Wesley Clark 2004

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 146
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    BRuss: figured it was something like that. Usually anything that gets tied back to Clinton is a desparate attempt to divert attention from the GOP alternative to whoever or whatever is being talked about. I'll definitely be taking a closer look at WC. My sister was yapping to me about Dean, which scares me... but in my fantasy world the GOP would admit that Mr. Bush is not qualified to lead, have another nomination and put some real candidates in there that I could at least consider.
  • Reply 42 of 146
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,538member
    Fellowship,



    First, Clark is not going to win. Dean or perhaps even Gephardt will get the nomination.



    Second, I can't believe you've joined the "world is less safe crowd".



    Quote:

    ve dropped support for George Bush as I believe America is less safe, less admired, and less in many ways.



    The foreign policy of George Bush is wreckless and it makes the world a place of more division and less true progress.





    What utterly meaningless and inaccurate drivel. I'd like to know how we are "less safe". It's pure rhetoric. We are anything BUT "less safe". Our security has been enormously tightened and we are going after and dessimating Al-Queda in every corner of globe. We've captured or killed 70% of its leadership. No military in the world challenges us, and somehow we're "less safe"?



    And what foreign policy are you referring to? Iraq? Please. The world IS divided and always has been...and always will be. There are nations in the world that do not share our interests. Don't start with the "global village" bullshit on me. The United States needs to act in its own interests. Even so, we are largest provider of foreign aid in the world. We are an economic and military superpower and need to act like it. We lead because we can and must. Irrellavent, third-rate powers like France do not always enjoy seeing us in this role.



    What foreign policy...please tell me. What a joke.
  • Reply 43 of 146
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
  • Reply 44 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Paul

    www.kucinich.us (dennis) has my vote... but he isn't going to win the democratic nomination...

    www.al2004.org (sharpton) has my vote if that is the case... I think they would be good running mates... hehe...



    its too bad that neither one has a legitimate shot. They really should withdraw... but all of the candidates are too stubborn to yield...




    Please tell me you are joking on this one....Al Sharpton is the biggest joke ever Kucinich is a f-ckin idiot too...



    And the last thing I want is some moron Democrat runnin an already corrupt government in this country.
  • Reply 45 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    First, Clark is not going to win. Dean or perhaps even Gephardt will get the nomination.



    Until the primaries are over, statements such as this can only be described as, if I may borrow your own words, "utterly meaningless and inaccurate drivel."



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    What utterly meaningless and inaccurate drivel. I'd like to know how we are "less safe". It's pure rhetoric. We are anything BUT "less safe". Our security has been enormously tightened and we are going after and dessimating Al-Queda in every corner of globe. We've captured or killed 70% of its leadership.





    We've done a half-assed job in Afghanistan. We've diverted intelligence and special ops from actually fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world and instead sent them into Iraq for no apparently good reason. We're plunging absolutely obscene amounts of money into Iraq for no apparently good reason. Just a few months ago there was a bit of a dustup when sky marshals complained of being pulled off of international flights because there wasn't enough money to put them up in motels overnight! But we have billions of dollars to pour into Iraq? Afghanistan was an actual terrorist state. They've requested in excess of 15 billion dollars to rebuild their country. We've given them only a fraction of that over a two year period...while pumping billions per week into Iraqi combat. That's outrageous. And what do we have now, 130,000 troops in Iraq? Remember when Bush was grousing in 2000 about our "overextended" military? "Not ready for duty, sir!" Glad we solved that problem. People are talking about the draft again for Christ's sake.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    No military in the world challenges us, and somehow we're "less safe"?



    Strawman. Our military dominance was never in question.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    And what foreign policy are you referring to? Iraq? Please. The world IS divided and always has been...and always will be. There are nations in the world that do not share our interests. Don't start with the "global village" bullshit on me. The United States needs to act in its own interests. Even so, we are largest provider of foreign aid in the world.



