windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
Pricescope Presidential Poll
- Thread starter chris-uk04
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Actually I am not trying to be "evenhanded" because the hands are not even. I am trying to be honest.
I think Mr. Bush is rigid, not very bright, and ill-informed while I think that Mr. Kerry is able and intelligent.
PS-As you know, what *I* wrote was that Mr. Bush cavorted with FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims. That would be the Saudis. The ones who behead and cut off hands as punishment and swathe women in hot black robes.
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
The only President to "let Bin Laden get away" was Bill Clinton. Bill was too busy with his finger in the air testing the breeze to get his hands around the little bastard's throat. Kerry would build a consensus, getting the vaunted French on board, and form a committee to discuss whom to go after. That would sure teach the bad guys a lesson! I'm sure Iran would be quaking in its boots.
And, AGBF, I know it gives you tingles to think that Bush is in the Saudi's pocket. If this were true they (The Saudis) sure are doing a lousy job helping their bud get elected. If those gas prices suddenly came down Bush would be a lock, but instead prices are at record highs.
And about Saddam, keep in mind that every month that goes by is another 1000 people who aren't killed by Saddam's thug machine. Most estimates for his tenure are 300,000 to 400,000 dead. Makes wearing a veil pale in comparison, no?
And, AGBF, I know it gives you tingles to think that Bush is in the Saudi's pocket. If this were true they (The Saudis) sure are doing a lousy job helping their bud get elected. If those gas prices suddenly came down Bush would be a lock, but instead prices are at record highs.
And about Saddam, keep in mind that every month that goes by is another 1000 people who aren't killed by Saddam's thug machine. Most estimates for his tenure are 300,000 to 400,000 dead. Makes wearing a veil pale in comparison, no?
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
OK- if we are goign to go back to Bill Clinton and bin Laden, we should go back to Reagan/George H and bin Laden.
Under Reagans administration, support was given to Afgan rebels (which included bin Laden) to defeat Soviet forces.
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.
So, basically we funded and trained the terrorists that attacked us.
Under Reagans administration, support was given to Afgan rebels (which included bin Laden) to defeat Soviet forces.
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.
So, basically we funded and trained the terrorists that attacked us.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
R/A-
Why didn't I think of that!? The war in Iraq is SAVING lives, NOT taking them! So why aren't the Iraqis happy, then?
PS-I want a state where YOU have to wear a hot woolen veil so that *I* don't get aroused! And only YOUR adultery is punished while I get to have three husbands. Oh never mind. Forget the three husbands. One is too much.
Why didn't I think of that!? The war in Iraq is SAVING lives, NOT taking them! So why aren't the Iraqis happy, then?
PS-I want a state where YOU have to wear a hot woolen veil so that *I* don't get aroused! And only YOUR adultery is punished while I get to have three husbands. Oh never mind. Forget the three husbands. One is too much.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Sorry, jenwill-
I was too busy fighting with R/A to see that you had posted something substantive in the meantime
.
Yes, the US set up Osama bin Laden. We built his caves and gave him equipment. In those days he was good because we wanted to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. That was under Reagan. As we all know, Reagan got rid of the commies, so there weren't any left when Clinton was President. Can't blame Clinton for this one, R/A.
I was too busy fighting with R/A to see that you had posted something substantive in the meantime
.Yes, the US set up Osama bin Laden. We built his caves and gave him equipment. In those days he was good because we wanted to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. That was under Reagan. As we all know, Reagan got rid of the commies, so there weren't any left when Clinton was President. Can't blame Clinton for this one, R/A.
Todd07
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 455
Jen,
You can do better than that, can't you? At least make a solid argument.
Bin Laden wasn't a threat to the US when the US supported rebels in Afganistan. He was a confirmed threat during the Clinton Admin.
Right or wrong, we thought Russia was the real threat when we poured resources in during Regan's era. A good discussion would be are we better off with the demise of the Soviet Union? Maybe the world was more stable before.
The box cutters and plane tickets used on 9/11 did not depend on US funding in the 80's.
You can do better than that, can't you? At least make a solid argument.
Bin Laden wasn't a threat to the US when the US supported rebels in Afganistan. He was a confirmed threat during the Clinton Admin.
Right or wrong, we thought Russia was the real threat when we poured resources in during Regan's era. A good discussion would be are we better off with the demise of the Soviet Union? Maybe the world was more stable before.
