questions for stelliform

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 7, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    i hope you don't mind my breaking this out into its own thread; seemed less messy this way.

    i want to understand your unwaivering support for bush. what do you think of his administrations actions regarding the following?

    1. bush's attitude towards the 9/11 commission -- initially opposing its formation, then giving only selected members of it limited access to documents (which could be read only in a specific room), then agreeing to testifying for only an hour and not under oath
    2. the use of secret service and local law enforcement to keep protesters out of his sight and arresting those who refuse to stay in the designated "protest zone"
    3. appearing before the media far fewer times than any modern-day president
    4. saying that god told him to run for president
    5. allowing cheney to keep the energy meeting notes private, even though it's been challenged all the way to the supreme court
    6. lack of holding anyone accountable for the intelligence failures of 9/11 and iraq's WMD
    7. putting the bulk of the military into iraq even though bin laden is still free and afghanistan has fallen back into chaos
    8. unwillingess to take a stand against musharreff/pakistan for allowing its scientists/military to sell so much nuclear technology
    9. desire to build tactical nukes
    10. desire to build a missile shield
    11. apparent lack of interest regarding the valerie plame affair
    12. willingness to prefer "intelligence" from chalabi (sp?) and iraq national congress over CIA intelligence
    13. immediate inflation of medicare estimate
    14. history of always revising job numbers downwards and cost estimates upwards

    these are a few of the things that bother me about the bush administration and i'm wondering how a supporter can consider these things and be okay w/ how the administration deals w/ all of it. thanks
     
  2. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    thanks for taking the time to provide some answers. i'm not going to comment on everything, but there're a few places where i'll point out why i feel differently and also make some clarifications.

    i'm referring to anywhere where bush goes to make a speech. london is one big example of it, but there are examples from the past two years, including making a commencement speech in Ohio where the students were warned they'd be arrested and not allowed to graduate if they were to hold up anti-bush signs or make any kind of disparaging remark. it goes to a big issue in my mind that bush will not listen to dissent, and if he doesn't see it, i don't think he knows it even exists.

    in the interest of open government, the default should be open meetings and available documents (exceptions for national security, of course). cheney won't even release who was at the meetings, much less what was said. i disagree w/ such a style of government and believe that democracy dies behind closed doors.

    not every time, but for the big ones, yes. that's how government is run, imo. a leader needs to either accept personal responsibility or get rid of those who are responsible. in what i think is a grave character flaw in bush, he never accepts responsibility. his administration has zero accountability. a few firings for mistakes (instead of for people like o'neill, who criticized the adminstration, see my comment above) would indicate some level of accountability.

    imo, to take down iraq but leave give pakistan a freebie reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the so-called War on Terror.

    yep

    the iraqi national congress (not to be confused w/ the iraqi governing coalition) is the outfit that has been trying to get saddam ousted from iraq. they've been around for years, taking their appeals and lies to different gov'ts. they finally found a friend in wolfowitz.

    this is the source of all the things that turned out to be wrong, like the mobile weapons labs. recently, chalabi (he's the head) basically admitted they made up all this stuff, but felt the ends justified the means because saddam is now out of power. the way i see it, chalabi leveraged an unquestioning administration to fulfill his political needs. bush got played but has too much on the line to admit it.

    imo, this is the bait and switch administration. no forecast has ever turned out to be remotely accurate. instead of a nearly balanced budget, as was promised, we got a record deficit. i think congress, and a lot of GOPers, are finally getting sick of this particular tactic.

    thanks again for the forthright answers
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    You do realise that Iraq was not involved in any attack on Americans, right?

    Do you seriously think invading Iraq in 1999 would have prevented 9/11?
     
  4. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #4
    That's funny because all the terrorists (and their money and sponsors) are in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And they're not leaving the protection of their states. They may send money and logistical support to an insurrection force, but I highly doubt these people are stupid enough to cross the border themselves to face the might of American military.

    They're a little too professional for that. Any group who can get 20 people together and coordinate such an attack as 9/11 is not made of stupid knuckledragging mouthbreathers who can be so easily baited.

    I think that we should never have given him billions of dollars and expert terrorist training and organisational skills. Short of that, I agree with you in theory on this one insofar as getting bin Laden is concerned.
     
  5. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #5

    Psuedo, we never gave Bin Laden Billions of dollars and training and equipment. We aided the mujahadeen during the Russian Afgan war in the 80's. At the time that was the only option we had short of going to war with Russia. So please don't believe the hype of we gave Osama billions, not true, not true at all.

    As for what he is saying. Who do you think is carrying out the attacks in Iraq? It is foreign terrorists. That was his point.
     
  6. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #6
    Not trying to hijack the thread, but what we (the US government) did do was train and supply thousands of Afghan fighters who had no commitment to any type of democratic Afghanistan. Where do you think the fighters that formed the backbone of the Taleban got their training? While we did not help bin Ladin set up al Qaeda or directly finance it, we did help lay the basis for its existence with our short sighted policy. It's called blowback.
     
  7. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    i'm not so sure. everytime the adminstration has made an estimate on the number of foreign fighters, it's always "a couple hundred." i'm not certain that so few people can make that much trouble and i have to believe that there's a good number of iraqis involved.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    I believe the general consensus is that the suicide attacks are conducted by imported terrorists and the roadside bombings and the like are by home-grown insurgents.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    The indigenous resistance seems more interested in trying to kill American troops and police etc. that are cooperating with us. The foreign fighters seem to be trying to foment a war between Shi'a and Sunni. Both problems need to be dealt with.
     
  10. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    lemme play devil's advocate here... i've heard the situation characterized that way by several media outlets, i assume on information they've gathered from the pentagon and john-pike-type analysts.

    how are we truly to know? sometimes i think 2% of iraqi population doesn't want us there, sometimes i think it's 80%. i need better sources. are you two comfortable w/ the assessments you've reiterated or do you also have some doubt?
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    It's mostly a guess on my part, but suicide attacks are the choice of religious fanatics, which Saddam's people are not. Roadside bombs are much more their style. Suicide attacks are a hallmark of True Believers however. That leads me to believe they are not the work of Saddam loyalists. In addition, most of the attacks on civilians have taken place, if I'm not mistaken, on Shi'a targets in an attempt to foment war with the Sunnis. Saddam's party was Shi'a so I don't see them attacking themselves. Al Qaeda however, is Sunni-allied, so it makes sense that they would want to attack the Shi'a.
     

Share This Page