|
|
 |
|
#21
09-02-2006, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I was questioned as to my posting from common dreams. A quick search came up with the Toledo Blade. There are plenty of views that oppose the policies of the current administration. Take your pick. Seems to me that those that support current objectives in Iraq are now in the minority, and that no matter what Rummy calls them or which 1930's Europeans he paints them as, the reality of the disaster that the Repub neo-cons have brought upon our country can not be denied. I'm just one of many messengers, and I didn't make the message, nor the mess. DTS 
|
|
#22
09-02-2006, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
thing is....i don't like when someone opposes the other just because of party....are you telling me that the white house has got nothing right? or how about the house, the senate? they can't all get it all right, or all wrong. seems any alternate publication is going to attack any and every policy....whether right or wrong. yeah, there are plenty of views in opposition, but opposing automatically makes you no more right than the person you're opposing!
you coming on here with common dreams would be like me arguing with you by quoting the weekly standard!! they're both wrong. i don't like extremism on either side. zealots scare the crap out of me! they have no thought, they just automatically react. just like when our foreign policy was based on doing the exact opposite of everything the soviet union did.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#23
09-03-2006, 03:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#24
09-04-2006, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The main problem I have with your view is what you just said in this post: "The disaster that the Rupeb neo-cons have brought on our country." Let's say that you are right that going into Iraq was a huge mistake. If it was a mistake, which it looks like it was as of right now, there is plenty of blame to go around. There was bi-partisan support to go into Iraq. I don't understand why you want to villify Bush. It seems so juvenille to me when I hear these commnets from people who have such hatred for Bush. I wouldn't have a problem if someone simply said that they didn't think Bush was doing a good job and that his Administration has made a lot of mistakes. That would be fine with me. I think there are plenty of things that Bush could be crticized for. But when I listen to many people such as yourself that have such hatred for him, it just seems like a personal thing that is completely out of whack. I honestly think there is a psychological component to the hatred. I just think it's a way for some people to blow off steam. They like to have a person who they can blame for everything. Instead of seeing geopolitics in a complex way, it's much easier to just say that all the problmes are because of this one terrible person. It's similar to fans of sporting teams who often times get carried away and actually hate the guys on the other team. It's silly. The truth of the matter is that the Republicans and Democrats in office are pretty much the same. There is very little difference. It's silly to hate the guts of any of these people. The views of Joe Biden and George Bush are not much different. When they give speeches, they try to accentuate the differences. They will try to criticize each other because that is what politicians do. They try to downplay their opponents accomplishments and they try to accentuate their failures. They don't even mean half the stuff they say. A lot of it is just for the cameras. Most of these guys are actually very friendly with each other. This whole thing is a case of the fans being more fired up than the players. Through their rhetoric, the players(politicians) do a good job of getting the fans(voters) fired up. The joke is on the fans because these politicians are all multi-millionaires and are actually good friends with each other. It's actually a little like pro wrestling. One thing really funny is that if a Democrat was in office right now and had done all the things that Bush has done, most Republicans would be screaming about what a terrible job he was doing. Most Democrats would be defending him. These guys at commondreams.com would not have any problem with the job Bush was doing if he was a Democrat. The whole thing is silly. If you guys honestly think that commondreams.com would be bashing the Bush administration if Bush was a democrat, you are sadly mistaken. It's all about politics. That's all it is. I'm not saying that the Bush administration has not made mistakes. All I'm saying is that the criticisms lodged by the extreme partisans are more about politics than policy. These extreme partisans would have no problem with the policy if their man was in office with the exact same policy. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-04-2006 at 02:30 AM.
|
|
#25
09-04-2006, 07:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
too true rupert!!
i've even seen in the past where one party would back something and the other go into attack mode....and then later, maybe months or a couple years later, the attacking party would come up with something almost identical--the original proponent of the idea than attacks. it's almost laughable-except for the fact these fools are making decisions that affect us all.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#26
09-04-2006, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you for expressing your well thought views.
I'd like to state that I hate no one. I see the Iraq situation as having become a civil war. The US role in such is very limited. Labeling those that voice this fact as "appeasers" or sympathetic to nazis is not only insulting, but a desperate attempt to find support from those that believe our "mission is accomplished". In my view, there are three options regarding US involvement in Iraq. 1. Increase troop strength to act as police so as to quell the Shia and disarm the Sadr malitia. This will be very difficult to do, and given the "mood" of many Americans, unlikely. 2. Partition the country. The Kurds will afford the US the position to remain involved in the region. The Suni and Shia will maintain soverienty in their own areas. 3. Stay the course. Unfortunately, this strategy hasn't been successful, and I don't think it will become so. We continue to waste lives and treasure in hopes of defining an outcome that is unlikely. This is the "quagmire". If you have other ideas for resolving this situation, please state them. Thank you, DTS
|
|
#27
09-04-2006, 12:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The thing I don't like is when you or other people try to make it all about Bush and villify Bush. He's not a bad guy. His intentions are good. Even if you think he's made some really bad decisions, you don't need to villify him.
|
|
#28
09-04-2006, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richi, with respect, this administration has been in charge for almost six years. Its political party has been in control of both legislatures. They've had quite a bit of time to start learning from their mistakes, since they have admitted that they went in there without much of a plan. Their intelligence was bad. It cost a lot of lives, both American and Iraqi. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that they had the "best" intentions of anyone in mind, unless you actually believe what comes out of their mouths these days (and how can we, when nothing they say is credible anymore?).
