We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Xander77
1st Level
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Xander77 »

clef at [unixtime wrote:1156094456[/unixtime]]Most of the writers and speakers I respect the most share certain characteristics in terms of the style which they use to communicate with others. They are generally extremely persistent. They will repeat themselves. Over and over if need be. They will answer any questions, challenge any argument. They will try to say thing differently and try to give more examples or try to provide more details or more resources for someone inclined to look it up
Maybe it's not my destiny to be a writer, then. I hate repeating myself. Fuck, I don't repeat myself for friends.

"Sasha, Moshe wants to heart that funny impression you did earlier."

"You heard it, you can repeat it to him".

One of the reasons I hate participating in long mulit-page discussions. You force opponents to agree to your basic points, only to be forced to repeat the same conversation a few pages latter. Nothing advances. Round and round the wheel goes. However, in conversations that take less than 20 pages, one would still assume that the posters read through the conversation before replying.

Hence, I started with “the other side of the argument goes…”
And you blame me for being "indirect"? When I speak my mind, I speak my mind. I don't pull that Noam Chomsky crap (one of his favorite tricks - "if I were an uneducated anti-semite Arab, I would think the following"), I don't go "if I accept the argument, which I won't and will talk about how I won't for several paragraphs, but let's not argue about that" (Hezbollah being a terrorist organization)...

I'm direct, if a little obscure.

Either you believe that what you said actually has contradicted it (that I am being deliberately obtuse or have forgotten). And you believe anyone and everyone else will find it so obviously true that you have contradicted what I have said that you don’t need to repeat it. In that case you can keep your peace and say nothing.
Or, you know, I believe I've made my point on the topic, therefore the next time it's brought it should be in an attempt to disprove my point, or not at all. Sheer laziness plays it's part, mind.

In politics we obsess far too much over what people “say” and not enough about what people “do”.
It's a thing. Comes from ignoring a guy that spent his time talking about a final solution.

It seems to me that the only difference would be that if you continued to give the money less people starve and die but regardless acts of terrorism continue as normal.
Seeing how you brought up the always popular "if you treated them better, they wouldn't become terrorists" theory just a few pages ago... ?
power_word_wedgie
Master
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by power_word_wedgie »

clef at [unixtime wrote:1156023867[/unixtime]]
Hooray! Can we now talk about how badly this situation sucks for all of us? I really don’t like it when something that is controversial in the rest of the world gets only one sided coverage in the US. That’s a very bad thing.


Well this one is even simpler. It's controversial to the rest of the world because the rest of the world is made up of individual nations. Getting individual nations to agree on anything is more of the exception than the norm. Thus, is it really surprising that it is controversial "with the rest of the world" and not among one nation such as the US?
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

Well, I quoted the two Democrats that hold the most political clout in the party as it stands. Hillary Clinton has the inside track to the Democratic nomination for president and Johy Kerry is the last party nomination for presient.

According to to who? Kerry was the pastnomination, and Clinton has never sought the nomination. Neither holds positions of senority or party positions, either:

Chairman of the Democratic Party
Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Bill Richardson... Heck, even the senior Senator from New York is on the list. And that isn't Hillary.

Stop reading Conservative tripe and pay attention to the world. Argh.

Oh, and Feinstein, my Senator. Also not a senior in the Party, and conservative in the party - she neither mentions shelling nor Hizbollah defending itself. Only the raids did she denounce, and then she called for Diplomacy (you know, not fighting?) - which is contrary to what our administration did.

-Crissa
power_word_wedgie
Master
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by power_word_wedgie »

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein are spewing political conservate tripe. (Remember, I'm linking their own press release sites ... Oh, by the way, when did being the New Mexico governor hold a high post in the Democratic party ...) Okay ...

And, just to pull up one of the people you listed as political leadership for the Democratic party, let's do Sen. Harry Reid:

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CALLS ON IRAQ PRIME MINISTER TO CLARIFY VIEWS ON HEZBOLLAH TERRORISM IN ADVANCE OF ADDRESS TO CONGRESS

The Senate Democratic Leadership today demanded Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki clarify his position with regard to Hezbollah’s aggression against Israel. Published reports suggest that the new Prime Minister has condemned Israel, yet failed to denounce Hezbollah’s role in perpetuating the current crisis in Lebanon and Israel.

