Phyte Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Another beheaded american. This is just going to get worse. http://www.lockheedmartin.com Phyte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 As long as the American public allow the politicians to spin this situation, we will continue to be victomized by terrorists who care not if we are republican or democrat. We need to either commit 100% to the "War on Terror" and DO IT RIGHT, Or pack up and go home... That means pulling out of EVERY nation that we have troops in. Go home, defend our borders... That means Israil, Europe, South Korea, Africa, Afghanistan, Central and South America... No support, no Aid, No intervention, and NO UN. Defend our own borders and turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the problems the rest of the world has... SECURE OUR BORDERS and deport everyone who is here ilegally... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I vote Mike Kelly for President!! I love the extreme right!! Down with the liberal!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Actually I'm more liberal than you might think, and I'm actually an independant, not a republican... However, 18 years in my line of work and you get fed up... Either go in and do the job right, which by the way means SUPPORTING THE JOB THAT YOUR federally elected congressmen and women (Of BOTH FLAVORS) approved, or don't do it at all. You see, in America, We want it fast, we want it now, and we have the attention span of a three year old hopped up on sugar and caffeine. We can't stomach a war where our VONUNTEER soldiers go off to war and come home in bags... Yet, I can go back in the archives and pull up all the "SUPPORT" posts we got when the towers fell and the pentagon to its direct hit... Listen fellas, I sat and watched as my DCI, MR. Tenet resigned because of this whole mess... And the ONLY mistake that he made was not accounting for WHERE those WMA might go off to. Reality is that TONY BLAIR, Bill CLINTON, And Andro PUTTEN ALL believed (From their own sources) that Saddam still had the capability of unleashing a chemical attack the likes not seen since WW1. We didn't do a damned thing about Syria, and we haven't for 30 years... Anyone care to remember the US embasy and the Marine Corp barracks in Beirut, Lebanon? Syria and Iran BOTH directly aid terrorism, and we sit back and allow it... When we "Launched" our attacks this war, we should have done everything possible to coorden off the border between Iraq and Syria... Now, No WMA... It sickens me to sit back and listen to the LIBERAL press and the hollywood media spread their dung all over our airwaves and in our print... Whatever happened to reporting the FACTS without interjecting your own beliefs, opinions and thoughts into it? We DON'T have an honest media anymore and Joe America has no HONEST and balanced source to go to... We're no better off than any controlled "State" so long as we don't question, challenge and seek our own truths... Sorry, but this is NOT what I have risked my own life for... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-REX Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 mike said it all in the first post. as a nation, our position among the world is being tarnished; allies who once took us seriously have long begun to wonder what our real agenda is. our foreign policy is in shambles and whoever inherits the postion of commander in chief has an epic mess to clean up. meanwhile, we're LOSING the war on terror (sorry, it's the truth) and the media keeps the coals burning by warning of another catastrophic tragedy and keeping American morale on orange alert. years and years of shoddy foreign policy is what got us into this, not just four years of misguided "leadership". we supported regimes in the iran conflict in the eighties only to turn around and quietly aid their enemies. we've sent billions in taxpayer money to terror-supporting nations under the facade of humanitarian aid and the protection of human rights. we started something in the early 90's that was left undone, only to resurface more than a decade later as an all-to-convenient distraction to the unsuccesful attempt to rid the world of the threat of al-queda. of course our people are dying, it's war. war is hell, it may be cliche but it's nothing a civilized world should ever have to deal with. we got ourselves involved, and knew full well what the consequences of our actions would have been long beforehand. meanwhile, our people are dying overseas, canada can provide federalized healthcare but we can't, and thanks to media and government propaganda (red scare??) we wonder when the next massive tragedy is going to hit and how much worse this time. i think the answer lies in a vulgar display of power, a definitive statement of "we're tired of our people dying" not unlike the one that ended WWII. and after that? like mike said, defend our borders, pay ourselves first, and KEEP OUR NOSES OUT OF OTHER COUNTRIES' BUSINESS!