Bush's Lie

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ARogueTrader, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. It takes a new seed to yield a new crop. What we see in Israel with terrorism continues unabated because there is no spirit or willingness to compromise from both sides.

    We summarily dismiss any dissenting ideas and opinions of our enemies in the exact same manner.

    I heartily disagree. IMHO Israel has shown considerable restraint and willingness to compromise. Each time they do so a suicide bombing takes place and scuttles the progress. It is not Israel's fault that Arafat is unwilling or unable to reign in the bombers.

    How much occupied territory has Israel retreated from?

    #71     Nov 27, 2003
  2. Fine, if you were in the military please state as much.

    Calling up the Guard is a lengthy process. Remember, these are citizen soldiers who train one weekend a month and a straight two week stretch annually. If an attack occurs, assembling the Guard units isn't going to be easy as many of those soldiers will be at work, away because of work, vacation, etc. The Guard is not a Rapid Deployment Force by any means. Yes, they can be utilized, but not with the effectiveness of regular Army units.

    You can "suggest" all you like. No skin off my back. Besides, it is nigh impossible to carry on a discussion on a high level with you due to your emotions getting in the way all too often and your disturbing penchant for not only putting words in your opponents' mouth but making broad characterizations in order to try and slander, i.e. labeling me as a right-wing extremist.

    I repeat, I read the entire speech with a mind as open as yours. Not good enough for you? Are you saying you are NOT open-minded?

    I do not, nor have I ever, concluded that the US is absolutely blameless in its foreign policy.

    Fine, let's "reflect" on what exactly we did to piss bin Laden off so bad to the point he murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens.

    To repeat yet again: 9/11 occured because bin Laden was outraged over US troops and materiel staged in holy Saudi Arabia as a result of the first Gulf War. He also had the normal Islamic fanatics' rage over our society being A) Non-Muslim, B) Capitalistic, and C) Decadent.

    So if you want to throw a little sympathy Al-Qaeda's way, and conclude that the perpetrators of 9/11 are guilty to a lesser degree - because you feel their grievances with our foreign policy and lifestyle somehow, in some way, partially justify the mass slaughter of 3,000 of our citizens - ......that is your conclusion. Not mine.
    #72     Nov 27, 2003
  3. ‘sigh’ You are the one who labeled me as right-wing and my views as "extreme in nature." Do you even read what you post?"

    I read what I post if people are unclear in what I am saying to see if I have in fact been unclear.

    You are denying that you are a moderate conservative. That is your right.
    #73     Nov 27, 2003
  4. "The war on terrorism" as it currently exists is being waged by the Bush administration. You said "a war on terrorism." The two are not one and the same. THE war on terrorism is being objected to by Dems/Libs on a daily basis. They are against it. They would have a new war on terrorism based on principles and tactics that they themselves cannot envision let alone agree on. As it stands, they indeed are against THE war on terrorism in its present form.

    As explained previously, Bush's critics in the democratic party complain with Bush's prosecution of the war on terrorism, not the war against terrorism in general. No one from either major party supports the acts terrorism, there are different opinions on how best to fight it is all.
    #74     Nov 27, 2003
  5. Thank you for the examples. Now, what's your point? That the president decided on the basis of his own thinking and that of his aides, to pursue a particular path of action without a broad consensus of our "allies"? SO WHAT? Presidents and leaders around the world, totalitarian and democratic, have done so forever and will continue to do so. I don't understand why you feel the President has to have the approval of every Tom, Dick, Jane, Gerhardt, and Jacques around the world before taking action. That is not his job. His job is to protect the citizens of this country and to do what he feels is best for his country. That is why he was elected. He does not require the approval of other world leaders to do so. And doing so does not make him a bad person or a bad leader.

    History has shown that when there was only one superpower, that if that superpower acted without concern for its neighbors or allies that the superpower eventually lost its power.

    Bush was elected for the pupose of serving the needs of our society, not the other way around.
    #75     Nov 27, 2003
  6. You of all posters have the gall to wax about verbal abuse when you yourself have done so numerous times here on ET? How hypocritical (and typical). But the difference between us is that apparently it bothers you a great deal. Seems you can dish it out but can't take it, eh? I can't believe you cut and pasted all that. Hilarious!

    Optional, you need to rest your sphincter in a major way and learn not to take things so seriously. Really, it's time you stepped away from the computer - there is more to life than arguing politics on ET. Oops, I was being sarcastic there! Please don't think I was trying to abuse you.

    Non responsive.

    You are not denying your present use of sarcasm and verbal abuse, you are trying to shift the emphasis away from yourself to someone else.

    This is a common technique among interent flamers, and is considered fallacious reasoning, because pointing out flaws in another is not a valid defense of one's own.
    #76     Nov 27, 2003
  7. Um, could you be a little more clear?

