Another slave to public opinion

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bourbonbreath, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. bourbonbreath macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #1
    Might as well chalk up another loss for the democratic party.
    Kerry really has failed to read the pulse of the nation. Maybe James Carville is not his friend after all.

    And being at war doesn't help.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200410010715.asp


    Oh well there is always 2008 and Hillary. ;) :D
     
  2. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  3. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #3
    I'll bite, I'm in a bad mood

    So the first paragraph gets us used to the idea that the war will never end. Peachy. You realize that in past wars, the way to win was total domination and/or destruction of the enemy? You also realize that given today's political realities, neither of these things can occur any more? Bush can talk big all he wants, but he doesn't have the balls to glass Iraq, which is what would be needed to "win" against the terrorists.

    Bush seems to have some sort of "manifest destiny" complex, with the US dominating (leading) the world and occupying (helping) the Middle East. News flash: not gonna happen. Other nations besides the US have patriotic pride, and they aren't just gonna roll over when we say - Iraq, for example, and England notwithstanding.

    The second paragraph seems to imply that Bush doesn't blow with the wind. Like when he proposes things like gay marriage amendments. Throwing red meat to his fundy-neocon base certainly doesn't play to the whims of the people, no. (and he plays to the biggest hippocrits and *******s, at that)

    Comparing Bush to Lincoln and Churchill would be laughable if it weren't so offensive. Lincoln and Churchill were leaders. Bush is a bully. Both types of people generally get what they want, but one does it by inspiring people, and one does it by dividing and instilling fear in people. Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. Churchill didn't start WWII. Bush *did* invade Iraq without provocation. He's a jingoistic warmonger. Lincoln and Churhcill fought against their wars. Bush couldn't be bothered to wait.

    Bottom line, Bush is a ****** president, a stupid man, and the worst kind of America-first, ****-the-rest-of-the-world, kind of *******. I can't wait until he and his ilk are safely out of the White House, where they can no longer spend our country into the ground, send our troops to die for their lies, and stop spreading their fundamentalist ideologies and expect everyone to eat it up.

    Power is not authority. Being certain is not being right. Pissing off friends in order to attack enemies just makes you more enemies.

    **** Bush.
     
  4. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #4
    ;)
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    why are you here?
     
  6. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #6

    9/11 was a serious mistake made by International terrorists.
    The war against them was taken to them after a vicious attack on our people.
    Bush didn't choose to go the war. He had it forced upon him.
    Saddam Hussein is a terrorist and a mass murderer. He gave out bounties to the families of suicide bombers. His government had financial ties to AlQueda. Iraq is an integral part of the war on terrorists.
    The so called friends we have pi$$ed of were in bed with our enemies.
    The French sold roland missiles to Saddam. Nice friends!

    Kerry is done because he can't be for and against the war at the same time. The only people who wanted this war are the ones who declared war against us.

    The reason you find a comparison of Bush and Churchill offensive is because you believe the unsubstantiated vitriolic rhetoric that has been rampant the past couple of years.
    All the screeching of the Howard Deans and Al Gores wont change certain fundamental facts:
    1.We are engaged in a world war against terrorism.
    2. We are going to win.

    All the liberal defeatism in the world is not going to change that.

    I hope your mood improves.
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    yeah, just like we won that War on Drugs, huh?
     
  8. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #8
    I don't follow the analogy.
    Is the world war on suicidal terrorists somehow akin to the war on drugs? I don't recall any drug dealers declaring war on the US.
    My point is that the current wave of defeatism is counter productive.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    You've already lost.
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    my point is that some things are undefeatable, especially if one doesn't understand why they exist and move to counter the root causes.

    imo, both terror and (much of) drug use is caused by disenfranchisement. just as killing or jailing drug dealers hasn't stemmed the flow the drugs, killing or jailing terrorists won't stop terrorism.

    the fallacy is that both represent a fixed number of targets. the reality is that, as long as the demand is there, someone will always move in to fill the supply.

    a war on terrorism will not be won by a military. just ask the israelis. no matter how many "terrorists" they kill, there's always someone willing to step in to take their place.

    ask yourself why that is.
     
