Well, what the soldiers and their families think is up to them no? Most soldiers and their families are still in support of the action, with a larger basis to draw upon than your average joe.
The 1% with the money got there after being in the bottom 99% and working their way up. It is interesting to note that the top 95% of Americans are in the top 90% worldwide. Most of us live very well, and the cries of "more more" are in the top 10 reasons folks the world around turn their noses up at us.
Israel's actions are in response to bombings of civilians in their country. Conducted by people they can identify all the way down to what house they lived in when the video is at the right angle. To figure it all out, if you want to go **** for tat, would involve going back years to see who actually started it. The family of a person that strapped a jacket full of C-4 and ball bearings on themself to kill people ain't exactly the ones ya want to ask for objective commentary on Israeli police actions.
This thread is all over the place. It's like watching a monkey with ADD on a meth drip with a cattle prod in his butt.
That intifada/alternet site is crazy. It does go a long way to furthering understanding of where some people get their ideas though. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Oct 10 2003, 06:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Oct 10 2003, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, what the soldiers and their families think is up to them no? Most soldiers and their families are still in support of the action, with a larger basis to draw upon than your average joe.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well yes certainly. You have taken my statement out of context though, which was to illustrate that <i> some people should care </i>.
Do you know that most soldiers and families are in support of the action ? I'd like to see some public statements made to that end (not saying they're not out there, just that I haven't seen any).
As for negative commentary, check this out <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1045345,00.html' target='_blank'>a US soldier speaks</a>
Well, of course we should care. I also care, because some folks I know are in harm's way. But there is a difference between caring because they are there, and caring because they are there when one thinks they should not be.
I work with a lot of soldiers, and talk to a lot that are filtering back who work in my area. Have spoken to one that was **** about being there, and that was because he was a reservist and missed the birth of his child. Army folks have access to a few boards that allow anonymous postings for them to let loose. Nine times out of ten they let loose about equipment that they do not like. And every other line is a "I hate the beret, bring back our soft cap" post. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Naturally the news will interview soldiers that are ****. Content soldiers are boring....hehe. There's always someone willing to complain about something. I just have not in any way seen an overwhelming discontent with being stationed over there yet.
Just an overwhelming discontent with being armed according to security detail loadouts, and an overwhelming discontent with certain parts of their clothing/armor that chafe or do not breathe in the heat.
I'd just like to note a couple things, this isn't broken down party lines, note : Lieberman supported the war. (Congress also passed a resolution almost unanimously for action in Iraq ) Also, no one would have ever believed 9/11 if forewarned, the federal government had made many steps in national security.
Second, without making such claims, when the incident does happens, if it does, everyone will blame the current administration. "Hurt me once, shame on you, hurt me twice shame on me" Remember that saying ?
I think this is simply the Federal government saying, something will probably happen, there's alot of disturbing information, some certain groups are very angry at us with our actions in Afghnistan and in Iraq and our coup there and if something happens, we told you it would.
This is simply to let you know, that something <i>might</i> happen, and if something does happen, <i>don't blame us, we are trying to stop it</i>
when your reading rhetoric you have to read between the line to some extent. they dont talk about good and evil in a litteral manner, there are implicit meanings to all these statements
I read this statement as more of a "you think this campainge is over? there are plenty of bad people out there, living in a coutry we have yet to name, and this is all the justification we need to attack anyone who goes against us at any time of our choosing" effort.
The premise works like this. You become the president if you have a lot of money to make yourself look good with advertisements and stuff. The only person that becomes president is the person who "appears" qualified enough.
Suddenly you're president. What now? Well you have situations where you made promises in your campaign you have to fill. So you fill them. To do so, you have to cut some money from the medicare and various other funding. Your promises are fulfilled, but EVERYBODY on medicare suddenly hates you because you took away funding. While you could try to return funding to medicare, you would have to subtract money from another thing that has major funding and have those people hate you.
If you do nothing, people ****. If you declare war, people ****. If you lower taxes, people ****. If you raise taxes, people ****. If you pass a bill, people ****.
In short, anything you do will cause some part of the population to hate you. So you can do one of two things. You can cast polls and find out what the American people would hate the LEAST and do that everytime and do your presidency that way, OR you could lead the country the way you feel is best.
Personally, I vouche for #2, but if you like #1, you must have voted for Clinton. If you say #2, you voted for Bush. People hate Bush, but hell we elected him, and he has run the country the best he could.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OR you could lead the country the way you feel is best.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't Bush's big thing that he isn't all that big on policy, and he trusts his advisors to let him know the best course of action?
I think it's <b>very</b> generous to say that he leads the country the way he feels is best-- rather, I think that he implicitly trusts the people <i>spoon feeding</i> him his agenda [paging Mr. Rove], and feels that <i>they</i> want the best for the <i>whole</i> country.
And even <b>that</b> is probably generous. And very, very dangerous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not writing to bash the French, but they are the main reason that "Gulf War 2: Son of a Bush"(ok that was stupid but it will stay) was not sanctioned. The French believe for some reason that they must cheack our power no matter what. This can be seen in their harbering of wanted pedophiles and murderers from the US as well. They also sold military intelligence to the vietamese during our folley in vietnam (or so says my friends Grand Father who was in Millitary Intelligence). They were the source of some of the bad intelligence about Iraqs nuclear bomb program. Knowing this, I would not think France would OK a war that we propose. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh for Flayra's sake.
