Could Bush Be Right?

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Jeesh why is it that you ultra conservative, I love Bush types can’t make your point without name calling?

I’m neither party–I think the party system is what fucks up the process. I just vote for solid people not parties.

But if I don’t think Bush is solid or that a republican based policy is best that makes you a posie sniffing pansy?
Pretty tough words on the computer. This is exactly the kind of division that the party system creates. Aren’t we all Americans after all?

As far as the strength through force comment. Are you currently serving or have you? Ever been to these places or in a war zone for that matter? I have, let me tell you it is a lot easier to formulate the opinions that you have without ever spending any time over there. If you had you might have some serious questions about what the end result of all this is and maybe you might question if this is really a “success” for Bush or America for that matter. It is a success in some regards. We have definitely bolstered the ranks of several terrorist organizations![/quote]

I didn’t know any liberals actually lived in Texas.

He’s not from Texas.

Rainjack is right, I’m not from Texas I just live here. You however apparently can’t read. In the very beginning of the post I stated that I’m neither liberal or republican. I stand behind individuals not party lines. Some of my stances are “liberal” or “conservative” but they vary from issue to issue. I think people that blindly follow a party line or who bother to classify themselves as one or the other are usually missing the point.

NO,

on the balance of probabilities, not likely.

I myself, am more likely to be correct.

WRT what, thas a different matter.!!

[quote]miniross wrote:
NO,

on the balance of probabilities, not likely.
[/quote]

What the hell does that mean?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
michaelv wrote:
The latest, greatest changes started because Arafat died. Pure and simple.

No. the latest, greatest changes came about because of Freedom. In a 113 day span, over 100 million people, on two different continents got their first taste of self determination by being able to cast a vote that really mattered. That was something that had never happened.

We take it for granted that we can do and be anything we want. We are born free. We live free. We die free. Most of the folks in the Middle East have never been free for a single day in their lives. Freedom, liberty, self-determination - that’s some powerful stuff.

Arafat’s death was a good thing for peace, but not the only reason for this recent outbreak of freedom in the world. The biggest reason is that we are over there and giving them hope.

[/quote]

Wow. That sounded kind of liberal. Where’s that bleeding heart you’ve been hiding?

On a side note, there seem to be two kinds of people when it comes to politcal news: those who look to promote their agenda/put down the opposing agenda, and then the people who just care about the truth.

[quote]miniross wrote:
NO,

on the balance of probabilities, not likely.

I myself, am more likely to be correct.

WRT what, thas a different matter.!![/quote]

Like someone else said in response to one of your other posts miniross -“Don’t they speak English in England? What the hell did you just say?”

[quote]aschy wrote:
miniross wrote:
NO,

on the balance of probabilities, not likely.

I myself, am more likely to be correct.

WRT what, thas a different matter.!!

Like someone else said in response to one of your other posts miniross -“Don’t they speak English in England? What the hell did you just say?”[/quote]

What precisely, is wrong with that?

[quote]veruvius wrote:
Wow. That sounded kind of liberal. Where’s that bleeding heart you’ve been hiding?

On a side note, there seem to be two kinds of people when it comes to politcal news: those who look to promote their agenda/put down the opposing agenda, and then the people who just care about the truth.[/quote]

How did you divine ‘bleeding heart’ out of what I wrote?

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Rainjack is right, I’m not from Texas I just live here. You however apparently can’t read. [/quote]

Holy crap! I can’t read! Is that what you wrote? Because, you know I can’t read…

BTW, I can understand not wanting to classify yourself as a liberal. It’s not a good label to be carrying around these days. However, being labeled as a conservative, now that’s divine. Come on over and join the majority.

Make fun all you want but if you did read it, I doubt you’d make a completely erroneous statement. I’ve read your other posts–you’re smarter than that. I don’t claim either side because in my humble opinion they both suck and the whole party system is screwing the message. You will pick your candidates because they are Republicans right? I’ve known quite a few Republicans that were self-serving, elitist, greedy fuckheads. Then again I’ve known plenty of Liberals that were whiny little bitches that had no real concept of how the world functions. I have no desire to draw a line and step over to either party. This pretty much the same way I feel about religion. Started off as agreat thing for a common cause then got warped along the way. I believe the warping came from people like yourself that got so wrapped up in their “side” being right that they lost sight of the original message.

[quote]randman wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Rainjack is right, I’m not from Texas I just live here. You however apparently can’t read.

