Murtha says U.S. is top threat to world peace

[Keystone Phil]

Now I've know for awhile now that he has lost it but this is proof for anyone on the fence about whether or not he's crazy - http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/135159

Apparently, our presence in Iraq causes more danger than the nuclear ambitions of Iran's and North Korea's extremist leaders.

[bullmoose88]

Does Murtha even have a challenger in his district?

I'm not going to judge the substance (or lack thereof), but only in the most partisan districts would a person like this go unchallenged.

[Keystone Phil]

Does Murtha even have a challenger in his district?

I'm not going to judge the substance (or lack thereof), but only in the most partisan districts would a person like this go unchallenged.

Yes, Diane Irey is the challenger. She is the most serious challenge to Murtha in years. His district isn't that partisan. It's actually very possible that it flips GOP when the nutjob is done.

[WalterMitty]

murtha really needs to be defeated.  his irresponsible statements are becoming more and more opebo-like.

[MODU]

Murtha is turning into the US version of George Galloway.

[HardRCafé]

murtha really needs to be defeated.  his irresponsible statements are becoming more and more opebo-like.

Ooh, good analogy.

Irey has a shot if Murtha comes out for lolicon.

[Sam Spade]

Murtha's CD is sort of like the Philly suburbs in reverse.  Most of the counties are old hard-line Democratic areas (esp. Greene County) that have shifted a great deal to the GOP in higher-level voting patterns due to social issues becoming a greater factor in voting.  It is the part of Pennsylvania that most resembles West Virginia in voting patterns, if that makes it clearer.

Kerry won the CD like 51%-48%, I want to say.  I really would compare Murtha to Curt Weldon, a person who's a really good fit for his CD and shouldn't be ousted, but could if the conditions were right and the opponent was good, due to the partisan shifts over the last 15-20 years or so.

But, barring something strange happening, this is set up to be a Democratic year in elections and if a "wave election" starts appearing on the horizon, Weldon could be taken out, because he has a decent opponent.  Consider Murtha in the same boat as Weldon if the conditions were opposed (and they won't be).  I consider him safe.

As for Diana Irey, I do agree that she is the strongest opponent he's had in a while, but she'd need to raise a lot of money (he has a ton) in order for me to even consider thinking of looking at the CD in a Dem macro year.

She is good-looking, though. 

[Nym90]

The link seems kind of sketchy. What was the exact quote from Murtha? I couldn't find an exact quote of him saying what was attributed.

Not that I'm saying he didn't say it, it would just be nice to have a quote rather than the article's say so.

[Keystone Phil]

The link seems kind of sketchy. What was the exact quote from Murtha? I couldn't find an exact quote of him saying what was attributed.

Not that I'm saying he didn't say it, it would just be nice to have a quote rather than the article's say so.

I can't find an actual quote for it. The site I got the link from just copied it from the other site's headline. Sorry about that. He's crazy enough to say it though. 

[MODU]

The link seems kind of sketchy. What was the exact quote from Murtha? I couldn't find an exact quote of him saying what was attributed.

Not that I'm saying he didn't say it, it would just be nice to have a quote rather than the article's say so.

I can't find an actual quote for it. The site I got the link from just copied it from the other site's headline. Sorry about that. He's crazy enough to say it though. 

Going through all the news links so far, everything is linking from the same central article.  I'm sure the text of the presentation will come out soon.

[opebo]

murtha really needs to be defeated.  his irresponsible statements are becoming more and more opebo-like.

Ooh, good analogy.

Irey has a shot if Murtha comes out for lolicon.

I admit it is suprising that Murtha has suddenly become such a reasonable person, and I also admit that being a reasonable person is hazardous to relection.

But how can anyone dispute the obvious fact that the american empire is by far the biggest threat to world peace?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

[opebo]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

If the arabs want to give us war to the knife then give them war to the knife. The West needs to stop acting like its enemies follow civilzied standards and stop acting as such.

[Boris]

murtha really needs to be defeated.  his irresponsible statements are becoming more and more opebo-like.

Ooh, good analogy.

Irey has a shot if Murtha comes out for lolicon.

I admit it is suprising that Murtha has suddenly become such a reasonable person, and I also admit that being a reasonable person is hazardous to relection.

But how can anyone dispute the obvious fact that the american empire is by far the biggest threat to world peace?