Can we bloody well stop the France-bashing? Yes, they opposed the Iraq war. Bringing up things like "oh they had economic ties" and "they want to keep the US in check" completly ignore the fact that 95% of the French population opposed the war. Any truely democratic leader, upon seeing that, could hardly support a war. But what's worse is that people seem to think that it was all the doing of France. Well Germany, Russia and China opposed the war as well. But let's not stop there. The US was able to gather a grand total of 29 other nations to support their war. The only notable one in there was Great Britian. Saying "France would have vetoed the war" still ignores the fact that even if the veto system wasn't there, the US <b>still would not have had a majority of the votes on the security council</b>. The US certainly did not have a majority of the world's population or countries behind them.
As for propaganda and the like, well our Glorious Leader here in Australia tried to force the same crap down our throats as well, with some success. He's managed to escape fairly unscathed from the out-and-out lieing about Iraq's "WMD" programs, mainly by dumping all the blame on dodgy intelligance from allies. I'm still extreamly angry that we were lied to in order to justify the sending of our citizens into a war. Thankfully no Australian soldiers were killed, but the cost of the war is already hurting our economy.
Yet we all know that another conflict is coming. Be it in Syria or Iran, the US will once more decide that some other nation doesn't fit into their world view. The tired catch phrases: "terrorism" and "WMD" will be wheeled out again to justify the conflict. Well I am quietly waiting for the day when the US finds that the next nation they plan to crush can actually fight back. Then they will find out the true costs of their warmongering.
I wasn't Bashing the French, I was pointing out why the French were never going to approve of going to war on Iraq(They have veto power, so they were very important in the vote) by illustrating how they feel they need to check our power. I never said that this was righ or wrong, and I said I dont mean to bash the French because I didnt want it to be taken that way. I was simply stating for the most part FACTS. If it were to come as a criticism, it would be of the French government and not its people.
Finally if we can openly question the policies of the US and other governments, why must it be taboo to discuss the frech government?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Oct 10 2003, 11:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Oct 10 2003, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Were we lied to? Maybe. Have we found WMD? Not yet. Should anyone really care? I don't think they should, but if they want I guess they can. No matter what reason we choose for going into Iraq and whomping them shouldn't really matter. A dangerous tyrant was still overthrown with a possible WMD cache is no longer in the hands of someone who hates Isreal and is within striking distance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Answer me this:
Let's say your neighbour is a really sorry fellow. He beats his wife, it's been proven and the police has stopped by his house a few times due to domestic problems. The neighbours aren't sure what they should think or do. They don't like it, but hey, it's people's privacy. Then rumours emerge that not only do he beat his wife. He also molest his children. And even worse, he could molest other people's children! But no proof of that is present. So one particularly cowboy like neighbour decides to take matters into his own hand and walks over with his shotgun and gives the man a bullet to the head, because the police cannot act without solid indication of something going on. All that has been proven is that the wife called the cops on him for hitting her.
There are never found any proof afterwards. But this particular cowboy is not held accountable for his actions, since in our world there is no police, the UN has been castrated by the guntotin' cowboy. You can easily rationalize afterwards, that at least we got rid of a wife beating scumbag. Yeah, we did. But we didn't like no low intelligence cowboy to come and do it for us like that. Rather the whole community should have been involved. Because now this particular cowboy is view upon with disgust by the killed mans wife and his children. And those neighbours who find manslaughter like that terrible. The cowboy has sown discord in the community because of his myopic view on things.
<a href='http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf' target='_blank'>beware .pdf format (300k+)</a>
heres an interesting read, compleate with handy graphs etc.. about common misconceptions of the war that have been picked up from the news networks in america (propaganda in action).
the 3 main misconceptions are
Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Iraq used weapons of mass distrucion during the war. The world at large supported Bush's war.
the main offender as it turns out is none other than Fox news. people watching fox news turned out the me the most poorly informed, with 80% of those Fox news viewers interviewed beleiving one or more of these falacies. some of the other 'big scorers' were CBS (71%), ABC (61%), NBC (55%)... the lowest they measured was NPR/PBS (23%)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Answer me this...The cowboy has sown discord in the community because of his myopic view on things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was a poor analogy for starters.
- The "community" doesn't really represent the U.N. at all. For example, when the "community" would gather for a meeting about what to do, they don't have people who have been recieving large amounts of money from the wife beater. (France)
- The proverbial "police" weren't castrated by the "cowboy," they were crippled by their ambasodors Real Politik.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather the whole community should have been involved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...You want the entire community to come over with bats and beat him..?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because now this particular cowboy is view upon with disgust by the killed mans wife and his children. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 67% of Iraqis feel that life is better now that Sadaam is out and the U.S. is in. Saw that on Scarborough Country.
Now for the topic... In short, everyone uses propaganda. Thats the end of the story. Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Tories (they are still around right?), Gruens, and... whatever the other party in Germany is. They all try to make X look good, Y looks bad. It's a fact of life, get over it.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
True. Everyone uses spin. It's just when the spin outweighs the facts that most people start getting irate. You see, that's when it stops being 'propaganda' and starts being 'outright lying to cover political butts', when the initial 'facts' are proven to be complete hogwash as well.
And Hawkeye... I think you might have that analogy backward. It was Clinton who'd been running on a platform of issues, rather than a raft of 'I **** MY WIFE!!!' and 'OOH! SCARY TERRORISTS!', only to break his term down into a public-approval race. Clinton didn't need to win approval, people were satisfied that things were starting to relax a little, and turn fruitful. Bush managed to singlehandedly reverse the growth trend, and get the unemployment rate the highest it's been since before I was even *born*.
