Why are you so afraid to share the blame with others that gave him the loaded gun?
Congress was stupid, but that doesn't make them responsible in my book. They were stupid and irresponsible, but they gave latitude to the President who we all are supposed to be able to trust with such decisions. Bush broke that trust.
Congress was full of Republicans and Democrats, so I'm not defending a party. I'm just emphasizing the fact that it was one man who (metaphorically) pulled the trigger on the loaded gun.
Just one remark, whenever a non Americans (in our case a Belgium) refers to Americans they uses the term ?average brainless American?? Just something that stood out for me, is that the way the world sees the states, populated by Joes who word a 9 to 5 job and go to McDonalds for lunch.
PS. When I was small, and still living in my ?communist oppressed? country I thought that all ?native? Americans were black. How I got that idea in my head, no clue. Is it just me or do Native American Indians have it the worst. When was the last time you?ve seen an aboriginal family getting a happy meal at McDonalds? I saw a family of Indians ordering food at a TimHortons up north, but that?s about it.
Hmm, I guess that means you have a killer instinct then. Most people would think that's why you're studying Islam I guess. Or chess.
Apparently Bobby Fisher has been playing on the internet recently (under a pseudonym). He's been thrashing some Grandmasters and the concensus is that it must be him or else someone of equal stature. Personally, I think it's him. I heard a rumour he wa sstudying Islam too. In Budapest.
The man was crazy. Anyway, the best book i ever read on chess : was Bobby Fisher teaches Chess. This book is great, i greatly recommand it.
So basically this insane, stupid group of people want to pull all the troops out now and let Iraq fall to pieces, destabilizing the whole region. That's fvcking intelligent.
We are there already. It's too late to stop it. We need to make sure we build them up properly because if we just leave them hanging out to dry, as was our policy for the previous century, we will only perpetuate this cycle of violence. Idiots, the lot of them.
We are surgeons performing open heart surgery on Iraq. We've opened Iraq up, cleared most of the blockage, and now you just want to leave him there on the operating table hoping he will sew himself up and recover on his own? Gah. Don't be foolish.
Yes, some of our troops are dying. That is the cost of war. However, if we leave Iraq hanging out to dry we will only be creating another generation of people that hate America and the possible death toll resulting from that is FAR FAR GREATER.
The shortsightedness of you and your "bring the troops home now" friends is absofvckinglutely amazing.
Newsflash: going in there was a mistake. Admit it. We may very well be stuck there now, but this is an opportunity to show solidarity in declaring that this war was a mistake. If we're in, we lose, Iraq loses. If we're out, we lose, Iraq loses. Did Vietnam collapse when we pulled out? Many Americans just can't stand losing, and a pullout would be a loss in their book. What they didn't realize is that we had already lost the moment the decision was made to go in against all indications that it was a mistake. It's time for us to take responsibility for our irresponsible action. There's nothing stopping us from supporting a UN body to rebuild Iraq, rather than a unilateral one with closed tenders and forced policies.
I'm not opposed to demanding of this administration more world cooperation, however, we will not truly know if it was a mistake for many years to come. To say so now only reflects your dislike of the administration.
Yeah, and we gave congress the power to authorize war. That doesn't mean I'm directly responsible. Gun makes make guns, that doesn't mean they're responsible when a gun owner shoots someone. Bush was given the authority and responsibility to use war as a tool to solve a problem. He's responsible.
And when Congress signed away that power to the president carte blanche, they remove the checks an balances preventing abuse of that power. They are every bit as responsible for the war as Bush is. THEY took him on his word, they signed away the power that they were elected to weild responsibly.
In fact we should be punishing Congress for abusing what was made and neglecting their responsibilities, as well as Bush for setting his and his daddy's agenda before the welfare and defense of the USA.
Get over it, there's plenty of blame to go around here.
Yes, but it is a rational hatred. I do dislike the administration. Because of their policies. And their mistakes. And their neverending failures. I still implore you to name a single Bush policy that has been a success. They are all ridiculous failures. After failure after failure, I tend to develop a dislike for those in charge, be they Republicans or Democrats or Communists or Poets.
