hwatkins Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 The words used by President Bush were common wartime rhetoric that his speech writers borrowed from every upside leader in WWII (Hitler, then Musillini, then Hirohita(sp?), then Churchill, Then Roosevelt and finally even Stalin), so it is nothing for me to get uptight about. Most of what is being said now is intended to get us use to the fact of war, not to present any dogma. The real question is motivation - Is this a Cowboy's code reaction to some not so nice folks or is it real battle against terrorism? The 'war' that was proclaimed and had few protesters, was the war on terrorism. The question being asked is - Does this fit that war? I am disturbed that the terrorism issue has taken a back seat - it is our only declared war. That in itself is what others in the world are wondering - if it is not terrorism they are after, then what keeps them from developing a reason to not like me and take action against me. Let's say that this was Russia twenty years ago saying they wanted to attack Guatemala (another not so nice leadership issue of the times) using the same rhetoric after a massive terrorist event on their soil. How would you interpret this major military action in our part of the world? What would their words sound like to you? I bet it would sound more like 'Cowboy Code' than a rational approach to meet their previously stated goals. It isn't so hard to see why we are getting tepid world wide support. Don't worry, we should eventually bully that support out of our dearest friends and we can proclaim a 'global mandate'. We just need to be on the look out for the battered spouse syndrome... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 mdeneen, You are reading way too much into that statement by the President. Here it is again: "We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us." He is talking about a crucial period, which means the war on terrorism (which includes Iraq). "Part of that history" refers to what the terrorists (including Saddam) have done. "The rest will be written by us" means that we will respond to these threats and, to the best of our ability, render them incapable of destroying innocent life again. I think my reading makes a lot more sense than yours, and rowoo's, where you have the US writing the future of every nation in the world, controlling everyone's life in the world, et cetera et cetera. Can you honestly say that you think Bush plans to take over France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and so forth? Enslave their people? You saw religious interference when we destroyed the Taliban!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 mdneen, "One. The president has declared that we will write the rest of history for all the worlds peoples. Other presidents have been approximately as arrogant in foreign policy also." I didnt hear that declaration so I will refrain from comment. "Two. As the lone Superpower, we are striding the world in audacious arrogance. We have ships bristling with missiles cruising the world in vast numbers. We have spy satellites trained on everyone. We have military installations, bases, troop deployments, fighters, weapons planted all over the place. We hire ourselves out at will, we intercede on shakey moral grounds, and we disrespect anyone elses preferences and in general are committed to our interests above any other. " Striding the world in audacious arrogance is nothing new. This is not a new policy that George Bush created. As a superpower, we have been striding the world for over one hundred years with Teddy Roosevelt and his big stick. Actually, you can make an argument that it started with Commodore Perry and his squadron setting anchor in Yokohama harbor, Japan in 1854. Before us, there were the British and French, and before them it was the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch. The US is relatively new comers on the block. However in the last 50 or so years it was necessary to have a large standing fleet and military to keep the Soviet Union in check. However, that all changed when the Soviet government imploded. Likewise, the United States mothballed a huge percentage of its fleet and armed forces. Do we still maintain a presence around the world? Yes. Is it audacious arrogance as you would claim? Personally, I dont think so, but to those that dont like us then probably so. As far interceding on shaky moral grounds well thats a matter of opinion. Disrespecting others preferences How? When? Who? Committed to our interests above any other? you betcha! As a parent, would you put your childrens best interests secondary to other children in the neighborhood? I would hope not. "If you cant tolerate these risks, you should adopt a less risky global strategy." I agree. Let these ungrateful countries wither on the vine. Next time they want our help we can we can show them the same kind of snotty attitude and disrespect they have shown to us. "I dont hear Sweden complaining about the intolerable attacks and criminal wanton acts being committed on them. No, I dont suggest THEIR strategy; I just want to show the range of risk you can select from. It is infinitely variable based on your chosen strategy." I agree again. It's unrealistic, but I wish we were like Sweden. We only interact with countries we like or get along with. Only one problem Israel. I strongly support our ties with Israel, but as long as we do most Arab countries will hate us, and, well we all know what happens when Arabs get angry they like to blow up stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Take one part Sweden and one part Holland and two parts U.S. and we would have us one swell country. Mdeenan, methinks your argument is disingenuous. To claim he intends for the US to write all history from this point on is simply ludicrous; after all, he has not even mentioned a credible policy towards Korea. To infer from his words... well, anything really, is grasping at straws. Your positions are generally far more tenable - you're slipping. By the way, concerned as we are about some cave-dweller, doesn't anyone find it more abhorrent that children can not utter the words "Under God" if they so choose. Isn't it a miserable circumstance in life when 'folks too comfortable relative to the rest of the population' have so much time on their hands that they must find ways to 'protect' us from ourselves. If I were a kid again, I would march my *** into my school, wearing a shirt that said "Hitler is alive and running the US" while smoking a cigarette all the while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and demanding the Rights afforded to me by some little known document called the Constitution.' "Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV And you think you're so clever and classless and free But you're still f*cking peasants as far as I can see." John Lennon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 mdeneen, Has anyone ever told you that you sound like a conspiracy guy, all paranoid and such? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Mdeneen, And you think Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are not evil? (The leaders of these countries, that is.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Mdeenen, Disingenous may have been a bit harsh. I do think you are reading far too much into it but since none of has been informed of the context he meant it in - it is simply speculation on all sides. I don't think Bush is the brightest guy on the block but I refuse to believe he is so stupid and arrogant to mean anything more sinister than we are intent on kicking these terrorists' and their supporters' asses. I will say I find him far more welcome than his father who was a complete buffoon's *** who was pushing for a "New World Order" and hoped to lead the United Nations to be the World Government. It may be they both want to control the World but at least Bush Jr says the US will lead it not this BS organization his father lusted after. Regarding Israel, should America ever loosen our chains on that country, rest assured the Muslim problem would be solved post-haste. Israel would not hesitate to unleash a firestorm on its Arab neighbors that would make the Holocaust look like a small cookout. Lastly, you need to pay more attention. Iraq's government would not be replaced by some other Muslim or fundamentalist dictator. The US has already announced the US will install a government leadership of prominent Americans and install a democratic government. There is still some discussion on whether they will consider allowing groups opposed to Sadam to participate in the new democracy. We have also stated we alone will determine that and the input from other nations is not welcome nor acceptable. Cool, huh. Our government no longer plans on installing puppet governments but will be 'the' government. See. I told you this Bush guy isn't so stupid. Those puppet governments always bit us in the ***. The Arab world is and will be pissed if this occurs but we will have one ****load of weapons in Iraq to insure they don't attempt to sway the balance of power. We will be much more effective at keeping the peace when our military sets up their new residence and any dissenters are within firing range. Smart plan, I like it. Should provide plenty of worthy news events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 mdeenan, Not clear on what you are asking? There is some sarcasm in there but the US administration has stated their intention is to do just what I said. It was reported in the Herald (and other papers I am sure). It has also been discussed on CNN. The rebel groups in (actually outside) Iraq are pissed and say it is unacceptable and they will not stand for it. I have heard nothing from our Allies who are being left out of the postwar decision making process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Hey mdeenen, Ok. I see what you were hinting at - I thought you might have been taking exception to my "pay more attention." Ahh, the irony... so visible in this situation and so visible in our own country. Of course, some might see some hypocrisy in there as well. Nah, we as a nation are far too myopic to notice the hypocrisy. My favorite: "Saddam must be exiled. This guys tortures his own citizens...its barbaric." Newsflash: "67% of Americans polled today approve of using any means of torture necessary in order to possibly extract information (we are sure he has some) from suspected terrorists." Frigging riot this country is. Like I said, install the US government in Iraq. It should provide plenty of "reality and/or entertainment" TV to numb our minds with. Make no mistake. I AM for the elimination of Saddam. Hell, I am for bombing large parts of the MidEast - it will take entirely too long to eliminate terrorists one at a time if we concern ourselves with preventing innocent casualties. They live in a desert and are oppressed - not much of a life anyways; they will thank us for sending them off to Allah. While we are at it, lets go back and nuke those Koreans and Vietnamese. I am tired of this North