In a letter sent to the Iraqi leader, the Senators expressed their deep concern:


“Your statements are very troubling. Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.”


With America making such great sacrifices to attempt to create a just and free Iraq, the Democratic Leaders called on the Iraqi leader to clarify his position on the Hezbollah terrorist organization.


“As you know, the American people have given so much in the name of fighting global terror and helping build a better future for the people of Iraq. In that effort, over 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, over 18,000 have been wounded, and over $300 billion in taxpayer funds have been expended. Americans deserve to know whether Iraq is an ally in these fights.”


REID: HEZBOLLAH MUST BE CONDEMNED

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement condemning Hezbollah’s attacks inside Israel.
“Today’s attacks by Hezbollah in Israeli territory were disgraceful and unwarranted acts of violence by a terrorist organization. Hezbollah must release the captured Israeli soldiers immediately. Hezbollah must be dismantled, and all nations have an obligation to cease any and all assistance to this terrorist organization. Israel has a right to live in peace and security, and the United States will stand by our ally in this difficult time.”


Thus, once again: Israel supported for the curret crisis, Hezbollah condemned. Note that these links aren't from any conservative thinktank: they're from the Senator's own press release site.

Let's take it one step further: using their own websites, I've been able to link 4 Democrats to:

1) Supporting Israel and condemning Hezbollah (a terrorist group, in their own word) to the current crisis.

2) Not condemning the Israeli shelling. Thus at best it's showing apathy to it; at worst it shows support of it.

Can you show any Democratic Senator or Representative using their own press release site condemning the shelling?
power_word_wedgie
Master
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by power_word_wedgie »

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1156117245[/unixtime]]
Oh, and Feinstein, my Senator. Also not a senior in the Party, and conservative in the party - she neither mentions shelling nor Hizbollah defending itself. Only the raids did she denounce, and then she called for Diplomacy (you know, not fighting?) - which is contrary to what our administration did.

-Crissa


The below is from her site. Follow the link if you don' believe me. And you're right, she does mention Israeli shelling at all. That's the point. If she really had serious reservation with the Israeli shelling, she would have made a press release to note her criticism. She didn't. Thus either (a) she apathetic to the shelling or (b) supports it. That's the reason why "you're not hearing anything about it."

Also note that Feinstein is saying that Hamas and Hezbollah are launching a "campaign" that threatens to destabilize the Middle East and trigger a wider conflict. She's not saying that Israel is doing so, and in fact notes that Israel is "has the right and obligation to defend itself". And this statement is being said right in the midst of the conflict.

Statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein
On the Violence in the Middle East


Emphasis Mine wrote:By initiating a campaign to kidnap Israeli soldiers and launch rocket attacks inside Israel , Hamas and Hezbollah, with assistance from Syria and Iran , threaten to destabilize the Middle East and trigger a wider conflict. Like any country, Israel has the right and the obligation to defend its citizens. The latest round of violence only underscores the need for high-level and sustained American diplomacy that has been sorely lacking.

clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

It's a thing. Comes from ignoring a guy that spent his time talking about a final solution.


I am very well aware where it comes from. But it is nevertheless irrational in this case. There are times when words do need to spur you to action but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Imminence is a good place. Otherwise you get things like war in Iraq. Look, if there is a guy on the street with nothing but a pile of rocks shouting that he intends to destroy your government, do you have a right to do whatever you want to him just because he said that? Relative power has to come into the picture there too. Their capacity to actually carry out their threats does matter a lot in evaluating a threat. You should take all words seriously as warnings of what might occur. Ignoring them entirely can be seen as a crime in hindsight. But you can’t act on just anything that people say otherwise you’d have to lock up half the people in the world.

Seeing how you brought up the always popular "if you treated them better, they wouldn't become terrorists" theory just a few pages ago... ?