To ignore and excuse the obvious failure in Bush policies naturally reflects your irrational head-in-the-sand support for a failed administration. There is nothing to support a like for Bush. If I'm wrong, please tell me exactly why you like him. I'll listen. If I disagree with you, I'll dispute your claim and present my point of view.
Saying that based on Bush's record you believe our rebuilding of Iraq will fail and turn out to be a mistake is one thing. Saying that it is already a mistake is quite another. You said the latter. Only time will tell if it was a mistake or not. I don't have my head in the sand. I have my eyes open to the reality of the matter. We simply won't know if this was a mistake in the long run until, gee, we wait and see in the long run. Funny how that shit works.
Not totally. It did tell the rest of the world that we were willing to fight and die over communism. Vietnam was simply a battle in the "cold" war. We lost the battle. We won the war.
err...no....nice Hollywood reworking of history but I think you'll find that Communism imploded under it's own weight (as such unstable systems always do).
It's demise was accelerated from within by people such as Gorbachev and Walesa rather than by the US cavalry riding over the hill at the last moment.
I also think that the message that it 'told the world' might have lost something in translation. From my experience the 'world' got the message that the US was prepared to fight and die to further it's own Imperialist agenda.
Bit like Iraq really....
Ummm... I think you missed his point... While the US lost Vietnam, they ultimately won the Cold War, for many of the reasons you mentioned.
err...no....nice Hollywood reworking of history but I think you'll find that Communism imploded under it's own weight (as such unstable systems always do).
It's demise was accelerated from within by people such as Gorbachev and Walesa rather than by the US cavalry riding over the hill at the last moment.
I also think that the message that it 'told the world' might have lost something in translation. From my experience the 'world' got the message that the US was prepared to fight and die to further it's own Imperialist agenda.
Bit like Iraq really....
Gorbachev allowing the Polish election results, where the Solidarity party decidedly won, did signal the beginning of the very end. However, without Vietnam, the USSR may not have been at such a point where they allowed a democratic election overthrow the communist party. To deny that Vietnam had any effect in hastening the demise of the USSR and its stranglehold of the Eastern Bloc nations is ludicrous.
Your initial statement suggested something more akin to a coup de grace than an effect - but I'm glad to see you're amending it hehe !
Umm, no. I said we lost the battle. We won the eventual war. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. You simply inferred incorrectly, looking for something that wasn't there.
Gorbachev allowing the Polish election results, where the Solidarity party decidedly won, did signal the beginning of the very end. However, without Vietnam, the USSR may not have been at such a point where they allowed a democratic election overthrow the communist party. To deny that Vietnam had any effect in hastening the demise of the USSR and its stranglehold of the Eastern Bloc nations is ludicrous.
The Soviet Union fell of it's own weight. Pure and simple. They spent way too much on the military and not enough on it's own people. So you could say it fell because of bad management. We had little to do with it other than being the " other side " and a model for spending. We had more staying power. That's it. Perhaps a lesson we should learn from.
The Soviet Union fell of it's own weight. Pure and simple. They spent way too much on the military and not enough on it's own people. So you could say it fell because of bad management. We had little to do with it other than being the " other side " and a model for spending. We had more staying power. That's it. Perhaps a lesson we should learn from.
PS. By the way Vietnam almost hastened our demise.
Not totally. It did tell the rest of the world that we were willing to fight and die over communism. Vietnam was simply a battle in the "cold" war. We lost the battle. We won the war.
You won the war? US jobs are moving to India and China, so they won in the end and the Dell support guy from Texas lost. But, hey, he's free and stuff.
It's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years ? that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life ? but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil.
Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right.
Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda."
And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help."
What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."
Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.
But there's more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.
On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character ? his "honor and integrity" ? so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic ? that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.
In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.__
You won the war? US jobs are moving to India and China, so they won in the end and the Dell support guy from Texas lost. But, hey, he's free and stuff.
I see nothing wrong with marginal unemployment in industries that cannot compete in the US. Globalism is good.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Why are you so afraid to share the blame with others that gave him the loaded gun?
Congress was stupid, but that doesn't make them responsible in my book. They were stupid and irresponsible, but they gave latitude to the President who we all are supposed to be able to trust with such decisions. Bush broke that trust.
