b) Nice job at latching on to post-war rationalization that has already been dropped by even the sane neo-cons. This is sooooo four months ago. Where have you been?
a) Right...because I forgot...Bush is stupid. One has to believe that in order to think like you.
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
It's absolutely not a valid point. It's a very negative side-effect and one the administration didn't anticipate. I'm sure they're plenty happy every time they kill one of these people, but it's not a strategy by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd love to see some support for the idea that the administration wanted this to happen, but they didn't and they don't.
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
It's a ludicrous, straight-up absurd point.
The reasoning is that all the terrorists are going to go to Iraq where they can be "safely" dealt with on foreign soil? So we don't have to worry about terrorist attacks on the US because they're shooting their wad in Iraq?
Thank god the Baathists and Saddam loyalists and aggrieved Iraqi citizens are good and tied up with American forces so they have no time to attack the US.
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
I like how Bergen put it. He is the author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, and interviewed bin Laden in person in 1997. He is currently a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC.
Quote:
At what cost? If that is the idea, no one in the Administration is standing up to articulate that. Plus that seems like a very high-risk strategy. And also it doesn't make sense anyway. Because Afghanistan was a sort of an anti-flypaper thing where we went in and we bombed them and they all left.
So I don't think the Administration is thinking like that. I think that they really believe their own theories, I guess. There's really no other explanation for what they did.
"I think that they really believe their own theories." What concept! You think you can wrap your brain around that one?
The current policy makers have been writing about this for 15 years, some of them (like wolfowitz) for longer. Don't start with this utter bullshit that all of a sudden in July this new strategy came out, a strategy that pretends the death of american troops is a good thing.
I've read all of their policy papers. I've even read Strauss and studied wohlstetter. Don't talk about strategy unless you actually know something about it. You just sound like a bumbling idiot otherwise. Why not just say that the plan was to get the dwarves to mine gold faster through harnessing the vortex field centered on Mosul? That makes as much sense as what you are claiming here.
Oh, and at least pick up a goddamn book to figure out how the US government actually works so you don't go on believing that Bush (or any modern president at all) is the source of these policies.
Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
Eep!
"The reason we need to go to war in Iraq is because of the war on terror: Iraq has links with al Qaeda, and has WMD ... it's teh nexus between terror and WMD. A massive threat. When we kick out Saddam and the people of Iraq are free, it'll be rats-from-a-sinking-ship for all those terrorists. In fact, Iraq will be a beacon to the rest of the Middle East."
-- SDW, paraphrased, before the war.
That you believe what you wrote in this thread is what's terrifying. The most staggering revisionist shit I ever heard. The war on Iraq is partly being fought so that all the terrrrists go there, not ManhattAn / Washington / London?
...to figure out how the US government actually works so you don't go on believing that Bush (or any modern president at all) is the source of these policies.
Bush may not be the source of all U.S. government policy, but he approved it and is accountable for it, thus it is rightfully described as 'his' policy.
Bush may not be the source of all U.S. government policy, but he approved it and is accountable for it, thus it is rightfully described as 'his' policy.
No. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "Bush" can be used as shorthand for "Bush Administration," but George Bush has very, very little to do with any of it. Even in the areas where the White House is actually involved in the decision making process, the Pentagon has consistently trumped them. The belief that Bush has really any significant input is a myth. In fact, if you look at the individuals from the White House that work on the middle east, you will see they are made up of neo-conservatives, headed by Bush's envoy to the Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, a U of Chicago graduate after studying under Wohlstetter. And, yes, he's a straussian.
Blah blah blah...republican forever!...blah blah blah...more non-sense.....bush rules!!....blah blah....you're either with us or against us!....blah blah....Bush is God...blah blah blah
This place should be renamed AppleInsider Party Fanatics. Thanks for a good laugh though SDW. I'm a registered Republican, but fanatics in permanent denial such as you scare me.