That's almost 24 years of Presidents doing better than this schmuck. AND dealing with *actual* wars, instead of wars against concepts. Sorry, you aren't going to win a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, or a war on stupidity. ESPECIALLY not with someone at the 'head' of it who uses fear tactics on his own citizenry, was a known cocaine junkie, and... well, do I even need to go <i>into</i> the last one? I mean, it's like clubbing baby seals here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry, you aren't going to win a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, or a war on stupidity. ESPECIALLY not with someone at the 'head' of it who uses fear tactics on his own citizenry<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As David Cross says, declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on jealousy-- you just won't ever win it.
That said, this administration is walking a <i>very</i> fine line, trying to maintain a delicate balance between 'We're winning the war on terrorism!' and 'Time to get yer duct tape and gas masks out, folks!'
The harder they push the later, the more ridiculous the former looks. It's dangerous to try to squeeze fear (and approval) out of the public by dangling the very group whose **** you're bragging about kicking.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's almost 24 years of Presidents doing better than this schmuck. AND dealing with *actual* wars, instead of wars against concepts. Sorry, you aren't going to win a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, or a war on stupidity. ESPECIALLY not with someone at the 'head' of it who uses fear tactics on his own citizenry, was a known cocaine junkie, and... well, do I even need to go into the last one? I mean, it's like clubbing baby seals here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have quite the way with words. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I realize it isn't the popular opinion to lean with Bush, but I've got to give him some credit. I can't deny he's made mistakes, and certainly a far share of them. This is why I'll probably not vote for bush in 2004. However, it is always a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. I don't blame Bush for the decline in the economy. If you look at the pattern over the presidencies, you'll see this.
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> -------------------- ------/ \--------- \ --------/ \------------ _\------------/_____________________________________ __\-------------------- Bush Sr. Clinton Clinton Bush Jr.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
If you see the highly graphical and scientifically accurate chart, you'll see how the incline starts after Bush Sr. leaving office. Bush Sr.'s job was in jeopardy because he overlooked the economy and got screwed. He later put forth efforts to improve the economy, and it worked! Unfortunately, he didn't get the credit for it since then Clinton got into office. Clinton gets the credit for doing a hell of a job allowing terrorist organizations to run rampant and thrive. Then Bush Jr. gets into office with a low economy. Guess who got stumped for that one!
Long story short, the presidents doing the work on the economy get shafted. It is no coincidence the economy was allowed to slump at the end of Clinton's "legacy." Good party system to shaft the other party who takes office.
I'll be voting for Bush, unless the <b>demon</b>crats can do a better job of it. Which, I somehow doubt. The canidates are more incompetant than a 3 year old. Hell, more than Bush. Now that's just sad.
Anyhow, will the people stop beating the dead horse already with Iraq and crap? Good god, I'm really tired of that argument.
Lets just discuss the future campaigns in Amerca which will ultimatly choose a presidency which will most likely dictate world politics for some time to come.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Oct 11 2003, 11:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 11 2003, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll be voting for Bush, unless the <b>demon</b>crats can do a better job of it. Which, I somehow doubt. The canidates are more incompetant than a 3 year old. Hell, more than Bush. Now that's just sad.
Anyhow, will the people stop beating the dead horse already with Iraq and crap? Good god, I'm really tired of that argument.
Lets just discuss the future campaigns in Amerca which will ultimatly choose a presidency which will most likely dictate world politics for some time to come. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, in your post you basically admit that bush is incompetant... yet you're still going to vote for him ?
Aboud the dead horse... more like a dying horse... you know US soldiers dying. That is why it is an issue.
Everyone probably knows what I think about Bush so I won't go there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
However since we are talking about Georges campaign against terrorists and USA economy, I must say that I honestly believe that USA's citizens wellbeing would be better even if 3000 us citizens would die every year because of terrorist attack and most of peoples energy would be used towards economy, instead of trying to prevent the strikes by bombing other countries. Currently Bush is making sure that terrorists wont run out for several decades. You can't kill off the terrorists. Just look Afghanistan and Iraq, US just generated much hate for couple of generations. After those people and their children finally forget about USA, some new president who looks at his ratings decides to take another trip to middle east.
In a country divided as ever... Where presidential contenders constantly attack the president... Where massive protests can be found being organized in every major city... Where the president's approval rating is declining... where the media distorts the progress of Iraq and the motivations for war...
Dissent is being crushed?
So because the Bush administration is aware of national security threat, they're fear mongering. Basically, if you dislike Bush, you're going to interpret everything in a conspiritorial manor. If you supoprt Bush, you're going to see events like this as benign.
Other than that, this is the same old tired "I hate Bush!" "Bush is a Fascist" "OMG H4xX!" "War for OIL!" discussion thats been done dozens of times before.
Evis: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the next phase in the line of pre-emptive strikes against other countries. My cynical side says they're going to destroy another country... the after effects being that it will help to improve their chances of dominating even more oil<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also The Bush Doctrine states that threats should be removed before they grow too big. Bush never said the threat from Iraq was imminent. From the state of the union: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush doesn't have a strong policy against N. Korea- the threat has already become iminent. Its foolish to act like there wasn't a difference between the situation, and that only Iraq was chosen for oil. They were radically different situations.
What country will be 'destroyed*' next? Bush is kinda hoping that a pro US, democratic, non Jewish country in the Middle East will spur revolutions in other countries. Iran already has a strong Pro US student movement. Syria is run by the Baathists, so they are already on edge.
*destroyed meaning given democracy, free speech, civil and human rights, and massive amounts of US aid.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Oct 11 2003, 02:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Oct 11 2003, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush never said the threat from Iraq was imminent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> a politician hasnt outright SAID anything since 1776.
oh, and why dont we attack north korea? because theyre good friends with china, and china is almost as big as us.
