:rolleyes: I don’t suppose you’d believe us if we told you that depending on where you live/work, plenty of people keep quiet about not hating his guts due to people getting emotive about it?
[nitpick]
That is also a trait of salespeople and, as shocking this may be, politicians.[/nitpick]
D
hehe… I can imagine so. Wasn’t to fair of me was it ? :dubious:
FoxNews, incredibly so, has a neat poll… and it shows how many vote FOR Kerry and how many vote AGAINST Bush. Bush and Cheney have higher marks “unfavorable” impressions. Check it here: FoxNews Poll
Still the US is badly split and divisiveness is at a higher than ever level.
Since this was OP’s first post, I feel somewhat safe in putting my toes in the water with my first reply. Viewing a recent tv program the other night (where all true knowledge is found), I happened across a show about the trials of the WWII Japanese Generals. It seems that many of them were hung for initiating an “aggressive war” without provocation.
There is nothing about GWB that couldn’t be cured by a good War Crimes Trial or an Impeachment. If there were no WMD’s, is this an “aggressive war” by the US? (or should I say, by GW Bush, since Congress abdicated it’s responsibilty and our Representation by not declaring war?)
If you really want honest, unemotional (a bit hard to believe considering the very emotional nature of the OP) responses from conservatives why do chose to take this discussion to a board which is so overwhelming anti-Bush – one should image you could find many other boards with a more conservative leaning? I’m such a rare thing as a foreign Bush supporter (a perversion of nature for sure) - on his foreign policies but your OP is so ridiculous broad it’s almost impossible to know where to start and where to end. So I’ll just single one out: You seem to believe Bush squandered the goodwill you had following 9/11. Political goodwill (even as it were – disregarding the fools dancing and celebrating and the masses believing the neocons had done it themselves, hardly had the rubble settled from the towers before voices started to be heard, from ostensibly sane persons, expressing how America deserved it - had it coming etc.) political goodwill is there to be used, you cannot store it away for a time when you might need it, and it was pretty much spend after Afghanistan anyway – a target so obvious and clearly legitimate that it boggled the mind that even that produced so much opposition as it did. Whatever happened to the Afghan quarkmire – are they still holding on to that? So the European left hate you, so fucking what? They hated you before and they hate you now. So some (well a lot I guess) Arabs hate you, so fucking what? They hated you before and they hate you now. Apparently they also think Osama Bin Laden was a swell guy – do you even want such sick bastards to like you? International politics is not a popularity contest. Doing something, anything, is always going to earn you enemies. Don’t mean it isn’t the correct thing to do, or the necessary thing to do. As far as I’m concerned the Afghans while not in heaven are infinitively better off today than under the Taliban. As far as I’m concerned the Iraqis while not in heaven (well except for the martyrs buggering their 72 virgins) are better off today than under Saddam. Both countries will be even better off a few more years down the road. Yet were it to you, both Mullar Omar and Saddam Hussein would sit comfortably on their thrones, respectively stoning women in Kabul stations and torturing Iraqi football players in Baghdad stations. And for the European protesters, well just a few years earlier the same crowd had had an infatuation with various eastern European dictatorships. The Danish demonstrations were even organized by a communistic organization which still hold to the old tenets of bloddy revolution and nothing but disgust for democracy. I don’t remember, but wasn’t the big demonstration in London organized by some of the same groups? A rule of thumb; when Islamofacist and Stalinist hate you – you’re on the right track.
You don’t remove “the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism” by sweet talk, negotiation, shuttle diplomacy or acting nice, compassionate and sensitive. You do it by killing Islamic fundamentalism bastards, wiping out the culture that begat them, pissing on their graves and annihilating the regimes supporting and teaching them. People or cultures (lets not pretend it has anything to do with civilization) who stone women and believe you go to heaven for killing the infidels and all the other idioticy they go around preaching deserve not respect or understanding but contempt and when destroyed to be forgotten. But surely I agree: being targeted with fire-bombs, depleted uranium munitions and what have you not is very bad. There’s just no two ways about it; being killed sucks big time. So if you don’t want that to happen there’s an easy way to avoid it. Goddamn stop helping terrorists who fly filled commuter airplanes into skyscrapers.
Even so it smacks of a fair bit of arrogance the ease and readiness you (as an American) express in bearing all the ills of the world on your shoulders. I’m afraid you vastly overestimate your (and Bush’s) influence. You (nor him) are neither responsible nor to blame when a nineteen year old boy in Islamabad after a life in Islam-school reciting hateful Koran verses chose to go blow himself and a bunch of infidels up. And with all due respect for Moslems and their religion and culture and yada yada yada (gah!) having to wear a pair of panties on your head or being exposed to naked hores on Cuba is nothing compared to the daily routine of the Taliban hell regime or Saddams Baathists or indeed the one Al Queda would gladly subject you, GomiBoy, to had they the smallest chance.