  11. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #11
    It was a serious attack by terrorists. I don't know if I'd call it a mistake. After all, it got our attention, and with the way Bush has decided to fight the "war" their cause has actually grown stronger in the ME, rather than weaker. Now we've got terrorist recruitment up, and Europe doubting our word at every turn. Despite Bush's assertions, this does not make us safer.

    It was then diverted to Iraq.

    Bush chose his response. He chose to waste his time on the non-threat of Saddam rather than attack the actual perpetrators of 9/11. Genius.

    Saddam was an ******* dictator that posed us no threat. He was contained. Iraq was a ****** place to live, but it wasn't the hotbed and poster child for terrorism that it is today. I'm sure the Iraqis thank their lucky stars every time a family member gets caught in the crossfire between us and the terrorists we are now fighting there. Iraq is NOT integral to the war on terror, except in its propaganda value for terrorists. We did exactly what Osama said we would, and now there are more pictures of dead innocents on al-Jazeera every day convincing that part of the world that we really are fighting a war against Islam and the Middle East. Thanks, W.

    *We* sold them chemical weapons in the 80's. Saddam was our ally until 1990. And I'd hardly call France "in bed" with our enemies. I would call Bush "in bed" with corporate interests, though.

    Kerry is against the war. That doesn't mean he won't fight it. ****, he can't possibly do a worse job than Bush has done so far. To few troops, not enough planning, several cities under "insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter?" contol. At the debate, Kerry attacked Bush's policies. Bush attacked Kerry's character. I want the guy who has shown a modicum of thought in the office. Not the guy who's biggest strength is "staying on message" with his smear campaign.

    I'm sorry, I must have missed the day where the headlines read "SADDAM DECLARES WAR ON USA!!!" Bush diverted funds from the real war, then ivaded Iraq without provocation and when other options were still available and still working. I don't want a war-monger in office.

    Which is?

    1. We are engaged in a fight against terrorism. Before Bush and his grandiose posturing, terrorism was a crime. Now he's turned it into a giant monster garaunteed to suck money and lives down the drain for decades.
    2. Not the way Bush is fighting it.

    None of the conservative posturing in the world will win it. There has to be progress on all fronts. Iraq in chaos will not win it. Bush has no plan to put Iraq back together. He shouldn't have broken it in the first place. He's a bad president who made a ****-poor decision to go to war when he didn't have to. He deserves neither his office, nor my respect.

    Thank you.
     
  12. wowser macrumors 6502a

    wowser

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2004
    Location:
    Inglaterra, Europa
    #12
    no he isn't. he may have killed many people, yet it was all state led.
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #13
    I take the National Review seriously as a news source about the same amount I take The Daily Show.

    As far as that whole flip-flop thing, I stopped listening the moment I heard Republicans say, "We've got to define John Kerry before he defines himself."

    Heck, Bush opposed the 9/11 commission before he went along with it. Bush opposed creating a Department of Homeland Security before he gave in and created it. The guy's got plenty of flip-flops of his own.
     
  14. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #14
    The 9/11 attack was a serious strategic mistake by the terrorists. By overstepping their reach they failed to realize that it would galvanize the US resolve to make them go away.
    Kerry has underestimated how deep and pervasive that resolve exists here in the US.
    Words can't express my personal outrage and anger about it.
    The nation demands retribution and is in the process of doing it.
    Bush does have a plan and is implementing it. It is not a perfect plan and has to evolve as we go. The vision of a free democratic Iraq is worthy. It will take some time to undo the decades of hatred that have been instilled in their people.

    When Saddam Hussein celebrated 9/11 in the streets of Bagdad he declared
    war on us. CNN probably wishes now they hadn't aired that now. I notice they haven't aired any of that recently.
    Saddam was almost universally acknowledged as a serious threat. Just because 20/20 hindsight shows that he was a lot of bluff doesn't change the validity of our initial actions.
    If the UN would cooperate it is very likely that many financial ties between Iraq and the terrorists would be revealed. Why aren't they playing ball? Something to hide? Instead they are trying to make our job harder over there.
    Anyway again the point is that the defeatism being played by the media is counter to the real pulse of the nation: We are outraged by these suicide bombers and the vicious *********** beheadings of our citizens.
    The blame america first crowd seem to miss this little detail of american consciousness.
    So even though Bush stumbled and sounded a bit like a putz during the debate what he had to say rang true for many people.
    And Kerry came off as a slick two bit preppie opportunist still trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

    I suppose I'll get eviserated for this post. :eek: oh well :D
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    wtf are you on about?

    when did you stop beating your wife?
     