My concern for the Bush administration isn't what it used to be. Neo-conservatists failed, a superpower looked for its boundaries and found them much closer than Wolfowitz & co had believed them to be. I don't believe in new campaigns a'la Iraq taking place in the near future. Rhetorics will linger, but in the real world neo-conservatism is licking its wounds. Regarding this, it doesn't matter which party wins in 2004, both know better than to follow the path Bush was led to by his neo-conservative gang.
<!--QuoteBegin---Driftwood-+Oct 11 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-Driftwood- @ Oct 11 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My concern for the Bush administration isn't what it used to be. Neo-conservatists failed, a superpower looked for its boundaries and found them much closer than Wolfowitz & co had believed them to be. I don't believe in new campaigns a'la Iraq taking place in the near future. Rhetorics will linger, but in the real world neo-conservatism is licking its wounds. Regarding this, it doesn't matter which party wins in 2004, both know better than to follow the path Bush was led to by his neo-conservative gang. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ... What?
Neocons are still pretty strong. Terrorism needs to be fully confronted. If Bush wins re-election (likely), then the Agenda will continue. I'm guessing you're basing the 'destroyed' neocon thing on the current 'quagmire' in Iraq, in which case I suggest you click the link I provided in my previous post. Things are only getting better and better in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Terrorism needs to be fully confronted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how Jammer? What Afghanistan and Iraq has shown is that invading countries simply produces more terrorists and support for terrorist groups. Yet Bush and his team seem quite content to believe that this is a winning stratagy. It's clearly not. I agree that terrorists need to be taken out but the way Bush is trying to do it just won't work. Heavy-handed tactics like invasions, ground campaigns and "shock and awe" stratagy cannot work against a foe who is secretive, elusive and hidden. Terrorist groups and cells survive by blending into societies and keeping as low a profile as possible. They don't present a clear target on a battlefeild, nor do they openly fight. If there ever were any Al Quaeda groups in Iraq (something I sincerely doubt) they would have long slipped out of the country prior to the invasion. Using the US army to combat terrorism is like using a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach: the hammer is so large and cumbersome that it's well nigh impossible to hit the tiny, scuttling cockroach that is hiding in darkness.
If the US truely does want to combat terrorism, they have to stop going about it the wrong way. Fight terrorists with intelligance operations, covert ops and small scale, surgical strikes that target only the terrorists themselves. Because invading a whole country just a) royally pisses off the people of the country (and sometimes surrounding countries) , b) Hurts your world opinion and c) has a low chance of actually finding the terrorists you're after. Plus it costs you billions, puts thousands of your soldiers at risk and breeds new terrorists and terrorist support! I mean, if you wanted to <i>help</i> terrorist groups, invading a prominant Muslim state is just about the best way to do it!
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 11 2003, 01:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 11 2003, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Oct 11 2003, 11:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 11 2003, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll be voting for Bush, unless the <b>demon</b>crats can do a better job of it. Which, I somehow doubt. The canidates are more incompetant than a 3 year old. Hell, more than Bush. Now that's just sad.
Anyhow, will the people stop beating the dead horse already with Iraq and crap? Good god, I'm really tired of that argument.
Lets just discuss the future campaigns in Amerca which will ultimatly choose a presidency which will most likely dictate world politics for some time to come. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, in your post you basically admit that bush is incompetant... yet you're still going to vote for him ?
Aboud the dead horse... more like a dying horse... you know US soldiers dying. That is why it is an issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's all about voting for the lesser of two Evil's. The main reasons I consider Bush to be slightly incompetant is because he has done nothing to address Affirmative Action, Illeagal Immigration, and Social Security. These issues NEED to be adressed soon or else huge problems will follow.
However, my best hopes for these things to be eliminated would be NOT to vote for a <b>demon</b>cratic canidate, as such:
- All they do is ad hominien attacks daily (OMG this is so retarded, talk about issues, or constructive criticism... plz) - Their policies SUCK hardcore, lets see, reverse the tax cuts? Put more troops into Iraq (This also means more taxes) Make measures to allow illeagal immigrants to become even more situated in America, with things like free medical care for them...? The list goes on
So yeah, unless the <b>demon</b>cratic makes some serious changes, I'm not gonna vote for those slimeballs anytime soon. You may not like this, but this is politics in America.
I agree with you evis, its how politics operate in the U.S. and its been happening since the begining of our country, and in response i give you a rather broad single answer. $$$$$. When you scare the s**t out of the public; they become eager to support and fix whatever it is thats scaring them. And with this many people are pleased. Public gives money to government to wage war so they feel "safe". Gives poliiticians a repeatable job. Also allows big american companies, who have been lobbying the way the entire time, to go in and rebuild, remake, and Resell everything while making all of the money for it. And guess whos money it is they're making. ours!.....the taxpayers...yes....since we went somewhere and blew a whole lot of **** up to feel safe, we now have to rebuild it all otherwise were evil. Well guess who gets all the money for rebuilding it all. Now i realize my post is centering on the war with Iraq, but if you just change a few small things in it, you can apply it to almost anything in American history. Now i'm not saying that politicians don't do some good, and aren't needed, what i'm saying is that they are taking advantage of their constituents. This angers me, but i also realize that in human history this is a predictable pattern of a countries lifetime, look at rome, just before the great empire fell, the middle class was all but completely dissolved and you were either filthy rich or slaving over bread crumbs.