Because the Cold War ended fifteen years ago. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were the biggest threats to world peace due to our vast amounts of nuclear weapons, whose dangers were exemplified by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the probability of nuclear war occuring is near zero. Nowadays, it's radical and extremist "religious" as you put them, who pose the biggest threat to world peace. These "religious" come in the form of people such as Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the late Abu-Musab Al Zarqawi. It's these people who pose the biggest threat because they're the ones who crash planes into the World Trade Center and blow up trains in Madrid. Sure, the "American Empire" may run-over nations such as Grenada, Haiti, Vietnam, and Iraq, but with the possible exception of the last option, all of these conflicts have been isolated and have not posed a large threat to world peace.

Even with Iraq, the situation is isolated. Besides the obvious violence that has occured in that country, has it really strongly affected other areas of the globe? Sure, there's the copycat Al Qaeda cells as seen in Toronto and London that may have sprouted up due to anti-American hatred spurred by Iraq, but all the deaths have been isolated to an area that makes up a very small portion of the Earth's landmass.

Where has the presence of terrorism caused by religious extremists been felt? In New York City, London, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Moscow, Atlanta, Washington DC, Rome, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Munich, Lockerbie, Scotland, Toronto, Los Angeles, New Dehli. The list goes on and on and on.

[opebo]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

If the arabs want to give us war to the knife then give them war to the knife. The West needs to stop acting like its enemies follow civilzied standards and stop acting as such.

Oh, straha, the Arabs aren't giving you a 'war to the knife', they're just giving the empire a little bit of resistance. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

If the arabs want to give us war to the knife then give them war to the knife. The West needs to stop acting like its enemies follow civilzied standards and stop acting as such.

Oh, straha, the Arabs aren't giving you a 'war to the knife', they're just giving the empire a little bit of resistance. 

Again a few nukes and virus bombs and that issue would be solved. The arabs want to destroy the west.

[opebo]

Sure, the "American Empire" may run-over nations such as Grenada, Haiti, Vietnam, and Iraq, but with the possible exception of the last option, all of these conflicts have been isolated and have not posed a large threat to world peace.

You've just admitted that some of the most bloody conflicts of the last few generations have been caused by the american empire, and then said that doesn't matter because they're 'isolated'.  They are not, of course, isolated, but part of a comprehensive plan of world domination, but even if they were isolated, what difference does that make?  They are still agressions which caused enormous death and suffering, and hence, prove that the empire is a major threat to world peace.

There have been some other bloody conflicts, such as the Iran/Iraq war and the Ethiopia/Eritrea war which, while not directly involving the empire, where greatly encouraged by it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see the point of this criteria you are using - 'affected other areas of the globe'.  Breaches of the peace need not be global in nature to prove that their authors are threats.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, though these 'terrorist' attacks are mere pinpricks compared to the wars the empire makes (and which incidentally create far more 'terror').  In any case these very minor and feeble attempts at revenge are just that - desperate attempts by people who have been oppressed by the empire to fight back.

[opebo]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

If the arabs want to give us war to the knife then give them war to the knife. The West needs to stop acting like its enemies follow civilzied standards and stop acting as such.

Oh, straha, the Arabs aren't giving you a 'war to the knife', they're just giving the empire a little bit of resistance. 

Again a few nukes and virus bombs and that issue would be solved. The arabs want to destroy the west.

Perhaps.. but their wishing won't make it so.  They have little power.  Conversely the empire is in fact destroying them.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

If the arabs want to give us war to the knife then give them war to the knife. The West needs to stop acting like its enemies follow civilzied standards and stop acting as such.

Oh, straha, the Arabs aren't giving you a 'war to the knife', they're just giving the empire a little bit of resistance. 

Again a few nukes and virus bombs and that issue would be solved. The arabs want to destroy the west.

Perhaps.. but their wishing won't make it so.  They have little power.  Conversely the empire is in fact destroying them.

Good. They need to pay the price for disobediance.

[opebo]

How is it a bad thing? Some ers don't deserve peace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?  This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

If the arabs want to give us war to the knife then give them war to the knife. The West needs to stop acting like its enemies follow civilzied standards and stop acting as such.

Oh, straha, the Arabs aren't giving you a 'war to the knife', they're just giving the empire a little bit of resistance. 

Again a few nukes and virus bombs and that issue would be solved. The arabs want to destroy the west.

Perhaps.. but their wishing won't make it so.  They have little power.  Conversely the empire is in fact destroying them.

Good. They need to pay the price for disobediance.

No, I just meant destroying them in the sense of americanizing them.  But your statement does reveal you to be a terrorist.

