If you don't support Bush you are morally and intellectually confused - Page 2 - 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 08-30-2006, 01:20 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




well, there is ample evidence ...
Thats been the opinion of many people since before the first election. Its been six years now, and this type of bashing does little to contribute to the discussion of serious issues.
__________________

Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:22 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Donald Rumsfeld is entirely incompetent, so for him to be preaching about other people's intellect, morality or giving us instructions about patience is laughable.

Incredible display of hubris.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:25 PM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Thats been the opinion of many people since before the first election. Its been six years now, and this type of bashing does little to contribute to the discussion of serious issues.
You have heard the man speak right?
BVS is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:26 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Um, you do see the difference in someone in here and someone in the White House doing this, don't you?
But Don Rumsfeld is not attacking people in the way that he or the President are often attacked. He is for a policy of robust intervention in the world as opposed to one that uses only carrots to try to prod people to cooperate. Its a valid point. World War I was terrible for Europe, and produced a climate where the great Powers were unwilling to step up and intervene at times that would have prevented World War II and the deaths of 59 million people. Thats an extreme example of course, but it does fit the context of the debate about when and where the United States should intervene in the world, and for how long it needs to stay in certain places.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:27 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Thats been the opinion of many people since before the first election. Its been six years now, and this type of bashing does little to contribute to the discussion of serious issues.
what was speculation before the first election


has become abundantly clear to anyone that is not drinking the neo-con kool-aid

I can not tell you how many life long Republicans are seeing it this way
deep is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:28 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Donald Rumsfeld is entirely incompetent, so for him to be preaching about other people's intellect, morality or giving us instructions about patience is laughable.

Incredible display of hubris.
Well, he is the appointed official of a twice elected President. Congress approved his appointment. If he is really that incompetent, then the American people could have thrown the President and him out in 2004.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:30 PM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


But Don Rumsfeld is not attacking people in the way that he or the President are often attacked.
Oh please? It's worse, he's a figure of authority.

Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht

He is for a policy of robust intervention in the world as opposed to one that uses only carrots to try to prod people to cooperate. Its a valid point.
Valid point? Well then anyone who's seen the president speak has a valid point.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:33 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


what was speculation before the first election


has become abundantly clear to anyone that is not drinking the neo-con kool-aid

I can not tell you how many life long Republicans are seeing it this way
Well, if thats definitely the case, the President would not have won the election in 2004, and we would of had a Democratically controlled congress by 2002.

Imagine if we get to January 20, 2009 with still a Republican congress and a Republican in the White House. It may be the first undefeated run for a President and his party since at least Roosevelt, if ever.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:38 PM   #29
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Oh please? It's worse, he's a figure of authority.



Valid point? Well then anyone who's seen the president speak has a valid point.
This is a serious policy debate, not an attempt to ridicule anyone. He did not speak in terms that I would find unbecoming of a "figure of authority". I understand why people are attacking him on this, but it would be better if they engaged on the issue rather than implying that he said this or that and focusing on HIM as opposed to what the United States should actually do.

It would be refreshing in this country if the opposition actually spent more time offering solutions and idea's for the country as opposed to the unrelenting attacks on people in office.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:39 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Well, he is the appointed official of a twice elected President. Congress approved his appointment. If he is really that incompetent, then the American people could have thrown the President and him out in 2004.
Or maybe that makes a statement about 50% of your electorate.
anitram is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 02:05 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,467
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


But Don Rumsfeld is not attacking people in the way that he or the President are often attacked. He is for a policy of robust intervention in the world as opposed to one that uses only carrots to try to prod people to cooperate. Its a valid point. World War I was terrible for Europe, and produced a climate where the great Powers were unwilling to step up and intervene at times that would have prevented World War II and the deaths of 59 million people. Thats an extreme example of course, but it does fit the context of the debate about when and where the United States should intervene in the world, and for how long it needs to stay in certain places.