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I can't believe people actually think we're losing the war in terror. We have delivered the two finest ass kickings ever seen in human history in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've intimidated Quadafi into backing down, and exposed the Pakistani nuclear problem. We've dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda, and we should be thinking that WE'RE JUST GETTING STARTED. Sure, there are insurgents in Iraq, but LOSING??? We've lost 800 men in the war with Iraq. How many did we lose on D-day? 4000? Going further back the US lost 50,000 in the battle of Antietam in 2 days. How long did it take for us to lose 800 men in post WWII Europe during the Marshall plan? I'm sure that there were problems there too, but nobody wanted to cut and run. I think Mike's point was that we need to prosecute the war to the fullest, and not get stuck like we did in Vietnam where we had people walking the point on patrols with no ammo, or orders not to shoot. Vietnam and the day to day media coverage gave us a weak stomach, and that is what needs to be dealt with. I was listening to a former CIA guy yesterday talking about how Clinton established a rule in the CIA that we would not work with any foreigner who had commited a felony. That's the kind of PC liberal hamstringing that f'ed up our intelligence agencies during the 90s. That and the liberal move to cut intelligence funding and block the intelligence agencies from working together. I don't think he was trying to say that we're losing in the first post, but that terrorists perceive our hemming and hawing as weakness. We need to CONTINUE kicking ass. That's how it's got to be done. If we aren't willing to kick ass, then we should go home, on that part I agree. I just can't reconcile the accomplishments and the relatively low numbers of casualties and come to the conclusion that we're losing. What the hell is winning then? Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-REX Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I didn't take mike's posts as saying we were losing... that was my own tangent. i didn't mean to sound as though i feel we've accomplished nothing, we have... but i can't say we hold the upper hand when there are constant stirrings of more attacks, and in a terrorist mind percieved weakness is as good as victory... and a low number of casualties is still a number of casualties. as far as al-queda, all we've done is succeded in their defragmenatation.. now making them a more difficult enemy to get a read on, more widespread as many have moved their camps from where they were, and much angrier. we may have knocked out a good measure of their leadership, but they might as well be twenty or more smaller organizations with the same cause. but i DO think a final, definitive ass-kicking has long been in order and i firmly support our need to do so. i do not think occupation is victory. i do not think we're fighting this war on all the fronts it needs to be fought on. and as long as that remains the case, and as long as people with no regard for the value of human life can strike fear into our hearts, i can't say we're winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 i do not think occupation is victory. Show me someone who does. But you can't just decapitate a country and then leave it. If we invaded Iraq then turned around and left immediately, there would be a Sunni fundamental Islamist gov't in power, no doubt. The Kurds and Shias would be massacred by the Sunnis. The only thing keeping that civil war from happening 30 years ago was Saddam's dictatorship, and he just killed anyone who dared to speak out against him. Now we have a chance to from a somewhat democratic gov't there, and if it is successful that will be a sign to the rest of the Middle East that it can be done. i do not think we're fighting this war on all the fronts it needs to be fought on. All I can say to that is I agree. If we had a 3 million man army and unlimited funds I'd want to go into a bunch more countries. Since we don't, we have to compromise and go one step at a time. and as long as that remains the case, and as long as people with no regard for the value of human life can strike fear into our hearts, i can't say we're winning. If that is your criteria for winning, we never will. There will always be someone who scares the crap out of us, it might be a radical Muslim extremist, it might be some wacko militia member, it might be a serial killer, but we can never be totally safe. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-REX Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 jon... for all the debating, i think we're both on the same page... just looking at it from slightly different angles. you make a great point about the establishment of a democratic government... but i'd really rather see it done sooner than later so we can continue to make demonstrative points in other places where they need to be made. i still tend to think that the rapid obliteration of iraq was a thinly-veiled distraction from our inability to bring home the initial prize, and i wish we had been able to find what we went in for in the first place. but back to mr. johnson... my thoughts go out to his loved ones... not only for their loss but for the near media circus that was made of it. i can't imagine what they must have felt when they turned on fox news and heard the words "beheaded" or "decapitated" over and over again. i find it unacceptable that such utter disrespect could be shown for the family and friends of this innocent man. if it were me, i'd sure as hell rather not have the macabre details of my execution broadcast for the world to know about. and on a totally unrelated matter... this is just another reason why i love hybridz!