I blame the Dems, too, which is why I refuse to describe myself as a Democrat...but there's a reason people blame the Bush Administration. It's because they are our LEADERS. They are supposed to avoid making huge mistakes because they are technically supposed to be well-equipped to do their jobs. If a CEO managed his company like this, he'd have been removed by the BoD long ago. History will be the judge (well, assuming we can access any of the papers this Administration has produced -- see recent, poorly covered news about their decision to shut down regional EPA libraries and bar the public from accessing EPA records for personal research). The administration has demonstrated time and again that they lack the ability to deal effectively with national and international challenges, from Iraq and Katrina to climate change and healthcare. Oh, and instead of responding to valid criticism with erudite remarks, as you'd sort of expect from a world leader, the people he's hand-picked resort to calling people like me fascists and Nazi appeasers. If Bush fired Rumsfeld the second he said that, I'd probably like him a whole lot more...hello, I'm a citizen, too! We live in a democracy, and when my dissent is ridiculed by my own presidential administration, I become VERY worried. What, exactly, am I supposed to respect here? Last edited by irishtrekker : 09-04-2006 at 01:16 PM.
|
|
#29
09-04-2006, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1) He is NOT a good guy that has made bad decisions. His intent has been clear, whether it was selling the Iraq War II as WMD's (no existent), regime change (that worked out fine), establishing a "stable democracy" in the Mid East (even top Pentagon Generals now concede that Iraq is in a state of civil war). Afghanistan currently has resurgent Taliban presence and a bumper opium crop. Bush's decisions have had a detrimental effect on the United States and the stability of the nations that share the planet. 2) I had no part in the decision making, other than voting in the last election. 3) I have tried to present the "best possible options" regarding current circumstances. Peter Galbraith (former ambassador to Bosnia), recently published a book entitled "The End of the Iraq War". I suggest it. He also sees not what coulda, shoulda, or woulda been...but what IS. 4) It seems to me that there WERE some that remained silent while living in 1936 Germany, whether they were intimidated by fear of reprisal from the government, or fear of insults and ridicule from their fellow Germans as they might have appeared to be "unpatriotic". We know what their silence enabled. The same strategy was used against those that opposed the Viet Nam War by the Nixon/Agnew administration. Their tactic didn't work then, and it certainly won't work now. 5) I have not heard a meaningful solution to disengage US involvement in Iraq from those that believed it was worthwhile. If it is believed that this WAS worthwhile, please explain. If not, please present a strategy for disengagement. Maintaining the status quo is no longer an option. "Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them." DTS
|
|
#30
09-04-2006, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'll bet that if Clinton was President right now, you wouldn't be saying a word. Do you think that any of these poeple like Martin Sheen or Barbara Steisand would be complaining right now if Clinton was in office right now. If you do think so, then you are very naive. None of thse people were complaing when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia. By the way, way befor 9/11 even happened, Kerry was on the show Face the Nation saying that we should consider going into Iraq on our own. So if you voted for Kerry, how can you complain about Iraq? He wanted to go in there even before Bush. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-04-2006 at 04:49 PM.
|
|
#31
09-04-2006, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not sure why I'm trying to explain this. I'll just say that I lived through it. Nixon had a "plan" to end the conflict in Viet Nam. It was called "Vietnamization". It didn't work. While he was playing the charade to American voters in 1968, and got himself elected because of belief that his strategy would be successful, two of my friends died there and one came back crippled for the rest of his life. I have no love for Clinton, Streisand, or Sheen. As I've said to you before, "Don't paint me!" So, back to the question I asked, "What strategy would you suggest to disengage US involvement?", or..."If you think we should remain, explain." btw, since you mentioned Kerry, I'll quote him, "How will you explain to the last man to die there that he has died for a mistake?" It comes down to this... 1) Should we stay or should we go? 2) If stay...why? 3) If go...how? Don't paint me. Answer me. DTS
|
|
#32
09-04-2006, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
09-04-2006, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
None of that really addresses the issue of why Bush and his administration are somehow supposed to be exempt from criticism. If I recall correctly, both DTS and I acknowledge that Clinton wasn't perfect by any means (hello, who would suggest that??). There absolutely should have been more outcry over Bosnia or Rwanda. So maybe critics should have fixated on genocide instead of blow jobs...but they didn't, did they? As a feminist, I definitely should have been more critical of Clinton. I was 19 when he left office, and what I've learned as I've grown older has helped me see and analyze his very real flaws. I hope that I won't let partisan allegiances sway my ability to rationally assess a person's leadership abilities now. Nevertheless, Clinton's errors do not in any way negate or change what's going awry with the current administration, just as Bush Sr.'s mistakes did not provide excuses for Clinton's, etc.