Honestly there’s a lot more truth in that line of reasoning than you are willing to give credit for. In fact pretty much the whole world believes it or at least says that they believe it. Even the US government constantly says bringing peace and democracy and economic advancement to other nations is a means of deterring terrorism. Many analysts have written time and again that there is a direct corollary between the chaos created in Iraq and the number of recruits insurgent organizations are gaining. The lack of order in Afghanistan is considered to be a big component of how Al Qaeda came to power. Most people don think this is that controversial.

In the short term, no, there’s not going to be an immediate correlation between any particular action that brings greater peace and prosperity and the number of terrorist acts you will receive. But over the long term? I believe it does. But then you say “But we left alone for six years and now look…” or something along those lines. But really what is six years? If I am a particular person that hates you because you killed my family or something I’m not likely to change my opinion within six years or sixty years. So how long for a population to change it’s overriding perspective? Over a few generations, yes I think opinions do start to change. People who can’t afford to ever give up their hate die of old age. Overall the average person primarily just wants to find their own opportunities for happiness. They don’t want to risk being blown up in missile attacks or forced to flee their homes and they don’t want their children to be sent off to war. Help to foster an environment where these ordinary people have more power and influence over the institutions within their society and yes I believe violence will decline. I believe terrorism will decline. But not if you are creating a situation where the average person in the society has nothing to gain and no prospects and no hope for happiness. Then terrorism won’t decline, people who are desperate and see no other prospect for peace in this life will put their faith in the afterlife and fight against something they consider evil knowing full well that they’ll die hoping to be rewarded in the hereafter.

Obviously, you can do other things besides "treat them better" that will help as well and might speed up the process. One very good idea would be to arrest and try openly in a non-biased court the people who commit or conspire to commit terrorists acts. That will reduce the number of people who hate you who immediately have the power to cause you harm while at the same time spreading truth to the people.

I don't pull that Noam Chomsky crap (one of his favorite tricks - "if I were an uneducated anti-semite Arab, I would think the following"),


I’ve read some Chomsky but not a whole lot but so far I have not encountered him making an argument of this style….

One of the biggest weaknesses in the modern discourse I feel stems from the idea that you have to pick a point of view and stick with it come hell or high water. All facts and ideas you present to the reader must be centralized around pounding home your particular perspective. If you present contradictory evidence even as a hypothetical or just to ensure that everyone is working from the same page you are accused of being noncommittal. God forbid if you actually change your mind about a point no matter how subtle or tangential to your main point. You’ll be labeled a “Flip-Flop” or “Wishy-washy”.

It’s frankly a little terrifying to me how everyone is being trained to be liar in their writing. Present only that subset of the big picture as which completely supports your assertions and nothing more. That’s lies of omission.

But anyway since it is so very important for you to have clear distinct statements of what I currently believe I’ll spell it all out for you and everyone else on this thread and be done with it:

Israel Good Guys or Bad Guys / Hezbollah Good Guys or Bad Guys/ Palestinians … etc.
Irrelevant question. I’ll let historians decide 50 or 100 years from now decide which side should be considered the good guys. I know, however, that as soon as you say “You guys are the bad guys” and then try to share some points with them, they’ve already stopped listening to you so you are wasting your time. I’d like the level of communication to be raised above the Saturday morning cartoon series level so I’m not going to make statements about that.

Israel’s Goals
I don’t understand them. I don’t follow the idea that their goal is war without end or genocide. I think you need more evidence than is available to show any such point. Individuals might hold those goals, but the bulk of the people within any nation do not. And governments are answerable to the people at least to some extent. Thus I think that I accept the often repeated position that Israel just wants to be left alone in peace. However, I think that their actions are exactly the wrong ones to obtain those goals. Hence, I don’t understand them. Perhaps when we have more historical records we can understand the motivations of the current leadership better. For now it’s rather mysterious.

Israel’s Fight For Its Very Survival
If the idea has any merit at all it must be from taking a very very long and broad view of the conflict of the Middle East. Israel could very well threaten to destroy the world if they ever felt their existence was really and truly at immediate risk. The idea that rockets and kidnappings from Lebanon could destroy Israel is just a nonstarter. I suspect this line is often just invoked as a tactic to justify any action that Israel should like to make. Much like the US invoked first the threat of England, then Native Americans, then Soviet’s, then Communists/Socialists, then Third World Countries, then “Liberals”, and now Terrorism. All of these things were called “threats to our very existence” in their day. Some of them were threats but to a much lesser extent then the rhetoric would have us believe and usually not threats to the populace but threats to the institutions that hold the real power. Countries do this all the time. But it always constitutes lying to their people.