Thank you. I don't think intelligent and honest Republicans like John McCain or Jeffords (before he was forced out by The Idiot in Chief) are very happy about this. There are honest Republicans out there who are just conservative in ideology but they've become rare. Democrats are also becoming tools. I wish 3rd parties would actually be feasible but in our system they just aren't, unfortunately. Zeller, a "conservative" souther Democrat, was on the Daily Show recently, did anyone see him? His honesty was blindsiding, and hilarious too. Why can't all Reps and Senators be this cool!
Quote:
but the hatred between the US and Euro population resulting from symbolic spankings like this worries me. I hear a lot of "fvck France and Germany" here on this board and I hear a lot of "fvck the US" from people around me. This has some potential to get ugly some years down the road...
I agree. This is extremely disconcerting. Bush was supposed to be a "uniter" and compromiser, a "team player" who would "get things done." Well, he got things done. However, I have never seen such polarization in the US or the world, excluding perhaps the Cold War. This actually seems to parallel the Cold War in that way. You can't say Bush is a good compromiser or team player, he certainly hasn't united the US. His approval rating dipped below 50% a while ago. Ouch. I really hate Bush, which yes is shorthand for Cheney and co, but I support America, even though I disagree with most of its policies and they way special interests and the privileged few seem to be in control, the individual citizens in this country are still good people and the country has good will towards others in general, but are just too poorly educated to do anything about the current situation. As the Daily Show put it we are a country of "Wal-Martians." I can see how Europe would like to snicker and snarl at us, however they tend to forget how they got their wealth. I just hope whoever is elected next has better foreign relations policy, with South America, who really needs help, Russia, which actually cracks down on their corporate criminals sending them to the gulag (can you picture if Martha Stewart was from Russia, and ended up in Siberia, making her igloo all festive) but needs to support Kyoto, Africa (no one is actually putting their money where their mouth is), Asia, the middle east, etc etc. Bush really hasn't done anything good, unless you support the war in Iraq, but domestically all the news we've seen is a never-ending stream of environmental razing, corporate scandal, Bush admin lies/scandals, hyped up scares like West Nile, SARS, the "Sniper", kidnappings, blah blah. This new issue is just one more thing. I can't see how Bush can get re-elected, sooner or later won't this media ass-reaming of Bush get into the public's heads?
Zeller, a "conservative" souther Democrat, was on the Daily Show recently, did anyone see him? His honesty was blindsiding, and hilarious too. Why can't all Reps and Senators be this cool!
Yeah, he was really great. Best politician I've seen on there.
I think the US strategy in the ME is actually working very well. It has significantly modified the behavior of many an Arab state, and made it clear that support for terror groups is a very high risk proposition. The LA times has an article related to this, titled: "Libya's Slow Trek Out of the Shadows". There are still a few hold out, but these things take time to work themselves out and become internalized.
I agree with your sentiments. IMO, it was Bush's strategy to create an effect in the ME region at large by going into Iraq. This is a larger picture and objective than just rebuilding one country in the region. It's about creating a balancing force in the ME overall. At the least, it is somewhat of a lightening rod for terrorist acts. If it occurs in Iraq, that is one more incident that was diverted from it being done in the US.
At the least, it is somewhat of a lightening rod for terrorist acts. If it occurs in Iraq, that is one more incident that was diverted from it being done in the US.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Look up.
Hey, howsabout calmly discussing your point of view if you have a beef with something said? Starting off with an attack is pretty pointless. Us just assuming your position is right from the get-go on whatever doesn't make for very interesting discussion...
Hey, howsabout calmly discussing your point of view if you have a beef with something said? Starting off with an attack is pretty pointless. Us just assuming your position is right from the get-go on whatever doesn't make for very interesting discussion...