He he. Honest and unemotional. One out of two isn’t so bad. I’m off to bed and no time to preview.
I’ll pick on this part first…
Political Goodwill might diminish… but it doesn’t go away in a flash. I agree Afghanistan “used” some of the goodwill… but it didn’t take it all. (Yep I agree it was legitimate too). You can always increase or diminish political goodwill depending on your actions. 9/11 wasn’t the only source of goodwill.
Arabs and Europeans might hate the USA... but the problem is the **Amount** that hates the USA. Simplyfing it as "they hate us anyway" disregards the fact that many that didn't hate before do hate now. Last time I saw terrorism's sources includes hate. More hate = more terrorists. So it's not a "popularity contest" its good sense. If people don't hate you their governments don't suffer as much politically when they help the US either.And if you have to kill 100’s of thousands of innocent men women and children in the process, “it is worth it” in the words of Madelene Albright, our former Sec. of State. An opinion shared by the current administration apparently. Since retracted, but stated.
Well you obviously have a problem with Islam. The other side of the issue I guess is that AQ makes some of the same comments ? Dealing with western countries that don’t make their women respect them… that are hedonistic and oversexed… that don’t follow Allah… etc… is impossible.
I agree that maybe Arabs and Islam may have been treated overly tactfully in the past... but then Bush isn't proposing "wiping out the culture that begat them". In fact he is supporting some of the regimes that supported terrorism and radical islam. Acting tough with some Arabs and kissing other arabs oil rich asses comes across as little in terms of moral clarity and straight talking.
Wow… people still beleive we are in favor of Saddam and Omar ? I agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now in relative terms… but they weren’t invaded for humanitarian reasons. Anyway is saving two countries for this much confusion, death, maiming and financial cost worthwhile ? Did this actually reduce terrorism (especially Iraq) or increase it ? Terrorism is growing while Bush plays colonial power. If you save 2 countries and the whole middle east goes up in jihadi flames… then the overall result is negative. Especially considering things like soft power. The US moral high ground is forever lost.
Are you seriously equating what the Japanese didn in WWII with reguards to invasion and expansion with what the US did in Iraq? Seriously? Because there really aren’t many parallels except in the broadest sense (i.e. there was a war and people died…er, and they were all humans that participated), so my question would be are you ignorant of what really happened during the early stages of WWII with reguards to Japan or are you…I don’t know, being provocative?
Japan attacked and invaded China (and Manchuria, and earlier Korea and Siberia, and…well, you get the point) for the purposes of conquest and to secure vital resources. They did so in an extremely vicious way…almost genocidal in China. Do you realize exactly what those Japanese Generals were DOING in their war of aggression?? Ever heard of the mass executions, torture, rapes and medical experiments that went on in China by the Japanese…just to name some of the more pleasant aspects of the conflict?
I won’t get into Iraq except to say that while I don’t agree with the administration or Bush on having the US go into Iraq (I think it was stupid), it is in no way, shape or form like what the Japanese did during WWII. Nor should Bush (or OUR Generals, who would be the ones to go to trial, using your Japan example…recall the Emporor of Japan was NOT executed) be subject to ‘war crimes trials’. As far as impeachment goes, funny that there hasn’t been so much as a peep about this from the Democrats. Wonder why that is?? (and don’t try the old ‘Republics control both houses’ schtick either…there are enough Democrats to get the ball rolling if there was a serious case that could be brought to bare against Bush et al for the war in Iraq…the majority isn’t THAT big in either house).
BTW, just out of curiosity, why are you willing to give Congress a pass on this, as they are the ones who authorized the president to go into Iraq? Just because they didn’t ‘declare war’ (which btw the US hasn’t done since WWII in ANY of its conflicts), shouldn’t they share some of the responsibility?
-XT
I hate Bush for the same reason I grew into hating Clinton, they both made me back them, and they both embarssed me and made me into a liar.
When Bush said Iraq has WMD and would use them if not stopped, I believed him. I backed him to my family, friends, strangers…etc. When the world was telling us we were wrong, I thought THEY were the idiots. Turns out I was the idiot, and I cant just let that go. He embarssed my country, its people, and their ideals with his lying. He has got to go.
Lots of questions here:
I take it ‘we’ are those who opposed the war. No, I don’t think many people think that the majority of the anti-war crowd were in favor of Saddam and Omar, etc etc. Myself I think that the majority of the anti-war crowd are opposed to any war for any circumstance and tend to simply bury their heads in the ground when things like the Sudan or North Korea (or Afghanistan and Iraq in the past) are happening, hoping it will all just go away so they can get back to singing kumbya and being morally superior. I don’t think YOU are necessarily like that RM, but thats my own impression of the run of the mill anti-war crowd.
