[quote]battlelust wrote:
i believe that george bush is a secular leader yet he uses christian religious imagery. its called playing to your audience. did joseph stalin care about the poor saps in the factories? probably not. however, he used rhetoric that was designed to appeal to them. [/quote]
Damn-You’re good, Battlelust.
Thunder,
You are preaching to the choir. To cut right to the chase…
Does it occur to you that I’m not arguing that the status quo was the way to go?
However, there is room for disagreement on why the Islamofascists hate the west. I won’t dispute the hatred and the danger it represents. However, at the same time, the true danger is not as bad as it would be made out to be. Even a successful attack would not represent a danger to the west.
Be careful though. I’m only trying to outline how strong the west actually is. If something the size of 9/11 happened once a week, it would be horrendous, but the entire world would certainly mobilize to eliminate the problem.
Do you see what I’m trying to say? The potential for danger is there, but I’d disagree with the assumption that Islamofascists truly have the ability to resist a determined action by the west of they awaken such a reaction.
As for Germany and Japan, the issue is a little bit different. Countries are not as insular as they used to be in the past. People, ideas and capital flow freely now. The ability to control dissent and stop the expression of that dissent, whether locally or externally, is much eroded.
It’s possible we are both right. I’m not trying to say there isn’t a danger, that it doesn’t need to be addressed or that military action doesn’t have a role to play. I am suggesting that military action appears to be falling short of solving the current crisis and I’m casting about for reasons why.
You might ask why I do this. The reason is to figure out what is not working and how it can be addressed. Can you see that criticism isn’t all about being naive and kumbayah? It’s about analyzing what isn’t working and adjusting tactics to make sure it does work.
It’s also not about opposing the republican viewpoint, though Zeb may believe that. Don’t be fooled by Zeb into thinking I am applying a polarized left versus right interpretation of things.
Battlelust,
“i believe that george bush is a secular leader yet he uses christian religious imagery.”
If Bush, after 9/11, explicitly said that his response in Afghanistan was a holy war and that Christian nations should ally and defeat the heretic Muslims…
…can you honestly say with a straight face that you or any other Bush critic would call him a secular leader?
Hell, according to his critics, Bush fails the ‘secular leader’ threshold by merely saying ‘God Bless You’ when someone sneezes in the White House, let alone announcing a holy war.
No doubt in my mind that Saddam was using relgion as part of his propaganda, but once he cloaked himself in the robes of a Muslim martyr defending the holy land, secular he ain’t.
thunder,
yes, thank you, I do consider george bush to be a secular leader. his staff can sneeze all they want and I won’t say peep. and criticism of this administration (or the last dozen or so) does not a liberal make.
what sounds like radical islamic ranting to you or I is standard political rhetoric for the region. the syrians use the same rhetoric and yet they keep all of their religious freaks in prison (a wise move). the israelis accept as FACT that jehovah put aside that shitty stretch of land exclusively for them (prior inhabitants be damned!) and yet we consider them to be an enlightened, secular democracy. contradiction? no. political rhetoric.
and before you foolishly accuse me otherwise, OF COURSE the world is better off without saddam. however, if we believe that saddam was a shitbag (which I think we do) we should be able to say so (and do so?) WITHOUT trying to make tenuous connections to terrorists who considered him an oppressor.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,
Write back soon…The more time you spend defending yourself, the less time you will have to bash the USA.
Are we married? Maybe you can go latch onto someone else – I think RSU has begun posting again…[/quote]
vroom:
Either that, or you can start making sense in a few of your posts. I guess it’s up to you.
vroom:
Sure…you make perfect sense. If something on the order of 9-11 were to take place once per week then by magic we would all come together to squash the evil doer. LOL…no you are not a starry eyed liberal naw…
You miss the point, thunder. Forget about the truth - the ABBer’s intent is what you should have been addressing.
George W. Bush - the simpleton that he is - has duped 57 million folks that are, by the left’s own admission dumber than he is, into voting for him so that he can launch his evil plan to look at everyones medical charts.
Don’t you see? They can level any charge against those that voted for Bush because we are…well…we are not a very intelligent group. How can we be? All we do is support the troops, suuport the war effort, and support the President.
