Have I ever done anything that would indicate I didn’t have a sense of honor? Your attempted insult is really just plain silly.
Maybe you should read my first post, where I claim that the original post was unfairly one-sided?
What you Bush as a demigod fools don’t understand is that you don’t have to be in total agreement with everything Bush does to consider some of the things he ends up doing as good.
I’m very happy about the fact there were elections, and Bush can crow about that if he wishes, but that is not what was being discussed.
Maybe you folks should learn to read and find the good out there where it lies. From time to time I toss cookies of agreement out there just to have them spurned – with personal insults on top to boot.
Bush and his cronies, in my estimation, do not take responsibility for the results that occur because of their mistakes. Yes, everybody makes mistake, just some people own up to them. Bush is famous for not doing so. Funny, you kool-aid drinkers think it means he doesn’t make any… I guess that is why he is a demigod, because to err is human.
N. Korea. Now there’s a situation in which the ABB crowd has really done a bang up job of painting Bush into a cornere to fit their own agenda. He’s doing what everyone on your side wanted him to do wrt to Iraq - multilateral talks. Hell he’s even pulled out and let neighboring countries try their hand at negotiating with those wackos. But that’s not what you want him to do . Now we should go it alone and take on N. Korea unilaterally. Make up your fucking minds.
How are you going to tell me what I want? I don’t want war with North Korea and neither does Bush. North Korea won’t be so easy to invade as Iraq without substanital casualities which is why there is suddenly the hand of care. I am simply noticing what you want to waltz over (by the way, you are stepping on her feet). This war would not have kicked off without the less than accurate intel. That is a fact, not a light note to jot on the side of your notebook (regardless of how you try to throw everyone else’s name in as believing it…when he is the leader of the country). Can we now leave an entire group of people and go on about our business? No, we can’t. We started something and, even though it is killing our soldiers, we have to finish it. I would prefer we hurridly allow those people to regain control of their own country and get the hell out of dodge (what was that…no date set to pull out of Iraq? Thanks). My issue is with the turned back we basically gave N. Korea until now as far as attention. I think that was a mistake. NOW they suddenly have nukes whereas before, large explosions were written off as NOT being tests of those weapons? I think Iraq did nothing but dwindle our own forces while the real problem hangs like a black cloud ahead. You are OK with that. I am not.
“Have I ever done anything that would indicate I didn’t have a sense of honor?”
You know, you’re right, and it’s fair that I owe you an apology. While I do generally think that due to the fact that honor requires a certain moral inflexibility and the liberal-left is no position to trumpet ideals given their affection for relativism - you personally have not given me a reason to think you don’t act honorably and for that I apologize.
“Funny, you kool-aid drinkers think it means he doesn’t make any… I guess that is why he is a demigod, because to err is human.”
That would be erroneous - I have laid out many mistakes I think Bush has comimitted personally.
Most Bush supporters don’t think Bush is an infallible demigod and criticism is fair and natural - but they do wish that critics stay rooted in reality.
The majority of the criticism Bush receives around here revolves around some ridiculously silly claims.
For a refresher, read nearly anything posted by JTF.
Korea has had Nukes since BJ Clinton let them keep what they had in 1994 - so don’t go piling on G-dub.
If I remember correctly - Bush referred to N.K. as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ in January 2002 in the same breath as Iraq. So it’s not like it has snuck up on him.
As I said in my post - we’ve tried since 2002 and earlier to engage in mulitlateral talks - Six nations at the table. Just like all the good little liberals wanted. But that’s not good enough. Now the left wants Bush to fly to Kim’s house personally and beg him to be nice.
It’s a no win situation. I think a war with N.K. would be quick and easy given their low standing in the region - save for China. And thy’re the wild card. If they value their totalitarianism over capitalism we’ll have a hell of a fight - one that I wouldn’t want to fight. But if they like cash and trade like they seem to right now, N.K will fold like my granny’s old girdle.
You can’t be serious about a date to pull out of Iraq. Why would we publically state any date about pulling out of Iraq? The insurgent groups would then use that date to strike. The
best way to leave Iraq is slowly,gradually and without fanfare.
Are you totally nuts? Unless I suddenly forgot how to read, I believe your last post said you were in favour of going to war with a country that has nuclear weapons. You also suggested that it would be ‘quick and easy’. Could you please elaborate on this so that your insanity can be confirmed?
How many times in the last 5 years has N. Korea chimed in and said they had a nuke, or two? The threat of N. Korea having nuclear capabilities isn’t that they’ll use them - it’s the threat of them selling them to other rogue nations.
Unless they’re prepared to detonate the warhead on their own soil, they really have no where to strike that we can’t intercept, assuming we have a presence in the area.
Their economic situation is such, that the N. Korean people would welcome a change in direction. This isn’t the height of the cold war, or Communist expansionism. They will fall quickly. The only stick propping them up is China, and their greed may have made them to fat to fight for a dying country.
They had one goal, and that was to get rid of a mass murderer/dictator who may not have been a threat to America, but was certainly a threat.
