34% - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-02-2006, 07:03 PM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
So he will sing it in Spanish to pander for votes

And then he will denounce it
when his poll numbers are low.


Why do 32 per cent still believe this guy?

His credibility is zero.
Please.

The song currently at issue is a revision (paraphrase) of our national anthem - not just the National Anthem in spanish.

He wasn't commanding that all communication be in english.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 07:20 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep





So he will sing it in Spanish to pander for votes

And then he will denounce it
when his poll numbers are low.


Why do 32 per cent still believe this guy?

His credibility is zero.
The vote has already happened, these were the results:

George W. Bush 62,040,610

John Kerry 59,028,439
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:41 PM   #168
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Nice way to dodge the question entirely.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 09:13 AM   #169
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:58 PM
When I look at the 2004 elections, I think of John Kerry's failure, not George Bush's success. The Republican Party isn't in great shape, but the Democratic Party is a mess.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 09:23 AM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]

George Bush received the first majority in the popular vote for a President since 1988, in the 2004 election. Most people thought he was indeed compentent and approved of his policies that he implemented during his first four years in office.

and he's dropped from a 50% approval rating (going by your logic) to 32% in less than two years. how much farther and how much faster can he fall? all your shouting about a majority in the popular vote makes his fall that much more profound.


[q]The statistics comparing the approval ratings of past presidents is relevant, and it shows that nearly all presidents since World War II have at some point seen low approval ratings like this. Bill Clinton without all the things that Bush has had to deal with, still saw approval numbers that were in the 30s. Bush has another 2 years and 9 months in office. His approval ratings could indeed rebound.[/q]


read more closely. it's not that they aren't relevant, it's that they are too simplistic (like most of your numbers) -- it's far more accurate to compare 2nd term presidents to 2nd term presidents, to take account of national catastrophies/embarassments (Watergate, Vietnam) and to take note of the fact that two of the presidents who at one time were lower than W were both 1 term presidents. it's also important to look at how long the approval rating has been below 40%, as well as the fact that it has been a strong, steady decline that is due to incompetence on a series of events from disasters like Katrina to foreign policy mishaps like Iraq to the misuse of political capital like on social security to general stupidity like shooting a man in the face and then waiting a day to tell the local press to make sure the alcohol had cleared from Cheney's system.

we're 6 years into this presidency. voters know who Bush is. barring another terrorist attack or something resembling measurable progress in Iraq, Bush isn't going anywhere north of 40%. he isn't Ronald Reagan in 1983, and he isn't Bill Clinton in 1993. he is George W. Bush in 2006.



[q]The economy has been steadily growing since 2002 with a steady drop in unemployment. The Democrats really do not have much to shoot at here. By this time next year, unemployment will likely be equal to the lowest level of the Clinton administration.[/q]


and this has done nothing for the approval ratings of the administration and Congress. the American people sense that something is deeply, deeply wrong with the direction of the country, and good economic news (however unsustainable it will be) isn't enough to ameliorate it.

and this makes Bush's abysmal approval ratings all that much more astonishing.


[q]As for the November 2006 elections, if the Democrats cannot take back the House, it will prove that all this doomsday talk about the political position of Bush and the Republicans was hot air. Even if Democrats take back the House, it may not mean much considering how the Democrats have shown little unity over the past 6 years.[/q]


i have little love or respect for the Democrats, but their political ineptitude does NOTHING to excuse the mess that has been made of the country over the past 6 years.

we'll also see just what scare tactics the Republicans can pull out of their hats. terror alerts? gay-bashing on the floors of Congress?

the other reality is that Congressional districts have been so gerrymandered by both parties that real overhauls of the House and/or Senate in the past are an impossibility.

and it's important to note the amount of Republicans who do not want Bush to campaign for them in their districts, so radioactive has he become.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-03-2006, 10:59 AM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The song currently at issue is a revision (paraphrase) of our national anthem - not just the National Anthem in spanish.

He wasn't commanding that all communication be in english.


