Bush: The Great Uniter

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]hspder wrote:

Domestically, I don’t expect to see many differences in the next decade. I’m reasonably certain the GOP will retain control of government, including the Presidency – I do not see any charismatic progressive candidate emerging any time soon. We will be living through Reaganism for quite a while still, even though I hope that the next president drinks a little bit less of the neocon Kool-Aid.[/quote]

Agreed. However, I think you needn’t hope for less of a kool-aid drinker. I don’t think people are gung ho about our foreign policy, I think most agree with the ‘stay the course’ line of thought. Do you see any more cowboys to put in the White House?

Wow, how many Ph.D.s did you use to come up with that prediction? :slight_smile:

[quote]Why is this so important politically?

China, the US and Europe have a symbiotic relationship, in the sense that it is in all of our best interests that we keep our economies afloat and the balance of power intact. That means that, most probably, we will have more of the same, because the alternatives are simply too scary.

We won’t be able to keep this up for that long, so one of two things will happen: either China, the US and Europe do undergo a hard landing in one fell swoop and the whole planet goes through an economic recession the likes of which we have never seen – maybe we will go back to the world of the 1930s, except with China in the position the UK was at the time – or we get our asses all saved by a charismatic, intelligent, resourceful leader that shows up out of nowhere.

Although I’d prefer the latter, I honestly can’t see where the heck we are going to dig up such a leader from, much less how is s/he going to get elected. Worse: in order for us to have a good leader, we might need also an equally “good” nemesis. [/quote]

So, China’s economy collapses and unless the economic second coming happens, the world goes to hell? What about India? Also, do you think Mexico can continue to wallow in economic mediocrity forever or would China’s collapse be a boon to them? Not to suggest that India or Mexico could equal China economically, more that rather than a centralized US/China economy, it will be forced to become more global. The average American (or Chinese) businessman may not be able to smell the smoke, but he’ll sure as hell get his feet out of the fire before he gets burned.

I’m not trying to smooth everything over, but you seem to have a penchant for doomsday economic scenarios. China almost certainly will collapse, it won’t be good. We probably won’t be teaching our children to hoard toilet paper or can their own food though.

22

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Read about our nano future.[/quote]

News Mucks to the rescue…

23

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Anyways, look at what you’re implying for a second. That if an enemy can effectively recruit and make use of propaganda, we should just drop the fight. Huh? Let me get this straight, I shouldn’t support fighting an enemy (one I feel is undeniably evil and brutal) because people are willing to sign up with them? Thank god our vets didn’t think like that.

That’s not what I’m implying at all.

I’m implying that the west would be in a much better position if it was united instead of fractured.

I’m implying that driving countries that are sitting on the fence to the other side is just plain stupid.

I’m implying that there are things we aren’t doing, other than simply sending soldiers to fight, that can also be very effective in slowing down the recruitment of these jihadists.

I’m implying that people like you, who can’t see any valid actions beyond violence, simply end up creating a larger conflict and more violence, as neither side will end up winning through force alone.

Whatever fantasy world you live in which equates looking for additional ways to combat this problem as a lack of fortitude is the same fantasy world that the Bush administration has fallen prey too.

I’m implying that we eventually should try to find leaders that know how to choose their paths wisely to appropriatly avoid making a bad situation into a global shitstorm.

World politics should be more like chess and less like checkers. Those who are playing chess while we play checkers are going to win.[/quote]

No, it’s this kind of Dr. Phil bullshit that extends this fight and makes it more difficult. The enemy knows how infatuated we are with our appearences. And now they use this crap against us.

Christ, they couldn’t ask for better propogandists then our own damn people. “Oh, we’re so mean. Oh no, we’re making people mad.” Fuck that stupid shit. Stop fighting to kill their soldiers and fight to break the will of their people. Again, they realize we’re a bunch of pussies and make use of that.

24

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, it’s this kind of Dr. Phil bullshit that extends this fight and makes it more difficult. The enemy knows how infatuated we are with our appearences. And now they use this crap against us.

Christ, they couldn’t ask for better propogandists then our own damn people. “Oh, we’re so mean. Oh no, we’re making people mad.” Fuck that stupid shit. Stop fighting to kill their soldiers and fight to break the will of their people. Again, they realize we’re a bunch of pussies and make use of that.
[/quote]

LOL. You really have no idea what I’m saying do you?