The box cutters and plane tickets used on 9/11 did not depend on US funding in the 80's.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
WELL YOU ARE NOT HONEST. YOU ARE MAKING BIASED AND SLANTED COMMENTS BASED ON YOUR OPINION AND YOUR JUDGMENTS. YOU THINK KERRY IS ABLE AND INTELLIGENT BECAUSE YOU AGREE WITH HIM. I THINK KERRY IS A POLITICAL WHORE AND MAJOR LEAGUE HYPOCRITIC. BUSH HAS HIS MYRIAD FAULTS. I CAN'T ABIDE PEOPLE WHOSE ARGUMENTS CONSIST OF THE FACT THAT ONE CANDIDATE IS STUPID AND ONE NOT, OR ONE IS HONEST AND ONE NOT B/C THE PERSON IN QUESTION AGREES WITH THAT PARTICULAR CANDIDATES POLITICAL AGENDA. ...........NEITHER OF THEM IS MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN A BOX OF ROCKS FOR VARIOUS REASONS...............
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
Todd07
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 455
AGBF,
I get you hate Bush, but what are you suggesting to solve the problem? I can infer you feel the root cause is Islamic Fundamentalism. Are you suggesting we outlaw them, attack them or just ignore them and hope it goes away?
As I mentioned above, US funding during Regan was not a pre-requisite to subsequent terrorist attacks - DON'T BLAME REGAN ERA $ for the attacks. The fanatics have received oodles of funding from other sources (including Saudis).
I wish an easy scape goat existed, but one doesn't.
I get you hate Bush, but what are you suggesting to solve the problem? I can infer you feel the root cause is Islamic Fundamentalism. Are you suggesting we outlaw them, attack them or just ignore them and hope it goes away?
As I mentioned above, US funding during Regan was not a pre-requisite to subsequent terrorist attacks - DON'T BLAME REGAN ERA $ for the attacks. The fanatics have received oodles of funding from other sources (including Saudis).
I wish an easy scape goat existed, but one doesn't.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Let me get this straight. I am not honest.
In what way? That I am telling lies about facts? If so, which facts? What facts have I misrepresented?
Or that I am telling lies about my opinions? How would you know? You don't know me so you don't know what secret opinion I might be harboring yet being dishonest about here!
I am making "biased and slanted comments based on (my) opinion and (my) judgments". Well...when one expresses his opinions and judgments they are going to be expressive of his point of view. I can't very well express the opinions of someone else, after all. But if my "biased and slanted comments" are INCORRECT, that is different. Then it behooves you to dispute them (or stop complaining).
I think Kerry is able and intelligent because I agree with him. How would you know that is why? Maybe I just think men with long faces are able and intelligent. Or maybe I like sailors. Or hamsters. Or maybe I have been judiciously studying his record.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Nope- the box cutters and plane tix didn't need our financial support- but the introduction to the planning of terrorism and warfare on a global scale was introduced by the US. Before we got involved, the rebels were solely focused on their own jihad against their neighbors.
We introduced the initial ideas of being powerful enough with dedicated members to take down a a country as powerful as the USSR. Do you really think that once they were shown that they could lead to the downfall of one superpower, that they would not come to the realization that they could take down another one?
When you train an attack dog, and show it that it can kill a foe, don't be too surprised when it turns around goes after you when it is in a bad mood.
And if for some reason it doesn't get put down right away by the 2nd owner, why would the 3rd owner decide to chase it away then kill the growling dog next door? Because he is frustrated that he couldn't kill the first dog? To show his friends that well, if he could catch that darn first dog, look what he would do to it!?!
My original post regarding Reagan/GH Bush was just to show how irrelevant it was to blame Clinton for the fact that George W has chosen to pursue the destruction of someone that wasn't a nice guy, but also was not resposible for the attacks on 9/11. You can trace things back as far as you want, but the reality is, George W. chose to split the forces of the US military from a dedicated focus.
Splitting the focus from a full on man-hunt for Osama bin Laden to a partial hunt for him, and a partial war on Iraq, did none of us any good. We lost bin Laden, and while we toppled HUssein, we also have incurred too many casulaties, and do not have the military force present in Iraq needed to keep some semblance of control while helping them form their own government.
I am disheartened by those who justify the war due to Saddam being a bad man- there are multiple bad leaders in the world- we do not go after them, because either their countries have nothing we desire (Sudan- The United Nations says Darfur is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and has threatened sanctions against Sudan if the violence isn’t stopped), or where 'we' have financial investments (Halliburton and the National Oil Company of Iran- who really are in the process of an active nuclear program http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html).