[q]"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/28/D8H94LTG0.html

[/q]


he's plainly saying that it should be sung in English, period. nothing about revisions.

i agree that the most contentious part of the debate is about the revisions, but that's not what Bush has concerned himself with.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-03-2006, 01:49 PM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



and he's dropped from a 50% approval rating (going by your logic) to 32% in less than two years. how much farther and how much faster can he fall? all your shouting about a majority in the popular vote makes his fall that much more profound.


[q]The statistics comparing the approval ratings of past presidents is relevant, and it shows that nearly all presidents since World War II have at some point seen low approval ratings like this. Bill Clinton without all the things that Bush has had to deal with, still saw approval numbers that were in the 30s. Bush has another 2 years and 9 months in office. His approval ratings could indeed rebound.[/q]


read more closely. it's not that they aren't relevant, it's that they are too simplistic (like most of your numbers) -- it's far more accurate to compare 2nd term presidents to 2nd term presidents, to take account of national catastrophies/embarassments (Watergate, Vietnam) and to take note of the fact that two of the presidents who at one time were lower than W were both 1 term presidents. it's also important to look at how long the approval rating has been below 40%, as well as the fact that it has been a strong, steady decline that is due to incompetence on a series of events from disasters like Katrina to foreign policy mishaps like Iraq to the misuse of political capital like on social security to general stupidity like shooting a man in the face and then waiting a day to tell the local press to make sure the alcohol had cleared from Cheney's system.

we're 6 years into this presidency. voters know who Bush is. barring another terrorist attack or something resembling measurable progress in Iraq, Bush isn't going anywhere north of 40%. he isn't Ronald Reagan in 1983, and he isn't Bill Clinton in 1993. he is George W. Bush in 2006.



[q]The economy has been steadily growing since 2002 with a steady drop in unemployment. The Democrats really do not have much to shoot at here. By this time next year, unemployment will likely be equal to the lowest level of the Clinton administration.[/q]


and this has done nothing for the approval ratings of the administration and Congress. the American people sense that something is deeply, deeply wrong with the direction of the country, and good economic news (however unsustainable it will be) isn't enough to ameliorate it.

and this makes Bush's abysmal approval ratings all that much more astonishing.


[q]As for the November 2006 elections, if the Democrats cannot take back the House, it will prove that all this doomsday talk about the political position of Bush and the Republicans was hot air. Even if Democrats take back the House, it may not mean much considering how the Democrats have shown little unity over the past 6 years.[/q]


i have little love or respect for the Democrats, but their political ineptitude does NOTHING to excuse the mess that has been made of the country over the past 6 years.

we'll also see just what scare tactics the Republicans can pull out of their hats. terror alerts? gay-bashing on the floors of Congress?

the other reality is that Congressional districts have been so gerrymandered by both parties that real overhauls of the House and/or Senate in the past are an impossibility.

and it's important to note the amount of Republicans who do not want Bush to campaign for them in their districts, so radioactive has he become.
At the end of the day, these are just polls that have no relevant effect on policy. Perhaps its fun and comforting for those that oppose Bush to see such polls, but beyond that, they don't mean very much. The real test are presidential and congressional elections and so far, Bush and the Republicans are undefeated in this area since 2000.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 02:29 PM   #173
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


At the end of the day, these are just polls that have no relevant effect on policy. Perhaps its fun and comforting for those that oppose Bush to see such polls, but beyond that, they don't mean very much. The real test are presidential and congressional elections and so far, Bush and the Republicans are undefeated in this area since 2000.


if such polls had no affect on policy, how do you explain Bush's failure on the port issue? on social security? on Medicaid spending? on the amount of congressional republicans who are fleeing his shadow and attempting to distance themselves from him?

just read the NYT article today on northeastern Republicans who are campaigning on just how different they are from the president:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/ny...=1&oref=slogin

how better to distance yourself from W than by voting against his policy measures?