Israel’s Strategy
Pretty Bad. In Palestinian Territories they’ve built up support for Hamas and in Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world they’ve helped to create support for Hezbollah. And overall they’ve created an atmosphere where more aggression against them is likely. Israel’s strategy wasn’t nearly brutal enough to invoke any kind of change through wiping out their enemies nor passive enough to produce international sentiment in favor of Israel and encourage meaningful intervention in that way. The war in Lebanon was particularly hasty, poorly planned, and unjust. Yes, I think doing nothing would have been a better strategy, though negotiations would have been a better strategy still.

Hamas’s Goals / Hezbollah’s Goals
Clearly power is one of them. Their rhetoric aside everything they’ve done has proven to be manipulative in such a manner as to gain further influence amongst their people. Again, I can’t say what their long term goals really are right now, just as I don’t know Israel’s. I think it probably has something to do with creating more opportunities for their people in part. Taking them on the basis of their respective charters they want to destroy Israel. But anyone sane amongst them must know that that is never going to happen unless the rest of the world just falls asleep or something. Modern rhetoric in Hezbollah at least tends to support their more realistic perspective.

Arab’s Fight For Their Very Survival
Just the same power grabbing nonsense as on the other side. However, rhetoric aside, I think there is some very real truth to the depiction of the plight of the people in the Palestinian territories.

Hezbollah’s strategy
It’s working. They’re gaining more power.

Israel’s Complicity in the Plight of the Palestinian People
They aren’t the only cause but they are a substantive cause if only because they really do have the capacity to prevent a lot of the deaths right now just by changing certain economic policies.

Should Israel Withdraw Monetary Support From the Palestinians/ Do they have a right to do so
They do have a right to do so. They should not do so because continuing to support them would have a better outcome.

Should Other Nations have Withdrawn Monetary Support for the Palestinians
I don't think they are morally justified in doing so. If you're going to say you support democracy you have to walk the walk...

The Role of the UN
It is almost nonexistent. It really ought to be more substantive. Israel and the Arab Nations and the US all should really act through the UN whenever possible so as to build the institution’s credibility in the world. If we are to work toward long term solutions they should be founded on having a UN capable of serving as an interstate guardian of the rule of law.

UN Anti-Israel Bias:
I don’t believe it is as bad as its critics would have you believe. Israel’s power in a very significant area of the world makes it the automatic target of more world wide interest. Also I really think the US had made Israel a big part of it’s agenda and the UN although more independent now is significantly influenced by the US. And really I think the argument that “the guy over there is being a bigger jerk than I am, why aren’t you yelling at him?” is no kind of an argument for your right to be a jerk.

Israel’s Right To Exist
Honestly I think Hezbollah’s current rhetoric is pretty close. Israel does exist now and is damn likely to persist for the foreseeable future. It isn’t going to change unless there is a massive change in world wide sentiment and a feasible plan to deal with the economic implications of a relocation of significant populace. God doesn’t decree that some nations deserve to be and others don’t. It’s a historical accident. We deal with the hands we are dealt. Far too much energy has been wasted on the question of Israel’s “right” to exist. It would be better served dealing with the realities of the situation.

US Democrats and Republicans
Those few republicans who try to cast all Democrats as anti-Semites are absolutely in the wrong. It’s pretty incoherent too. Both sides right now have a number of people who support Israel’s actions. There are a number of Democrats who are more critical of Israel’s actions though rarely openly objecting to Israel’s basic premises. There’s pretty wide scale condemnation of Hezbollah’s actions all around, but I don’t find all of the criticism that obvious. Lots of Democrats do call for diplomacy. That, at least, I think is a very good thing. I feel it was absolutely absurd for anyone to demand that the Iraqi prime minister agree with our statements with regards to the Israel/Lebanon conflict before we would even talk to him. Considering how bad a mess there is there we shouldn’t be demanding anything from these people. We should be begging their forgiveness.

