George Bush

[InlineTurbo]

For another take on things:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006964

[T5BRICK]

i yelled at the television and turned it off when i saw him. i guess i'm a little worked up about other things right now.

i would like to say that i do not support him or the war, but i support the troops. i do not agree with what they are doing, but they are doing it because they have to.

[InlineTurbo]

i yelled at the television and turned it off when i saw him. i guess i'm a little worked up about other things right now.

i would like to say that i do not support him or the war, but i support the troops. i do not agree with what they are doing, but they are doing it because they have to.

←

Just for the record: You can't support the troops without supporting the war or the President. It doesn't work that way. Go say that to a barracks of Marines and see what kinda response you will get.

[T5BRICK]

Just for the record:  You can't support the troops without supporting the war or the President.  It doesn't work that way.  Go say that to a barracks of Marines and see what kinda response you will get.

←

i am not going to argue about this, i am simply stating what i think. you can also state what you think and i we can disagree with each other.

[EMDII]

Disagree if you must. But-

The war is too far away for most of us. We aren't victims, except when our friends die. But when the little bastards blow up your child, you'll want their blood. I worked professionally in this region for a long time. The mullahs and zealots want to restore a medieval fiefdom of their own making, everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Kill them all now, wherever the lay, walk, or run. Kill them in their sleep if we have to, but take the war to them.

Most of you are too young to remember Vietnam. For many of you, it's all leftist visionary writing about what went wrong, and how that compares to now. Your college professors are SO right (left). WRONG. I lived in Vietnam in the 50s, I was LT (armor) in the 70s, and I fought and won the cold war through the 90s. Just because these folks don't drink Stoly, or eat caviar, doesn't mean they are not deadly and committed opponents. Or capable: they are VERY capable.

Preemtpive war short of the use of nuclear weapons is a necessity, now and in the future. You will be sipping latte one moment, and vaporized dirty sub-atomic particles the next. That's the best scenario. The worst: you watch your children and grandchildren writhe in agony as you feel the nasty drip start deep in your own bowels, and then you die for hours. Or days.

That is the truth of today's 5th generation war. No fronts. No nasty-eyed little nips/bosch/zulus. Just friendly folks who blow themselves up at your kid's birthday party in the restaurant. Your mind is not prepared for the eventuality that some folks hate you just because you are economically and politically succesful and stable. And, different from them.

Hunt these little buggers down, everywhere and anywhere, and kill them. This isn't about George Bush, it's about whether we have the stomach for a fight. We cannot cower inside our borders: borders DON'T EXIST.

"Saddle up boys, tonight we ride."

(old Cavalry aphorism)

USMA- 1975

PS- "what I think" is an oxymoron for most of you. Most of you argue about what you feel.

:ph34r:

Edited July 23, 2005 by EMDII

[InlineTurbo]

"Saddle up boys, tonight we ride."

(old Cavalry aphorism)

USMA- 1975

PS- "what I think" is an oxymoron for most of you. Most of you argue about what you feel.

←

Extremely well said. Arguments should be about facts and logic. Not how you feel about something.

[Bay13]

i am simply stating what i think. you can also state what you think and i we can disagree with each other.

Now if only the people we were fighting thought that way. Reality check, they don't care what you think right or wrong. The fight isn't against what free world people think or "feel" it's against the ones that don't care what you think or feel cause they are right and you are wrong. Vote whats that. A ballot is a .223 round through some innocent by stander. A campain is a series of bombs set off across town. When they want to address the nation, they kidnap someone and cut their head off and send the video to all the news media that leap on the chance to be the first to show it. The more innocient people killed the better, cause they know it scares you spinless wimps. Instead of turning that anger to defence it's turned to offensive attitudes against the war, our nations leader etc. As if we are the reason they are the way they are, and if we would just stop being America it would all go away. (right, want to by some land in ....) I will admit it's become very American to blame Americans. I'm thankfull that there are still people around that are willing to hold others accountable for their actions so I can say "well thats what you feel and I just feel differently so thats OK."

End of rant.