Unfortunately, there are multiple regions and countries run by dictatorships and regimes that kill/torture/abuse their citizens.
The reason for invading Iraq was NOT because of Saddam's cruelty- it was expressly stated by our president, and by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his attempt to try to convince the rest of the world that we were correct, that this invasion had to take place because of WMD's and the imminent threat of nuclear terror. The rest of the world wanted to wait until the UN had finished investigating before taking action- we did not.
So - the real threat to the US was bin Laden- we sent not nearly enough troops in to try to catch him, then tried to take the focus off of our failure by going after someone for a reason that did not exist.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are bullies.
We introduced the initial ideas of being powerful enough with dedicated members to take down a a country as powerful as the USSR. Do you really think that once they were shown that they could lead to the downfall of one superpower, that they would not come to the realization that they could take down another one?
When you train an attack dog, and show it that it can kill a foe, don't be too surprised when it turns around goes after you when it is in a bad mood.
And if for some reason it doesn't get put down right away by the 2nd owner, why would the 3rd owner decide to chase it away then kill the growling dog next door? Because he is frustrated that he couldn't kill the first dog? To show his friends that well, if he could catch that darn first dog, look what he would do to it!?!
My original post regarding Reagan/GH Bush was just to show how irrelevant it was to blame Clinton for the fact that George W has chosen to pursue the destruction of someone that wasn't a nice guy, but also was not resposible for the attacks on 9/11. You can trace things back as far as you want, but the reality is, George W. chose to split the forces of the US military from a dedicated focus.
Splitting the focus from a full on man-hunt for Osama bin Laden to a partial hunt for him, and a partial war on Iraq, did none of us any good. We lost bin Laden, and while we toppled HUssein, we also have incurred too many casulaties, and do not have the military force present in Iraq needed to keep some semblance of control while helping them form their own government.
I am disheartened by those who justify the war due to Saddam being a bad man- there are multiple bad leaders in the world- we do not go after them, because either their countries have nothing we desire (Sudan- The United Nations says Darfur is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and has threatened sanctions against Sudan if the violence isn’t stopped), or where 'we' have financial investments (Halliburton and the National Oil Company of Iran- who really are in the process of an active nuclear program http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html).
Unfortunately, there are multiple regions and countries run by dictatorships and regimes that kill/torture/abuse their citizens.
The reason for invading Iraq was NOT because of Saddam's cruelty- it was expressly stated by our president, and by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his attempt to try to convince the rest of the world that we were correct, that this invasion had to take place because of WMD's and the imminent threat of nuclear terror. The rest of the world wanted to wait until the UN had finished investigating before taking action- we did not.
So - the real threat to the US was bin Laden- we sent not nearly enough troops in to try to catch him, then tried to take the focus off of our failure by going after someone for a reason that did not exist.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are bullies.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
I like you. You are a smart cookie
.Yes, I hate Bush (as a President). I think we all know that at this point. But what, exactly, is "the problem" to which you refer here? If I don't know what the problem is, I am afraid I cannot know whether I think Islamic fundamentalism is the cause of it
.Deb
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Todd07
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 455
First, this is a fun thread. Thanks for trading quips - it keeps me from getting back to my work email
Deb,
Sorry for not being clear. The problem is terrorism, ususally instigate by the likes of Al Queda and now new groups in Iraq.
Jen,
kicking occupiers out of your home country is very different from attacks on the WTC. It's as logical to blame the US for causing the WTC attacks as blaming the parents of a mass murder for their bad potty training.
What about Osama? I'd bet that the bastard is toast but it's unconfirmed. I also think the Bush admin thinks it's better to keep alive the ghost of Osama while they go about their broader attack on terrorism. No, I'm not a supporter of this strategy.
Deb,
Some parts of Iraq are very happy (Kurds) and other are not (Bathists). Unfortunately, the interesting news comes from the areas of dissent.
Deb,
Sorry for not being clear. The problem is terrorism, ususally instigate by the likes of Al Queda and now new groups in Iraq.
Jen,
kicking occupiers out of your home country is very different from attacks on the WTC. It's as logical to blame the US for causing the WTC attacks as blaming the parents of a mass murder for their bad potty training.
What about Osama? I'd bet that the bastard is toast but it's unconfirmed. I also think the Bush admin thinks it's better to keep alive the ghost of Osama while they go about their broader attack on terrorism. No, I'm not a supporter of this strategy.