Now i realize this is a flame post, but since i am probably incorrect in my individual opinion and am powerless to fix what i think i see wrong, talking about is the strongest power i have.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- All they do is ad hominien attacks daily <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So yeah, unless the <b>demon</b>cratic makes some serious changes, I'm not gonna vote for those slimeballs anytime soon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the Good Lord said, 'Let there be even more irony', and it was Comical.
(And on a related note, Bush <i>has</i> done something about Social Security-- he's destablized it with tax cuts at a time when the Baby Boomers are set to retire . . . and his advisors have made no secret of the fact that they want to privitize it-- so, this is the backdoor way of achieving just that)
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Oct 13 2003, 04:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 13 2003, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And the Good Lord said, 'Let there be even more irony', and it was Comical. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You never ever see attacks on the demoncrats, except on local radio stations. Or maybe from a letter in a newspaper by a disgruntled citizen.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Oct 13 2003, 11:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 13 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You never ever see attacks on the demoncrats, except on local radio stations. Or maybe from a letter in a newspaper by a disgruntled citizen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you serious? You mean, unless you watch any of the personality shows on Fox news, listen to any of the many nationally syndicated conservative talk show hosts out there, read the WSJ, Washington Times, New York Post, or spend any amount of time in your local bookstore (O'Reilly completing the media hat trick here, Coulter, Ingraham, etc).
There is plenty of criticism on the <b>Demo</b>crats, and rightfully so. But then again, this seems to be heading into a debate about the liberal media, so I'll adjourn this for the time being.
But again, my point simply was that you villified the <b>Demo</b>crats for ad hominem attacks, and then launched two of your own in the next breath.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you see the highly graphical and scientifically accurate chart, you'll see how the incline starts after Bush Sr. leaving office. Bush Sr.'s job was in jeopardy because he overlooked the economy and got screwed. He later put forth efforts to improve the economy, and it worked! Unfortunately, he didn't get the credit for it since then Clinton got into office. Clinton gets the credit for doing a hell of a job allowing terrorist organizations to run rampant and thrive. Then Bush Jr. gets into office with a low economy. Guess who got stumped for that one!
Long story short, the presidents doing the work on the economy get shafted. It is no coincidence the economy was allowed to slump at the end of Clinton's "legacy." Good party system to shaft the other party who takes office. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to note, and reinforce Hawkeye's claims, these are what we call business cycles, they average anywhere from 5-8 years, and have contraction, then a growth period and a peak. There is also a one year lag in all statistics, so if you look at his chart you can move everything left by one year, which means the economy was improving while Bush Sr. was in office.
They usually stay on track, meaning it's difficult to keep a linear progression in the economy, actually, it's practically impossible and has never happened. The economy is way too dynamic, especially since it's reliance on circumstances including foreign policy -> local/state policies. However, they can be influenced by the federal government mainly through taxcuts, which increase the amount in cash exchange which then causes a positive return in spent money which can stimulate the economy and even yield much more revenue than increasing taxes which would retract the economy.
Pretty much the only real outstanding economic feat Clinton accomplished was reducing the national debt, which actually doesn't have too much of an effect on the economy because 92% of the debt is to the public, which actually if payed back has little to no effect because it just comes back around in the circle.
Comments
The 1% with the money got there after being in the bottom 99% and working their way up. It is interesting to note that the top 95% of Americans are in the top 90% worldwide. Most of us live very well, and the cries of "more more" are in the top 10 reasons folks the world around turn their noses up at us.
Israel's actions are in response to bombings of civilians in their country. Conducted by people they can identify all the way down to what house they lived in when the video is at the right angle. To figure it all out, if you want to go **** for tat, would involve going back years to see who actually started it. The family of a person that strapped a jacket full of C-4 and ball bearings on themself to kill people ain't exactly the ones ya want to ask for objective commentary on Israeli police actions.
This thread is all over the place. It's like watching a monkey with ADD on a meth drip with a cattle prod in his butt.
That intifada/alternet site is crazy. It does go a long way to furthering understanding of where some people get their ideas though. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yes certainly. You have taken my statement out of context though, which was to illustrate that <i> some people should care </i>.
Do you know that most soldiers and families are in support of the action ? I'd like to see some public statements made to that end (not saying they're not out there, just that I haven't seen any).
As for negative commentary, check this out <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1045345,00.html' target='_blank'>a US soldier speaks</a>
I work with a lot of soldiers, and talk to a lot that are filtering back who work in my area. Have spoken to one that was **** about being there, and that was because he was a reservist and missed the birth of his child. Army folks have access to a few boards that allow anonymous postings for them to let loose. Nine times out of ten they let loose about equipment that they do not like. And every other line is a "I hate the beret, bring back our soft cap" post. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Naturally the news will interview soldiers that are ****. Content soldiers are boring....hehe. There's always someone willing to complain about something. I just have not in any way seen an overwhelming discontent with being stationed over there yet.
Just an overwhelming discontent with being armed according to security detail loadouts, and an overwhelming discontent with certain parts of their clothing/armor that chafe or do not breathe in the heat.
I have a feeling this is going to erupt.
I'd just like to note a couple things, this isn't broken down party lines, note : Lieberman supported the war.
(Congress also passed a resolution almost unanimously for action in Iraq )
Also, no one would have ever believed 9/11 if forewarned, the federal government had made many steps in national security.
Second, without making such claims, when the incident does happens, if it does, everyone will blame the current administration. "Hurt me once, shame on you, hurt me twice shame on me" Remember that saying ?
I think this is simply the Federal government saying, something will probably happen, there's alot of disturbing information, some certain groups are very angry at us with our actions in Afghnistan and in Iraq and our coup there and if something happens, we told you it would.