[Boris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I use the term "isolated" because, well, the term "world peace" refers to the entire world. American Empire offenses in Grenada and Vietnam have had little effect in say, Thailand, Chad, Denmark, and French Guiana. You are correct in saying that these conflicts have caused massive death and destruction, but these terms are subjective. I probably sound heartless in saying this, but the deaths of 58,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam and 2,000,000 civilians in Southeast Asia are rather insignificant in the long run. The failure of these American-Empire induced conflicts to spread to other areas of the globe (and hence other populations) indicates that they are not major threats to overall world peace, despite their death and destruction.

Likewise, both the Iran-Iraq War and the Ethiopia/Eritrea are "isolated conflicts" affecting only a small percentage of the world's population. While there certainly was some American-Empire influence in these wars, I'd argue that our role in them was not the major cause of the widespread death and destruction seen in their respective, isolated, areas.

I'd also like to know what you mean by "world domination." The United States already dominates the world with our culture and influence. We need not go around conquering nations to dominate the world. The only time such offensive action is necessary is when the opponent is weakened and our corporate interests in the region are being threatened (such as in Haiti). It's money, not "world domination" that drives the American Empire. The military-industrial complex stuff you hear about is far oversimplified, although it does exist in a way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I use the term "world peace (emphasis on world)" as my criteria. Iraq may constitute as a breach in peace, but it is not a significant one. It is contained. It is quarantined. Until it starts spreading to other areas and populations, it does not consitute as a major threat to world peace. Now, the anti-American hatred that Iraq is spurring may constitute as a major threat to world peace, but I have yet to see this hatred materialize into something credible. So, I guess you could call Iraq as a major threat to world peace, but it's a stretch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, I apologize for using the term "terrorist." After all, we know that the "terrorism" is based upon perspective and in using the term, we lose objectivity. I'll call them religious extremists for the purpose of this discussion.

Secondly, you are correct in saying that these "terrorist" attacks are rather insignificant in numerical terms to the destruction that the United States has caused in say, Southeast Asia. However, psychologically, the situation is different. These attacks have caused a widespread sense of fear and paranoia throughout the Western World. This fear and paranoia has the potential to attack our daily lifestyle.

Thirdly, I'd like to argue that "American-Empire oppression" is nothing more than religious propaganda used to gather uneducated minions against authority (whether it be the U.S., NATO, or Israel), which you are embracing merely because it holds an Anti-American viewpoint and coincides with your subjective views. Osama bin Laden's main motivation to attack the United States was probably influenced by the placement of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the influence "secular" America had over the Saudi government. Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Bomber, attacked Atlanta because of abortion and homosexuals, which are hardly oppressive reasons. Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City because he was a libertarian who hated the government (oversimplification, but you get the point).

My point is: Religious Extremists, not the United States, are the biggest threat to World Peace. You may argue that the United States is full of religious extremists, and on a certain level, I agree, but there are many other areas of the world, such as the Middle East, that contain just as much or possibly more religious extremists than the United States does. The psychological warfare that these religious extremists use is far more of a threat to world peace than any American-Empire aggression into some obsucre part of the world.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

This nutjob needs to be shown the door by his constituents.  His "military street cred" took a hike many months ago when he called U.S. Troops "cold blooded killers," and this kind of venomous  nonsense most not go without a response on the local level.

Murtha keeps seeming more and more like a typical political opportunist as time goes on, and the people of this country have never held a soft spot for people who tried to ride the coffins of dead American Servicemen and Servicewomen into higher political standing.

[opebo]

I use the term "isolated" because, well, the term "world peace" refers to the entire world.

So one can only be a 'threat to world peace' if one threatens to start a 'world war'?   This makes no sense.  Any aggression disturbs world peace, and certainly aggressions by others are both rarer than those by the empire, and much less likely to cause wide-scale conflicts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

World domination = money, boris.  Political power and economic reward are inseperable, both domestically and internationally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well said!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure the 'lifestyle' of Vietnamese was adversely affected by American terrorism during that war, just as the lifestyle of the Iraqis is suffering now.  I'm not particularly concerned that some fat simpleton in the Midwest or South is under the ridiculous impression that turbanned bad guys are going to blow up his mall or big-box store.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're missing the point that the empire, imposing a capitalist heirarchy, oppresses nearly everyone on behalf of a tiny minority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, those people have no power, compared to the empire.  I understand your point, boris, I just don't think that a mild and unreasonable paranoia experienced by the relatively safe and comfortable americans compares at all with the very real slaughtering that poor foreigners experience at the hands of imperial troops every decade or so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What he apparently said (according to the article) is quite different to what Phil has named this thread and to the article's headline:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether or not that happens to be true is a debatable point, but it's certainly not the same as saying that "the U.S is the top threat to world peace"...