[shaun]

This argument often get framed as the naive lefties against the realistic right wingers, which is great for arguing but the shear gross incompetence of the United States's foreign policy over the last 4.5 years is not discussed in real terms. The little buggers we need to kill are in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and yes now they are in Iraq taking it to the Untied States's half assed war effort. If this administration really stood behind its stated policy that a nation that harbors terrorists is a nation we are at war with, than we would be finishing up in Afghanistan and Pakistan (osama is bin laden is well known to be in Pakistan, as the director of the cia has often stated). The taliban and other assorted militant Islamic fundamentalists are growing bumper crops of opium and picking away at the doomed puppet government in Kabul, selling their would be conquers loads of drugs and fattening up.

The people of the united states voted in the oil industry and the corporate military industrial complex to lead the executive branch, and we have a foreign policy that completely reflects that reality, a foreign policy produced by right wing think tankers that have ignored the professional military leadership every step of the way to manufacture the debacle in the middle east. We are mired in an incredibly expensive counterproductive war of protracted attrition that has brought us what? A government in Iraq that is aligned with Iran!. A foreign policy that put economic pressure on Iran (again against Europe, the u.n., and Asian countries wishes) to the degree that the moderates in Iraq have been replaced by, Islamic Fundamentalists! Brilliant!! We have fostered the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, ignored the perpetrators of 9-11 to attack a secular dictator who had nothing to do with 9-11, but apparently more importantly sat right in the middle of all the oil, and then did that poorly by not sending enough troops. All the informed military opinion that I have read stated we needed and need more troops on the ground in Iraq, and that Afghanistan is not a done deal because we never finished before focusing on what essentially is a strategic corporate issue. The bushies are incopetent draft dodging thinktankers who are criminally abusing our military and spreading Islamic fundamentalism.

Meanwhile Bin Laden smokes opium in Pakistan while we play tiddlywinks with Musharraf.

[InlineTurbo]

This argument often get framed as the naive lefties against the realistic right wingers,

←

Considering you do nothing to advance your argument except "left wing" talking points your statement above seems to be correct. The whole thing you wrote could be seen on the likes of the DNC webpages or the Democratic Underground. Almost totally absent of fact and full of hyperbole. People that use the term "frame" often send up alarm bells to those of us who pay attention. That means you are trying to influence opinion by getting your point of view out to the public first and often. This has nothing to do with point of view. It has everything to do with FACTS. Bring them to the table and people can have a civil discussion. Keep babbling that stuff about oil industry and how we have fostered the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism and you have no case. Well I will give you that Bill Clinton did a lot to not contain Islamic fundamentalism.

[shaun]

"The whole thing you wrote could be seen on the likes of the DNC webpages or the Democratic Underground."

left wing talking points?

i have never visited those sites.

i visited this one tonite. Is it "left wing"?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faes...its-limits.html

[shaun]

Considering you do nothing to advance your argument except "left wing" talking points your statement above seems to be correct.  The whole thing you wrote could be seen on the likes of the DNC webpages or the Democratic Underground.  Almost totally absent of fact and full of hyperbole.  People that use the term "frame" often send up alarm bells to those of us who pay attention.  That means you are trying to influence opinion by getting your point of view out to the public first and often.  This has nothing to do with point of view.  It has everything to do with FACTS.  Bring them to the table and people can have a civil discussion.  Keep babbling that stuff about oil industry and how we have fostered the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism and you have no case.  Well I will give you that Bill Clinton did a lot to not contain Islamic fundamentalism.

←

I went and checked out the "democratic undergound" and "dnc" websites. the democratic underground is partisan screeching at it's worst, the dnc, understadibly paritisan, is more measured, but focused on the same sort of surface partisan bickering. there is not much meat on either site. the democratic underground is almost etirely devoted to "getting" rove.

what do i think of the content?

I think Roberts is far from being an ideologue and is a good supreme court nominee. i hope he gets through the nomination process in an efficient manner.

the democrats quite understandably hate rove, and they are out on limb with this whole deal hoping he is half as guilty as they think he is. On the other hand, I read a conservative column recently that suggested W get rove out of the public eye, as he is such a divisive force that he is undermining the underlying ideas of conservatism and replacing them with partisan warfare. I agree.