This is simply to let you know, that something <i>might</i> happen, and if something does happen, <i>don't blame us, we are trying to stop it</i>
they dont talk about good and evil in a litteral manner, there are implicit meanings to all these statements
I read this statement as more of a
"you think this campainge is over? there are plenty of bad people out there, living in a coutry we have yet to name, and this is all the justification we need to attack anyone who goes against us at any time of our choosing"
effort.
The premise works like this. You become the president if you have a lot of money to make yourself look good with advertisements and stuff. The only person that becomes president is the person who "appears" qualified enough.
Suddenly you're president. What now? Well you have situations where you made promises in your campaign you have to fill. So you fill them. To do so, you have to cut some money from the medicare and various other funding. Your promises are fulfilled, but EVERYBODY on medicare suddenly hates you because you took away funding. While you could try to return funding to medicare, you would have to subtract money from another thing that has major funding and have those people hate you.
If you do nothing, people ****.
If you declare war, people ****.
If you lower taxes, people ****.
If you raise taxes, people ****.
If you pass a bill, people ****.
In short, anything you do will cause some part of the population to hate you. So you can do one of two things. You can cast polls and find out what the American people would hate the LEAST and do that everytime and do your presidency that way, OR you could lead the country the way you feel is best.
Personally, I vouche for #2, but if you like #1, you must have voted for Clinton. If you say #2, you voted for Bush. People hate Bush, but hell we elected him, and he has run the country the best he could.
Isn't Bush's big thing that he isn't all that big on policy, and he trusts his advisors to let him know the best course of action?
I think it's <b>very</b> generous to say that he leads the country the way he feels is best-- rather, I think that he implicitly trusts the people <i>spoon feeding</i> him his agenda [paging Mr. Rove], and feels that <i>they</i> want the best for the <i>whole</i> country.
And even <b>that</b> is probably generous. And very, very dangerous.
When the fall guy is in charge, look out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh for Flayra's sake.
Can we bloody well stop the France-bashing? Yes, they opposed the Iraq war. Bringing up things like "oh they had economic ties" and "they want to keep the US in check" completly ignore the fact that 95% of the French population opposed the war. Any truely democratic leader, upon seeing that, could hardly support a war. But what's worse is that people seem to think that it was all the doing of France. Well Germany, Russia and China opposed the war as well. But let's not stop there. The US was able to gather a grand total of 29 other nations to support their war. The only notable one in there was Great Britian. Saying "France would have vetoed the war" still ignores the fact that even if the veto system wasn't there, the US <b>still would not have had a majority of the votes on the security council</b>. The US certainly did not have a majority of the world's population or countries behind them.
As for propaganda and the like, well our Glorious Leader here in Australia tried to force the same crap down our throats as well, with some success. He's managed to escape fairly unscathed from the out-and-out lieing about Iraq's "WMD" programs, mainly by dumping all the blame on dodgy intelligance from allies. I'm still extreamly angry that we were lied to in order to justify the sending of our citizens into a war. Thankfully no Australian soldiers were killed, but the cost of the war is already hurting our economy.
Yet we all know that another conflict is coming. Be it in Syria or Iran, the US will once more decide that some other nation doesn't fit into their world view. The tired catch phrases: "terrorism" and "WMD" will be wheeled out again to justify the conflict. Well I am quietly waiting for the day when the US finds that the next nation they plan to crush can actually fight back. Then they will find out the true costs of their warmongering.
Finally if we can openly question the policies of the US and other governments, why must it be taboo to discuss the frech government?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Answer me this:
Let's say your neighbour is a really sorry fellow. He beats his wife, it's been proven and the police has stopped by his house a few times due to domestic problems. The neighbours aren't sure what they should think or do. They don't like it, but hey, it's people's privacy. Then rumours emerge that not only do he beat his wife. He also molest his children. And even worse, he could molest other people's children! But no proof of that is present. So one particularly cowboy like neighbour decides to take matters into his own hand and walks over with his shotgun and gives the man a bullet to the head, because the police cannot act without solid indication of something going on. All that has been proven is that the wife called the cops on him for hitting her.
There are never found any proof afterwards. But this particular cowboy is not held accountable for his actions, since in our world there is no police, the UN has been castrated by the guntotin' cowboy. You can easily rationalize afterwards, that at least we got rid of a wife beating scumbag. Yeah, we did. But we didn't like no low intelligence cowboy to come and do it for us like that. Rather the whole community should have been involved. Because now this particular cowboy is view upon with disgust by the killed mans wife and his children. And those neighbours who find manslaughter like that terrible. The cowboy has sown discord in the community because of his myopic view on things.
heres an interesting read, compleate with handy graphs etc.. about common misconceptions of the war that have been picked up from the news networks in america (propaganda in action).
the 3 main misconceptions are
Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda.
Iraq used weapons of mass distrucion during the war.
The world at large supported Bush's war.
the main offender as it turns out is none other than Fox news.
people watching fox news turned out the me the most poorly informed, with 80% of those Fox news viewers interviewed beleiving one or more of these falacies.
some of the other 'big scorers' were CBS (71%), ABC (61%), NBC (55%)...
the lowest they measured was NPR/PBS (23%)
That was a poor analogy for starters.
- The "community" doesn't really represent the U.N. at all. For example, when the "community" would gather for a meeting about what to do, they don't have people who have been recieving large amounts of money from the wife beater. (France)
- The proverbial "police" weren't castrated by the "cowboy," they were crippled by their ambasodors Real Politik.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather the whole community should have been involved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...You want the entire community to come over with bats and beat him..?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because now this particular cowboy is view upon with disgust by the killed mans wife and his children. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
67% of Iraqis feel that life is better now that Sadaam is out and the U.S. is in. Saw that on Scarborough Country.