I'm not 'assuming' anything. I'm telling you what the situation is, and if you don't want to listen, then go study the history of the neoconservative Iraq policy yourself. Regurgitating insane revisionist drivel from 5 months ago is not the way to go about looking at US Iraq policy. I mean, if you are going to support the Bush admin in this at least try to learn about what you are supporting.
gee, and some people don't agree with you. go figure.
It's not a matter of agreement. See, this is what makes politics so weird. There are so many people that flat-out refuse to actually research this stuff and then come up with or latch onto crazy ideas that have NOTHING to do with reality.
I don't see what's so hard about actually researching the history of current Iraq policy. All of the papers are out there. The books are at the libraries and book stores. Yet for some unknown reason so many people refuse to actually look into it.
Saying that this is a matter of opinion is nothing less than completely INSANE. INSANE. It's like saying that in your opinion there was never a president named Reagan. Opinions that blatantly ignore cold, hard fact are what we in the english speaking world call 'wrong,' which is defined as 'Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.'
It's not a matter of agreement. See, this is what makes politics so weird. There are so many people that flat-out refuse to actually research this stuff and then come up with or latch onto crazy ideas that have NOTHING to do with reality.
I don't see what's so hard about actually researching the history of current Iraq policy. All of the papers are out there. The books are at the libraries and book stores. Yet for some unknown reason so many people refuse to actually look into it.
actually, that's quite easy. people have lives. they do things other than read books about a country halfway across the world. they go out. they have fun. or they have jobs where they work. on an internet board they discuss their views of the world and politics, yet it's not their life. you take things much too seriously.
Quote:
Saying that this is a matter of opinion is nothing less than completely INSANE. INSANE. It's like saying that in your opinion there was never a president named Reagan. Opinions that blatantly ignore cold, hard fact are what we in the english speaking world call 'wrong,' which is defined as 'Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.'
except no one said it was a matter of opinion. i believe the word used was position, not opinion. c'mon giant. for someone who harps so much on doing their research, that statement is just sloppy.
actually, that's quite easy. people have lives. they do things other than read books about a country halfway across the world. they go out. they have fun. or they have jobs where they work. on an internet board they discuss their views of the world and politics, yet it's not their life. you take things much too seriously.
And this coming from a moderator on said internet board. And not even in a major city. You people that pull this line really are sad. If you only knew!
Anyway, I'm home tonight writing essays on Varda and Godard. You get out enough to know much about them?
Quote:
except no one said it was a matter of opinion. i believe the word used was position, not opinion. c'mon giant. for someone who harps so much on doing their research, that statement is just sloppy.
Hey, you are the one that claimed that agreement is involved. If you don't agree there was a president named Reagan than you have a wrong opinion.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
a) Bush doesn't develop these ideas
b) Nice job at latching on to post-war rationalization that has already been dropped by even the sane neo-cons. This is sooooo four months ago. Where have you been?
a) Right...because I forgot...Bush is stupid. One has to believe that in order to think like you.
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
Originally posted by SDW2001
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
It's absolutely not a valid point. It's a very negative side-effect and one the administration didn't anticipate. I'm sure they're plenty happy every time they kill one of these people, but it's not a strategy by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd love to see some support for the idea that the administration wanted this to happen, but they didn't and they don't.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
a) Bush doesn't develop these ideas
a) Right...because I forgot...Bush is stupid. One has to believe that in order to think like you.
Oh, man, oh, man!
I seriously laughed out loud on that one. Thanks SDW!
You know, one would think you would have had some education in how your government works. At least a little. Oh well.
Originally posted by SDW2001
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
It's a ludicrous, straight-up absurd point.
The reasoning is that all the terrorists are going to go to Iraq where they can be "safely" dealt with on foreign soil? So we don't have to worry about terrorist attacks on the US because they're shooting their wad in Iraq?
Thank god the Baathists and Saddam loyalists and aggrieved Iraqi citizens are good and tied up with American forces so they have no time to attack the US.
Just... try not to be insane.
Originally posted by SDW2001
b) It's a valid point. If you can't argue it, then shut up please.