One goal? Are you sure? First I would suggest that they had some original reason to attack Iraq even before 9/11 (the preponderance of false reasons is enough to lend this theory at least some credence). Then after 9/11, Iraq was supposed to be linked to 9/11. No evidence to support that. Then the reason became WMDs. No evidence to support that either. Finally it became overthrowing Saddam and installing democracy cuz Saddam’s just such a no goodnik. Is that your final answer?
Really, all I want to know is why. What was the real reason we went in to Iraq? For once cut the fucking bullshit and tell us. And if the reason was the last one, why Saddam? Why Iraq? What the hell is our government doing and why are they doing it? I think that’s a bare minimum of information to expect from one’s own government.
We’ve lost one war in pur history, and that defeat was directly attributable to thinking like yours.
Wrong, we lost that war due to the government’s dependance on micromanagement of troops. It got to the point where troops would be at a site ready to attack, and they would have to wait 2 days for final orders to go ahead. That was why we lost. There was far too much dependance on those in Washington and far too little support of the troops on the ground being able to make decisions.
My response to you has to do with a simple concept that shouldn’t even be foriegn to you. Don’t ever underestimate your opponent to that degree. I honestly can’t believe you think a fight with a country that has nukes and won’t be afraid to use them will be “quick and easy”. I would love for all of the people with this view to be on the front lines if it pops off.
The majority of the criticism Bush receives around here revolves around some ridiculously silly claims.
For a refresher, read nearly anything posted by JTF.[/quote]
Or for anybody else who thinks my opinions are idiotic for that matter… If this “war on terror” is such a resounding SUCCESS, why don’t you enlighten us ALL as to how many arrests and convictions have been made in connection to 9/11? While your at it tell us how many Iraqi hijackers there were.
You’d like to think I’m ridiculous by posting the things I do, all the while high-fiving each other for the successes in Iraq…
So this recent election - this makes success #5 thereabouts? What happened to all the other “successes”? Let’s talk about Fallujah for one - that was a big success right? Remember? Where are all the pictures of Fallujah BTW? Do you have any idea what we did to Fallujah? I do.
Shhhh, let’s not talk about that.
You think Iraqis just love us because of this election, not realizing they voted so we would LEAVE. In fact they voted overwhelmingly for the exact opposite of our version of a democratic government.
Sorry George, but Iraq has given you the purple finger
The party likely to win the election opposes the US presence and policies
Saturday February 12, 2005
'The Iraqi people gave America the biggest thank you in the best way we could have hoped for." Reading this election analysis from Betsy Hart, a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, I found myself thinking about my late grandmother.
Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of her Chevrolet, she adamantly refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that everywhere she drove (flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way), people were waving and smiling at her. “They are so friendly!” We had to break the bad news. “They aren’t waving with their whole hand, grandma - just with their middle finger.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1411350,00.html
Imagine Fallujah being to Muslims what Rome and the Vatican are to Catholics… they love us alright, keep telling yourself that. You guys sound so ridiculous talking about how the “liberal media” only talk about the “bad news” in Iraq… you don’t have a fucking CLUE.
US massacres civilians in Fallujah
10 November 2004
The world may never know exactly how many Iraqis are being murdered or maimed in Fallujah. The Pentagon does not bother to count its victims and has imposed a regime of strict censorship, abetted by the self-enforcement of the corporate media. However, from the few reports coming out of the besieged city, it is absolutely clear that the basic purpose of the US campaign is to reduce it to rubble, killing and terrorizing as many inhabitants as possible.
Residential buildings, hospitals and mosques have all been bombed, and American troops are engaging in a house-to-house search of whatever remains. Tens of thousands of civilians remain in Fallujah, a medium-sized city near Baghdad that is normally home to 300,000 people.
Film reveals true destruction to ghost city Falluja
January 11, 2005
Fresh evidence has emerged of the extent of destruction and appalling conditions in Falluja, still deserted two months after a major US offensive against the insurgent stronghold.
Ali Fadhil, an Iraqi journalist working with the Guardian’s film unit and one of the few reporters to travel independently to Falluja, describes in a Channel 4 News film tonight a “city of ghosts” where dogs feed on uncollected corpses.
In interviews, insurgents challenge official US accounts of a decisive victory and claim many of the rebels left the city in a pre-planned withdrawal.
“It is completely devastated,” Fadhil writes in the Guardian today. “Falluja used to be a modern city; now there is nothing. We spend that first day going through the rubble that had been the centre of the city; I don’t see a single building that is functioning.”
US commanders claimed to have killed more than 1,200 insurgents in the November battle, dealing a serious blow to the insurgency. Before the assault, Falluja was a no-go area for the US and Iraqi military.
But in a graveyard, known as the “martyrs cemetery”, Fadhil counts only 76 graves. In houses he finds other bodies he suspects were civilians.
“I saw other rotting bodies that showed no sign of being fighters. In one house in the market there were four bodies inside the guestroom,” he writes. “In this house there were no bullets in the walls, just four dead men lying curled up beside each other, with bullet holes in the mosquito nets that covered the windows.”