  17. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #17
    I wasn't really expecting much, especially from "beyond belief" ;)
     
  18. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #18
    The problem is not in our cause, it is in our methods. This is where Kerry and Bush differ. Bush thinks he can bomb the problem out of existence. If this were true, Israel would be the most safe and stable nation in the world. Instead, killings are traded back and forth in a never ending cycle.

    I've got no beef with getting rid of terrorists. I *do* have a beef with attacking people from opportuinity instead of cause. I also detest the attitude Bush has shown around the world of, "we know better than you, we *are* better than you, and we're going to do whatever we want despite all precedent, international law, and common sense".
    Half the nation demands retribution. The other half demands that the problem actually get solved. Retribution will not end terrorism. It *will* create more terrorists. Again, Israel is a prime example. Bush's plan of declaring war and killing all the bad guys will not work. It won't work because the underlying problems that terrorism comes from will not have been solved. More people will simply step up and we will have a larger problem than we had before. Bush already has this country jumping at it's own shadow. A huge portion of people are afraid that they're going to die tomorrow in some new terrorist attack. Bush has not inspired confidence in our people, but fear. Contempt is next. We are xenophobic enough as it is.
    I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. That just proves he was an *******. That's like starting a fight in a bar because a guy looked at you funny. It's not a valid reason to start a war, and it's certainly not a good excuse to spend two hundred billion dollars, a thousand American lives and ten thousand Iraqi lives.
    A threat that was contained. A threat that was cooperating. The weapons inspectors were back in. Documents had been handed over. Bush didn't give the UN or even his own angencies the chance to do their jobs before he invaded. He wanted Saddam and nothing was going to stop him. That's what makes him a bad president. He let his personal vendetta become more important than the nation's security, more important than world affairs. I bet he didn't stop and think for one minute on the consequences of his actions. Especially if things went wrong, just like they have.
    I'm gonna need a link on this. It's not like the UN has two sets of books, one to trick the noble US with, and one to cackle over when they check their bank statements.
    Bullcrap. The UN was trying to do its job before we invaded. After the initial war was over we told them to shove off, we cut them out of the process.

    They told us from the beginning what we were getting into and Bush decided not to listen. Now the situation is so unsafe that they can't send in their people to fix the problem our president created.
    The blame America first crowd dislikes terrorists as much as you do. They also happen to realize that the current strategy is a loser. We can win, but not by doing what we are doing right now. You see defeatism, I see people trying to think of ways to win that will actually work.
    All he said during the debate was that Kerry was a flip-flopper and that we had to be "resolved". Kerry attacked Bush's policies as ineffective and dangerous, and said he'd do things differently. Seeing as how the current plan isn't working, I'd vote for the guy who is going to try something new, rather than the guy who is "resolved" to be wrong.
     
  19. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #19
    Might I suggest a bit of light reading:

    [​IMG]
     
  20. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #20
    The UN scandal: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134256,00.html

    http://www.southbendtribune.com/breakingnews/posts/1733.html

    The UN has been quite reticent about disclosing information.

    The UN inspectors had been led around by the nose in Iraq. Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the world for years. He was a threat. Everyone acknowledged that at the time. He offered bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israelis.