no. way. he is absolutely attacking people in the manner in which he is attacked, and he's still not as bad as Cheney who outright says that if you don't vote for Republicans than you will be killed by terrorists. these men are responsible for taking the biggest national tragedy of the past 100 years, 9-11, and wielding it like a bludgeon to scare the crap out of the American people for successive election cycles (what a gift to Bush, it has been, with no 9-11 i'll bet you dollars to donuts we'd have a democrat victorious in 2004 as Bush had nothing but a tax cut to run on).

what Rumsfeld has tried to do is remake the Pentagon in his own image and fight two wars on the basis of his own strategy rather than the strategy that was necessary to win. what Rumsfeld wanted to prove was that the US could send in forces lightning quick and topple governments anywhere and everywhere, and then with minimum blood and treasure lost, rebuild societies. Iraq was supposed to be quick an easy. Iran and Syria were next.

sadly, reality has caught up to Rumsfeld and he has refused to abandon his paranoid outlook -- coined, "just enough troops to lose" -- as tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered as have thousands of US troops.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 02:33 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


This is a serious policy debate, not an attempt to ridicule anyone. He did not speak in terms that I would find unbecoming of a "figure of authority". I understand why people are attacking him on this, but it would be better if they engaged on the issue rather than implying that he said this or that and focusing on HIM as opposed to what the United States should actually do.

It would be refreshing in this country if the opposition actually spent more time offering solutions and idea's for the country as opposed to the unrelenting attacks on people in office.
You're seriously contradicting yourself here. If you want serious debate, the discussion should begin with the White House, if they start with attacks, they are showing they aren't willing to discuss, in fact this administration has always been like this.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 04:57 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




no. way. he is absolutely attacking people in the manner in which he is attacked, and he's still not as bad as Cheney who outright says that if you don't vote for Republicans than you will be killed by terrorists. these men are responsible for taking the biggest national tragedy of the past 100 years, 9-11, and wielding it like a bludgeon to scare the crap out of the American people for successive election cycles (what a gift to Bush, it has been, with no 9-11 i'll bet you dollars to donuts we'd have a democrat victorious in 2004 as Bush had nothing but a tax cut to run on).

what Rumsfeld has tried to do is remake the Pentagon in his own image and fight two wars on the basis of his own strategy rather than the strategy that was necessary to win. what Rumsfeld wanted to prove was that the US could send in forces lightning quick and topple governments anywhere and everywhere, and then with minimum blood and treasure lost, rebuild societies. Iraq was supposed to be quick an easy. Iran and Syria were next.

sadly, reality has caught up to Rumsfeld and he has refused to abandon his paranoid outlook -- coined, "just enough troops to lose" -- as tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered as have thousands of US troops.
Its wishful think of democrats that Bush would have been easily defeated in 2004 without 9-11. After all, the man was elected in 2000 during the best economic times this country has ever seen.

The military is supposed to be able to fight and win two wars at once at a minimum. Thats not a new strategy. Nation building is more difficult, but the United States has already been apart of that task in such places as Bosnia and Kosovo.

I don't see anything that would show that the United States had any plans to invade either Iran or Syria, except in terms of normal military planning, where plans are usually developed for military operations on every part of the planet regardless of the current political situation.

The United States had already fought a huge war with Iraq in 1991 and was still bombing the country every year when Bush entered office. In contrast, the United States has never launched any sort of military action against Syria, unless there was something in 1983 when the Beruit Marine Barracks were bombed. The United States did launch a military operation to rescue its hostages held by Iran, I think in 1980, but it was aborted before they really got into it.

Rumsfeld came to the Pentagon more interested in cleaning up the way things were done in terms of administration. He also wanted to skip a generation of technology and equip the military with new high tech hardware no supposed to come online until 2020. These were his goals coming in, 9/11 and Iraq have effectively ruined them. Some might say that is not such a bad thing is there was definitely resistence in the Pentagon to this type of change.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:00 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You're seriously contradicting yourself here. If you want serious debate, the discussion should begin with the White House, if they start with attacks, they are showing they aren't willing to discuss, in fact this administration has always been like this.
Well, maybe what you construe as an attack is not one. Any serious discussion must involve a discussion of the options and why this or that option is bad for the country as opposed to the option they think will work best.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:00 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,467
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Its wishful think of democrats that Bush would have been easily defeated in 2004 without 9-11. After all, the man was elected in 2000 during the best economic times this country has ever seen.