    This is highly misleading. We lead the world in total dollars spent (barely...see Japan), but we rank embarrassing low in aid as a percentage of gross national product. What's more, before 9/11, about 25% of that aid was just going to Israel and the majority of that money was for military/non-economic purposes. You exaggerate our largess. (And don't anybody give me any of that "blame America first" bullshit. I am an American. I am 100% dependent on this country for my own personal welfare and survival. If anything happens to America, I'm going right down with it. Why anyone should think it's in my personal interest to "hate" America or "blame" America I'll never understand.)



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    We are an economic and military superpower and need to act like it. We lead because we can and must.



    "It's pure rhetoric."



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Irrellavent, third-rate powers like France do not always enjoy seeing us in this role.



    What's that bit about "pride before the fall"? Nations and empires don't last forever- just ask any of our "third-rate" friends in "Old Europe." Stumbling blindly forward into darkness echoing empty patriotic rhetoric and clinging tenaciously to our willful ignorance...that doesn't sound like much of a winning strategy to me.



    Anyway, I hope those soldiers enjoyed Bush's little visit, because when they come home tomorrow in a fucking flag-draped box George Bush and his film crew won't come within a hundred miles of them.



    Clark isn't some white knight who's going to come along and save the universe, but I think he's a good man and I think he deserves a shot at running the country. Good call, Fellowship.
  • Reply 46 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Fellowship,



    First, Clark is not going to win. Dean or perhaps even Gephardt will get the nomination.



    Second, I can't believe you've joined the "world is less safe crowd".







    What utterly meaningless and inaccurate drivel. I'd like to know how we are "less safe". It's pure rhetoric. We are anything BUT "less safe". Our security has been enormously tightened and we are going after and dessimating Al-Queda in every corner of globe. We've captured or killed 70% of its leadership. No military in the world challenges us, and somehow we're "less safe"?



    And what foreign policy are you referring to? Iraq? Please. The world IS divided and always has been...and always will be. There are nations in the world that do not share our interests. Don't start with the "global village" bullshit on me. The United States needs to act in its own interests. Even so, we are largest provider of foreign aid in the world. We are an economic and military superpower and need to act like it. We lead because we can and must. Irrellavent, third-rate powers like France do not always enjoy seeing us in this role.



    What foreign policy...please tell me. What a joke.




    SDW2001 I have no disrespect for you, your views or your politics. As a matter of fact I pride myself for my respect for varying views expressed by a vast range of vantage points and cultures and backgrounds. What I would ask you to do is to evaluate how you responded to me with your post. Do you have this kind of reaction with anyone who you may disagree with? Do you believe this kind of reaction is civil or admirable? I do not ask this in a framework of condescension I just simply ask.



    To respond to some of what you bring up here are my thoughts:



    Quote:

    --The world IS divided and always has been...and always will be. There are nations in the world that do not share our interests. Don't start with the "global village" bullshit on me.



    To this I would say that number one I did not start with any "global village" talk. I will say however that we do live in a world that consists of more than just one country (The United States) in fact as you know there are many countries, cultures, religions, and people of different heritage. I am quite saddened to see that you place yourself on a higher ground than "other" people of other lands. If I am wrong with this observation please correct me but you seem to be implying that you are or (America) is more important than anything else. If this is the case it seems to suggest that you are a very paranoid person. When a neighbor comes and rings the doorbell do you jump in front of your wife to answer the door out of fear of "those questionable neighbors"? or do you have a trustful relationship built on mutual respect with your neighbors? I ask because I believe we do live in a global context of neighbors and how we view our neighbors will determine the level of peace the world will know. If respect and trust are not given respect and trust will not be realized. It is a choice. I choose (not with any illusions about the world we live in) to believe in the idea of partnerships with trustful and respectful relationships with our neighbors. Now all this being said am I saying there is never a time or a need for war? No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the war in Iraq is a fraud which has done nothing for the interests of Americans or anyone else on the planet. I believe President Bush took advantage of a "Patriotic" American public in a post 9-11 context and put into motion the plans for a war in Iraq that was not justified.



    Quote:

    --We are an economic and military superpower and need to act like it. We lead because we can and must. Irrellavent, third-rate powers like France do not always enjoy seeing us in this role.