The allegations were put to US forces in Baghdad five days ago. There has been no reply.
Despite the intense fight in Falluja, the insurgency has gathered pace across Iraq, particularly in the northern city of Mosul, once a model of peace and calm, and in Baghdad, where the deputy police chief was assassinated yesterday.
Falluja Residents Testify to the Destruction of Their City
By Michel B’le-Richard
07 February 2005
Three months after the American offensive and capture of the Sunni bastion, barely 20% of the population has returned. Some residents survive in the ruins. The Red Crescent tries to help, while the Iraqi Army patrols and loots whatever remains.
Three months after the American offensive against Falluja that began November 8, 2004, the rebel city fifty kilometers west of Baghdad is devastated, emptied, sepulchral. “Like after an earthquake, a fire and bomb tsunami that spared practically nothing, not even the mosques,” relates Sheikh Taghlib Al-Alousi, President of the Chura, the assembly of religious dignitaries.
The city with a hundred mosques is now only a shadow of its former self. “It’s a tragedy! I cried about it like a child,” explains the official from the Hazrah Mohammedia mosque, who has returned to what was once a Sunni bastion three times in the period since the end of the main fighting in early December.
Tears come to his eyes when he evokes the present condition of this city of 400,000 on the banks of the Euphrates. “Practically not a single house has been spared. 20% of them have burned and at least 10% are totally destroyed,” asserts this engineer who denounces the massive American bombardments every time the Marines encountered any resistance. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020705H.shtml
Also, I’m sure you heard about the finally released report Bush has been holding that states the FAA and the government had 52 warnings about bin Laden and al Qaida in 2001… right up to Sept 10, 2001. That means Condi lied under oath… Oh No!
Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11
FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.
The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.
But in July 2001 - just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks - the rule was rescinded.
FBI Admits: No Evidence Links ‘Hijackers’ to 9-11
American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper
After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen that there exists solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller has now admitted quite the opposite.
That 19 Muslim men who have apparently disappeared have been named as the hijackers is not in doubt.
What is in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.
The amazing possibility remains that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who have been assigned guilt in the tragedy.
In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, ‘left no paper trial.’ The FBI director stated flatly:
In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.
In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that:
Report cites warnings before 9/11
September 19, 2002
WASHINGTON (CNN) - U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil - even using airplanes as weapons - well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.
In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes
January 29, 2002
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.
The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.
He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said
Tuesday’s discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.
“The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism,” Daschle told reporters.
So remember, tell us ALL (anybody) how many arrests and convictions have been made in connection to 9/11. (You know, the thing Bush would have moved “mountains” to stop.)
52 WARNINGS in the year leading up to 9/11 and for 1-1/2 hours the greatest military in the world is nowhere to be found.
So before, during and after 9/11 to the election in Iraq, this all constitutes one big success in the “war on terror” to you guys - yet you think I’m the one who doesn’t get it?
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
Wrong, we lost that war due to the government’s dependance on micromanagement of troops. It got to the point where troops would be at a site ready to attack, and they would have to wait 2 days for final orders to go ahead. That was why we lost. There was far too much dependance on those in Washington and far too little support of the troops on the ground being able to make decisions. [/quote]
You’re wrong. Politics lost Viet Nam. The military was never allowed to achieve victory. Politicians, bad press and the spoiled-brat baby boomers converged to create an environment in which it was more politically expediant to lose a war than to win. It created an instant scapegoat which you were allto quick to use your self.
My response to you has to do with a simple concept that shouldn’t even be foriegn to you. Don’t ever underestimate your opponent to that degree. I honestly can’t believe you think a fight with a country that has nukes and won’t be afraid to use them will be “quick and easy”. I would love for all of the people with this view to be on the front lines if it pops off. [/quote]
I’m not underestimating North Korea - you seem all to quick to underestimate the military capabilities of the United States.
I wish that you would read all of my posts instead of just what you can reply to. Korea doesn’t have long range cababilities. There’s no real proof that they even have a nuke. They’ve said that they’ve had one or two on several different occasions. Even if they do - don’t you think we have intercept missles at the ready in the DMZ? It’s not the problem you are trumping it up to be. You make it sound as if our military is powerless. I strongly disagree.
Are you going to bitch and moan about Korea if we find they have no nukes like you have after finding out the Iraq had no WMDs?
I’m not a war monger. I’m just not a chicken shit.
Also, I think this site http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VietnamWar.htm
Will give you more insight into the lies and politics that surrounded the Vietnam War. Considering how the general public should have learned by now that we are rarely told the ins and outs of situations until decades after their occurance, it amazes me how many have such blind faith in our current government. In fact, it is pretty damn scary. Some of you won’t criticize openly one thing the current administration does. You have JeffR constantly writing the most childish posts on this forum about Bush statues. My honest opinion is that some of you need to realize that the greatest naievete is believing everything those in Washington tell you.