Congress was full of Republicans and Democrats, so I'm not defending a party. I'm just emphasizing the fact that it was one man who (metaphorically) pulled the trigger on the loaded gun.
PS. When I was small, and still living in my ?communist oppressed? country I thought that all ?native? Americans were black. How I got that idea in my head, no clue. Is it just me or do Native American Indians have it the worst. When was the last time you?ve seen an aboriginal family getting a happy meal at McDonalds? I saw a family of Indians ordering food at a TimHortons up north, but that?s about it.
Originally posted by segovius
Hmm, I guess that means you have a killer instinct then. Most people would think that's why you're studying Islam I guess. Or chess.
Apparently Bobby Fisher has been playing on the internet recently (under a pseudonym). He's been thrashing some Grandmasters and the concensus is that it must be him or else someone of equal stature. Personally, I think it's him. I heard a rumour he wa sstudying Islam too. In Budapest.
The man was crazy. Anyway, the best book i ever read on chess : was Bobby Fisher teaches Chess. This book is great, i greatly recommand it.
We are there already. It's too late to stop it. We need to make sure we build them up properly because if we just leave them hanging out to dry, as was our policy for the previous century, we will only perpetuate this cycle of violence. Idiots, the lot of them.
We are surgeons performing open heart surgery on Iraq. We've opened Iraq up, cleared most of the blockage, and now you just want to leave him there on the operating table hoping he will sew himself up and recover on his own? Gah. Don't be foolish.
Yes, some of our troops are dying. That is the cost of war. However, if we leave Iraq hanging out to dry we will only be creating another generation of people that hate America and the possible death toll resulting from that is FAR FAR GREATER.
The shortsightedness of you and your "bring the troops home now" friends is absofvckinglutely amazing.
Originally posted by tonton
Newsflash: going in there was a mistake. Admit it. We may very well be stuck there now, but this is an opportunity to show solidarity in declaring that this war was a mistake. If we're in, we lose, Iraq loses. If we're out, we lose, Iraq loses. Did Vietnam collapse when we pulled out? Many Americans just can't stand losing, and a pullout would be a loss in their book. What they didn't realize is that we had already lost the moment the decision was made to go in against all indications that it was a mistake. It's time for us to take responsibility for our irresponsible action. There's nothing stopping us from supporting a UN body to rebuild Iraq, rather than a unilateral one with closed tenders and forced policies.
I'm not opposed to demanding of this administration more world cooperation, however, we will not truly know if it was a mistake for many years to come. To say so now only reflects your dislike of the administration.
Originally posted by tonton
Question: Was Vietnam a mistake?
It was a failure.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, and we gave congress the power to authorize war. That doesn't mean I'm directly responsible. Gun makes make guns, that doesn't mean they're responsible when a gun owner shoots someone. Bush was given the authority and responsibility to use war as a tool to solve a problem. He's responsible.
And when Congress signed away that power to the president carte blanche, they remove the checks an balances preventing abuse of that power. They are every bit as responsible for the war as Bush is. THEY took him on his word, they signed away the power that they were elected to weild responsibly.
In fact we should be punishing Congress for abusing what was made and neglecting their responsibilities, as well as Bush for setting his and his daddy's agenda before the welfare and defense of the USA.
Get over it, there's plenty of blame to go around here.
Originally posted by tonton
Yes, but it is a rational hatred. I do dislike the administration. Because of their policies. And their mistakes. And their neverending failures. I still implore you to name a single Bush policy that has been a success. They are all ridiculous failures. After failure after failure, I tend to develop a dislike for those in charge, be they Republicans or Democrats or Communists or Poets.
To ignore and excuse the obvious failure in Bush policies naturally reflects your irrational head-in-the-sand support for a failed administration. There is nothing to support a like for Bush. If I'm wrong, please tell me exactly why you like him. I'll listen. If I disagree with you, I'll dispute your claim and present my point of view.