Even in the best case (i.e., no duplicity on the part of the administration, just ineptitude), when world leaders with tremendous power make avoidable mistakes that cost *lives*, it's a profound moral transgression. "Everybody makes mistakes" hardly excuses Iraq or Katrina. I also struggle with the idea that everything they've done is really just another mistake or misstep. Either that points to profound incompetence, or it suggests that they are willing to pursue their agenda at the expense of anyone who gets in their way. Neither is comforting, in my opinion. If evidence suggests, as plenty did, that going into Iraq in the manner they chose might be a mistake, that hiring a quarter horse judge to run FEMA might be a poor idea, etc, then why wouldn't you at least consider it? It's like they have preestablished views of how the world works, and they look at any conflicting evidence as a square peg that should be thrown out because it doesn't fit in the round hole...except the round holes aren't actually round anywhere but in their heads. Do hardcore liberals make the same mistakes? Of course they do. Does that somehow make it okay to write off or overlook the Bush Administration's record? Not by any means.
|
|
#34
09-04-2006, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The bulk of the army is Sunni, as is the police force. That's with US training. The dissertion rate for Shias is growing each day. This mess won't last another year. As I stated above, the status quo can not continue, especially with the Nov. elections coming. Seems to me, from what I've heard, Republican candidates are distancing themselves from the administration. They don't want to run on that record. Dems are not much better, but at least they don't have to run on policies that were decided by those that held all three branches of the federal government for the past six years. btw...I've now stated that I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm registered Independent. So, Here it is in "poker terms"... All in or... fold. This "pot" is huge. The whole world is watching how this hand plays out. It's getting very close to the time where the cards are laid on the table. DTS
|
|
#35
09-04-2006, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
09-04-2006, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#37
09-04-2006, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Irishtrekker. Thanks for the Olberman u-tube.
Olberman's commentary was very interesting. After he claims Rumsfeld was touting criticism as being akin to a nonpatriotic stance, just like the Nazi's did, he then compares Rumsfeld with Joseph McCarthy, one of the most distasteful, power hungry people ever. This man had innocent people (yes old JOe knew they were not Commies) thrown in jail for his own political gains. McCarthy stirred up hate to further his own political future. Olberman also states that the US is barely a democracy?These comparisons are absolutely awful, just like he claims Rumsfeld statements were. Contradictions abound. He attacks Rumsfeld exactly like he thinks Rumsfeld made and an assault on the American people's distaste for the current administration. I find that ironic and humorous. And that is what Olberman is. Funny. But when he tries this high and mighty, self-righteous bull... It just does not go over. Especially when he does exactly what he claims Rumsfeld has done. Rumsfeld imo has screwed up royally in his underestimations. But comparing him with McCarthy... Thats disingenous and wrong. Rumsfeld is frustrated because he sees real threats to the US. He is NOT running for office or trying to further his own political might. The man is old and did not want the job until he was begged because of his expertise. Shame on Olberman. Stick with the comedy. He is so much better at that.
|
|
#38
09-04-2006, 07:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
2. Put the Dems in in '06. Gov't works much better when one party controls the WH and the other Congress. Look what a disaster having one party control all three branches has been the past 6 years. 3. Next time a man says God told him to invade Iraq, treat it like the crazy ass statement it is. (that one was just to get under your collar, RP.  )I'm enjoying reading everyone's thoughts, as always.
|
|
#39
09-04-2006, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And if your eye got poked out in this life. Would it be waiting up in heaven with your wife. - Crash Test Dummies
|
|
#40
09-04-2006, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My friends, so intelligent, so varied.
I also agree that this discourse is quite interesting, and I apologize for mixing up Sunni and Shia...my brain was working faster than my fingers. So, back to the issue at hand. I do not wish to dwell in past actions, though I'm certain they will have an effect for quite a while. It is quite apparent which administration involved the United States in current foreign adventures, but I don't want to devolve into a blame game. Current insights can not erase the past, only find "meaning" so as to redirect efforts. So, let's not discuss the recent past, however attractive that avenue may be. There is no way we can go backwards, and no use faulting ourselves for making wrong turns on that road to find us where we now are. History does not allow "do overs". Let us discuss the current situation, where we are here, now... Not how or why we arrived here. Find where we are now. The question that I ask is, where are we going? That is the issue. Back to poker. The cards have been dealt. They ain't great. Fold 'em? (Cut and run?)...out. Stay the course? (ante up)...all in. How would you play the hand? DTS
|
Linear Mode