Clue. There are many ways to achieve an objective… and no, I’m not saying everyone should get together and sing kumbaya.

It’s a real shame that people drag out that particular staw man so often instead of actually stopping to think about things a little bit.

25

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Stop fighting to kill their soldiers and fight to break the will of their people.[/quote]

You clearly don’t understand Jihad, ‘their people’ are soldiers. IMO, their will is already broken, that’s why they adopt ‘the will of Alah’ as their own.

26

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You clearly don’t understand Jihad, ‘their people’ are soldiers. IMO, their will is already broken, that’s why they adopt ‘the will of Alah’ as their own.
[/quote]

And that’s why you convince them that Allah has abandonded them. Have militias walking around freely in Sadr City? Level the fucking place.

27

Wouldn’t it be better to rebuild a secular Iraqi will instead of blowing stuff up? We got what we came for. Oil is secure, Saddam is out.

Now we instill the democracy by helping the people realize real opportunity and the personal liberty that can be theirs. That means smashing the tyrants who try to break them down and tell them they are worthless without some invisible superhero demanding their complete obedience to some slavish set of medieval laws.

In other words, the islamofascists have to go, or this ain’t gonna work. I think we have militarily done as much as we could so far. Now we watch and shepherd our new pals until they can handle shit on their own.

28

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And that’s why you convice them that Allah has abandonded them. Have militias walking around freely in Sadr City? Level the fucking place.
[/quote]

Ah, sea of glass type of thing, is that it?

29

You can’t have liberty with all these damn Cleric run militas running around. The militias need to be turned into hamburger. The war needs to heat back up. It ended way too soon.

30

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And that’s why you convice them that Allah has abandonded them. Have militias walking around freely in Sadr City? Level the fucking place.

Ah, sea of glass type of thing, is that it?[/quote]

More like rubble. See, I’m not under an illusion that the will of fanatics can be broken by having some successful raids every now and again on replaceable leaders. I swear to god, our biggest obstacle in is ourselves. We’ve done put restrictions on ourselves. The enemy knows it and exploits the hell out it. Our “gentleman’s” war is the barbarians’ greatest strength. See that picture off all the Taliban commanders lined up at the funeral? They shouldn’t be breathing today.

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
More like rubble. See, I’m not under an illusion that the will of fanatics can be broken by having some successful raids every now and again on replaceable leaders. I swear to god, our biggest obstacle in is ourselves. We’ve done put restrictions on ourselves. The enemy knows it and exploits the hell out it. Our “gentleman’s” war is the barbarians’ greatest strenght. See that picture off all the Taliban commanders lined up at the funeral? They shouldn’t be breathing today.
[/quote]

Are you under the impression that nobody is being killed except the leaders?

The hard part, usually, is finding people who are standing up and fighting, because they easily melt back into the populace. When they do stand up and fight nobody has a problem with pulling the trigger.

So, to be clear, are you suggesting wiping out the populace to get the militants among them?

Anyway, you have conveniently ignored the fact that Iraq really had nothing to do with terrorism before it was invaded. This is sort of the gist of the thread, that Bush has been brilliant at finding ways to unite people worldwide in hatred. That helps a lot.

There is no easy solution now… or Bush would simply invoke it.

32

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Are you under the impression that nobody is being killed except the leaders?

The hard part, usually, is finding people who are standing up and fighting, because they easily melt back into the populace. When they do stand up and fight nobody has a problem with pulling the trigger.

So, to be clear, are you suggesting wiping out the populace to get the militants among them?

Anyway, you have conveniently ignored the fact that Iraq really had nothing to do with terrorism before it was invaded. This is sort of the gist of the thread, that Bush has been brilliant at finding ways to unite people worldwide in hatred. That helps a lot.

There is no easy solution now… or Bush would simply invoke it.[/quote]

Ok, don’t say Iraq had nothing to with terrorism. That is bunk. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the 1993 wtc explosives was given refuge in Irag. He was provided housing and funding by the regime.

Saddam and his Baathists called for attacks against embassies, ships, and other American and British interests. Or, the funding of Abbu Sayyaff (a Philippino terror group). Or the payments to families of suicide bombers. No connection to terrorism? There is a ton of documentation that hasn’t even been translated yet. Media that hasn’t been viewed.