and South crap and their cheap a$$ cars make it hard on American automobile makers to compete. Just be honest with me. Don't bull**** the citizens. We need that land for airbases and oil - its only a plus Saddam is a prick. Don't pretend we aren't gonna give birth to a lot more terrorists and/or all those people 'really' want us there. There will be many more people who aspire to be martyrs - I say bomb the $hit out of the entire continent; dead people don't grow up to be terrorists. Or as Bush has said "They aren't a threat anymore." I love this guy. Really. Damn, I just realized. Maybe it is time to eliminate the French as well. Pigs. They would have been swigging German beer and eating Sauerkraut if we hadn't saved their a$$es. Where is the gratitude? French women are pretty hot though...lets consider sparing all those of appropriate stature provided they shave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 "If we go to war in Iraq in a way that divides us from our allies, we could harm our security more that help it. If that is the price of waging war in Iraq, then victory in the war on terrorism, in the Middle East, on the Korean peninsula and against weapons of mass destruction will not be ours. In the broad sense, that means we must be humble in our approach to foreign policy, respectful of others views, aware of anxieties about our motivations and power and committed to solving problems multilaterlly whenever possible. We must avoid the traps and hubris and imperial temptation that come with GREAT power." Sen. Chuck Hagel..R-NE, my Senator. Believe me folks when I say he represents a vastly conservative state, the state where MY right wing, compassionate, progressive conservative butt lives in. Mdeneen, I included that progressive just for you. I think Sen. Hagel makes a strong, meritorious statement here, especially considering he's somewhat breaking the ranks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Anarchist, Your name is very fitting. Even if I had such twisted thoughts I sure as sh!t wouldn't repeat them in a open forum !! Geezzzzz this is the year 2003 dude gain some humanity !! They maybe terrorist breading people but you can't kill them all !! Your as bad a Saddam !! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Torture question. Something like this came up on TV a year ago. You have a terrorist in your custody. He has placed a timebomb somewhere in the city and it will go off in 2 hours, killing hundreds of innocent people. But you don't know where it is. Do you torture him if that is the only way to get the information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 paulparrot, Which city? Hi NOS, Try reading my posts again with the knowledge they are full of sarcasm and facetiousness. They also attempt to expose the hypocrisy and failure of our government to teach many of its citizens to think and reason. In fact, consider it a puzzle; which pieces fit and which pieces don't. Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV... Oh, yes, I just gotta add this. The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional so I propose a new one: "Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds. Oh lord, yeah!" - Black Sabbath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Anarchist, Your city, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 My city? Ha. No need to torture the man as he is already brain-dead and I would have a flight to catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Well I don;t find your comments to be the least bit a joking matter !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Please tell me which comments you are specifically referring to so I may suggest an appropriate response. On the other hand, given all the commentary and name calling in this thread which occurred without my participation, I don't think it necessary. People attacking each other because of their politics. People calling for the immediate bombing of Iraq. People blaming the US for the attacks on the WTC. Polls questioning whether the US should employ torture. The sheer number of conspiracy theories offered here. The President suggesting 'this' tax cut will stimulate the economy. Being forbidden from uttering the words "Under God." Claiming the liberals did it. Claiming the conservatives did it. Demanding weapons be destroyed which we provided. Wanting a multinational coalition to fight the war but unilaterally determining what the post-war implementation will be. Surrendering the rights afforded to us by the Constitution without questioning the government. Protecting the "Homeland" - eerily similar to "Fatherland", don't you think? Hmmm. You are right. It is not a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finster Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Hear are my thoughts on this subject....... Just follow the link> http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Greg, have you heard from your daughter? Do you know if she is "in" Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 m00n, Yes we drove to Ft. Knox, KY to see her on March 23, she had the whole day off, so we drove down to see her, (about a 4 hour drive from home). They will probably be deployed any day. We spoke to her last night (thank God for cell phones) and they have all of their gear and equipment loaded in conex containers waiting to be loaded on the plane. I think they are waiting for the situation to get under better control before most of the support troops make the trip. Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.