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 It sure can be disheartening when all we hear about is the "negative news" concering the Iraq war. I work with a few guys who just got back from there a few months ago and they lament how demoralizing it is to hear nothing but negativity about Iraq. They kept talking about the tremendous progress they've made over there and how it gets a little better each day. They related how well recieved they were and still are by most of the local Iraqi's that they work around everyday. What caused most of their anger and grief, was the fact all the good work, fantastic progress, and the immense cooperation from the local Iraqis was being entirely ignored by the media and seemingly half the world. Furthermore, I feel that it is precisely because of the extremists over there with no regard for human life is all the more reason to remain commited and firmly in the fight. And of course they strike fear into our hearts, and all the better, because that fear prompts us to take a just fight against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 As I've posted before this is the most lucid, thoughful, and level headed analysis of what's going on regarding the war on terror: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/ IMHO of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Since we're promoting good arguments, go here http://www.albinoblacksheep.com and watch the "protesting the protestors" parts 1 and 2 in the video section. Amazing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Something to keep in mind is that a lot of high-ranking conservatives are voicing opposition to the way Bush has led the party away from traditional republicanism. The latest came this week when many former Reagan/Bush 1 appointees and military officials declared their concerns publicly, indicating that there's more to this story than media bias or partisan politics. If anything, just reading the part I put in bold should disspel he myth that the only ones critical of the administration and our chances in Iraq are peaceniks or libs. (Full story linked below) "Today a group of former senior diplomatic officials and retired military commanders--several of whom are the kind who "have never spoken out before" on such matters--issued a bracing statement arguing that George W. Bush has damaged the country's national security and calling on Americans to defeat him in November. It's too early to tell if the statement will have an impact on this fall's campaign. But Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, as the group is called, reveals (again) how dangerously isolated the Bush Administration is not just around the world but even from America's own bipartisan foreign policy and military establishments. Jack Matlock, who served as Reagan and Bush 41's ambassador to the Soviet Union, has signed the statement, as has Ret. Adm. William Crowe, who served as Reagan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar has added his name to the list, and he commanded US forces in the Middle East under Bush Sr. Phyllis Oakley, who served as a State Department spokesperson under Reagan, is another signatory. The vast majority of the signatories are, in fact, either conservative Republicans who served under Reagan and Bush 41 or they are bipartisan, consensus-driven ex-diplomats who served their country from Africa to Asia because they believed in America's leadership role around the world. Around the same time, retired military commanders were growing aghast at Bush's utterly inept lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq. That's why, for example, the former Centcom commander Gen. Anthony Zinni ultimately went on 60 Minutes last month and argued that if Bush stayed on the current course in Iraq, America was "headed over Niagara Falls." Hoar, the retired Marine general, has publicly declared that the United States is "absolutely on the brink of failure" in Iraq." http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I'm no fan of George Bush, although I think he did a wonderful job in the days following 9/11/2001. I think his reasons for going to war with Iraq were through blurred vision, and I think we were right to wage war on Saddam, only because we hade every reason to SINCE 1998. We didn't need to go to the rest of the world for approval and yet as short sited as Americans are, we forgot about everything signed and agreed to when we were parked outside the city of Bagdad a decade before... A bruital ruler signed and agreed to a host of conditions, then refused to uphold ANY of them without our constant pressure, and some things he refused even WITH constant pressure. Had there not been a 9/11/01, I'm convinced GWB would have been no more successful than Bill Clinton, and possibly worse. His manners in foreign affairs are lacking and he doesn't just step on toes, he sheers them off. GWB's