and Bush's brand of Republicanism -- high spending, warmongering, fearmongering, federally financed Christianist moralism, scapegoating of social minorities, anti-environment, anti-science -- will hopefully be dead and buried by 2008, along with all the Republicans who are going to find him a liability over the next 2-4 years (note how even Sen. Allen from VA is distancing himself from W, saying he's much more of a Regan Republican).

the fact that McCain -- a man who goes to tremendous lengths to distance himself from Bush in that he believes in global warming and doesn't like to torture people -- is the front-runner is yet another testimony to the abject failure of this presidency.

and don't forget that Bush won two of the closest elections in history.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-03-2006, 06:13 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




if such polls had no affect on policy, how do you explain Bush's failure on the port issue? on social security? on Medicaid spending? on the amount of congressional republicans who are fleeing his shadow and attempting to distance themselves from him?

just read the NYT article today on northeastern Republicans who are campaigning on just how different they are from the president:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/ny...=1&oref=slogin

how better to distance yourself from W than by voting against his policy measures?

and Bush's brand of Republicanism -- high spending, warmongering, fearmongering, federally financed Christianist moralism, scapegoating of social minorities, anti-environment, anti-science -- will hopefully be dead and buried by 2008, along with all the Republicans who are going to find him a liability over the next 2-4 years (note how even Sen. Allen from VA is distancing himself from W, saying he's much more of a Regan Republican).

the fact that McCain -- a man who goes to tremendous lengths to distance himself from Bush in that he believes in global warming and doesn't like to torture people -- is the front-runner is yet another testimony to the abject failure of this presidency.

and don't forget that Bush won two of the closest elections in history.
Sorry, but those domestic issues could be overturned against a president regardless of his approval rating in a poll of 1,000 people.

Look at US foreign policy, the war on terror, as well as the war in Iraq and Afganistan. These are the most important and immediate issues for the country and it continues to be Bush's policy regardless of what critics would like to see or what the polls claim.

Precisely how many of the 215+ House Republicans are "running away from Bush"? There are always members of each party in the House of Representitives who distance themselves from the White House if they think it will help their re-election chances.

As for McCain, he and Bush have generally the same views on foreign policy, the war, trade, and the economy. Thats why the majority of people who voted for Bush will have no problem voting for McCain. The fact that McCain is the front runner is not a surprise and the only reason he did not win in 2000 was because much of the party's funding machine had lined up behind Bush. But the funding machine that helped elect Bush, is now lining up behind McCain.

Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 10:11 PM   #175
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If there was any evidence that Bush clearly lied about anything, he would have been impeached already. The fact that intelligence about certain things turned out to be inaccurate happens every day. That is not evidence of a lie.

Are you serious? The evidence is clear. Bush lied about the Iraqi-al-Qaeda link. Bush knowingly had intelligence spooks "sex up" evidence of WMD's in Iraq. Bush lied about how no one could've foreseen anything like 9/11 happening? Bush lied about the Plame leak? Bush lied about how no once could've foreseen Hurricane Katrina breaking the levees. The problem is Congress is fully of a bunch of republican pansies (not that there aren't any democrat ie Joe Lieberman).
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 11:34 PM   #176
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat.
According to you it's best if the Dems don't field any candidates for Congress or the Presidency, ever again, since if they lose, they're losers and if they're win they're still losers. Best not to bother at all, let's move ahead with a monarchy.

Barbara and Jenna, come on up!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 09:51 AM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]

Sorry, but those domestic issues could be overturned against a president regardless of his approval rating in a poll of 1,000 people.

what happened to his political capital? what happened to the first! president! with! a! majority! who also controlls all branches of the government. why has Bush been so hapless and ineffectual when there are no obstacles towards the enactment of his agenda.

and i love how you discount polls when they don't work in your favor!