I like how Bergen put it. He is the author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, and interviewed bin Laden in person in 1997. He is currently a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC.
At what cost? If that is the idea, no one in the Administration is standing up to articulate that. Plus that seems like a very high-risk strategy. And also it doesn't make sense anyway. Because Afghanistan was a sort of an anti-flypaper thing where we went in and we bombed them and they all left.
So I don't think the Administration is thinking like that. I think that they really believe their own theories, I guess. There's really no other explanation for what they did.
"I think that they really believe their own theories." What concept! You think you can wrap your brain around that one?
The current policy makers have been writing about this for 15 years, some of them (like wolfowitz) for longer. Don't start with this utter bullshit that all of a sudden in July this new strategy came out, a strategy that pretends the death of american troops is a good thing.
I've read all of their policy papers. I've even read Strauss and studied wohlstetter. Don't talk about strategy unless you actually know something about it. You just sound like a bumbling idiot otherwise. Why not just say that the plan was to get the dwarves to mine gold faster through harnessing the vortex field centered on Mosul? That makes as much sense as what you are claiming here.
Oh, and at least pick up a goddamn book to figure out how the US government actually works so you don't go on believing that Bush (or any modern president at all) is the source of these policies.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
Eep!
"The reason we need to go to war in Iraq is because of the war on terror: Iraq has links with al Qaeda, and has WMD ... it's teh nexus between terror and WMD. A massive threat. When we kick out Saddam and the people of Iraq are free, it'll be rats-from-a-sinking-ship for all those terrorists. In fact, Iraq will be a beacon to the rest of the Middle East."
-- SDW, paraphrased, before the war.
That you believe what you wrote in this thread is what's terrifying. The most staggering revisionist shit I ever heard. The war on Iraq is partly being fought so that all the terrrrists go there, not ManhattAn / Washington / London?
INSANE.
Originally posted by giant
...to figure out how the US government actually works so you don't go on believing that Bush (or any modern president at all) is the source of these policies.
Bush may not be the source of all U.S. government policy, but he approved it and is accountable for it, thus it is rightfully described as 'his' policy.
Originally posted by Frank777
Bush may not be the source of all U.S. government policy, but he approved it and is accountable for it, thus it is rightfully described as 'his' policy.
No. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "Bush" can be used as shorthand for "Bush Administration," but George Bush has very, very little to do with any of it. Even in the areas where the White House is actually involved in the decision making process, the Pentagon has consistently trumped them. The belief that Bush has really any significant input is a myth. In fact, if you look at the individuals from the White House that work on the middle east, you will see they are made up of neo-conservatives, headed by Bush's envoy to the Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, a U of Chicago graduate after studying under Wohlstetter. And, yes, he's a straussian.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Blah blah blah...republican forever!...blah blah blah...more non-sense.....bush rules!!....blah blah....you're either with us or against us!....blah blah....Bush is God...blah blah blah
This place should be renamed AppleInsider Party Fanatics. Thanks for a good laugh though SDW. I'm a registered Republican, but fanatics in permanent denial such as you scare me.
but the hatred between the US and Euro population resulting from symbolic spankings like this worries me. I hear a lot of "fvck France and Germany" here on this board and I hear a lot of "fvck the US" from people around me. This has some potential to get ugly some years down the road...