saving grace has been the staff he has been surrounded by, as they ARE some of the best diplomats in the business, who have been through democrat and republican leadership, and taken their jobs for one purpose, to serve America. These folks have been working overtime trying to fix his image repeatedly, and I think they will eventual succeed and he will be re-elected. My fear is that our children will compare him to the likes of Ronald Reagan. We are winning the war on terror, in ways the American public will never be able to know about, and we have made significant progress in Irag, and in middle east as a whole. But WHY do we sit by idle and listen to the constant barrage of lies that is reported in the media every day? I agree, it is very disheartening for America to only get reports on the negative side of things. And for the LIFE of me, I do NOT understand why it is that GWB's advisors and campaign strategists aren't focusing on these very issues... The good. Here is another scenario... I keep hearing about how GWB "LIED" to the American public... He supposedly lied about WMD and about Hussein's ties to Bin Ladden. There was no lieing going on there folks... Intelligence reports from sources around the world and our own intelligence on the ground pointed evidence in those two directions, and quite frankly, Mr. Bush isn't that sharp... There is no tail waggin the dog with this guy... He isn't as quick witted as his father was, and that, if nothing else will save him from himself and the democrats. There were no lies. There was inaccurate intelligence that we made decisions on, based on the lack of cooperation on the part of Hussein and his ruling council. Had Saddam cooperated, quit playing shell games every time we had folks on the ground running inspections, we wouldn't have troops in the desert right now. No, The people of America LET BUSH down... He stood before us all and made it clear that voting for this war on terror meant a long and drawn out battle with an enemy NONE of us had battled before... This foe brought the battle onto our soil and attacked us, and as short sided and ignorant as the American public is, Our patriotic pride stepped up because it was the THING TO DO that day, and oh boy, much like gas after a bad bowl of chilli, that patriotic feeling also passed. Another thing that has stuck in my craw and I've heard no one key on this... President Clinton was president Clinton till the day he left office, as was every other president in my memory... President Bush is Mr. Bush in the press when they refer to him. Listen to a press report on something the president does. What is the purpose of this if not to show disrespect for him and display it to the rest of the world. We complain about the vision the rest of the world has of our government, and yet WE won't help repair that opinion of him by doing this ourselves, or allowing it at the very least. Regardless of our support for him, or oppistion against him, this to me is one of the biggest insults and wrongs we do every day... The last point I'll make and then I'll shut up on this subject... George Bush senior lost his election in large part when he aligned himself with the far right... Giving the opinion that it was OK for big Gov't to some into my bedroom and tell me what I can and can't do. I know a lot of folks on here are religious, so I won't tread those waters, but I will say this... Bush Jr almost made that same exact mistake. The whole ordeal with the FCC and the pressure they have put on talk radio, TV, and Hollywood was seriously doing him some big time damage and his advisers saw this... Notice the FCC hasn't been in the media as of late? By early April that whole issue was in the can, and people were quietly sweeping that issue under the rug... CSPAN wasn't even broadcasting the hearings anymore... Strange, NO? He's learning, Actually... Not he isn't because remember, he is REALLY NOT that sharp a guy, but his advisers are... And they are steering him. IF we have another four years with Bush (And I'm on the fence right now as to where I should vote, as is most of America...Again, lesser of two evils is what we're left with these days! ), we won't see the mistakes he made the first time around... He will be much more polished and much more controlled. I prey every day for the soldiers we have abroad, and I fear that the hostage taking and beheading will continue. It will get worse before it gets better for sure, but it will eventually get better. We are winning the war on terror. But make no mistake, wars come with a price we generally pay in blood. We can NOT do this half heartedly. We MUST finish this under whichever party rule we end up with in January. Mike Kelly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silicone boy Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can't believe people actually think we're losing the war in terror. We have delivered the two finest ass kickings ever seen in human history in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've intimidated Quadafi into backing down, and exposed the Pakistani nuclear problem. We've dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda, and we should be thinking that WE'RE JUST GETTING STARTED. Sure, there