All in all the two sites are contributing to a deeply divided political dialogue that does not serve Americans. Time magazine ran an article 6 months ago or so where they interviewed 4 retiring senators, 2 dems and 2 gop, with a combines 60 or something years in the senate, and they were all lamenting the decline in dialoged between the parties, and talked about how they used to go out to lunch together and hear each other out and cooperate on legislation. Now all they do is meet with lobbyists to raise money.

I do not think the democrats are ready for the executive branch at this point, as they are internally confused. Kerry ran a stupid campaign; I had no idea what his platform was other than he was a "brave swifboat captain", untill the last two weeks of the campaign when james caville was ruinning things and Kerry started showing some focus.

I truly wish it were McCain who was in the white house on 9-11, and I hope he wins the next election. He wants to back the lobbyists out of Washington and is a "true" conservative who has the repect of most of his fellow senators and the military.

Am I still sounding like a liberal to you, or was that just a convenient thing to say?

[shaun]

oops

Edited July 25, 2005 by shaun

[InlineTurbo]

I do not think the democrats are ready for the executive branch at this point, as they are internally confused.  Kerry ran a stupid campaign; I had no idea what his platform was other than he was a "brave swifboat captain", untill the last two weeks of the campaign when james caville was ruinning things and Kerry started showing some focus.

I truly wish it were McCain who was in the white house on 9-11, and I hope he wins the next election.  He wants to back the lobbyists out of Washington and is a "true" conservative who has the repect of most of his fellow senators and the military.

Am I still sounding like a liberal to you, or was that just a convenient thing to say?

←

You are right about the democrats and not being ready for the executive branch. Kerry did run a very stupid campaign. Bush was an easy target, but Kerry was such a joke even the casual new consumer could tell he was full of it. Running a smear campaign against real Vietnam Veterans was a bad idea.

I disagree with you on McCain. I used to think he was ok, but now I'm convinced he is just out to satisfy his ego. McCain-Feingold is just a terrible piece of legislation and going after steriod use in baseball? Not to mention he is pretty much done politically after snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory with the whole compromising on the nuclear option. He has been out for revenge against Bush plain and simple for handing him his butt in 2000.

I never called you a liberal either. Just said that you were using left wing talking points. We are doing the right thing in Iraq. It was totally legal considering our ceasefire agreement and it is a foothold of democracy in a very hostile totalitarian land. I've talked with people who are boots on ground and things are not nearly as bad as political partisans make it out to be and lots of Iraqis love that we are there. We sent more than enough troops to do the job. The only thing we aren't doing is being agressive engough, but that is because we are trying not to cause lots of collateral damage. More troops would just be more targets.

Also it is hard not to think you have been frequenting places like the DU when you put up phrases like this: "The bushies are incopetent draft dodging thinktankers who are criminally abusing our military and spreading Islamic fundamentalism."

Also here is from that link:

"Summary: So far, the Bush administration has shown it would like to resolve its problems with North Korea and Iran the same way it did with Iraq: through regime change. It is easy to see why. But the strategy is unlikely to work, at least not quickly enough. A much broader approach -- involving talks, sanctions, and the threat of force -- is needed."

Besides the fact that the author is against regime change and for threat of foce is kinda silly I hate to break it to you, but Regime Change was policy during the Clinton administration too. Remember that presidents come and go, but there are lots of career millitary and state deparment people that make these policies. So complaining about things that have been official policy long before Bush took office is kinda weak.

A lot of the complaining you do see about the new policies are because Bush is cleaning house in the State Department, CIA and other TLA agencies and getting them to do their job instead of being political.

[shaun]

You are right about the democrats and not being ready for the executive branch.  Kerry did run a very stupid campaign.  Bush was an easy target, but Kerry was such a joke even the casual new consumer could tell he was full of it.  Running a smear campaign against real Vietnam Veterans was a bad idea.