[q]Look at US foreign policy, the war on terror, as well as the war in Iraq and Afganistan. These are the most important and immediate issues for the country and it continues to be Bush's policy regardless of what critics would like to see or what the polls claim. [/q]


the fact that Bush hasn't changed policy is precisely one of the resaons his approval rating is so low. it's a bad policy, and everyone sees this, from Colin Powell to retired generals to 70% or more of the American public, it's that Bush *cannot* change his policy (and fire that horror of a Defense Secretary) without admitting that he's just made the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.


[q]Precisely how many of the 215+ House Republicans are "running away from Bush"? There are always members of each party in the House of Representitives who distance themselves from the White House if they think it will help their re-election chances.[/q]

the northeastern Republicans. most Republicans in blue states. most Republicans who are going to be running for president in 2008 who are going to try and cast themselves as Reagan Republicans and stay as far away from Bush as possible.


[q]As for McCain, he and Bush have generally the same views on foreign policy, the war, trade, and the economy. Thats why the majority of people who voted for Bush will have no problem voting for McCain. The fact that McCain is the front runner is not a surprise and the only reason he did not win in 2000 was because much of the party's funding machine had lined up behind Bush. But the funding machine that helped elect Bush, is now lining up behind McCain.[/q]


and McCain and Bush differ greatly when it comes to most social issues, taxes, global warming, the prosecution of the GWOT as well as Iraq (McCain wanted more troops from the beginning). oh, and McCain doesn't think that torture should be part of official US policy

McCain is so much like a democrat in a Lieberman mold that i'm surprised you like him so much.

you're also kidding yourself about what happened to McCain in 2000. it was far more than the party's funding machine. it was that McCain couldn't speak to the fundamentalists in the way that a folksy "jesus-changed-muh-heart" George Bush could, and Rove's strategy had always been to find ways to motivate the evangelicals alienated from the political process.



[q]Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat. [/q]


ah, but for me, unlike you, it isn't about R's and D's. i'd be very happy with a Republican president and a Democratic house. or vice versa. i'd be fine with McCain as president and the Democrats controlling the house. in fact, i'd be happy with virtually ANYONE else in the white house other than George Bush.

how ironic that for all your vitriol against "the left" and "the media" for being slanted or biased or in possession of some mysterious agenda, you're far, far more blind in your loyalties than nearly anyone else on this board. if it's Republican, it's good. if it's Democrat, it's bad.

it's this Manichean worldview, shared by Mr. Bush, that i find to be the exact antithesis of democracy.

i'm sure a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-04-2006, 12:28 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



what happened to his political capital? what happened to the first! president! with! a! majority! who also controlls all branches of the government. why has Bush been so hapless and ineffectual when there are no obstacles towards the enactment of his agenda.

and i love how you discount polls when they don't work in your favor!



[q]Look at US foreign policy, the war on terror, as well as the war in Iraq and Afganistan. These are the most important and immediate issues for the country and it continues to be Bush's policy regardless of what critics would like to see or what the polls claim. [/q]


the fact that Bush hasn't changed policy is precisely one of the resaons his approval rating is so low. it's a bad policy, and everyone sees this, from Colin Powell to retired generals to 70% or more of the American public, it's that Bush *cannot* change his policy (and fire that horror of a Defense Secretary) without admitting that he's just made the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.


[q]Precisely how many of the 215+ House Republicans are "running away from Bush"? There are always members of each party in the House of Representitives who distance themselves from the White House if they think it will help their re-election chances.[/q]

the northeastern Republicans. most Republicans in blue states. most Republicans who are going to be running for president in 2008 who are going to try and cast themselves as Reagan Republicans and stay as far away from Bush as possible.