    I am not denying anything of the kind. That you continue to assert that I am a right-wing extremist only further illustrates your penchant for verbal abuse. Your hypocrisy is again apparent. But don't worry, I won't cut and paste a lengthy definition on the subject and an accompanying essay as you did.

    You can hardly equate Bush's decision to forge ahead in Iraq without the consent of many of our "allies" - who had their own self-centered reasons for doing so - to a siren call announcing the downfall of the US. This country cooperates with those same "allies" every day on numerous economic and political issues. Again, I don't understand why you feel the President has to have the approval of every Tom, Dick, Jane, Gerhardt, and Jacques around the world before taking action dedicated to ensuring the security of his citizens.

    No kidding. Posting cliches does not make your assertion true.

    If you consider this disagreement of ours verbally abusive to you, I suggest you do the following:

    A) Search deep within yourself and try to discover something called a "sense of humor."

    B) Rest your sphincter for a while, shut down your computer for a few days after trading, and find another diversion that doesn't raise your blood pressure to the level that posting on ET does. At the very least, try to avoid political discussions on public message boards when you know you will receive opinions that are contrary to your own.

    Most importantly:

    C) REFLECT on the following: If someone consistently reacts to you in a negative way, you can conclude that you are blameless, or that you have some responsibility for it happening. Are you to blame? Maybe not, but you are partially responsible, as we all do make choices that are often self centered. Try to figure out what part you have had in pissing people off to the point that you consistently receive negative responses.

    After all, in any relationship, someone can always feel that they are right and the other party is wrong.

    This is known as being arrogant, self centered, and self righteous.
    #77     Nov 28, 2003
  8. hmmmm taking over/controlling their natural recourses is rather obvious:)

    Israel being there? I got mixed fillings about it on it's location settlements, border disputes, UN resolution violations etc.... long list.:(

    If we "like" Israelis so much, settle them here in Lower Manhattan:D Or better yet somewhere in our vacant expanses within the states.:) The can work here and contribute to our society instead of my tax dollars going to support them down there. :) But I digress

    I don't know if Arabs they teach hate or not:confused: Propaganda surely is a factor on both sides.:D Religious beliefs have always been played into this. I do see your point.

    We may not be teaching hate against them directly, but sure enough we have bombed the crap out of them, and our involvement the last century directly or indirectly has caused hundreds of thousands if not multimillions to die.:confused:

    Well I strongly doubt that they have any loving feelings for us.:eek: I guess if Cuba was attached to Fla, it would have been annexed long time ago. Another story there
    #78     Dec 5, 2003
  9. NEWSWEEK: Gingrich Speaks Out Against Administration's Policy in Iraq, Saying The U.S. Went 'Off a Cliff'
    Sunday December 7, 10:25 am ET
    Key in Iraq Is 'Not How Many Enemy Do I Kill' But 'How Many Allies Do I Grow'

    NEW YORK, Dec. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a quiet confidant of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says the U.S. went "off a cliff in Iraq." In the December 15 issue (on newsstands Monday, Dec. 8), Gingrich talks about the shortcomings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, saying that "Americans can't win in Iraq. Only Iraqis can win in Iraq."
    (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20031207/NYSU006 )
    Gingrich, a member of the influential Defense Policy Board, argues that the administration has been putting far too much emphasis on a military solution and slighting the political element, report National Security Correspondent John Barry and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas. While he says he's not speaking for the board, it is rare that one of its members voices a dissenting view in public. "The Army's reaction to Vietnam was not to think about it," he says. Rather than absorb the lessons of counterinsurgency, Gingrich says, the Army adopted "a deliberate strategy of amnesia because people don't want to ever do it again." The Army rebuilt a superb fighting force for waging a conventional war. "I am very proud of what [Operation Iraqi Freedom commander Gen.] Tommy Franks did-up to the moment of deciding how to transfer power to the Iraqis. Then we go off a cliff."

    The real key in Iraq, he says, "is not how many enemy do I kill. The real key is how many allies do I grow," he says. "And that is a very important metric that they just don't get." He contends that the civilian-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is fairly isolated and powerless, hunkered down inside its bunker in Baghdad. The military has the money and the daily contact with the locals. But it's using the same tactics in a guerrilla struggle that led to defeat in Vietnam.

    Gingrich faults the Americans for not quickly establishing a legitimate Iraqi government, however imperfect. "The idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naivete," he scoffs. "It is a self-destructive fantasy."

    The former speaker indicates it would be a huge mistake for American troops to leave Iraq by next November's election, a rumor that has been circulating in the Pentagon. The only "exit strategy," says Gingrich, "is victory." But not by brute American force. "We are not the enforcers. We are the reinforcers," says Gingrich. "The distinction between these two words is central to the next year in Iraq."
    #79     Dec 8, 2003