I disagree with you on McCain.  I used to think he was ok, but now I'm convinced he is just out to satisfy his ego.  McCain-Feingold is just a terrible piece of legislation and going after steriod use in baseball?  Not to mention he is pretty much done politically after snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory with the whole compromising on the nuclear option.  He has been out for revenge against Bush plain and simple for handing him his butt in 2000.

I never called you a liberal either.  Just said that you were using left wing talking points.  We are doing the right thing in Iraq.  It was totally legal considering our ceasefire agreement and it is a foothold of democracy in a very hostile totalitarian land.  I've talked with people who are boots on ground and things are not nearly as bad as political partisans make it out to be and lots of Iraqis love that we are there.  We sent more than enough troops to do the job.  The only thing we aren't doing is being agressive engough, but that is because we are trying not to cause lots of collateral damage.  More troops would just be more targets.

Also it is hard not to think you have been frequenting places like the DU when you put up phrases like this: "The bushies are incopetent draft dodging thinktankers who are criminally abusing our military and spreading Islamic fundamentalism."

Also here is from that link:

"Summary: So far, the Bush administration has shown it would like to resolve its problems with North Korea and Iran the same way it did with Iraq: through regime change. It is easy to see why. But the strategy is unlikely to work, at least not quickly enough. A much broader approach -- involving talks, sanctions, and the threat of force -- is needed."

Besides the fact that the author is against regime change and for threat of foce is kinda silly I hate to break it to you, but Regime Change was policy during the Clinton administration too.  Remember that presidents come and go, but there are lots of career millitary and state deparment people that make these policies.  So complaining about things that have been official policy long before Bush took office is kinda weak.

A lot of the complaining you do see about the new policies are because Bush is cleaning house in the State Department, CIA and other TLA agencies and getting them to do their job instead of being political.

←

Conservative columnint author and talking head George F Will unflatteringly describes the bush administration’s foreign policy as "Wilsonian", with it's stated intention to bring American styled democracy to the middle east in order to protect our interests in the region. It is a very optimistic unilateral policy that assumes alot of things that may or may not be true and replaces the "realpolitik" that the author of the particular article I linked espouses, a manner of doing business with the world that prevailed from Nixon until W with many major successes. So, as you point out lifetime CIA, state department, pentagon people are pissed at these clowns and are quitting and getting the axe.

Based on results, the "paux Americana" foreign policy Pearl, Wolfowitz, et all dreamt up and this administration is projecting, is at best messy and expensive and, at worst, a big f$5$ up.

I would assume the boots on the ground say things are better, as they are being pulled back and therefore being shot at less, because as you state, we are not being aggressive enough. Which is part of the same problem, running a politically palatable war instead of a war you want to win. The administration elected to send too few troops in to the wrong theater; after all, according to Cheney it was going to be a "cakewalk". Now they have a mess on their (our) hands, and the GOP is losing swing voters so they are stuck and hedging, hoping it works out.

Every Senator leaves a track record of "bad" legislation, it is the nature of politics to have it used against them, and why governors make better presidential candidates. I think McCain is in a position to move this country forward from this mess.

McCain is right to be pissed at this administration, he was viciously smeared by them, and disagrees with many of their policies, so he will not do their bidding. Why should he?

The pieces I read that have very accurately projected the events of the last two years, are Michel Sheuer's "Imperial Hubris" and James Fallows Atlantic montly piece "Blind into Bagdah". Woodward's "Bush at war" and "Plan of Attack", amazingly written at W's behest, plainly lay out the fixation with Iraq, a fixation that had nothing to do with 9-11 or WMD, but a preconceived notion of how things were going to be in the middle east, a notion that was absurdly optimistic and culturally ignorant, as subsequent events have proven.

If you have not read “Imperial Hubris”, I highly recommend it. It might turn you into a hawk though. Point me in the direction of a book and I’ll read it. Honestly, I don’t get my information from the dnc or democratic underground or like places.