are insurgents in Iraq, but LOSING??? We've lost 800 men in the war with Iraq. How many did we lose on D-day? 4000? Going further back the US lost 50,000 in the battle of Antietam in 2 days. How long did it take for us to lose 800 men in post WWII Europe during the Marshall plan? I'm sure that there were problems there too, but nobody wanted to cut and run. I feel compelled to reply, even though I don't like to discuss politics in a forum that gives me great pleasure. Sure, we won a great "tactical" victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I fear the American public and our leaders are sadly unprepared for the realities of modern warfare. It's not about bringing in a lot of soldiers to occupy territory. As the greatest general of the last century said, General Vo Giap of North Vietnam, victory comes when you take away the enemy's ability and more importantly, will to fight. Against Al Quaeda and the Iraqi resistance, we have done neither. What we are witnessing is a significant development in how modern assymetric warfare is waged. In the last part the the 20th century, smaller forces have been able to defeat larger technologically superior ones by using all available resources, and I don't mean by force alone. Gen. Giap felt that technology was irrelevent and essentially developed the modern multi-modal warfare concept. He realized that he couldn't militarily defeat us, but he could still win by the steady drip, drip of American blood. Use of the media for psychological warfare purposes on the American public was important to the North Vietnamese battle plan. Unleash American military? Well, Gen. Giap calculated correctly that the Soviets and Chinese would enter the fray, something we didn't have the stomach for. He basically won by not losing and no cost in NV lives was too high. Mohammed Farah Aidid defeated us in Somalia withough very many shots simply by brutalizing the bodies of dead American soldiers and using the press to broadcast it. For those who thought we should have gone back in there and retaliated, I would say "against whom?" and also point out that the American congress wanted nothing to do with it. I see similar problems in Iraq, where significant errors in judgement were made. Sure, we were able to roll into Bagdhad (I'm surprised it took as long as it did), but doesn't it disturb you that thousands of Iraqis who said they would defend Saddam to the death simply vanished into the desert? What we have here is a group of people who have carefully studied and planned for assymetric warfare over the past 12 years. They know that they cannot defeat us militarily, but they will continue to blow up American soldiers one by one until we get tired of it and leave. You can say we delivered an ass whuppin, but they achieve their pre-war objectives. When we do leave, a radically right wing conservative government will eventually take over. To make matters worse, we have done exactly what Al Quaeda wanted us to do. We took down a secular Arab dictator that they despised and they then were able to pour into Iraq and kill Americans. Sure, we dismantled their training camps, but they don't need them anymore. They have the best training ground they need in Iraq where it's open season on Americans. The beheadings, the killings of oil workers in Saudi Arabia, are all part of an effort to disrupt the world oil supply and, more importantly, take down those bastards in the House of Saud, whom we support. You could say the Paul Johnson died for those 9000 princes that live like, well, princes while poverty climbs among their people (the per capita income in Saudi Arabia has been cut in half over the past decade). Yes, expect it to get worse before it gets better. Saudi Arabia is ripe for revolution stirred up by Al Quaeda, and we'll have to go rescue the sorry asses of the royal family. Unfortunately, nearly all of our active combat personnel are pinned down in Iraq looking for imaginary WMD's All is not lost, though. What the right wing conservatives of Al Quaeda fear the most is the liberalization of arab culture (like giving women the right to an education, allowing Arab babes like Rudi Bakhtiar of CNN-actually she's Persian-to bare their belly buttons). Over time, though, liberal democracy will win. It's the inevitable course of human social evolution. Remember, slavery is now illegal, women have the right to vote, and racism is no longer tolerated in mainstream society. It may take a while, but we will defeat conservative Jihadists, not with our guns, but with our ideas that will take hold in the Middle East. All we have to do is flood them with MTV, Brittney Spears, etc and the Muslim world will look very much like ours in the latter half of this century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay1970Z Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 The political climate of this country has become appalling. I swear, for most people, especially where I live (on a college campus) politics have become nothing more than a sporting event. People root for Democrats or Republicans like I root for the Dolphins. They are incredibly uneducated but claim that they are. They go about everything in the wrong way. It just makes me furious to see