It doesn’t matter that many of the items in the Patriot Act have sunset clauses. It doesn’t matter that it could have a profound effect on the War on Terror. What matters is that someone may find out when I had my polio vaccine.
Bush is being accused of being a criminal mastermind. At the same time, and by many of the same folks, he’s accused of being barely smart enough to tie his shoes.
I know, I know - Carl Rove is the mastermind, and Bush is just his schill yada yada yada…and Bush is stupid.
I don’t think PAII was a republican/Bush only decision. Where is the outrage at those on the left that voted for it? Do they get a pass? Did Bush/Rove slip them some kool-aid?
rainjack:
Very well stated! By the way Bush received over 59 million votes.
Rainjack, Zeb,
You simply show your own bias. Most of the discussion in here has had nothing to do with Bush per se. It’s issues, effects, long term possibilities and other considerations.
That isn’t party politics. That is thinking and discussing. The two of you should try it some time…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, Zeb,
You simply show your own bias. Most of the discussion in here has had nothing to do with Bush per se. It’s issues, effects, long term possibilities and other
considerations.
That isn’t party politics. That is thinking and discussing. The two of you should try it some time…[/quote]vroom:
And you should try to drop your ultra-liberal US bashing agenda!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, Zeb,
You simply show your own bias. Most of the discussion in here has had nothing to do with Bush per se. It’s issues, effects, long term possibilities and other
considerations.
That isn’t party politics. That is thinking and discussing. The two of you should try it some time…[/quote]
Re-read Prof X’s posts. Re-read Elk’s posts. Is this little finger pointing exercise directed at them as well? Cause you forgot to lump them in your little list-o-partisans.
I know. I know. The kind professor will come out and say he’s not biased. He’s just against Bush. But that’s okay because Bush lied.
Elk will more than likely remind us of his military career, and tell us that Bush isn’t qualified to make any military decisions because he’s not military. But Elk’s not biased.
But these guys aren’t biased. Nope. Not one little bit. Just us “nit-witted” conservatives are capable of such evil bias.
That is what you called us vroom, was’t it? Nit-wits?
Everyone who is discussing these topics are guilty of being biased to some degree.
Are my arguments less valid because I support the president, and am not ashamed to stand by him? Are yours more valid because you are “open-minded”? You are showing your opwn bias against those who take a stand and won’t budge.
But you didn’t include yourself, or those that agree with you, in your little finger pointing. Why not?
Rainjack,
No, of course not. However, it would be nice if we could address issues on their own merits from time to time. Your support of the president has nothing at all to do with the merits of the issue.
Unfortunately, many of the issues we discuss are because of the actions of the current administration – I will assure you if it was a democratic administration there would be things I’d be complaining about, they would probably just be different things.
And yeah, I’ll take your point, it would be nice of we could ALL discuss issues on their own merits. That might not be enough to make you happy, but it is movement. Any chance of reciprocal movement?
[quote]vroom wrote:
…I’ll take your point, it would be nice of we could ALL discuss issues on their own merits. That might not be enough to make you happy, but it is movement. Any chance of reciprocal movement?[/quote]
The nature of this particular message board is inherently adversarial. To bring folks with this many different opinions into one discussion is feat enough. To ask that everyone leave their biases at the door seems a bit too much to ask.
Could you imagine a political discussion between Elk and Zeb that was void of bias? It would amount to both of them staring at the ground, taking turns saying , “yep”. It’s our biases that give us our unique opinions - what spurs the lively discussions.
This thread is too far gone to make any wholesale adjustments to the groundrules - sides have already been chosen and battlines drawn. But my reciprocation to you would be this: If you were to start a new thread, laying down groundrules from the outset, I would respect them and leave my ‘partisanship’ at the door. Fair enough?
Geez guys…Holiday Spirit getting to you or something??