Now for the topic...
In short, everyone uses propaganda. Thats the end of the story. Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Tories (they are still around right?), Gruens, and... whatever the other party in Germany is. They all try to make X look good, Y looks bad. It's a fact of life, get over it.
And Hawkeye... I think you might have that analogy backward. It was Clinton who'd been running on a platform of issues, rather than a raft of 'I **** MY WIFE!!!' and 'OOH! SCARY TERRORISTS!', only to break his term down into a public-approval race. Clinton didn't need to win approval, people were satisfied that things were starting to relax a little, and turn fruitful. Bush managed to singlehandedly reverse the growth trend, and get the unemployment rate the highest it's been since before I was even *born*.
That's almost 24 years of Presidents doing better than this schmuck. AND dealing with *actual* wars, instead of wars against concepts. Sorry, you aren't going to win a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, or a war on stupidity. ESPECIALLY not with someone at the 'head' of it who uses fear tactics on his own citizenry, was a known cocaine junkie, and... well, do I even need to go <i>into</i> the last one? I mean, it's like clubbing baby seals here.
As David Cross says, declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on jealousy-- you just won't ever win it.
That said, this administration is walking a <i>very</i> fine line, trying to maintain a delicate balance between 'We're winning the war on terrorism!' and 'Time to get yer duct tape and gas masks out, folks!'
The harder they push the later, the more ridiculous the former looks. It's dangerous to try to squeeze fear (and approval) out of the public by dangling the very group whose **** you're bragging about kicking.
You have quite the way with words. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I realize it isn't the popular opinion to lean with Bush, but I've got to give him some credit. I can't deny he's made mistakes, and certainly a far share of them. This is why I'll probably not vote for bush in 2004. However, it is always a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. I don't blame Bush for the decline in the economy. If you look at the pattern over the presidencies, you'll see this.
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
--------------------
------/ \---------
\ --------/ \------------
_\------------/_____________________________________ __\--------------------
Bush Sr. Clinton Clinton Bush Jr.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
If you see the highly graphical and scientifically accurate chart, you'll see how the incline starts after Bush Sr. leaving office. Bush Sr.'s job was in jeopardy because he overlooked the economy and got screwed. He later put forth efforts to improve the economy, and it worked! Unfortunately, he didn't get the credit for it since then Clinton got into office. Clinton gets the credit for doing a hell of a job allowing terrorist organizations to run rampant and thrive. Then Bush Jr. gets into office with a low economy. Guess who got stumped for that one!
Long story short, the presidents doing the work on the economy get shafted. It is no coincidence the economy was allowed to slump at the end of Clinton's "legacy." Good party system to shaft the other party who takes office.
Anyhow, will the people stop beating the dead horse already with Iraq and crap? Good god, I'm really tired of that argument.
Lets just discuss the future campaigns in Amerca which will ultimatly choose a presidency which will most likely dictate world politics for some time to come.
Anyhow, will the people stop beating the dead horse already with Iraq and crap? Good god, I'm really tired of that argument.
Lets just discuss the future campaigns in Amerca which will ultimatly choose a presidency which will most likely dictate world politics for some time to come. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, in your post you basically admit that bush is incompetant... yet you're still going to vote for him ?
Aboud the dead horse... more like a dying horse... you know US soldiers dying. That is why it is an issue.
However since we are talking about Georges campaign against terrorists and USA economy, I must say that I honestly believe that USA's citizens wellbeing would be better even if 3000 us citizens would die every year because of terrorist attack and most of peoples energy would be used towards economy, instead of trying to prevent the strikes by bombing other countries. Currently Bush is making sure that terrorists wont run out for several decades. You can't kill off the terrorists. Just look Afghanistan and Iraq, US just generated much hate for couple of generations. After those people and their children finally forget about USA, some new president who looks at his ratings decides to take another trip to middle east.
Where presidential contenders constantly attack the president...
Where massive protests can be found being organized in every major city...
Where the president's approval rating is declining...
where the media distorts the progress of Iraq and the motivations for war...
Dissent is being crushed?
So because the Bush administration is aware of national security threat, they're fear mongering. Basically, if you dislike Bush, you're going to interpret everything in a conspiritorial manor. If you supoprt Bush, you're going to see events like this as benign.
Other than that, this is the same old tired "I hate Bush!" "Bush is a Fascist" "OMG H4xX!" "War for OIL!" discussion thats been done dozens of times before.
Evis:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the next phase in the line of pre-emptive strikes against other countries. My cynical side says they're going to destroy another country... the after effects being that it will help to improve their chances of dominating even more oil<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20031009_Oct-09Bremerpresscon.htm' target='_blank'>We certainly destroyed Iraq alright.</a>
I weep thinking about those poor Iraqis.
Also
The Bush Doctrine states that threats should be removed before they grow too big. Bush never said the threat from Iraq was imminent. From the state of the union:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush doesn't have a strong policy against N. Korea- the threat has already become iminent. Its foolish to act like there wasn't a difference between the situation, and that only Iraq was chosen for oil. They were radically different situations.
What country will be 'destroyed*' next? Bush is kinda hoping that a pro US, democratic, non Jewish country in the Middle East will spur revolutions in other countries. Iran already has a strong Pro US student movement. Syria is run by the Baathists, so they are already on edge.
*destroyed meaning given democracy, free speech, civil and human rights, and massive amounts of US aid.
a politician hasnt outright SAID anything since 1776.
oh, and why dont we attack north korea? because theyre good friends with china, and china is almost as big as us.
