|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
minnow fan 
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 30 2004,1:19 pm |
|
    |
Not nearly as much as your stupid drug war being waged on the citizens of the United States.
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
farouk
Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 30 2004,5:05 pm |
|
|
The biggest cost I see is that we could have fixed medicare and social security, but we traded it away for a war that I still have trouble understanding why we are waging it. I'm afraid that it might take as long as Veitnam to end with much the same outcome. If I should be right we will have lost much more than we ever could have imagined. The real trouble with this war is now that we have begun it there is no symple way of ending it. Bush has truely gifted us, and I am mad at myself for having voted him into office. Although he never mention this as his overiding focus, others tried and it appears I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 30 2004,5:23 pm |
|
|
Well, I spoke up and it took a lot of courage and conviction to do so back then. I was shouted down and vehemently called a traitor and unpatriotic. It was as vicious as anything I've ever seen. People weren't hearing reason and truth, just like they're blind to the drug war atrocities. Americans are easily duped or led it seems...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Truth
Group: Members
Posts: 552
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 30 2004,6:02 pm |
|
|
Yes you are Fletcher.
--------------
The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy.
Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 30 2004,7:45 pm |
|
|
So many are quick to label this as "Bush's war"--as though Bush WANTED to go to war. This is part of the "New Politics"--don't talk about ideas--rather, PERSONALIZE the issue. Republicans did it to Dukakis in 1988--tied Willie Horton around his neck. They did it to Gore in 2000--tied the spectre of Clinton to him. The Dems have learned well--the rallying cry hasn't been "take back the White House". You've hardly heard a word about control of Congress--much more important than the Presidency. Instead, for the entire primary season, it has been "defeat GEORGE BUSH." Not the President--the person.
In each generation, people forget why we engage in wars. In WW I, there was a strong movement for Wilson, whose campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war"--but ultimately, he didn't--he presided over U.S. involvement in WW I. Similarly, Roosevelt initially took an isolationist stance with Europe--but of course, ended up presiding over WW II. Johnson, in his campaign against Goldwater in 1964, said "we will never bomb a sovereign nation" (Vietnam)--only to do so less than a year later as President. By contrast, Eisenhower and Reagan, by being prepared for war, were spared large-scale conflicts.
Two Presidential quotes best typify why we need to be prepared for war--Teddy Rooselvelts | Quote | | "Speak softly, and carry a big stick" |
--means there is no such thing as foreign policy without a willingness to back up threats and actions, and JFK (the REAL JFK, not the wannabee): | Quote | John F Kennedy, 35th US President
QUOTATION: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. |
Whoever penned those words captured the reason for going to war in a succinct few phrases. No "weasel words" or "nuances". No "involve the U.N." Just a statement of our position, and our determination to do just what we say. We seem to have lost that determination in the last 44 years--maybe it's coming back.
[
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 30 2004,11:21 pm |
|
|
Oh it's Bush's war alright. Nobody else was commander in chief.
OK, let me break this down into minnow speak. It's like this.
Some kids smashed out our windshield. We hear the noise and run outside to investigate. We search the neighborhood and when we can't find them, we decide to take it out on someone who defied us 12 years ago. Were mad, we've got to attack somebody!
Now we realized we made a mistake. But instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting a mistake a moving on. We pretend we made the right move.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 31 2004,8:03 am |
|
|
Sorry Jim, but this is Bush's war. Bush did want to go to war. You are just blinded by your support for republicans. How much more proof do you need? O, I get it, everyone in Washington is lying, except for Bush, right? Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq as soon as he took office, 9/11 was that excuse.
This says it all about Bush and his people. I was watching one of the political round tables on CNN this past weekend. One of the Bush people, a young kid, says about John Kerry,"He wants to spend your tax dollars on things like education and health care, we want to spend it on the military." Those words actually came out of his mouth. He tried to make Kerry out to be a bad guy because he wants to spend billions here in the U.S. instead of spending it to be the world police. The money Bush has spent on drug benifits is a crock, most of it is nothing more than tax payer welfare for the drug companies.