“Anyway is saving two countries for this much confusion, death, maiming and financial cost worthwhile ?” Hm. Well, it depends on what the final result of all this is I suppose, and exactly what ‘worthwhile’ means to you. If the final result is a stable Afghanistan and Iraq (note, I didn’t say a DEMOCRATIC A/I) then I suppose a case could be made that it was ‘worthwhile’. As I’ve said before, Afghanistan was a must for the US, so reguardless of whether its stable or not the US had to go in there after the Taliban…and AQ. So to me it was ‘worthwhile’. Iraq is another kettle of fish, and it would take a lot to convince me it was ‘worthwhile’ reguardless of the end result to be honest. It simply wasn’t worth the money and lives expended IMHO, to take out Saddam, who I suspect time was getting short for in any case. It wasn’t worth tieing up our military which we may vitally need, nor the distraction from hunting down terrorists world wide and taking them out.
“Did this actually reduce terrorism (especially Iraq) or increase it ?” In Iraq? Certainly not, it increased terrorism…drew it like a magnet in fact. Worldwide? Hard to say, but my guess is its been a wash with about as much terrorist worldwide as any other period (it fluxuates quite a bit year to year). In the US? Certainly it has, and from a purely selfish perspective its certainly helped us out on that score by drawing the fire to somewhere else. The jury is still out on whether or not it will have any long term effects on terrorism…good or bad.
“Terrorism is growing while Bush plays colonial power.” Well, so much for interesting questions from you I guess. All I can say here is I haven’t seen too many US colonists headed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, and it appears to me that the US is trying pretty hard to hand off power to the two governments in as rapid (maybe too rapid in fact) a way as they can.
“If you save 2 countries and the whole middle east goes up in jihadi flames… then the overall result is negative.” This is an assumption that has no basis in fact. We simply don’t know that the entire ME is going to go up in ‘jihadi flames’. Even if it does (which I seriously doubt) we have no way of knowing if it would have done so anyway.
“Especially considering things like soft power. The US moral high ground is forever lost.” The US never had the ‘moral high ground’, or if it did it lost it decades ago. Having been to Europe for extended periods I can tell you that anti-American sentiments are nothing new to this administration. We weren’t and haven’t been popular in countries like France (for example) for a long time now, though admittedly it waxes and wanes.
And I’m sorry, but looked at from a historical perspective, Europe isn’t exactly where I would look for a moral compass. They are peoples with extremely thin glass houses tossing bricks…and I’m not saying this only from an American perspective either. They basically have nothing to say to ANY country out there after the things they have done or allowed in the past…or even recently. It causes me zero distress that Europe (population wise) mostly is against the US (either our foriegn or domestic policies), and some of my best friends live there in various countries.
-XT
Funny that you mention it, because her answer came as a response to the hundred of thousands Iraqi children alleged (but unlikely) killed as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq. Sanctions now lifted as a consequence of the war – so one might turn the question: uunweisenheimer was opposing the overthrow of Saddam worth another half a million children?
Not really. Everybody knows Islam is the religion of peace, that’s why they shout Allah Akbar when they cut the throats of tied up hostages and I love peace so how could I? I do however have a big problem with “Islamic fundamentalism” as practiced by the Taliban and preached by Al Queda. I sure hope you do too.
We can quickly agree that he’s being too soft and far from enough has been done.
Didn’t say that. I said the consequences had we followed your wish (well not in Afghanistan apparently – how perfectly vile of you! Warmonger you!) would have been their continued rule – do you disagree?
This may seem pathetically naive, but I’d like a cite on that last bit. What makes you think not overthowing Saddam would have killed another half a million children? I was under the impression he hadn’t been conducting genocides recently (though I admit this doesn’t make up for his past crimes). Maybe you are referring to not overthrowing Saddam during Bush Sr.'s term? Or are you just asking cruel hypothetical questions?
Must you contradict yourself like that? Now I have no idea whether you really do have a problem with Islam or not. Obviously you don’t like the Islamic fundamentalists, and I seriously doubt anyone else on these boards would disagree with those sentiments. You, however, seem to be equating all Islams with Islamic fundamentalists, or at least that’s what your post suggests. Is that how you feel? Let’s have a straight response this time.
And one last point…
I have no love for Islamic fundamentalism, but you’re either being overly emotional or are suggesting genocide with that “wiping out the culture that begat them” bit. Do you honestly believe two wrongs make a right?
That was terrible wording. By “that last bit”, I was reffering to this specifically:
Don’t want anybody handing me cites on the Madelene Albright quote.
And we invaded Iraq because? You’re not still buying the WMD story are you? I’m saying it was an invasion of a sovereign country (however barbarous) without provocation or imminent threat. Is that not the definition of “aggressive war”? If it is an “aggressive war” shouldn’t we be held to the same standards that we set for the rest of the World?