    I agree we are a superpower but I believe for us to "act" like anything we have an even greater responsibility to use discipline and govern our power with restraint. We have no business using our power in unjust ways "just because we can".



    Again the world is full of different countries, cultures, religions, and people of different heritage. We must partnership together for the common good and common respect for all.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 47 of 146
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    You go, Fellowship.
  • Reply 48 of 146
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    It's a simple matter of tact. Bush doesn't have any. It has cost us dearly.
  • Reply 49 of 146
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,538member
    That's right, SDW is insane.



    We are not "less safe" That's crap. It doesn't take 16 paragraphs to explain why.



    We did not do a "half-assed" job in Afghanistan. We're still there...remember?



    Those who can't see the motivation behond invading Iraq are blind. The ignorance and lack of depth in thinking astounds me. We are in in Iraq because of several reasons, and yes, one of them is Saddam's pursuit of WMD. His country was also as home base for various terrorist groups...where in the least, they could operate without fear of being exposed. And finally, the biggest reason, one which you all miss: In my estimation, Bush WANTS terrorists attracted to Iraq while we are there. This way, the US Military fights the battle instead of people in Manhattan and Washington, D.C. And no...that's not a false dilemma...that's the choice. Call it whatever you want....a "corral" theory, "smoking them out", whatever. The point is we are fighting THERE as opposed to HERE...and thank God for it.



    Fellowship...I have no personal issue with you. I just can't believe you are being as narrow minded and short-sighted as you are. I cannot begin to get into the problems in your post and thinking, with all due respect. The reality is that the world is not and will not be the rosy, "trustworthy" place you'd like it to be. Terrorists and rogue nations respect one thing: POWER. That's all. They cannot be negotiated with. As for many of our "allies", I find it odd that you and others criticize US foreign policy. We are the ones who made very attempt to go through official channels regarding Iraq. Instead of supporting us, our "allies" actively campaigned against us and instead sided with the pacifist, irrellevant, and anti-semetic United Nations.



    That's what really happened.
  • Reply 50 of 146
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    And finally, the biggest reason, one which you all miss: In my estimation, Bush WANTS terrorists attracted to Iraq while we are there.



    Wow.



    Really, wow. Call Karl Rove, he could use you.
  • Reply 51 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Wow.



    Really, wow. Call Karl Rove, he could use you.




    I think Karl Rove already has enough gullible voters who will believe anything they're fed regardless of facts or logic.
  • Reply 52 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    We did not do a "half-assed" job in Afghanistan. We're still there...remember?



    Yes, we're still there, but I don't see what that has to do with it.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    And finally, the biggest reason, one which you all miss: In my estimation, Bush WANTS terrorists attracted to Iraq while we are there. This way, the US Military fights the battle instead of people in Manhattan and Washington, D.C. And no...that's not a false dilemma...that's the choice. Call it whatever you want....a "corral" theory, "smoking them out", whatever. The point is we are fighting THERE as opposed to HERE...and thank God for it.





    Nobody is missing this, we just aren't buying it. It's often called the "flypaper" strategy and it's a lame and unsubstantiated excuse by the administration to justify their ill-conceived foreign policy. Do you honestly believe that there are Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the US who have since packed up and flown over to fight in Iraq? We've created a chaotic mess over there, and the violence and mayhem have followed accordingly. You can't just call every attack on US soldiers in Iraq "terrorism" and conclude that we are now fighting "terrorists" in Iraq. That's bizarre and illogical. If there were terrorists around the world (and here at home) plotting attacks on US soil, they're still there and all of the fighting in Iraq isn't going to eliminate them. It may comfort you to believe that Bush is "taking the fight to the terrorists," but that doesn't make it so.



    I also think it's funny that you don't see the incongruity between claiming that we are exporting all of this goodwill to the world and, in particular, liberating the people of Iraq, while simultaneously turning their country into what you claim to be the central battleground in the war on terrorism! As long as they're dying and not us...as long as "we are fighting THERE as opposed to HERE" ... thank God! And people wonder why the Iraqi people aren't "grateful."
  • Reply 53 of 146
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    This thread is drifting dangerously close to the waters of off-topicdom.
  • Reply 54 of 146
    Fellowship's my man.