[EMDII]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt: there are no borders Shaun. Foreign Policy is driven by something called Strategic National Interests (SNI). Not 'let's all play well together'. Learn about that (SNI): attend Harvard's Kennedy school. Then you'll know why our policies are what they are, and why Iraq is the right war.

In the cold war, we fought client states. Ronald Reagan tied the not in a bankruptcy of the FSU's ability to keep pace with our arms development. Until then, the war was endless, and would have stayed so.

5th Generation war seeks to make the endless combat the raison d'etre for getting out. Americans aren't tough enough for anythig besides NBA shenanigans on a TV screen. The sheeple would rather not get into a tough, protracted, bloody fight. Until we have the heart to take on the blighters where they breed and hide, we will be a victim-state. Those who want to hide from Iraq's reality as a bastion and haven for those who would attack us are only delayoing the inevitable bombing in their local school, or park, or town celebration.

Action, now. Hard action, now. Immediately. The faster you kick the bloody daylights out of the buggers, the sooner the recruits realize this is not in their 'interest'. If we ignore them, pull outof the Middle East, and Europe, and SEA, they will NOT go away. They will only seek the time and place of their next atrocity.

Here's a good perspective from a kid your age making adifference. THAT is what it's all about.

WHY I AM HERE

CPL CASEY L. ALLEN, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Right now, all over the world, you can turn on the television or pick up a newspaper and immediately find someone criticizing the United States for its actions in the Middle East. I guess some people would rather talk forever.

Why am I here? Ironically enough, there is a simple bumper sticker that explains what I find so hard to put into words. It reads "Whose son is fighting in place of yours?" The reason that I am here is so others will never have to be. I volunteered to be here knowing that if the job was done right this time,  then future generations would never have to continue what could have been ended in the Gulf War. I am more than willing to risk my life so I can do everything I can to prevent whatever family I may have in the future from ever having  to make the same sacrifice, take the same risks, or face the same criticism.

No matter what political party one may lean toward, the need for some security

and global stability is undeniable. I believe anybody who believes otherwise is

naive and needs to see downtown Fallujah in person. It is my opinion that if drastic action was not taken when it was, then the wake of the September 11th attacks would have brought more of the same instead of the capture of  Saddam Hussein.

As I write this I am sitting in a cabana a few miles east of downtown Fallujah. This network of cabanas the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment calls home used to be a vacation resort for Uday Hussein and other Iraqi royalty. The lake these shelters surround is filled with body parts from women Uday brought to this resort, raped, then fed to his lions. All of the negotiations in the world could never bring the Husseins and their terrorist allies to justice. United States Marines don't negotiate.

The liberal media and their sympathetic bystanders would have a much harder time if we had a perfect record. The simple truth is that in an environment where you can't tell the enemy from a businessman or roadside debris from a bomb,

collateral damage is unavoidable. For some, this is reason enough to say we don't belong here. Right, and maybe we should take more cops off the streets so there would be less traffic.

To anyone opposed to the war on terror, or America's policing role in the Middle East, I challenge you to go on a patrol with any platoon in 1st Bn, 6th Marines. Walk down the streets of Fallujah and see the look in an Iraqi child's eyes as he waves and cheers you by. Shake the hand of an Iraqi man thanking you for his family's freedom. I know I belong here because I see what they don't show on CNN. What they don't print in the newspapers. I see what President Bush is trying to tell the world, if they would only be quiet long enough to listen.

Take a walk in our boots, but make sure you give them back. We're not

finished here yet.

*****

Your 'politics' are pointless Shaun. They don't matter, per se. Whether you're a New Democrat, watching Al Gore's new channel, a blue-blood, a neo-con, or a centrist, none of that matters. To these people (sic) you are a target. Nothing more, and nothing less. In 100 years NO ONE will give dashitz about what you called yourself in the voting booth. Not one iota.

Make a difference. Act. Vapid and uninformed complaints about US foreign policy are a dime-a-dozen. Go make a difference, like this Lance Corporal. You, Shaun, what have you done for your Country, and the world in which you reside? What have you done to justiffy your consumption?

Edited July 26, 2005 by EMDII