Saying that based on Bush's record you believe our rebuilding of Iraq will fail and turn out to be a mistake is one thing. Saying that it is already a mistake is quite another. You said the latter. Only time will tell if it was a mistake or not. I don't have my head in the sand. I have my eyes open to the reality of the matter. We simply won't know if this was a mistake in the long run until, gee, we wait and see in the long run. Funny how that shit works.
Question: Was Vietnam a mistake?
No.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It was a failure.
Not totally. It did tell the rest of the world that we were willing to fight and die over communism. Vietnam was simply a battle in the "cold" war. We lost the battle. We won the war.
Originally posted by segovius
err...no....nice Hollywood reworking of history but I think you'll find that Communism imploded under it's own weight (as such unstable systems always do).
It's demise was accelerated from within by people such as Gorbachev and Walesa rather than by the US cavalry riding over the hill at the last moment.
I also think that the message that it 'told the world' might have lost something in translation. From my experience the 'world' got the message that the US was prepared to fight and die to further it's own Imperialist agenda.
Bit like Iraq really....
Ummm... I think you missed his point... While the US lost Vietnam, they ultimately won the Cold War, for many of the reasons you mentioned.
Originally posted by segovius
Do you think so ?
Actually... yes. Yes I do.
Originally posted by segovius
err...no....nice Hollywood reworking of history but I think you'll find that Communism imploded under it's own weight (as such unstable systems always do).
It's demise was accelerated from within by people such as Gorbachev and Walesa rather than by the US cavalry riding over the hill at the last moment.
I also think that the message that it 'told the world' might have lost something in translation. From my experience the 'world' got the message that the US was prepared to fight and die to further it's own Imperialist agenda.
Bit like Iraq really....
Gorbachev allowing the Polish election results, where the Solidarity party decidedly won, did signal the beginning of the very end. However, without Vietnam, the USSR may not have been at such a point where they allowed a democratic election overthrow the communist party. To deny that Vietnam had any effect in hastening the demise of the USSR and its stranglehold of the Eastern Bloc nations is ludicrous.
Originally posted by segovius
That's why I didn't do it
Your initial statement suggested something more akin to a coup de grace than an effect - but I'm glad to see you're amending it hehe !
Umm, no. I said we lost the battle. We won the eventual war. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. You simply inferred incorrectly, looking for something that wasn't there.
Originally posted by BR
Gorbachev allowing the Polish election results, where the Solidarity party decidedly won, did signal the beginning of the very end. However, without Vietnam, the USSR may not have been at such a point where they allowed a democratic election overthrow the communist party. To deny that Vietnam had any effect in hastening the demise of the USSR and its stranglehold of the Eastern Bloc nations is ludicrous.
The Soviet Union fell of it's own weight. Pure and simple. They spent way too much on the military and not enough on it's own people. So you could say it fell because of bad management. We had little to do with it other than being the " other side " and a model for spending. We had more staying power. That's it. Perhaps a lesson we should learn from.
Originally posted by jimmac
The Soviet Union fell of it's own weight. Pure and simple. They spent way too much on the military and not enough on it's own people. So you could say it fell because of bad management. We had little to do with it other than being the " other side " and a model for spending. We had more staying power. That's it. Perhaps a lesson we should learn from.
PS. By the way Vietnam almost hastened our demise.
Originally posted by BR
Not totally. It did tell the rest of the world that we were willing to fight and die over communism. Vietnam was simply a battle in the "cold" war. We lost the battle. We won the war.
You won the war? US jobs are moving to India and China, so they won in the end and the Dell support guy from Texas lost. But, hey, he's free and stuff.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/op...rint&position=
He's responding to an opinion peice where David speaks of the "The new politics of president-hating"
(yep folks he said new. you see bill was loved by the right. just watch any hate-talk show....or listen to hate radio....
http://www.iht.com/articles/111884.html
October 10, 2003
Lessons in Civility
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years ? that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life ? but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil.
Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right.
Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda."
And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help."
What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."
Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.
But there's more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.
On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character ? his "honor and integrity" ? so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic ? that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.
In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.__
Originally posted by xype
You won the war? US jobs are moving to India and China, so they won in the end and the Dell support guy from Texas lost. But, hey, he's free and stuff.
I see nothing wrong with marginal unemployment in industries that cannot compete in the US. Globalism is good.