Media Coverage in the US
Very one sided. Very much anti-Hezbollah. Very much not challenges the world’s aggressive anti-Hamas stance. Israel’s perspective is the primary one we are given and there isn’t much in the way of historical context given in the news at all. It’s also a little bit ridiculous that the Israel/Lebanon war has gotten so much coverage when Iraq ought to still be a major point of concern to us.

The Current Cease Fire Breech
It seems to me that if Israel did have evidence that Hezbollah was smuggling weapons this would have been the perfect opportunity to bring their evidence to the United Nations and let them handle the situation thus bringing greater legitimacy to the peace process rather than undermining it.

What I don’t Believe
I don’t believe I know the best solution to all of the problems in the Middle East. It’s stupid and incoherent to demand that others be able to solve your problem before they are even allowed to communicate about it or criticize your own position. Yes some people make that demand, so I’m saying right now, I don’t intend to pull any five second so called “answers” out of my arse. Deal with it.

But I can tell you what I think any good solution will probably entail. I think it’s going to involve intelligent people on all sides talking to each other, coming up with proposals and trying things. I think it’s going to involve good people in all countries standing up for the rule of law and fighting for their opportunities to live in peace and happiness. I think it will involve putting more faith in the United Nations and acting in a manner that empowers it. I think it will involve dropping the pointless rhetoric used on both sides to divide populations rather than unite them. Lastly, I think it will involve creating circumstances where all states proceed at a reasonable pace of economic development.

All that might not be enough. I don’t know for sure. Maybe Israel will need to up and relocate. Maybe this will just lead to Armageddon like everyone says. But I’ve got to believe that trying these things is at least worth a shot.
power_word_wedgie
Master
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by power_word_wedgie »

US Democrats and Republicans
Those few republicans who try to cast all Democrats as anti-Semites are absolutely in the wrong. It’s pretty incoherent too. Both sides right now have a number of people who support Israel’s actions.


Yeah, some Republicans tried to paint the Democrats as anti-semites; it's called political spin. Just like how some Democrats try to paint Republicans as ones who like to drink the blood of Iraqi children. Damn politics.

There are a number of Democrats who are more critical of Israel’s actions though rarely openly objecting to Israel’s basic premises.


Do you have any links to actual quotes/press releases from Democrats supporting the above? Otherwise, it is just a supposition and not a fact.

There’s pretty wide scale condemnation of Hezbollah’s actions all around, but I don’t find all of the criticism that obvious. Lots of Democrats do call for diplomacy.


I think everyone wanted diplomacy. However, no one (Republican or Democrat) came forward to tell Israel to stop shelling via criticism.

I feel it was absolutely absurd for anyone to demand that the Iraqi prime minister agree with our statements with regards to the Israel/Lebanon conflict before we would even talk to him. Considering how bad a mess there is there we shouldn’t be demanding anything from these people. We should be begging their forgiveness.


Hey, that was written by the Democrats on the issue, not the Republicans. However, I do agree that most Republicans supported the basis of the Democratic letter.

Media Coverage in the US
Very one sided. Very much anti-Hezbollah. Very much not challenges the world’s aggressive anti-Hamas stance. Israel’s perspective is the primary one we are given and there isn’t much in the way of historical context given in the news at all. It’s also a little bit ridiculous that the Israel/Lebanon war has gotten so much coverage when Iraq ought to still be a major point of concern to us.


Yeah, early on in the conflict, NBC show the casualty figures between Iraq and Lebanon - Iraq won out and it wasn't even close. Alas, this thread is the discussion of the Lebanese conflict ...

And Al-Jarezza has an internet site. If Americans really were looking for another side, they could always go there. It's not like it is Orwell's 1984.

The Current Cease Fire Breech
It seems to me that if Israel did have evidence that Hezbollah was smuggling weapons this would have been the perfect opportunity to bring their evidence to the United Nations and let them handle the situation thus bringing greater legitimacy to the peace process rather than undermining it.


You know, the same could have been said about Hezbollah kidnapping Israelis soldiers. Instead of kidnapping soldiers, they could have gone to the UN to pressure for Hezbollah prisoner releases from Israel. That would have been te "perfect" solution, right?