33

Sloth:

If the US has a confrontation with shiite Iran, what position will the shiite iraqi government take? I suspect that the iraqi government (and the people) will condemn the US.

At that point the game will be up. All the rhetoric about helping install a fledgling democracy in iraq is not gonna help one iota with an angry american public that feels betrayed (“how could those iraqis not adore us, we are their liberators?” lol). Americans will suddenly realize what a farce Bush’s foreiign policy is. And our troops will be in a precarious position. The iraqi “war” will finally be over.

The sooner we have a conflict with Iran the sooner our troops will come home from Iraq. In the meantime Bush just wants nothing big to happen until the mid-term elections.

BTW, did you hear about the latest NIE? Not good for the “Iraq is the center of the war on terror” crowd.

34

[quote]FloridaBoy wrote:
Sloth:

BTW, did you hear about the latest NIE? Not good for the “Iraq is the center of the war on terror” crowd.

[/quote]
Iran is just about the biggest exporter of terror funding and arms shipments there is. And the fuckers are playing around with nuclear energy. Sorry, that regime needs to go if some big progress isn’t made soon. No matter how difficult it’ll be.

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Al Qaeda identified Iraq as the center. There are multiple Al Qaeda statements calling Iraq THE battlefield for the Jihad against the west. So, let them come in and die. Now, if you’re all for giving Iraq up to them, and effectively handing them the victory, that’s your opinion. By the way, the leakage from the NIE report might be a bit skewed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hey, don’t take my word for it. Al Qaeda identified Iraq as the center. There are multiple Al Qaeda statements calling Iraq THE battlefield for the Jihad against the west. So, let them come in and die. Now, if you’re all for giving Iraq up to them, and effectively handing them the victory, that’s your opinion. By the way, the leakage from the NIE report might be a bit skewed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence
[/quote]

LOL. Dude, invade a country in the middle east and it will become the center of terror. It wasn’t foresight, it was created by going in there…

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:

More like rubble. See, I’m not under an illusion that the will of fanatics can be broken by having some successful raids every now and again on replaceable leaders.[/quote]

And when the next person ‘picks up their rifle’, so to speak? Level the next city? There are terrorists in Madrid, Bali, Mumbai, London, New York, Oklahoma City,…at what point do you stop converting cities to rubble and start attacking the disease rather than the symptom? On top of that, I don’t believe vroom is/was suggesting that we stop treating the symptoms, merely that occupying a country that, at the citizen level, refuses to liberate itself could quite well be an exercise in futility.

If we are trapped in a “gentleman’s war”, as you put it, the blame rests pretty squarely on Rumsfeld. I’ve posted on numerous occasions that we should’ve put more boots on the ground going in, but the ‘turn the city to rubble’ mentality will lose the political war no matter how many Taliban leaders you slaughter. But at this point, what better way to make a martyr out of someone than to set half the world’s army against him, slaughter all his generals, bury his people, and fail to kill him?

Snuff the guy while he’s on the toilet in the middle of nowhere and fourty years kids will emblazen him on cheap t-shirts hand sewn by the people he was supposed to ‘liberate’. And everyone who’s old enough to remember or know what happened will have a good chuckle at it.

37

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Al Qaeda identified Iraq as the center. There are multiple Al Qaeda statements calling Iraq THE battlefield for the Jihad against the west.
[/quote]

Yes I know what al quaida says. And I know this is the foundation of Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq. So if Al Quaida says that “Antartica is THE battlefield for Jihad against the west” or that Sri Lanka is the center, are we going to send a 100,000 troops to those places?

If some shithead named OBL comes out of a hole in a mountain and shouts: “Hey USA! Do a hand-stand and count backwards from 1,000”, and US intelligence picks this up on a satellite signal and reports it to Bush, is Bush gonna come out and say: “We must listen to what Al Quaida says. Everyone do a handstand and we will spend $100 billion if necessary to train everyone to do a handstand if that is what it takes! They will not break our will!!!”

Sorry Sloth, but you are being manipulated. If i were you i would be just a little pissed off at the frivolous arguments put forward by Bush to justify a foreign policy disaster.

38

I actually can’t wait until the olympics hits china. I think the more attention china gets the more shit they are going to get on human rights, enviromental issues, political agendas, etc.