I agree. This is extremely disconcerting. Bush was supposed to be a "uniter" and compromiser, a "team player" who would "get things done." Well, he got things done. However, I have never seen such polarization in the US or the world, excluding perhaps the Cold War. This actually seems to parallel the Cold War in that way. You can't say Bush is a good compromiser or team player, he certainly hasn't united the US. His approval rating dipped below 50% a while ago. Ouch. I really hate Bush, which yes is shorthand for Cheney and co, but I support America, even though I disagree with most of its policies and they way special interests and the privileged few seem to be in control, the individual citizens in this country are still good people and the country has good will towards others in general, but are just too poorly educated to do anything about the current situation. As the Daily Show put it we are a country of "Wal-Martians." I can see how Europe would like to snicker and snarl at us, however they tend to forget how they got their wealth. I just hope whoever is elected next has better foreign relations policy, with South America, who really needs help, Russia, which actually cracks down on their corporate criminals sending them to the gulag (can you picture if Martha Stewart was from Russia, and ended up in Siberia, making her igloo all festive)
Originally posted by Aquatic
Zeller, a "conservative" souther Democrat, was on the Daily Show recently, did anyone see him? His honesty was blindsiding, and hilarious too.
Yeah, he was really great. Best politician I've seen on there.
Originally posted by Randycat99
At the least, it is somewhat of a lightening rod for terrorist acts. If it occurs in Iraq, that is one more incident that was diverted from it being done in the US.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Look up.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Hey, howsabout calmly discussing your point of view if you have a beef with something said? Starting off with an attack is pretty pointless. Us just assuming your position is right from the get-go on whatever doesn't make for very interesting discussion...
I'm not 'assuming' anything. I'm telling you what the situation is, and if you don't want to listen, then go study the history of the neoconservative Iraq policy yourself. Regurgitating insane revisionist drivel from 5 months ago is not the way to go about looking at US Iraq policy. I mean, if you are going to support the Bush admin in this at least try to learn about what you are supporting.
I'm telling you what the situation is
gee, and some people don't agree with you. go figure.
Originally posted by alcimedes
gee, and some people don't agree with you. go figure.
It's not a matter of agreement. See, this is what makes politics so weird. There are so many people that flat-out refuse to actually research this stuff and then come up with or latch onto crazy ideas that have NOTHING to do with reality.
I don't see what's so hard about actually researching the history of current Iraq policy. All of the papers are out there. The books are at the libraries and book stores. Yet for some unknown reason so many people refuse to actually look into it.
Saying that this is a matter of opinion is nothing less than completely INSANE. INSANE. It's like saying that in your opinion there was never a president named Reagan. Opinions that blatantly ignore cold, hard fact are what we in the english speaking world call 'wrong,' which is defined as 'Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.'
Originally posted by giant
It's not a matter of agreement. See, this is what makes politics so weird. There are so many people that flat-out refuse to actually research this stuff and then come up with or latch onto crazy ideas that have NOTHING to do with reality.
I don't see what's so hard about actually researching the history of current Iraq policy. All of the papers are out there. The books are at the libraries and book stores. Yet for some unknown reason so many people refuse to actually look into it.
actually, that's quite easy. people have lives. they do things other than read books about a country halfway across the world. they go out. they have fun. or they have jobs where they work. on an internet board they discuss their views of the world and politics, yet it's not their life. you take things much too seriously.
Quote:
Saying that this is a matter of opinion is nothing less than completely INSANE. INSANE. It's like saying that in your opinion there was never a president named Reagan. Opinions that blatantly ignore cold, hard fact are what we in the english speaking world call 'wrong,' which is defined as 'Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.'
except no one said it was a matter of opinion. i believe the word used was position, not opinion. c'mon giant. for someone who harps so much on doing their research, that statement is just sloppy.
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually, that's quite easy. people have lives. they do things other than read books about a country halfway across the world. they go out. they have fun. or they have jobs where they work. on an internet board they discuss their views of the world and politics, yet it's not their life. you take things much too seriously.
And this coming from a moderator on said internet board. And not even in a major city. You people that pull this line really are sad. If you only knew!
Anyway, I'm home tonight writing essays on Varda and Godard. You get out enough to know much about them?
except no one said it was a matter of opinion. i believe the word used was position, not opinion. c'mon giant. for someone who harps so much on doing their research, that statement is just sloppy.
Hey, you are the one that claimed that agreement is involved. If you don't agree there was a president named Reagan than you have a wrong opinion.