Rainjack, your largest mistake is assuming that any criticism of this administration is a critique of you as a person. I don’t know you personally. If you disappeared tommorrow, I seriously doubt I would light any candles. My focus is on what these new decisions will mean in the long term and the effects they will have. You, on the other hand, want to either ignore any possible problems or you simply agree with everything this administration does. Settle this…could you please list some negatives that you have seen with this administration. A person investigating both sides, unless you enjoy being a puppet, will never agree with absolutely everything.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Rainjack, your largest mistake is assuming that any criticism of this administration is a critique of you as a person. [/quote]
You couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve been in this political forum for a year, or so, and I take very little personal. I avoid discussions that might lead to me, or others, taking things personal.
If it appears to you that I am taking this discussion personal - it is only my passionate love for debate that is giving you this impression.
I’ve listed my knocks against Bush on many occasions, but I’d be happy to tell them to you yet again.
His non-defense related spending spree.
His reform of Medicare.
His lack of action on privatizing Soc. Sec.
His outright ignorance on the prohormone issue.
Not making the tax cuts permanent.
If you are fishing for a knock on his handling of the war - I won’t do that. I supported him on Sept. 12, 2001, and I supporet him just as much today.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you are fishing for a knock on his handling of the war - I won’t do that. I supported him on Sept. 12, 2001, and I supporet him just as much today.
[/quote]
The question was not whether you support him or not, it was what have you found amiss in this administration. Do you think that he has handled this war with no mistakes? What you fail to realize is, criticizing the administration does not equal non-support of the protection of this country. I see much wrong, some of it mentioned in that article that started this thread…I am also in the military so I seriously doubt you realistically support this country’s motives like I, and everyone else who is active duty, do on a daily basis. Again, do you think Bush has made no mistakes in the handling of this war?
Pointing out the wrong does not make anyone a traitor and neither does it mean they do not support this country. This isn’t about patriotism but about what could be corrected if people quit making this some personal issue as far as who they voted for. You make this personal by even avoiding the question. By avoiding talking about the war efforts, you show that you are biased and refuse to ackowledge anything that needs to be corrected. I have no doubt that you usually also only follow news that supports your way of thinking. You clearly lack the ability or desire to see any of these issues from both sides in order to get a better picture.
That, and that alone, is the only reason you are fine with losing freedoms that are part of what made America different from every other country in the first place.
[quote]battlelust wrote:
and before you foolishly accuse me otherwise, OF COURSE the world is better off without saddam. however, if we believe that saddam was a shitbag (which I think we do) we should be able to say so (and do so?) WITHOUT trying to make tenuous connections to terrorists who considered him an oppressor.[/quote]
There aren’t “tenuous” connections, dude. He paid off the families of suicide bombers, using money from the oil-for-food program. He also used that money to buy explosives and guns, and was on the way to re-starting the development of WMD programs. The fact that Saddam flaunted the UN sanctions for years was reason enough for his ouster, but when we found out even more of what he was up to, I was doubly glad to see that fucker gone.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Passing a “Global Test” before committing US forces meant what???[/quote]
That is NOT what he said! Let me repeat myself: That is NOT what he said! He said the “global test” was whether or not your citizens and your countrymen understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Read the freakin’ debate transcript.
Here’s a little refresher from 3rd grade English class if it helps: Global Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
global: being comprehensive, all-inclusive, or complete
[quote]skrying wrote:
That is NOT what he said! Let me repeat myself: That is NOT what he said! He said the “global test” was whether or not your citizens and your countrymen understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Read the freakin’ debate transcript.
Here’s a little refresher from 3rd grade English class if it helps: Global Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
global: being comprehensive, all-inclusive, or complete[/quote]
Dude, the problem with having a “global test” of any kind is that it defeats the purpose of having a president. The man in charge isn’t supposed to ask everybody if they “get it”, he’s supposed to expedite the process of carrying out what’s in the country’s best interests. You are NEVER going to be able to explain everything to everybody. This was Kerry’s major flaw, I think. He didn’t stand for any one thing --he stood for everything for everybody. No one can do this, and people know it. He basically threw up a big screen of bullshit to try to make everybody happy, and we saw right through it. Now it’s not like Bush was some peach, either. But we knew what was going on with his administration, and people voted for him instead of this wishy-washy guy that said whatever he could to get elected. I think the days of promising the sky to your possible voters might be coming to an end. Which is nice.