    Just because Saddam danced in the streets of Bagdad to celebrate the 9/11 attack of course isn't a valid reason to liberate Iraq from his regime. But defying UN one resolution after another does.
    Much of the recent violence in Iraq is aimed at unsettling the US resolve to complete the mission of having the Iraqis become self governing. That is the plan along with dumping billions into rebuilding their infrastructure.
    I think it's a worthy endeavor. Albeit costly in lives and material.
    It's very easy for the Kerry/Carville team to play monday morning quarterback saying "everything is wrong and we can do it better". It another thing entirely to have to make the hard decisions that cost men and women their lives. Hindsight is always 20/20.
    I don't agree with everything Bush is doing. At least he is getting something done and is trying to correct mistake as we go. And I don't think his actions are self serving.
    I agree it is ugly and messy right now. But even you agree that action after 9/11 was required.
    I think the preemptive strategy might be working. It not easy for the Iraqis because it is drawing the terrorist resources into Iraq where they really will be contained.
    I think it is a mistake to think that Saddam was not exporting terrorism. The 9/11 commission did uncover numerous alqueda/iraq connections.
    It was a pretty safe assumption that Saddam was exporting terrorism.
    He is a very Bad man to have ruling country with the resources of Iraq.
    Bush may not be perfect he sure has proven to be capable despite the screeching of the liberal media.
    I mean look at CBS! Are you going to believe anything they come up with now?
     
  21. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #21
  22. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    bleh...good for you thanatoast for taking the time to try and give a meaningful response...It is too much for me.

    bourbonbreath, I do not know why you make the effort, as your position is not supported by facts (derived via "journalism") or by those here in this forum who demand such facts to base their positions.

    I do not consider "freerepublic" to be a reputable news source. While you may find some sources we regularily quote as "liberal", they are also competent, which inadvertently puts you in the position of complimenting "liberal" by associating it with proper journalism and denigrating your own position by supporting it with crap.

    thanks for nothing...
     
  23. bourbonbreath thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Alaska
    #23
    But you do consider the 9/11 commission reputable. They establish iraq/alqueda connections.
    By reputable news source you mean CBS? Very reputable!
    Or how about James Carville at Cnn?
     
  24. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #24
    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    I assume you were trying to be funny by deciding what I might find reputable (or not), to make your punchline.

    As for the 9/11 report and iraq/AQ connections:

    Let's say there are two people: Person A and Person B.

    Person A and person B meet. This can possibly be verified.

    Then someone posits that since person A and B met, they must obviously be lovers and met for an illicit love affair; after all, one is male and the other female. Although plausible, it is not easily verifiable by any reputable journalistic method.

    Iraq is in this case A, and AQ is B. Although deriving unprovable conclusions from provable incidents may make for an attractive argument, it is essentially meaningless.

    See:
    Hasty Generalization
    Fallacy of exclusion
    Post Hoc Fallacy
    Complex cause fallacy
    Non sequitur
    bulls***

    I can only assume that your purpose for posting here is to incite reactions from us for your amusement. If that is the case, I shall show you no quarter.

    If I am mistaken as to your intentions in posting, then please explain them and I would be happy to discuss issue intelligently with you.
     
  25. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #25
    By your post, I would assume you believe: Saddam was also repsonsible for 9/11, as are the French for selling them weapons (which we did too, talk about pissing in your own bed), and Liberals are not only not helping... but actually making things worse by daring to question our precious governement (yeah, what are we, in a free country where we can question the government or something?). And we are going to win against people who hate the fact that we are fighting them (fuel for the fire?) while most of the real terrorists are still out there gaining more support?

    Fanning the flames of hate is obviously working for this administration. We are mad at the terrorists 'cause they are bad, and Iraq is bad, therfore they must be terrorists. The French don't agree with what the US is doing, and people hate the French, so they are bad too. Calling people Liberals if they disagree with Bush will work, because it's already been established that the word liberal means somebody who's bad, because they question Bush too, and questioning the government is bad. Kerry is Liberal, and wants us to listen to the French, and he's questioning the War he only agreed to if it was done right for the right reason (which it isn't at this point). That rhetoric is working like a charm.

    The nation (the world, even) wanted blood for being attacked. The Bush administration decided to distract us by attacking somewhere else. Even after they found out they had nothing to do with it and had to start changing the story to WMDs, etc. Flip-flopping, if you will. Some of us aren't falling for it. Bush's plan was to play it by ear. Do you see the problems with these methods?

    You know, when you are looking for connections and reasons for war, it's usually best to do so before you wage said war. And then, you know, have a plan laid out for what you do once you are there. Vietnam comes to mind for some reason.
     

Share This Page