Not that I was a Clinton supporter, but do you all remember when Clinton sent 100 missles into terrorists training headquarters? He was critisized for being to aggresive, and of over reacting to threat. No, sorry all you republican, Bush lovers out there, this is Bush's war, always was, always will be. Take off your partisan blinders and you will see it as clearly as the rest of the world does. I know, I know, the rest of the world is wrong, Bush is right, LOL. Try explaining to your children why they have to pay 50, 60, or even 70 percent of there earnings in the future to pay for Bush's war, Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, Bush's medicare plan.
War on terrorism? Bullcrap! He made it a war on terrorism because he knows it can never really be defeated. You see as long as we have leaders like Bush, terrorism against the U.S. will never end. Bottom line, we need to get out of other peoples back yard and start spending some of Bush's billions right here at home. And contrary to what Bush's people say, I think education and health care would be a fine place to start. Our children cant afford 4 more years of Bush.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
farouk
Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 31 2004,8:54 am |
|
|
Back when it was candidate Bush, and the news media was making hay over George's lack of knowledge in geography, something that was said has stayed with me. As I said, George was being pushed by the media on TV in an attempt to show how ignorant he was on world affairs. Stumped, cadidate Bush replied, "Well I have a pretty good idear about how things should be."
After hearing this I had a momentary thought that this guy has plans to go to war.
Well as campaigns go, other things came up that occupied the publics interest and the media never got arround to fleshing out what Bush's pretty good idear about how things should be. My momentary thought slipped into my subconscious until the administration started focusing the world on what sounded like some phony baloney linking of Iraq to 9/11. With troops poised in Kuwait, and the administration blustering at the UN, it didn't take minnow to awaken my subconscious. Yes Jim, Bush may not have planned Afghanistan but one would be a fool to say that about Iraq. It would be nice to just admit our mistake and move on but this mistake is beginning to look like we just punched a tar baby.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 31 2004,10:29 am |
|
|
I know that it was in another thread that Mr. Tarzan laid down the ground rules for political debate--but let's have the same rules here. No "party lines"--and if you are going to levy charges, lay out the basis for your charges. Otherwise, we could just listen to the ads on TV, and skip dialogue altogether. | Quote | | Bush did want to go to war |
What is the basis for that assertion? I find it hard to believe that any President WANTS to go to war.
| Quote | | do you all remember when Clinton sent 100 missles into terrorists training headquarters? He was critisized for being to aggresive, and of over reacting to threat |
It wasn't 100 missiles, it was 70 missles. It killed an estimated 20 terrorists, or 3.5 missiles per terrorist, at a cost of $1 Million dollars per missile, that's $3,500,000 per terrorist. It didn't succeed in thwarting terrorism, and it didn't succeed in over-riding the Lewinsky story. Liberals often make the charge "there's no connection between Iraq and Al Quaida"--and they are MOSTLY correct (As we saw in Spain, Al Quaida DOES HAVE international political aspirations). In the same breath, they turn around and blame Bush (not the Administration, not the military, not the government, but Bush personally) for "adventuring" into the area--as we saw above--a discussion on Iraq developed into a glissade into use of force in Afghanistan. So, Hoosier, since Clinton used force, HE must have thought it worthwhile to be involved in the area (or WAS it "Wag the Dog"?)| Quote | | Oh it's Bush's war alright. Nobody else was commander in chief. |
And the vote for the war in the Senate and in the House was WHAT? As I said in the previous post, modern politics aims to PERSONALIZE items--"Clinton wants to...", or "Bush is always trying to......". Both parties do it, BECAUSE IT WORKS--it reinforces previous perceptions, and every subsequent news event can be tied to the statement.
| Quote | | You see as long as we have leaders like Bush, terrorism against the U.S. will never end. |
I laid out above the experiences and quotes of a number of U.S. presidents, in their conduct of wars. Those willing and able to use force, for the most part, DIDN"T have to use it. Those that were APPEASERS, or refused to get involved, ended up having to fight. Just how would YOU conduct foreign affairs? How would YOU react to a dictator that killed millions of people, that gave rewards to suicide bombers, that was a destabilizing agent in the area, that exported terrorists, that fired on U.S. aircraft enforcing the No-fly zone, that formerly had biological and nuclear weapons programs, showed a willingness to use them, and kicked the UN inspectors out of the country so they couldn't verify them?
Finally, do YOU Accept or Repudiate Kennedy's charge?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