What I don’t Believe
I don’t believe I know the best solution to all of the problems in the Middle East. It’s stupid and incoherent to demand that others be able to solve your problem before they are even allowed to communicate about it or criticize your own position. Yes some people make that demand, so I’m saying right now, I don’t intend to pull any five second so called “answers” out of my arse. Deal with it.

But I can tell you what I think any good solution will probably entail. I think it’s going to involve intelligent people on all sides talking to each other, coming up with proposals and trying things. I think it’s going to involve good people in all countries standing up for the rule of law and fighting for their opportunities to live in peace and happiness. I think it will involve putting more faith in the United Nations and acting in a manner that empowers it. I think it will involve dropping the pointless rhetoric used on both sides to divide populations rather than unite them. Lastly, I think it will involve creating circumstances where all states proceed at a reasonable pace of economic development.

All that might not be enough. I don’t know for sure. Maybe Israel will need to up and relocate. Maybe this will just lead to Armageddon like everyone says. But I’ve got to believe that trying these things is at least worth a shot.


You'r not going to get the scenario above. Why, frankly three different religions consider one worthless tract of land holy. While there are fundamentalist elements (of all three religions) out there, this UN/intelligent person solution is never going to happen. It's a problem that has been occuring for at least the last 2000 years. There is no solution. If you drive Israel away, that will just drive Jews stronger to reform the country. And you can say that about the Palestinians as well. The only one you can't say that about is the Christians; however, all you need is the fundamentalist element to launch another "Crusade" and we're back in the mix.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

power_word_wedgie at [unixtime wrote:1156121759[/unixtime]]Let's take it one step further: using their own websites, I've been able to link 4 Democrats to:

1) Supporting Israel and condemning Hezbollah (a terrorist group, in their own word) to the current crisis.

You've linked to four (and two are Jewish, wtf?) that have a hard condemning violence. They all called for peace talks. They all chose a different path (why must you be only for israel or against them? wtf?) than the administration did. The administration accepted the actions of all parties as needed, stood in the way of peace talks, and blamed the entire thing upon Hizbollah (the f-word quote is from after Hizbollah returned fire, and the press releases you link to are from before).

And Party position isn't a federal position. Where are you from that you know nothing about our Representative government and party system? The party positions are elected by the party, paid for by the party, not the government. Who we choose as our party chair, senate leader, is our business, not anyone else's.

So you labelling Hillary Clinton as a leader of the Democratic Party of America is slander and misrepesentation.

The point of having big-tent parties is that the party as a whole sorta agrees on some points - and everyone has points that they personally find more or less important. I don't agree with the blind supporting of Israel and only telling them to quiet it down in private talks - but that's how the majority (and leaders, not Hillary Clinton or Dianne Fienstein) have decided to persue.

And guess what? You'll find no Republicans mentioning peace talks.

-Crissa
power_word_wedgie
Master
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by power_word_wedgie »

Ok (I'll ask it yet again), please provide the links for press releases from Democratic Sentors and Representatives site showing that they condemned the Israeli shelling. Can you show it from the Democratic party website?

All of the links that I provided showed the Democrats condemning Hezbollah for the confrontation and supporting Israel. Thus, apparently the administration isn't alone for this position.

As for Hillary, she is a junior senator but:

1) She is the former first lady of the United States.
2) According to >THIS< poll, she's the leading contender for the party nomination in 2008. Heck, she leads the one in second 2 to 1. Heck, she'll have the Democratic nomination wrapped up after she gets her husband to endorse her.

Thus she's wields much more power in the Democratic party than just a junior senator, and much more than Pelosi or Reid.

Finally, one of the purposes of an opposition party is to show opposition to legislation/positions that the party in power may have. Otherwise, if you're the opposition party, there no reason to vote for you if all you're doing is staying quiet. In fact, this shelling is the "perfect opportuntiy" to criticize the party in power. As for Pelosi, the most that I could see Pelosi criticize the President for the Lebanese conflict was to say that American evacuated shouldn't have to pay for their evacuation. Wow! Now that's a strong position to take on the Lebanese conflict. You see, they provided opposition on some things, jsut not the Israeli shelling.