Holy crap! I can’t read! Is that what you wrote? Because, you know I can’t read…

BTW, I can understand not wanting to classify yourself as a liberal. It’s not a good label to be carrying around these days. However, being labeled as a conservative, now that’s divine. Come on over and join the majority.[/quote]

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Rainjack is right, I’m not from Texas I just live here. You however apparently can’t read. In the very beginning of the post I stated that I’m neither liberal or republican. I stand behind individuals not party lines. Some of my stances are “liberal” or “conservative” but they vary from issue to issue. I think people that blindly follow a party line or who bother to classify themselves as one or the other are usually missing the point.[/quote]

You’re equating apples and oranges.

“Liberal” and “Conservative” aren’t parties (at least not in the U.S.), they’re labels for vaguely defined sets of principles and outlooks.

Republicans and Democrats are the parties, and Republican is not synonymous with conservative and Democrat is not synonymous with liberal (in either the traditional or modern definitions).

[quote]storey420 wrote:
As far as the strength through force comment. Are you currently serving or have you? Ever been to these places or in a war zone for that matter? I have, let me tell you it is a lot easier to formulate the opinions that you have without ever spending any time over there. If you had you might have some serious questions about what the end result of all this is and maybe you might question if this is really a “success” for Bush or America for that matter. It is a success in some regards. We have definitely bolstered the ranks of several terrorist organizations![/quote]

Yes I have served, and no I haven’t been to an area of conflict. What bothers me is that most libs define peace as the absence of conflict. You see, I think that terrorism and the hatred that is directed toward us is a direct threat to our national security. Something that is not gonna go away unless the US bends all our foreign policy decisions around their demands.

President Bush is confronting the problem head on with a proactive foreign policy. Do you actually think that terrorism would have gone away had the US tucked it’s tail between their legs and issued a huge blank apolagy for any foreign policy decisions that might have upset the arab world? That’s not only ridiculas, it’s polyana as hell! Giving in to criminal demands only emboldens the criminals.

I’ll take a hard won freedom over a cowards peace any day. If securing freedom means that we as a nation have to sacrifice a portion of our peace then so be it.

Tthe tree of freedom must be watered now and then with the blood of patriot and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

Actually you are absolutely right BB. I should have clarified that. I hope you see me point though as they are certainly plenty of people in this country( and on this board) that pick one of those sides and stick to it blindly. Bigflamer–I’m glad you served at least you have some kind of idea of what it takes to do what our boys are doing. The only thing I can say to you is that terrorism is not going away weither we are proactive or “tucking our tails”. We are not going to reduce the ranks of the terrorists with our current policy. As much as any man can, I can assure you of that. I’m not saying we should have a liberal give in to every foregn interest policy nor should we have our current John Wayne policy.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Make fun all you want but if you did read it, I doubt you’d make a completely erroneous statement. I’ve read your other posts–you’re smarter than that. I don’t claim either side because in my humble opinion they both suck and the whole party system is screwing the message. You will pick your candidates because they are Republicans right? I’ve known quite a few Republicans that were self-serving, elitist, greedy fuckheads. Then again I’ve known plenty of Liberals that were whiny little bitches that had no real concept of how the world functions. I have no desire to draw a line and step over to either party. This pretty much the same way I feel about religion. Started off as agreat thing for a common cause then got warped along the way. I believe the warping came from people like yourself that got so wrapped up in their “side” being right that they lost sight of the original message.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was having some fun. I do label myself as conservative however, because as BB so eloquently stated, it’s a set of principles that defines me as such. Do I typically vote Republican? Yes. Do I agree with everything Bush has done in the white house thus far? No. But I find the republican agenda is typically much more palatable to me than the current democratic agenda. In fact, and I’m being serious, I don’t know what the democratic agenda is beyond being anti-republican.

Well put Randman. See I knew you were smart ;]
Seriously that is a good way to put it. I think there is a bit too much of the mud slinging around here. I dare say I have voted Republican on more things than Democrat lately but I have no favorites. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that George Bush is more than an at best mediocre leader. I think the margins in both elections show that without having to bring his recent record into play. However with the president comes congress. I will say that the man has some serious freakin clowns to deal with in that circus. So you can only credit or discredit him so much without taking into account the other piece of our political process.

[quote]randman wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Make fun all you want but if you did read it, I doubt you’d make a completely erroneous statement. I’ve read your other posts–you’re smarter than that. I don’t claim either side because in my humble opinion they both suck and the whole party system is screwing the message. You will pick your candidates because they are Republicans right? I’ve known quite a few Republicans that were self-serving, elitist, greedy fuckheads. Then again I’ve known plenty of Liberals that were whiny little bitches that had no real concept of how the world functions. I have no desire to draw a line and step over to either party. This pretty much the same way I feel about religion. Started off as agreat thing for a common cause then got warped along the way. I believe the warping came from people like yourself that got so wrapped up in their “side” being right that they lost sight of the original message.