Deb,
Some parts of Iraq are very happy (Kurds) and other are not (Bathists). Unfortunately, the interesting news comes from the areas of dissent.
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
Actually- Osama isn't from Afghanistan - he is a Saudi dissident-Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden was born in Riyadh, 1957. He is 17th of 52 children sired by Muhammad Bin Laden--Saudi Arabia's wealthiest construction magnate.
He just was anti any non-islamic force...1979- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden leaves Saudi Arabia to join the Afghan resistance (mujahedeen).
1988- Bin Laden establishes "al Qaeda," an organization of ex-mujahedeen and other supporters. Its mission is to channel fighters and funds to the Afghan resistance.
1989- After the Soviets pull out of Afghanistan, bin Laden returns to Saudi Arabia a hero. He becomes involved in opposition movements to the Saudi monarchy while working for his family construction firm, the Bin Laden Group
He wasn't 'kicking enemies out of his homeland'. Basically we took someone who was so vehemently against any force that was not islamic extremist that he would leave his wealthy family home life to go fight a war in another country and possibly die, and taught him how to fight better. No fool he, he took us up on our offer, probably fully intentioned of using that knowledge against us in the future.
So we didn't potty train the mass murderer- we just gave him his starter kit for killing. I am just saying- do not give someone the toolset to do something, if you eventually don't want them to do it to you.
He just was anti any non-islamic force...1979- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden leaves Saudi Arabia to join the Afghan resistance (mujahedeen).
1988- Bin Laden establishes "al Qaeda," an organization of ex-mujahedeen and other supporters. Its mission is to channel fighters and funds to the Afghan resistance.
1989- After the Soviets pull out of Afghanistan, bin Laden returns to Saudi Arabia a hero. He becomes involved in opposition movements to the Saudi monarchy while working for his family construction firm, the Bin Laden Group
He wasn't 'kicking enemies out of his homeland'. Basically we took someone who was so vehemently against any force that was not islamic extremist that he would leave his wealthy family home life to go fight a war in another country and possibly die, and taught him how to fight better. No fool he, he took us up on our offer, probably fully intentioned of using that knowledge against us in the future.
So we didn't potty train the mass murderer- we just gave him his starter kit for killing. I am just saying- do not give someone the toolset to do something, if you eventually don't want them to do it to you.
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
What do I propose to solve the problem of terrorism?
First, do not create a haven for terrorists as we have in Iraq. Iraq is now what Lebanon was 30 years ago. We have to get us back to where we were before the invasion of Iraq even if we still have to deal with al Qaeda afterwards.
Getting out of Iraq is not going to be easy. Saddam Hussein held the Kurds (who are Sunni Muslims), the non-Kurd Sunni Muslims, and the Shiite Muslims together with an iron fist much as Marshall Tito held the Croats and Serbs together by force in Yugoslavia. Now if left without supervision the three factions will be at each others' throats. I would try to get the UN to get peacekeepers in.
Second, cool our ties with Saudi Arabia. It is both fundamentalist-hating the west and secularism-and very, very wealthy. It shouldn't be encouraged to teach what it does to young men. If one doesn't believe in a war for the oil (and I do not) that leaves us having to apply diplomatic sanctions (both positive and negative) to the Saudis. Obviously if we relied less on oil we would be in a better position to tell off the Saudis.
Third, pursue bin Laden with *all* our resources. Once we are out of Iraq that should be possible.
Fourth, set up a program (like the Peace Corps) to relieve suffering in Muslim countries-and, indeed, in all poor countries where rebellion may be easily fomented-while creating goodwill for the United States. It is harder to hate a country that is giving you food and education and the education pays a dividend in and of itself.
I am not sure what else I would do...it's after 1 am here...but I would consult with my advisers and would try to surround myself with people who were very, very savvy!!!
First, do not create a haven for terrorists as we have in Iraq. Iraq is now what Lebanon was 30 years ago. We have to get us back to where we were before the invasion of Iraq even if we still have to deal with al Qaeda afterwards.
Getting out of Iraq is not going to be easy. Saddam Hussein held the Kurds (who are Sunni Muslims), the non-Kurd Sunni Muslims, and the Shiite Muslims together with an iron fist much as Marshall Tito held the Croats and Serbs together by force in Yugoslavia. Now if left without supervision the three factions will be at each others' throats. I would try to get the UN to get peacekeepers in.