    And the world isn't as safe as it was. Last week, for the first time, suicide bombers have attacked British concerns abroad. Did you see the news? Now there's massive concrete blocks all around consulates in Argentina and Turkey, and other places too I suppose. This is new. A "suicide bomber" was arrested on Thursday in England, for goodness' sake. This war has pissed people off and has quite obviously, demonstrably done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks.



    An Al'Qaida spokesman's threatened attacks in central Tokyo if Japan doesn't take its troops back.



    World a safer place my arse.
  • Reply 55 of 146
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    From here.



    "Madonna was very impressed with Gen Clark's intelligence and his vision for America". Another associate added: "Don't under-estimate this. Madonna is often ahead of the curve."



  • Reply 56 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    From here.



    "Madonna was very impressed with Gen Clark's intelligence and his vision for America". Another associate added: "Don't under-estimate this. Madonna is often ahead of the curve."







    This Bush Video Clip may be a reason Madonna and myself are not so impressed with Bush's intelligence.



    Just going out on a limb here...



    Fellows
  • Reply 57 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    This Bush Video Clip may be a reason Madonna and myself are not so impressed with Bush's intelligence.



    Just going out on a limb here...



    Fellows




  • Reply 58 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    We've captured or killed 70% of its leadership.



    Source?





    Quote:

    No military in the world challenges us, and somehow we're "less safe"?



    We are less safe because the bellicosity of the Bush administration has increased the likelihood of terrorist actions (not military actions) being taken against the US and its allies.





    Quote:

    The United States needs to act in its own interests.



    Agreed, but the long term interests of the people of the United States are not being served by actions that endanger this and the next generation.





    Quote:

    Even so, we are largest provider of foreign aid in the world.



    After Japan if you are ranking countries. After the EU and Japan if you are ranking economic superpowers. If foreign aid donations per capita are considered, the US slips into 20th place. Also, about 30% of the total US foreign aid budget goes to Israel, which is the 32nd richest country in the world.





    Quote:

    We are an economic and military superpower and need to act like it. We lead because we can and must.



    That's one point of view. Unfortunately, the kind of people that have historically shared this perspective have gotten their countries (and others) into all kinds of unpleasant situations.





    Quote:

    In my estimation, Bush WANTS terrorists attracted to Iraq while we are there. This way, the US Military fights the battle instead of people in Manhattan and Washington, D.C. And no...that's not a false dilemma...that's the choice. Call it whatever you want....a "corral" theory, "smoking them out", whatever.



    God I hope not, because if the Bush admin really does operate using that kind of b-movie plot logic, those of us in Manhattan and DC are truly, truly fuxored.
  • Reply 59 of 146
    I'm supporting Clark at the present as well, after months of flirtations with Dean and Kerry. Clark has a good head on his shoulders and has experience with Europe. Bush has wrecked our relations with much of Europe -- the core of Europe, in fact, Germany and France.



    Belligerance is never a sustainable foreign policy posture. America does not have the moral authority to dictate to the rest of the world.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Hehe, Fellowship made the same thread about John Kerry a few months ago.



    Fellowship, do you really want to vote for someone who:



    3. Would make you register as a Democrat to vote for him in the primary?




    There is no party registration in Texas.
  • Reply 60 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jccbin

    Clark is a dolt.



    He murders eastern europeans, gets keel-hauled for hamming it up with the press, can't run an army, and his ideas are based in Disney's fantasy land.



    Puh-flipping-leeeeeze.




    I won't go that far, but I really don't like Clark. Generally speaking, I don't approve of military commanders going political unless they are exceptional, and Clark is not exceptional.



    I don't approve of any of his patriotism nonsense, and I don't like his protectionist tendencies. All in all he's a boring and uninspiring candidate.
Sign In or Register to comment.