Yeah, I was having some fun. I do label myself as conservative however, because as BB so eloquently stated, it’s a set of principles that defines me as such. Do I typically vote Republican? Yes. Do I agree with everything Bush has done in the white house thus far? No. But I find the republican agenda is typically much more palatable to me than the current democratic agenda. In fact, and I’m being serious, I don’t know what the democratic agenda is beyond being anti-republican.[/quote]

Storey

Mediocre leader? Are you serious? Like him or hate him he leads.

Under the present situation can you honestly say someone like Gore or Kerry would have been more effective?

A leader does what he thinks is right…regardless of what the pundits or intellectuals think. Even an ABB’er would have a hard time trying to argue Bush is not a leader.

By the way I don’t think forming a consensus or a coalition makes you a leader. At best it is a compromise.

I think this analysis from Stratfor captures my attitude fairly well: cautious optimism in the face of some successes. I like the trend, but we can’t let our guard down.

The Middle East and Murphy’s Law

By George Friedman

Recent events in the Middle East have created a growing sense of traction for the United States and ignited discussions about how events – such as the Syrian agreement to pull back its forces from Lebanon – have vindicated President George W. Bush’s foreign policies.

In many respects, this is justified – although given the extreme nature of the criticism of the Iraq invasion and other policies, vindication would be hard to avoid. It is interesting to note that the recent sense of euphoria has been made possible only because Bush’s critics have set such absurdly low expectations that anything short of catastrophic failure comes across as success.

It certainly is true that things in the Middle East are going better than they were – and much better than Bush critics thought they would – but that does not mean the challenges are past for the United States. The anti-jihadist war is not over, and neither is the Iraq campaign. There could be heavy fighting and troubling times still ahead, even if the trend line is positive for the United States.

Consider the situation in Iraq. The insurrection remains generally confined to the Sunni Triangle, and for now, the general pace of operations against U.S. forces has declined. But it is not clear whether the drop-off is related to declining support for the insurgency among the Sunni leadership or whether the guerrillas simply have slowed their operational tempo to regroup, recruit, train and recover. This is standard for any military force after an offensive, and the insurgents have done so before.

There is evidence – including the capture of a number of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s key aides – that the guerrillas have been militarily hurt and constrained, but that will not be certain until June or so, judging from past patterns of violence. Another question mark must be placed next to the fighting capabilities of the Shiite forces and whether the new Iraqi government has the will to commit them to the battle against the insurgents.

In the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the situation is more positive than at any time since the Oslo Accords. But it might be worth remembering that the Oslo Accords ended catastrophically, so that particular comparison might not be the most useful. Critical issues have not yet been addressed.

For example, it is not clear whether Hamas has undergone an ideological about-face and accepted the principle of Israel’s right to exist, or whether the group is simply too weak to challenge the peace process at the moment. It also is not apparent whether anyone has thought clearly about claims to Jerusalem. A settlement based on Palestinian weakness will work only if weakness leads to pliability, or if the weakness cannot be reversed.

There has been a favorable evolution of events in Lebanon, with Syria pledging to withdraw its occupation forces. However, it would be an enormous and highly questionable assumption to believe that either Hezbollah, whose very existence depends heavily on Syrian control of Lebanon, or the Assad regime, which has serious economic interests there, would simply follow the trend. Indeed, they already are taking steps to reverse or to slow it, with Hezbollah calling out hundreds of thousands of pro-Syrian demonstrators in Beirut and a pro-Syrian prime minister, Omar Karami, again forming a government. Neither Hezbollah nor the Assads are going to go quietly into that good night.

Finally, al Qaeda appears to have been broken. They are certainly not clearly operational anywhere – but betting against them is always dangerous.

The United States has done quite well since Sept. 11 in transforming the politico-military landscape of the Middle East, and the trend lines are running in Washington’s favor. Nevertheless, winning a war is not the same thing as having won it. In war, more than anywhere else, Murphy’s Law obtains. Even if all goes well, there might be a Battle of the Bulge out there – some event that would not change the ultimate outcome of the war, but that certainly would come as a nasty surprise.

No, Bush isn’t right.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BushWasntRight.htm

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
No, Bush isn’t right.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BushWasntRight.htm[/quote]

Too funny. This guy is an anarchist pretending to be a liberterian. Read some of his other articles.

Anything remotely mainstream you could reference.