The military is supposed to be able to fight and win two wars at once at a minimum. Thats not a new strategy. Nation building is more difficult, but the United States has already been apart of that task in such places as Bosnia and Kosovo.

I don't see anything that would show that the United States had any plans to invade either Iran or Syria, except in terms of normal military planning, where plans are usually developed for military operations on every part of the planet regardless of the current political situation.

The United States had already fought a huge war with Iraq in 1991 and was still bombing the country every year when Bush entered office. In contrast, the United States has never launched any sort of military action against Syria, unless there was something in 1983 when the Beruit Marine Barracks were bombed. The United States did launch a military operation to rescue its hostages held by Iran, I think in 1980, but it was aborted before they really got into it.

Rumsfeld came to the Pentagon more interested in cleaning up the way things were done in terms of administration. He also wanted to skip a generation of technology and equip the military with new high tech hardware no supposed to come online until 2020. These were his goals coming in, 9/11 and Iraq have effectively ruined them. Some might say that is not such a bad thing is there was definitely resistence in the Pentagon to this type of change.


fess up. are you STING2?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:12 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




fess up. are you STING2?
I used to be apart of the rock band Police. But then I went solo and became interested in the rainforest and its destruction. I don't recall working for Donald Rumsfeld though. Yes, I'm Sting and your Bono. Maybe someone else here could be BoyGeorge.
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:23 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Fascism, the new GOP buzzword


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

"Charles Black, a longtime GOP consultant with close ties to both the first Bush administration and the current White House, said branding Islamic extremists as fascists is apt.

"It helps dramatize what we're up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them," Black said.

Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University, suggested White House strategists "probably had a focus group and they found the word `fascist.'

"Most people are against fascists of whatever form. By definition, fascists are bad. If you're going to demonize, you might as well use the toughest words you can," Wayne said."
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:27 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




fess up. are you STING2?
some questions

should not be asked

or

answered


who or what are any of us,
anyway?
deep is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:31 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,467
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


I used to be apart of the rock band Police. But then I went solo and became interested in the rainforest and its destruction. I don't recall working for Donald Rumsfeld though. Yes, I'm Sting and your Bono. Maybe someone else here could be BoyGeorge.


i'll take that as a maybe ...
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 05:55 PM   #40
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 10:49 PM
What this arrogant bastard fails to understand is that while he right on princliple (yes, we DO face an enemy that dangerous; we should not underestimate militant Islam, and America needs to be fully alerted to this fact, in a rational way, not with viscious progaganda..but then, with the headlinesthese days I think we are slowly startimg to wake up from our Wal-Mart induced slumber) the fact is, he and his ilk are the WRONG ARMY to fight this war. They have made things worse, on several fronts. It began long before 9/11 and even if it hadn't, thier policies have been the wrong way to fight it. From a strictly miltary POV, they have been a curse to this country. They are like General McLellen in the Civil War, treating our army like fragile eggshells in one circumstance, then burchering them in others...ann Lincoln was not afriad to get rid of him...but it isn't just the Lt general wrong in this case, or the Dept of War, but the whole regime.

In the past, when things went wrong, we replaced faulty miltary leaders who muddled things and made them worse. Not this time. This is the point that most anti-war people are trying to make--not that to fight "terror" is wrong, but that we are fighting it the wrong way, and we have to get the right people in power to get back on track. This is the point many in the nati-war moverment are trying to make, but of course, the media know which side their bread is buttered on. Try to even get a minute in magazine, let alone on TV.

I'm glad I didn't read the article, I would puke if I did. History is already starting to prove how they were the wrong men for the right time. To hear them, you'd think there was no alternative....and the fact that they aren't even legitimately in power in the first place, will historians ever fully be able to grasp the utter TRAGEDY of this travesty?

Let Bush's supporters gloat now, but ther children will be paying the price for his stupidity, on several fronts. They already are.
__________________

Teta040 is offline  
 

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 05:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×