-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Alternative US Politics thread sans libertarian conversations and perspectives
- Thread starter Hurricane
- Start date
- Status
watson
Banned
Yes it was a masterstroke because Trump is a knee-jerk politician, but it doesn't make the Democratic campaign tactic any less reprehensible.
The fact is, the US Government has been abusing it's military power and putting Muslims, along with its own youth, into body bags for the best part of 30 years. Glorifying another dead Muslim doesn't alter that fact or wash away Clinton's sins.
Hurricane
Well-known member
Nah you are making that comment with the detachment of 15 years and thousands of miles of distance from Ground Zero.
I was in the US when 9/11 happened. The desire for revenge was corsing the veins of Americans. Some BS was fed to them about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it seemed like a no brainer to go in there.
Applauding Sanders because he only wanted to go in Afghanistan is nonsensical. There was no more justifcation for my mind in attacking Afghanistan than there was Iraq. You can argue that Afghanistan was a breeding ground for terrorists but I don't think we ever won in Afghanistan or accomplished much and we knew we wouldn't win, or at least I knew because Russia couldn't win there. What made us special? Apparently because the US were involved this time was the answer.
All of those wars were stupid. Find me a politician who didn't vote for any of them and I might be impressed.
The final point I want to press Watson if you personally had been a US politician at the time you definitely would have voted to attack Iraq. Most people would have. To talk otherwise shows an inability to empathise with what america was experiencing in late 2001 early 2002.
People from overseas have an objective and detached view of 9/11. And that view is not one I share having been close to it.
RossTaylorsBox
Well-known member
Barbara Lee.
Niall
Well-known member
Discuss...
@Watson yes the Democrats played politics by putting the Khan family on stage, but it turned out to be a masterstroke no?[/QUOTE]
Their is no disagreement is their here surely?
Trump did similar at his convention and had a Mother blame Clinton for the death of his son in Benghazi, Clinton like a normal person did not take the bait and most certainly did not run off to twitter and have a moan.
More I think about it, so bad from Trump even if you ignore the moral reasons why its wrong.
You are running on the Republican ticket who everyone agrees has an issue with minorities when it comes to voting and you get in a easy to avoid public fight with the parents of a dead Muslim soldier.
Last edited:
Hurricane
Well-known member
Thank you so much for this RTB
Here is a link I am presently reading through about her courageous act Angry Letters to the One Member of Congress Who Voted Against the War on Terror - The Atlantic
There is a 2 minute video on the page that is well worth it to watch.
Despite her unpopular stand at the time apparently she was re-elected and is still there today. That fact warms my heart in the judgement of her constituents.
The rest of the article has some moving letters that were written to her.
I found the article/web page very inspiring RTB, thanks again for your post
watson
Banned
@Hurricane. I find it intriguing that people on this forum seem to want to second guess Watson. God knows why?
I was working for the Saudi Ministry of Defence down near the Yemen border in 1992 shortly after the first Gulf War, have some insight into how the Middle East works, and remember thinking at the time that George W Bush's decision to re-invade Iraq after 9/11 was a stupid idea, completely disproportionate, and cruel to both American and Iraqi people.
However, whether a war is just or not has little or nothing to do with the question of whether a politician should use grieving parents to further a political campaign or not. As a matter of principle I think that they should not.
I was working for the Saudi Ministry of Defence down near the Yemen border in 1992 shortly after the first Gulf War, have some insight into how the Middle East works, and remember thinking at the time that George W Bush's decision to re-invade Iraq after 9/11 was a stupid idea, completely disproportionate, and cruel to both American and Iraqi people.
However, whether a war is just or not has little or nothing to do with the question of whether a politician should use grieving parents to further a political campaign or not. As a matter of principle I think that they should not.
Last edited:
Hurricane
Well-known member
I am ok with it strangely. Even though I counsel against situational ethics usually in this instance I don't really have a developed moral code as to what is ok or not in politics so tend to judge each incident based on the facts/situational factors surrounding it.
In this case Trump was proposing a ban on Muslims coming to the US. That would really tick off the Khan family and I don't think they would have needed much persuading to make some anti Trump comments.
If I were forced into a corner and poked with cricket stump until I consented to make some moral rules for what is ok and not ok regarding grieving families...I would say the rule would come down to how much convincing the family needed
a) if the Khan family volunteered then it is all green lights
b) if the Khan family were approached and bought into it within 5 minutes then green lights
c) if the Khan family had to be talked into it then red lights all around.
Hurricane
Well-known member
Regarding your edit - do you want feedback from me?
I think people like to second guess you as your views are so forthright yet easily pigeon holed and as such they scream out to be analysed labelled and assessed and have the underlying motives questioned.
Bottom line - have some wacky views every now and then to throw off the punters and then no one will try to understand you or pick your view apart.
watson
Banned
Well now we're straining out gnats Hurricane.
Hurricane
Well-known member
Well I think you are saying I am missing the big picture and that we are still ending up with a grieving family on stage for political purposes.
It is what it is Watson, (which is a saying I adore) everything politicians do is disengenous. Do they really care about the baby they are kissing...are they really pleased to meet you...maybe they are but it loses it sincerity knowing they have said the same thing to 200 000 other blokes on the campaign trail.
It is a stupid game politics.
I mean what about attack ads. Those deliver some pretty low blows sometimes. Yeah I tend to just hold my nose with politics and just go with it. A grieving family on stage doesn't really trouble me. The family themselves got pleasure out of it until Trump had a crack at them.
watson
Banned
I get that the end sometimes justifies the means - 'stop Trump at all costs'.
But that shouldn't prevent us hoping for something a little better.
Hurricane
Well-known member
I have asked you before to leave me alone after the last time you attacked me. Please respect my wishes and stay away from me you absolute creep.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
lad has a point.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Whoa Cane. First up it was hardly a personal attack, and secondly calling him an absolute creep on the back of it? Seems like an overreaction
- Status