The Democratics chose not to criticize Israeli shelling and in fact focused their criticism on Hezbollah and Hamas. If you can show press releases from Democrats noting the opposite, I'd be more than happy to read them. Otherwise, they were either apathetic or supportive of Israel and their shelling.

edit: Finally, there has been no demand from Democrats for "peace talks." The closest that we got was that there should be "high-level diplomacy." Well:

Press Briefing by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Steve Hadley

Those are the messages that we have been sending to the parties; those are the messages that are being sent through numerous diplomatic channels. Steve is going to describe some of the diplomacy that we have been engaged in, but let me note that we believe that the best opportunity now for de-escalation of this crisis is the effort that Secretary General Annan has announced -- he's sending a three-person team to the region to seek means of de-escalation.


So, yeah, everybody has been wanting diplomacy of some kind.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

Thank you, PWW, for showing that you have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation, ignoring the well crafted Democratic Party and defining it willy-nilly as per Republican talking points.

It's so nice to know we have such ignorance and heavy-handed negotiations as you've defined.

Because we wouldn't want any quotes from actual opposition party leaders - no, you make up ones you want - and then we don't have actual actions from the administration - we have the ones which don't show that the US was the only party standing in the way of a UN resolution against Israeli actions and in the way of talks.

Since you decide to define my party with your arbitrary media, I will return the favor of not rebutting your unbalanced arguments.

-Crissa
power_word_wedgie
Master
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by power_word_wedgie »

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1156134400[/unixtime]]
Because we wouldn't want any quotes from actual opposition party leaders - no, you make up ones you want - and then we don't have actual actions from the administration - we have the ones which don't show that the US was the only party standing in the way of a UN resolution against Israeli actions and in the way of talks.


Not quite. I quoted Senator Reid (the Senate Minority Leader) a few posts back and I've already noted that the most that Pelosi (House Minority Leader) "protested" was not making American evacuees have to repay the American government for their evacuation. Here is the link to her media page: the July 18th date entry is still there but the link is gone: probably since the whole thing as resolved.

Ok, since I've provided the links to the party leadership, if you can provide any links to Democratic Senators or Representatives that opposed Israei shelling, it would be more than appreciated. Otherwise, it is just supposition on your part.
User avatar
Zherog
Knight-Baron
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Zherog »

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1156134400[/unixtime]]Thank you, PWW, for showing that you have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation


So, Crissa... Just curious - would you be the pot or the kettle?

Instead of spouting verbal diarrhea, why don't you try contributing to the conversation? PWW has provided quotes from four or five differrent democrats now, and each quote supports Israel and denounces Hezbollah-Hamas. If those people don't speak for the democractic party as a whole, then surely you can provide quotes from those who do?

The Pot wrote:Because we wouldn't want any quotes from actual opposition party leaders - no, you make up ones you want...


Huh. I never knew PWW as capable of hacking the websites of all those democrats. That's a pretty ingenious way of making up the quotes you want, PWW. Kudos.

Or is it the kettle wrote:Since you decide to define my party with your arbitrary media...


So... press releases from their own websites is "arbitrary" media? To use your own words, er, letters: WTF?

Pot, Kettle, whatever wrote:So you labelling Hillary Clinton as a leader of the Democratic Party of America is slander


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Now, see? There you go again with stupid shit that makes me laugh. It's especially good this time, because it's Monday morning. Everybody can use a good laugh on Monday mornings. Thanks!
You can't fix stupid.

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." ~ Jackie Robinson
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

I gave the facts:

[*]Pointed out who was the leaders of the Democratic Party - and was ignored.
[*]Gave the timeline of Hizbollah rocket attacks.
[*]Reminded that the last six years was full of Israeli attacks on civillians and the PA, destroying infrastructure and any ability to stand alone. (That, by the way, is not 'leaving alone')

And I get the gift of such responses this morning?

What more do you need to prove your own ignorance of the situation?

-Crissa
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by fbmf »

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
That'll be all, folks. I've been extremely tolerant, but this has gotten out of hand.
[/TGFBS]
Post Reply