kids protesting in front of the student union holdling signs saying, "BUSH IS HITLER" and "THE BLOOD IS ON BUSHES HANDS". Granted, I am a registered Republican but I am very, very moderate. My roommates girlfriend came over the other day and started ranting about how evil Bush is when she saw him on TV. The second I voiced any opposition to anything she was saying I was branded as an ultra right-wing radical. So I asked her to counter my arguments, and the all I got was "You're studid because you're a Republican and you don't know what you're talking about." She had absolutely no counter to any of the things I was saying other than, you are stupid. The way I see it, I will discredit your idea, but I won't discredit you for having it. This has gone away and it makes me sick to see our country becoming more partisan every day. Sorry to hijack the thread here, but I had to get off a little rant. On another note, my prayers go out to the family and friends of Paul Johnson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Sure, we won a great "tactical" victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I fear the American public and our leaders are sadly unprepared for the realities of modern warfare. It's not about bringing in a lot of soldiers to occupy territory. As the greatest general of the last century said, General Vo Giap of North Vietnam, victory comes when you take away the enemy's ability and more importantly, will to fight. There are certain groups which I think will almost never lose the will to fight. Among them are the Vietnamese, who had been fighting occupation for 2000 years when we stepped in to try and bail out the French in their quest for Michelin rubber. We should have just let that one go. Ho Chi Minh even asked for US approval of the Vietnamese declaration of independence, which was very similar to the US's version. Instead we chose to side with our ally and so Vietnam turned to communists for support as a second choice. I don't think Muslim extremists will ever lose the will to fight either. Their viewpoint is so extreme that you cannot "convince" them not to fight, or to see the world in a different way. I see it kind of like racism in America. You've got dyed in the wool racists in this country who will NEVER change their views. What has to happen is that the society needs to protect equality, and the masses need to be exposed to something OTHER THAN racism. A few generations ago, the situation was much worse than it is today. A few generations from now, and it will be a much smaller problem. The same can happen in Iraq, but it takes generations. Occupying for generations is not an option, but occupying until they have the resources to deal with the uprisings themselves is essential. When that happens the new Iraqi govt needs to be responsible for the security, just as we were responsible for security of our country. Are there going to be massacres? You bet. Is there going to be a stronger backlash than what we're seeing right now? I'd put money on it. But we need to give them the tools to deal with it, not occupy their country. Mohammed Farah Aidid defeated us in Somalia withough very many shots simply by brutalizing the bodies of dead American soldiers and using the press to broadcast it. For those who thought we should have gone back in there and retaliated, I would say "against whom?" and also point out that the American congress wanted nothing to do with it. The only reason we left Somalia was because Clinton and his constituents couldn't handle it. The soldiers wanted to go back, and they DID know who the warlords were, so they weren't fighting an invisible enemy. I've seen several interviews and read some about this and all of the soldiers were very pissed that they had to leave. They knew who they were after and where to get them, but the White House fearing a backlash pulled us out. I think his reasons for going to war with Iraq were through blurred vision, and I think we were right to wage war on Saddam, only because we hade every reason to SINCE 1998. We didn't need to go to the rest of the world for approval and yet as short sited as Americans are, we forgot about everything signed and agreed to when we were parked outside the city of Bagdad a decade before... A bruital ruler signed and agreed to a host of conditions, then refused to uphold ANY of them without our constant pressure, and some things he refused even WITH constant pressure. I've been saying this for years now. When Bush first started in on Iraq and 1441 was passed, I was telling my friends, Clinton should have taken care of this in the 90s. There would have been much less backlash from the UN and the rest of our "allies", and the purpose of the mission would have had greater clarity which would have meant less division amongst Americans. Unfortunately, Clinton's response to just about every threat was to chuck a couple of cruise missiles (which he wasn't replacing) and leave. That is not an appropriate response IMO, and I feel he did a horrible job in this respect. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Jay. I watched a 60 Minutes (?) segment with John Stossel about 5 years ago where he went to a college campus and Alan Keyes was speaking about getting rid of affirmative action. They simply would not let the man speak. They sat in the audience and chanted over his microphone so that his ideas could not even be presented. Stossel tried to interview a couple of the activists outside, and they started chanting "Racist! Racist!" at him until he finally gave up. The point was that the colleges are supposed to be the intellectual places where issues can be talked out, but they were already so militant and closed minded that they wouldn't even hear the argument. It was sad. I love to debate because I see it kind of like putting my ideas to the test, so thanks everyone for being tolerant even if we disagree. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 We complain about the vision the rest of the world has of our government, and yet WE won't help repair that opinion of him by doing this ourselves, or allowing it at the very least. Regardless of our support for him, or oppistion against him, this to me is one of the biggest insults and wrongs we do every day... Harry Truman left office with a 26% approval rating because of the way he handled Korea, LBJ, another democrat, decided not to run for re-election because the Vietnam war destroyed his presidency. It happens to both dems and repubs. We live in a country founded on freedom of speech, we must ask ourselves if we'd rather live under a dictatorship where political dissent gets you jailed or killed. I do agree however that dissent should be conducted in a respectful manner, and maybe that's what rubs us the wrong way. For example, Bush proclaimed that Saddam killed his own people(the Kurds) as a reason to get rid of him. If we stop here, the conclusion is obvious. Historians chimed in to point out that the killing of Kurds happened during the Iran-Iraq war for a reason - the Kurds of Iraq committed treason and fought on the side of Iran, effectively 'seceeding' from Iraq. We were on Iraq's side when Saddam put them down down brutally, maybe we understood that treason isn't usually viewed well in any country. We didn't let the south seceed from the union in 1860. No, we fought a Civil War, with notable slaughters of our own like the infamous 'Sherman's March' through the south. To declare Lincoln or Saddam as a leader who murdered his own people is only a half-truth without putting the actions in historical context. If our president isn't going to give us the whole story, I see nothing wrong with credible individuals like Mr. Pelletiere, the CIA's senior analyst on Iraq under Reagan who from day one has challenged GWB on Iraq's gassing of the Kurds. He should know, he's the guy that oversaw all the intel we had from that time period. Would his patriotic duty be to sit quietly as his work - the most thorough on this issue - was distorted, or to challenge areas where he knows better? Read for yourself: http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/warcrime.html P.S. Jay is right in the sense that people are very divided and often unwilling to do much legwork on why they support their party of choice. As Kurt Vonnegut said recently, " thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. Which one are you in this country? It’s practically a law of life that you have to be one or the other. If you aren’t one or the other, you might as well be a doughnut." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 As Kurt Vonnegut said recently, " thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. Which one are you in this country? It’s practically a law of life that you have to be one or the other. If you aren’t one or the other, you might as well be a doughnut." Well, you may have a point Heavy, but they're practically the same damn thing these days anyway. Subtle differences to be sure, but Republicans and Democrats aren't sticking to their core values anymore. Look at Bush's prescription benefits. What Republican 10 years ago would have dreamed of trying to get that legislation passed? Maybe in a nightmare... it seems completely contrary to conservative ideals. Or Clinton's statement during his presidency that "...the era of big government is over." Huh? I thought Bill was a democrat??? The funny thing to me is that I don't know anyone who classifies themselves as a Republican or a Democrat who agrees even mostly with their party's ideals. Political apathy is rampant. The thing that bugs me most is the lack of introspection on the part of most voters. Just run down the ballot looking for (D) or ®. Stupid... Related to the two party fiasco, have you guys seen the petitions to allow voters to vote for ANY candidate in the primaries? I know this is an attempt to address this issue, but that seems like a REALLY BAD idea to me. Bushies could have devoted 60% of their voters to Kucinich (Bush is obviously a sure thing), and nailed him in the general election. I don't know what the answer is, but that sure isn't it... Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 The thing that bugs me most is the lack of introspection on the part of most voters. Just run down the ballot looking for (D) or ®. Stupid... I couldn't have said that better!! Thats exactly whyI'm considered "middle of the road" politically speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.