Justifications for War

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Um, hello. We are talking about "Liberal" as it means in current American politics.

I don't think we are. You asked for a definition of a liberal. The definition hasn't been established yet. Therefore it's safe to assume that while we might be talking about US Liberals only, the other liberal movements are not excluded.
Besides,as you very well know, there is a world outside the US borders. And in that world there are also liberals and conservatives, and all other shades of political views.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

"Liberals" in Japan are entirely different from "Liberals" in the US. And it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word "liberal".

True. Liberals elsewhere may be different than the Amercian Liberals. I am puzzled by the original meaning of the word "liberal".

The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber. In its current use in the English language, the word derives directly from French.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by docquesting

Roosevelt tried to keep us out of the war. We only went to war when we were attackked. Other wise we would have stayed out of it unless something worse would have haoppened.

Doc, I think you should be better aquainted with the history of your own country. It's your country for frogg's sake. Not that you can't live without the knowledge, but please allow me to comment on your post: bull$hit.

[John Scott]

I am talking about American politics, and when you capitalize the "l", we are talking about Liberals, as in those who subscribe to the Liberal Politics, which has nothing to do with "liberty". It is true for most political bodies - Democrats, Republicans, etc.

[John Scott]

A young woman was finishing her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a liberal Democrat and was for the fair redistribution of wealth. She felt deeply embarrassed that her father was a life-long Republican, which she opposed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs, particularly his opposition to higher taxes and more entitlement programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe, based upon lectures she had from her left-wing professors at school, he stopped and asked her, point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. She had to study all the time, and rarely had time to go out and party. She barely had time for a boyfriend, and didn't really enjoy many college activities because of spending so much time studying. In addition, she continued, she was taking a very difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary?" She replied, "Mary is just getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are very easy classes and she never studies." Explaining further, she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She goes to all the parties, and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go down to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair, equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for my grades. I did without, and Mary has done little or nothing. She played while I worked real hard!"

"Welcome to the Republican Party," her father said smiling.

http://across.co.nz/WealthRedistribution.html

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I am talking about American politics, and when you capitalize the "l", we are talking about Liberals, as in those who subscribe to the Liberal Politics, which has nothing to do with "liberty". It is true for most political bodies - Democrats, Republicans, etc.

Oh well, I must agree that this is what you mean (the topic of the thread), althoug initially I thought you were not limiting the war debate to just 5% of the world's population.

Anyway, I saw little difference between Liberals and Conservatives during the Vietnam flop.

[John Scott]

In America they are called "Liberals"; in the worldwide arena they are referred to as Pacificist Socialists.

[notepad]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

One easy to fake Osama tape, and dozens of his friends claiming the same thing?

November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, Osama seems to admit planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targe...ranscript.html)

Later Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh were captured. Both were known al Qaida members and both admitted participating in the planning of the attacks. They also indicated bin Laden's direct participation. Mohammed was the principal planner of the attack basing it on the failed Operation Bojinka. Binalshibh may have been picked as a hijacker but, after failing to get into the U.S., worked on financing the operation. Among the details they revealed under interrogation was that the original plan had called for more aircraft but that bin Laden had scaled it down and that bin Laden had attempted to advance the timing of the attacks after events in Israel.

As of 2004, several people including Mohammed, Binalshibh and Mohamed al-Kahtani, the 20th hijacker, were being held by the U.S. as enemy combatants; however, the United States had no one on trial for the attacks. In Germany, Mounir El Motassadeq was convicted of over 3000 counts of accessory to murder for helping finance the hijackers but the verdict was put aside and a new trial scheduled. Abdelghani Mzoudi was acquitted in Germany on the same charges.

First of all, Osama was once admittedly part of the CIA, secondly, al Qaida is also a product of the CIA.

When one remembers that the WTC bombing in 1993 was a direct result of the CIA helping to orchestrate, and then allowing the bombings to take place, how can you EVER trust them again? ...or think they would not do it again?

A common protocol of CIA covert action is to infiltrate an organization's ideas, then work towards helping make a dirty deed happen ...thus furthering an agenda while offering a patsy.

My point is that 911 is the crux of the main issue of the "war" against Iraq ...and the war against our liberties and the U.S. Constitution.

Distinguishing irregularities:

1 - the WTC buildings were obviously destroyed by demolitions; although they may have wanted to, a group of Arabs living in caves in another country (who didn't speak English very well, if at all) could not have infiltrated the WTC buildings' security for weeks, or months (in advance of 911) in order to strategically plant explosives

2 - Osama and his pals could not have caused NORAD (the most sophisticated defense system on the planet) to stand down on 911

3 - approx half of the alleged perpetrators who supposedly flew planes into the World Trade Centers are alive and known to be living in other countries

4 - the so called Boeing aircraft 911 hijackers were the worst in their class and couldn't even pilot a Cessna, much less a complicated airliner with its radar and positioning guidance systems disabled


When you consider how the current administration has used 911 as the premise to wage war at will and destroy our freedoms and rights of privacy, you come to realize how ultimately necessary it is to understand what has been done to this nation and other people by the blatant falsehoods of the U.S. Executive Branch.