[q]As for McCain, he and Bush have generally the same views on foreign policy, the war, trade, and the economy. Thats why the majority of people who voted for Bush will have no problem voting for McCain. The fact that McCain is the front runner is not a surprise and the only reason he did not win in 2000 was because much of the party's funding machine had lined up behind Bush. But the funding machine that helped elect Bush, is now lining up behind McCain.[/q]


and McCain and Bush differ greatly when it comes to most social issues, taxes, global warming, the prosecution of the GWOT as well as Iraq (McCain wanted more troops from the beginning). oh, and McCain doesn't think that torture should be part of official US policy

McCain is so much like a democrat in a Lieberman mold that i'm surprised you like him so much.

you're also kidding yourself about what happened to McCain in 2000. it was far more than the party's funding machine. it was that McCain couldn't speak to the fundamentalists in the way that a folksy "jesus-changed-muh-heart" George Bush could, and Rove's strategy had always been to find ways to motivate the evangelicals alienated from the political process.



[q]Republicans less likely to vote for McCain in the Republicans primary's will be much more likely to vote for McCain if the Republicans lose control of the House Of Representitives. How ironic it is that if the Democrats were to achieve their goals in the November 2006 election, they may in fact be clearing the way totally for a candidate that they cannot defeat. [/q]


ah, but for me, unlike you, it isn't about R's and D's. i'd be very happy with a Republican president and a Democratic house. or vice versa. i'd be fine with McCain as president and the Democrats controlling the house. in fact, i'd be happy with virtually ANYONE else in the white house other than George Bush.

how ironic that for all your vitriol against "the left" and "the media" for being slanted or biased or in possession of some mysterious agenda, you're far, far more blind in your loyalties than nearly anyone else on this board. if it's Republican, it's good. if it's Democrat, it's bad.

it's this Manichean worldview, shared by Mr. Bush, that i find to be the exact antithesis of democracy.

i'm sure a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier.
Bill Clinton and the democrats controlled everything from January 1993 to January 1995. They did not exactly accomplish a lot and it resulted in the first Republican majority in congress since the 1950s.

On Foreign Policy, Bush has not been hapless and ineffective and has been able to implement his agenda with relative ease.

Colin Powell supports the policy. Because he wanted more troops initially does not change the fact that he supported the removal of Saddam and believes in the current policy which involves the training of a new Iraqi military and the development of a new government in Iraq, after which the United States will be able to withdraw from the country. There is virtually no disagreement between what he thinks on the issue with what the President thinks. It was Colin Powell's strategy from a diplomatic standpoint that was followed to a tee from September 2002 to March 2003 in the run up to the war.

So many people claim that Colin Powell thinks this or thinks that, but he set the record straight in his Barbara Walters interview over a year after he had left. He said that "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain defiance of 17 UN resolutions, I'm right there with him on the use of military force". He then went on to say that the President is on the right path towards succeeding in Iraq. Building the Iraqi military and the government. This will help to produce a stable Iraq that can handle threats to its security internally and externally. US troops will then be able to withdraw and the mission which involved the removal of Saddam's regime and the development of a new government which is not a threat to its neighbors will be complete.


I was hoping you would be able to give me some solid numbers on the 231 Republicans in congress as far as who is actually "running away from the President". Sure, Republicans in districts that typically vote democratic ALWAYS balance their campaigns in away to appear they are not marching behind a President that is in their party.


I don't agree with the President on most social issues either. But social issues are far on the back burner when it comes to picking a President in my view. The Presidency is essentially a foreign policy position in terms of his powers. Defense, National Security, Foreign Policy, Trade and the economy are all issues that the Presidents policy can have a big impact on. They are the most vital issues. On these issues, there is little if any difference between Bush and McCain.

Joe Lieberman is a democrat I could vote for.

In 2000, the Republican funding machine worked to get the fundamentalist for Bush against McCain. Money is key. Its rare that a candidate loses a primary when the funding machine is behind him.

The United States is in the middle of a war and most Democrats unfortunately are doing everything they can to hinder the war. Its this resistence that the insurgents in Iraq and Al Quada are looking for. They do not possess the strength to defeat the US military in combat. What they can do is increase the cost for the United States and hope that this cost impacts political events within the country to a degree that they can force the United States to withdraw before it has accomplished its mission. Their victory gauge for them is the level of protest across the country as well as any other type of political opposition to the current policy which could result in their ultimate goal of a pre-mature US military withdrawal without having accomplished its goals.