...
What?
Neocons are still pretty strong. Terrorism needs to be fully confronted. If Bush wins re-election (likely), then the Agenda will continue. I'm guessing you're basing the 'destroyed' neocon thing on the current 'quagmire' in Iraq, in which case I suggest you click the link I provided in my previous post. Things are only getting better and better in Iraq.
But how Jammer? What Afghanistan and Iraq has shown is that invading countries simply produces more terrorists and support for terrorist groups. Yet Bush and his team seem quite content to believe that this is a winning stratagy. It's clearly not. I agree that terrorists need to be taken out but the way Bush is trying to do it just won't work. Heavy-handed tactics like invasions, ground campaigns and "shock and awe" stratagy cannot work against a foe who is secretive, elusive and hidden. Terrorist groups and cells survive by blending into societies and keeping as low a profile as possible. They don't present a clear target on a battlefeild, nor do they openly fight. If there ever were any Al Quaeda groups in Iraq (something I sincerely doubt) they would have long slipped out of the country prior to the invasion. Using the US army to combat terrorism is like using a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach: the hammer is so large and cumbersome that it's well nigh impossible to hit the tiny, scuttling cockroach that is hiding in darkness.
If the US truely does want to combat terrorism, they have to stop going about it the wrong way. Fight terrorists with intelligance operations, covert ops and small scale, surgical strikes that target only the terrorists themselves. Because invading a whole country just a) royally pisses off the people of the country (and sometimes surrounding countries) , b) Hurts your world opinion and c) has a low chance of actually finding the terrorists you're after. Plus it costs you billions, puts thousands of your soldiers at risk and breeds new terrorists and terrorist support! I mean, if you wanted to <i>help</i> terrorist groups, invading a prominant Muslim state is just about the best way to do it!
Anyhow, will the people stop beating the dead horse already with Iraq and crap? Good god, I'm really tired of that argument.
Lets just discuss the future campaigns in Amerca which will ultimatly choose a presidency which will most likely dictate world politics for some time to come. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, in your post you basically admit that bush is incompetant... yet you're still going to vote for him ?
Aboud the dead horse... more like a dying horse... you know US soldiers dying. That is why it is an issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's all about voting for the lesser of two Evil's. The main reasons I consider Bush to be slightly incompetant is because he has done nothing to address Affirmative Action, Illeagal Immigration, and Social Security. These issues NEED to be adressed soon or else huge problems will follow.
However, my best hopes for these things to be eliminated would be NOT to vote for a <b>demon</b>cratic canidate, as such:
- All they do is ad hominien attacks daily (OMG this is so retarded, talk about issues, or constructive criticism... plz)
- Their policies SUCK hardcore, lets see, reverse the tax cuts? Put more troops into Iraq (This also means more taxes) Make measures to allow illeagal immigrants to become even more situated in America, with things like free medical care for them...? The list goes on
So yeah, unless the <b>demon</b>cratic makes some serious changes, I'm not gonna vote for those slimeballs anytime soon. You may not like this, but this is politics in America.
everything I want to say has already been said, by Ryo-Ohki, Talesin and Bathroom.
on a side note, I went to a Dean For America barn concert today. It was so fun.
Now i realize this is a flame post, but since i am probably incorrect in my individual opinion and am powerless to fix what i think i see wrong, talking about is the strongest power i have.
woo, i feel better now =)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So yeah, unless the <b>demon</b>cratic makes some serious changes, I'm not gonna vote for those slimeballs anytime soon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the Good Lord said, 'Let there be even more irony', and it was Comical.
(And on a related note, Bush <i>has</i> done something about Social Security-- he's destablized it with tax cuts at a time when the Baby Boomers are set to retire . . . and his advisors have made no secret of the fact that they want to privitize it-- so, this is the backdoor way of achieving just that)
You never ever see attacks on the demoncrats, except on local radio stations. Or maybe from a letter in a newspaper by a disgruntled citizen.
Are you serious? You mean, unless you watch any of the personality shows on Fox news, listen to any of the many nationally syndicated conservative talk show hosts out there, read the WSJ, Washington Times, New York Post, or spend any amount of time in your local bookstore (O'Reilly completing the media hat trick here, Coulter, Ingraham, etc).
There is plenty of criticism on the <b>Demo</b>crats, and rightfully so. But then again, this seems to be heading into a debate about the liberal media, so I'll adjourn this for the time being.
But again, my point simply was that you villified the <b>Demo</b>crats for ad hominem attacks, and then launched two of your own in the next breath.
Long story short, the presidents doing the work on the economy get shafted. It is no coincidence the economy was allowed to slump at the end of Clinton's "legacy." Good party system to shaft the other party who takes office.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to note, and reinforce Hawkeye's claims, these are what we call business cycles, they average anywhere from 5-8 years, and have contraction, then a growth period and a peak. There is also a one year lag in all statistics, so if you look at his chart you can move everything left by one year, which means the economy was improving while Bush Sr. was in office.
They usually stay on track, meaning it's difficult to keep a linear progression in the economy, actually, it's practically impossible and has never happened. The economy is way too dynamic, especially since it's reliance on circumstances including foreign policy -> local/state policies. However, they can be influenced by the federal government mainly through taxcuts, which increase the amount in cash exchange which then causes a positive return in spent money which can stimulate the economy and even yield much more revenue than increasing taxes which would retract the economy.
Pretty much the only real outstanding economic feat Clinton accomplished was reducing the national debt, which actually doesn't have too much of an effect on the economy because 92% of the debt is to the public, which actually if payed back has little to no effect because it just comes back around in the circle.