious lie that we need to be honest enough with ourselves, to recognize.

Bush want to spread pro-american governments. Proxy states, really. If "democracy" broke out in Pakistan or Sauid Arabia today, a theocratic, anti-american islamic regime would win the elections.

Without the occupation of Iraq by 150k american troops, and a pipeline of money being dumped in the iraqi government -- and the economic and political leverage that gives us -- Iraq would ultimately vote for and become an islamic state. Which would not at all be "pro-american".

Bush barely recognizes the sovereign legitimacy of the democratically elected Venezuelan government. In 2001, the Bushies were literally high-fiving and back-slapping each other when a nominally pro-american, military coup temporarily deposed the Chavez government.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Let's be clear - and honest - about this.

Bush has no intention to spread "democracy". This is an insidious lie that we need to be honest enough with ourselves, to recognize.

Bush want to spread pro-american governments. Proxy states, really. If "democracy" broke out in Pakistan or Sauid Arabia today, a theocratic, anti-american islamic regime would win the elections.

Without the occupation of Iraq by 150k american troops, and a pipeline of money being dumped in the iraqi government -- and the economic and political leverage that gives us -- Iraq would ultimately vote for and become an islamic state. Which would not at all be "pro-american".

Bush barely recognizes the sovereign legitimacy of the democratically elected Venezuelan government. In 2001, the Bushies were literally high-fiving and back-slapping each other when a nominally pro-american, military coup temporarily deposed the Chavez government.
Click to expand...



Yep and how did Bush respond to the democratically elected govt of Lebanon ?
 
Any such plan is inherently immoral, IMHO. It literally doesn't matter whether the ideology to be spread is "democracy" or "fascism" or "capitalism" or "communism": if you think it's a universal panacea and should be forced on people for their own good then you're fucked. Or should be.

That's an indeterminate, editorial "you," not a personal "you", just to be clear.

I wouldn't use such universal condemning language. What about slavery or genocide?
 
IHateGovernment said:
Any such plan is inherently immoral, IMHO. It literally doesn't matter whether the ideology to be spread is "democracy" or "fascism" or "capitalism" or "communism": if you think it's a universal panacea and should be forced on people for their own good then you're fucked. Or should be.

That's an indeterminate, editorial "you," not a personal "you", just to be clear.

I wouldn't use such universal condemning language. What about slavery or genocide?
Click to expand...
There is a difference, I think, between universally condemning a specific action or custom, on the one hand, and advocating a complete system of beliefs and institutions as a one-size-fits-all solution for all cultures, on the other.

Eventually, I do think we'll have a more homogeneous world society and a single government. That day is a long ways off, though, and it won't necessarily be a good thing on all counts.
 
However what if the imposition of a government is a secondary concern? If we invade a country who's government is instituting genocide is it not appropriate to disband that government and institute a representative one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top