# # #

[John Scott]

There is so much wrong with your post... I'll have to stop laughing for a while to respond...

the so called Boeing aircraft 911 hijackers were the worst in their class and couldn't even pilot a Cessna, much less a complicated airliner with its radar and positioning guidance systems disabled

Flying is easy. I flew a Cessna 182 from Yakima to Wenatchee when I was 9 years old. I doubt anybody with the training they got would have a hard time crashing a plane into such big targets.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

In America they are called "Liberals"; in the worldwide arena they are referred to as Pacificist Socialists.

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense. What they are called in America comes from what they were called in France. The first Liberals I remember hearing about as a small kid were German Liberals. And yes, they werre called Liberals, not Pacifists Socialists. I heard about lots of various Liberals but I never heard the term Pacifists Socialists before. Where did you get it from?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense. What they are called in America comes from what they were called in France. The first Liberals I remember hearing about as a small kid were German Liberals. And yes, they werre called Liberals, not Pacifists Socialists. I heard about lots of various Liberals but I never heard the term Pacifists Socialists before. Where did you get it from?

Littlefella, you are confusing "Liberals" (as opposed to "liberals", note the capital "L") with "Libertarians". Liberalism in American politics is a belief system that has nothing to do with Libertarianism. Libertarianism, for example, would be for the legalization of prostitution. Liberalism is against not just prostitution, but also pornography and anything the they belief "exploits" women.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Liberal -

Pro-abortion
Anti-war
Prefers wealth re-distribution in the form of higher taxes and more social entitlement programs (welfare, free healthcare, free day care, etc)

Responses are in the order in which you wrote your post:

- Not against doesn't mean "pro".
- Kennedy and Vietnam escalation
- Affirmative action and social security act were botth introduced and pushed through by conservatives.

You might be actually better off with Liberals.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Littlefella, you are confusing "Liberals" (as opposed to "liberals", note the capital "L") with "Libertarians". Liberalism in American politics is a belief system that has nothing to do with Libertarianism. Libertarianism, for example, would be for the legalization of prostitution. Liberalism is against not just prostitution, but also pornography and anything the they belief "exploits" women.

That still doesn't show that Liberals, or liberals outside the US are not called by those names.
As for the definitions, sure, we are border line here, and not far from anarchy actually.
Those damn definitions

[notepad]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

There is so much wrong with your post... I'll have to stop laughing for a while to respond...

Flying is easy. I flew a Cessna 182 from Yakima to Wenatchee when I was 9 years old. I doubt anybody with the training they got would have a hard time crashing a plane into such big targets.

I'm glad you're having so much fun disputing hard evidence John. However, a Cessna prop is quite different from a Boeing 757 jet.

...perhaps you would disagree also with trained pilots having 20+ years of experience each who have stated unequivocally that the alleged 911 pilots could never have flown them into their targets ...having such limited air time experience.

...course, I could be wrong ...you might dispute these qualified pilots.



# # #

[John Scott]

Littlefella,

Do you know of one prominent Liberal in American politics who speaks in favor of the Vietnam war?

Politics evolve. A Liberal today is nothing like a Liberal 20 or 30 or 50 years ago. Same goes for "Conservative".

Not against doesn't mean "pro".

The "Pro" refers to the legalization aspect. Pro-Abortion means "pro legalization of mothers ripping their innocent children to shreds".

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by notepad

I'm glad you're having so much fun disputing hard evidence John. However, a Cessna prop is quite different from a Boeing 757 jet.

...perhaps you would disagree also with trained pilots having 20+ years of experience each who have stated unequivocally that the alleged 911 pilots could never have flown them into their targets ...having such limited air time experience.

...course, I could be wrong ...you might dispute these qualified pilots.



# # #

Link?

My father is a licensed and rated commercial pilot, with over 40 years experience. He had no problem his first time in a 747.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Littlefella,
Do you know of one prominent Liberal in American politics who speaks in favor of the Vietnam war?

Nobody does. That war is over, unless I missed something on the news tonight.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Politics evolve. A Liberal today is nothing like a Liberal 20 or 30 or 50 years ago. Same goes for "Conservative".

That's a good point, but there is one problem. It makes the word "conservative" an impossibilty, a phantom concept. Isn't en evolved Conservative a liberal?

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The "Pro" refers to the legalization aspect. Pro-Abortion means "pro legalization of mothers ripping their innocent children to shreds".

While I am generally anti-abortion, I would have no problem accepting it if it was the only way to save a woman's life, and if she chose so.
There may be certain degrees of the legalization of abortion. Both liberals and conservatives seem to represent extremes, but also manage to fill the space in between.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Link?

My father is a licensed and rated commercial pilot, with over 40 years experience. He had no problem his first time in a 747.

I had serious problems with my first bicycle, when I was three. Took me 3 damn weeks to make it happen. A year later my dad took off the training wheels.