 |
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Ted has undergone a serious political soul-searching after the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Besides, the obvious has now begun to be broadly acknowledged in the US (that the WMD was an excuse at best, a blatant manipulative lie at worst), and many Americans dislike it. |
That's correct.
Everything I thought my country stood for, has evaporated right in front of my eyes.
We were taught in school that we protected those people who couldn't protect themselves. We were the ones who stood up for the oppressed, the weak.
Now I see countless examples of our country doing the very **** we are supposed to protect people from, to other people.
It's not only unfair to those people who are being hurt, it is destroying the fabric of what the United States is SUPPOSED to be all about. And it's happening right in front of our eyes, but nobody gives a damn.
Look at one of the responses, here, for example. "Oh well, it's just a lie, sh1t happens, I don't see why everyone is so upset about THIS particular lie."
My own economic views have always been more left than people realize, and it has to do more with dealing with impoverished and disadvantaged people more than anything. These poor people are defenseless, and are often blamed for their own situation, being called lazy, or sleazy. Usually the people calling them these things come from a world of privilege, where it's easy to bounce back when you've had a slip-up, or two.
Why the **** should I talk **** about some poor panhandler on the street when Carly from HP gets paid $48 million FOR BEING FIRED. Talk about ****ed up priorities. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So, replace "Al Qaeda" with "Al Qaeda and its ideological and real world allies" in my previous post and the point stands. |
What point? That Bush wernt after AQ?
Lets see DRake, in June 2001, if someone had told you "we must invade Afghanistan to remove AQ because of the Cole attack", can you honestly state that you, your family, or the fine people of Nebraska would have approved of such a move?
How many Al Qaeada related questions came up in the 2000 campaign? Anyone care to bring up the campaign statements by Bush about how he was going to take on AQ? I would trully like to see them.
Face reality. Offshore attacks simply would not get the US to invade any state simply in the name of a "war on terrorism". Just look at Reagan and HIzbullah. They blow up a CIA stattion and a Marines Barracks killing 250 Americans plus (before 9/11 the number of Americans killed by AQ in all its attacks was what? Under 50 ) and what does Reagan do? Leaves Lebanon and HIzbullah is now in the Parliment.
Until 9/11 few if any Americans would have named terrorism as one of their top five worries, even after internal terrorism (Oklahoma) and previous large attacks (Lockerbie). To then compare the actions of Clinton without any real political backing (cause the Republicans would NEVER have backed any Clinton lead war, period. They never did) and no popular support vs. any president being handed a mandate after 9/11 is bullcrap.
Add to that, of course, that this discussion is about the Iraq war. If you still think that this war somehow has done anything whatsoever to hurt AQ then you seriously need to have your head examined.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Hell if I know. I'm not going to listen to Limbaugh from 6 years ago (if that's even possible) just to disprove some BS point of yours. |
Your ignorance is showing.
quote:
You of course ignore the fact that building up such will is part of the job of the presidency. If the President believes a threat is real, its his responsibility to try to convince the public to do whatever is necessary to meet that threat. I don't really blame Clinton (or Bush, for that matter) for not trying harder to combat terrorism, but it would've been nice to see him make the effort. It would've been a far more useful application of American power than the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were. |
1. The bully pulpit of a president has limits. This is especially true of any aciton which requires ground forces. For the most part, Presidents just do it without asking anyone, or even trying to build support. They simply inform the people after they acted. This works fine when its air attacks, or seding troops inthe Caribbean area and for short stints. But to attempt to send troops into Central Asia, a move that requires a lot of diplomatic wrangling to begin with...I would love for you to state ANY president who could do that. Heck, FDR could not build up enough support to fight Hitler UNTIL Japan attacked the US itself. Wilson ran saying he would keep the US out of the war. Bush himself ran his 200 campaign essentially saying he would not undertake any Kosovo's or Bosnias.
2. Prior to 9/11 the US would hardly have had the possibility of sticking its head into Afghanistan and Central Asia period. So I would trully like to know what the hell you think Clinton or Bush could have done diplomatically to get to a point they could even attempt sending the marines in.
And I asked the question about the terrorist strike prior to Oklahoma for the simple reason that terrorists attacks until 9/11 could hardly be "historic" save for assasinations. IN 1920 30 people were killed by a bomb on Wall Street. According to Wikipedia WaPo at the time called it "an act of war". There is not ever a marker to remember the place it occured. They never found who did it, or why, and the worst terrorist attack in the US until 1995 became a trivia question. the first WTC bombing would have become just that as well if 9/11 had not happened. And you hardly hear much anymore about Lockerbie and the Marine Barracks. If you said Khobar Towers most Americans would have no clue. All of these events were huge news at the time, but no one thinks that the world changed because the Marrine barracks in Beirut were bombed or that PanAm flight was blown from the sky.
So again, to compare what a president had in terms of popular mandates for serious military action for attacks many orders of magnitude smaller and far more isolated from the common life of your joe sixpack to 9/11 is disingeneous.
And yet again, what does any of this have to do with your previous assertion, pertaining to Iraq, that Bush was taking steps to save any crumbling international order?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
The revolations about Bush's constent lying and the unending bad news combined with lack of progress in Iraq seems to be turning the American people against the war and against the Republican party. A record 60% of the American public now believes that some or all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq according to a new USA Today poll.
quote:
Poll: USA is losing patience on Iraq
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.
Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. For the first time, a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased.
The souring of public opinion presents challenges for the president, who has vowed to stay the course until democracy is established and Iraqi forces can ensure security. He hasn't suggested sending more U.S. troops.
"We have reached a tipping point," says Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University. "Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam (Hussein) are saying, 'I want our troops home.' "
|
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...htm?POE=NEWISVA
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2005 04:18
|