And while we’re splitting hairs shall we differentiate between the torture and slaughter of civilians and military by the Japanese and the slow deaths of children by starvation and disease from 10 years of bombing and “sanctions” by the US and the United Nations?
In no way do I let Congress off the hook. In fact if you read what I wrote you will see that I accuse them of the biggest cowardice of all by abdicating there responsibility to take the country in to war, and not to simply hand over that power to the Presidente of the US.
True, but not all salespeople or politicians are trying to do a job on you. The fact that other people are also likeable doesn’t excuse a con artists for his or her activities. The Bush record pre-presidency shows him to be inadequate to almost any task that required ability above the average.
We invaded (well, one of the several reasons we invaded) was to secure a vital natural resource…not just for us (its probably slipped your mind, but the US doesn’t really import all that much oil from Iraq…either before or now). Thats markedly different than Japan’s reasons, which was to TAKE the natural resources in the pacific rim for themselves by force of arms. Get it?
Buying the WMD story? Well, I suppose that depends on how you mean that. Did I believe at the time they had them? Ya, I did. I wasn’t exactly alone in that. Did/do I think that was the main reason for us going into Iraq? No, not then and not now…I knew it was an excuse. You seem to think that because I’m calling you on your ridiculous Japan/Iraq comparison that somehow that makes me a supporter of the Iraqi invasion or something.
As to “I’m saying it was an invasion of a sovereign country (however barbarous) without provocation or imminent threat. Is that not the definition of “aggressive war”?”…Well, then you will agree that Bosnia was also an ‘aggressive war’, as the Europeans powers (along with America) invaded ‘without provocation or imminent threat’, right? I’m sure you were equally outraged and were/are comparing that to the various Nazi invasions (or perhaps Attilla the Hun or the Crushing of Hungary by the Soviet Union or some other ridiculous comparison)…after all, its all the same right?
Look, if you are going to simplify things down to such a ridiculous level you could compare the second Gulf war to just about anything, so its simply being provocative to compare it to the various Japanese invasions of WWII…get it?
I don’t really see it as splitting hairs and am frankly stunned that you do see it that way. Why don’t you lay out all the reasons why the second gulf war was like Japan during WWII that aren’t: The war was unprovoked, people died, and it was all humans that participated…oh, and it was all on the Earth. Other than that I fail to see any parallels. Enlighten me.
As far as your strawman, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. If you want to do a comparison by body count I think you’ll find that the Japanese killed more civilian men, women and children in China per year than died by the sanctions. Also, it wasn’t JUST the US imposing said sanctions (whereas it was Japan who unilaterally attacked, on its own…you starting to get the picture of all the ways the two things were NOT alike?), and Iraq had a part in that as well, no (afaik China had done nothing at all to Japan or anyone else to warrent an invasion)? Then there was the little matter like that invasion of Kuait by Iraq (you know, the REASON for said sanctions), and the continued resistance by Saddam to following the various UN resolutions and other agreements he signed at the end of the first gulf war. Finally, what is your alternative solution that DIDN’T involve removing SH from power? Simply remove the sanctions and forget about it??
Again, its comparing apples to oranges…the two things simply are not comparable. Or, if you have some valid comparision to attempt to make between the two events trot em out…I could use a good laugh.
-XT
Not quite sure what is so “funny” about the mention of the death of children, but if you want a cite for a more accurate count of child deaths because of our sanctions on Iraq (approx. 500,000 according to UNICEF) see A Country Destroyed - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com I take it that you think we should receive a Nobel Medal because of all the lives we have saved because we stopped the bombing and killing of civilians? Ouch, my head hurts, someone grab this hammer.
There is also reference to the quote by Albright that it was “worth it”.
Also, does it trouble you at all that I have to think twice about whether or not I should say such things on the internet?. It bothers me. And that’s why I hate George Bush so much. And lest you think I’m some bleeding heart liberal—Kerry will be no prize either.
I agree with what Dob said. As someone who is or was a middle of the road, right leaning, conservative leaning former Republican who was born and raised in New York City, I initially was another one who tried to defend Bush and tried to believe him. Like Dob, I do not like being made into a fool by Bush and company. As you can tell by some of my posts, dislike quickly turned into outright disgust. He isn’t just a compulsive liar, he isn’t even a good liar.
I just do not see the lies that Bush is supposed to have told. He thought there were WMDs in Iraq because the British, Russian, and U.S. intelligence agencies were telling him so. Remember it was George Tenet of the CIA who told Bush that WMD’s in Iraq were a “slamdunk”.
On the other hand we already know Kerry is a liar – a self-admitted one. He had an aide today admit that he had never been into Cambodia on combat.