As far as being blind, it seems many have blind opposition towards Bush. Much has been accomplished by this administration, but few if anyone in this forum will ever truely aknowledge it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 12:59 PM   #179
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The United States is in the middle of a war and most Democrats unfortunately are doing everything they can to hinder the war. Its this resistence that the insurgents in Iraq and Al Quada are looking for. They do not possess the strength to defeat the US military in combat. What they can do is increase the cost for the United States and hope that this cost impacts political events within the country to a degree that they can force the United States to withdraw before it has accomplished its mission. Their victory gauge for them is the level of protest across the country as well as any other type of political opposition to the current policy which could result in their ultimate goal of a pre-mature US military withdrawal without having accomplished its goals.


while i disagree, i have no actual problems with your post. except for this part.

the right of people to protest the war is exactly what we say we are fighting for (after the rationale for war magically morphed from Saddam is a threat/Saddam is a threat because he has WMDs/we want to bring democracy to Iraq) and for you to criticize people for exercising their rights and thereby demonstrating not just the right to their opinions but the vibrancy of this democracy as some sort of fifth column is anti-American at it's core. for you to say that protestors are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for you to say that Bin Laden looks at protestors and views each of them as a victory ... well, that is the jihadist mindset, and it's ironic for you to apply it to your own worldview since it seems as if THAT is evidence of the terrorists "winning." we'll win in the greater struggle against radical Islamism because we hold onto our ideals, because we do have better ideas, because our way of life is simply better than religious totalitarianism, and protest is a crucial part of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society: alert, aware, informed, and always, always questioning.

i am proud that we did not put Moussaoui to death. i am proud that the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst, still gets a fair trial and due process. i am glad that there are still some Republicans (like McCain) who do not endorse torture like the Bushies. i am proud that the American people, and especially anti-war protestors like myself, are out there in the streets with a comprehensive understanding of the situation and understand that protesting against a war isn't cheering for the enemy, it isn't protesting against the troops, that it is an act of love for the country, that criticism is belief that the country can yet meet its ideals, and that, for all the awfulness that has happened, we will win because we deserve to win because a liberal democracy really is the best system we have.

and your comments above are abusive in the extreme to the very foundations of liberal democracy.

victory for "the enemy" will not be won in regular combat terms, you are correct. it will be won the way in which all occupations are won: thorugh time. unwanted occupations are destined to fail, especially in this region of the world. we're going to see a continuing slow, steady trickle of dead bodies (actually, we won't see them, since coffins are hidden by the military) out of Iraq with little measurable progress. so many dead, so much spent, so little accomplished, and such a potentially worthy mission squandered by a president who scheduled a war on an election timetable and a defense secretary who wanted to make some sort of ideological point that 150,000 troops were enough to occupy a region of 20 million people imbued with ethnic hatred that goes back thousands of years.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-04-2006, 01:12 PM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Colin Powell supports the policy. Because he wanted more troops initially does not change the fact that he supported the removal of Saddam and believes in the current policy which involves the training of a new Iraqi military and the development of a new government in Iraq, after which the United States will be able to withdraw from the country. There is virtually no disagreement between what he thinks on the issue with what the President thinks. It was Colin Powell's strategy from a diplomatic standpoint that was followed to a tee from September 2002 to March 2003 in the run up to the war.

So many people claim that Colin Powell thinks this or thinks that, but he set the record straight in his Barbara Walters interview over a year after he had left. He said that "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain defiance of 17 UN resolutions, I'm right there with him on the use of military force". He then went on to say that the President is on the right path towards succeeding in Iraq. Building the Iraqi military and the government. This will help to produce a stable Iraq that can handle threats to its security internally and externally. US troops will then be able to withdraw and the mission which involved the removal of Saddam's regime and the development of a new government which is not a threat to its neighbors will be complete.


Powell is a very good, loyal soldier, and picks his words very carefully.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com