Second, cool our ties with Saudi Arabia. It is both fundamentalist-hating the west and secularism-and very, very wealthy. It shouldn't be encouraged to teach what it does to young men. If one doesn't believe in a war for the oil (and I do not) that leaves us having to apply diplomatic sanctions (both positive and negative) to the Saudis. Obviously if we relied less on oil we would be in a better position to tell off the Saudis.
Third, pursue bin Laden with *all* our resources. Once we are out of Iraq that should be possible.
Fourth, set up a program (like the Peace Corps) to relieve suffering in Muslim countries-and, indeed, in all poor countries where rebellion may be easily fomented-while creating goodwill for the United States. It is harder to hate a country that is giving you food and education and the education pays a dividend in and of itself.
I am not sure what else I would do...it's after 1 am here...but I would consult with my advisers and would try to surround myself with people who were very, very savvy!!!
Todd07
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 455
Jen,
Your facts have been bent to fit your story
The US supported the mujahedeen fighters with money and arms. Osama in effect worked in parallel to US efforts soliciting money and support for the Mujahedeen. Yes, US $ passed through his MAK organization but it did not cause what followed.
Osama set up his training camps after the fall of Afganistan and the rise to power of the Taliban.
The terror attacks in the US are not the result of our $/arms to the Mujahedeen and they were not carried out by Mujahedeen fighters - they had mostly Saudi passports if my memory is correct.
What you can blame the US for is our actions after Russia left Afganistan when we ignored the country and allowed the Taliban to sieze control and then give Osama a base of operations. A couple million in aid might have been very good prevention for mitigating the Taliban and what they did.
Let me repeat - the US did not train or fund Osama's terrorist. Osama trained and funded his group through independent means long after we left Afganistan.
Don't confuse conicidence and cause.
Your facts have been bent to fit your story
The US supported the mujahedeen fighters with money and arms. Osama in effect worked in parallel to US efforts soliciting money and support for the Mujahedeen. Yes, US $ passed through his MAK organization but it did not cause what followed.
Osama set up his training camps after the fall of Afganistan and the rise to power of the Taliban.
The terror attacks in the US are not the result of our $/arms to the Mujahedeen and they were not carried out by Mujahedeen fighters - they had mostly Saudi passports if my memory is correct.
What you can blame the US for is our actions after Russia left Afganistan when we ignored the country and allowed the Taliban to sieze control and then give Osama a base of operations. A couple million in aid might have been very good prevention for mitigating the Taliban and what they did.
Let me repeat - the US did not train or fund Osama's terrorist. Osama trained and funded his group through independent means long after we left Afganistan.
Don't confuse conicidence and cause.
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
1986-89 According to Islamic sources, bin Laden participates in numerous battles during the Afghan war against the Soviets as a guerilla commander, including the fierce battle of Jalalabad which led the Soviets to finally withdraw from Afghanistan.
This statements and the ones above were taken from a PBS site, partially funded by a grant from NPR. I didn't bend them in any way, shape or form.
Also, http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp says some of what I listed above.
Osama trained and funded the terrorists that attacked us- yes, I accept that.
But who trained Osama?
He did not learn his tactics at his university programs in Saudi Arabia.
This statements and the ones above were taken from a PBS site, partially funded by a grant from NPR. I didn't bend them in any way, shape or form.
Also, http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp says some of what I listed above.
Osama trained and funded the terrorists that attacked us- yes, I accept that.
But who trained Osama?
He did not learn his tactics at his university programs in Saudi Arabia.
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
OH PLAAAAEEEZZZZZZZZZEE! (yes, I yelled
Geez, next time I'm going to get may unbiased news from the National Review.
That said, I think the discussion about whose to blame for Al Queda is irrelevant. There is enough blame to go around. And, a whole lot has *nothing* to do with the United States. If I was to point the finger (in my own mind) it rests with our inability to either gather data, inability to spy or inability to interpret threats & concisely bring it to the attention of the powers that be. We can blame G. Gordon Liddy for yeilding way too much power & the back fire that ensued. We can blame Clinton for signing the spy bill. But, didn't we all think it was a good idea at the time. Yep.
That that said, Iraq - faulty intelligence my *ss. I think it was policy to have a democratic state in the muslim/arab world. Real estate - that's what it's all about. Our kind of democratic real estate. And, don't even try the argument about war for oil. Doesn't fly & certainly hasn't helped the current situation. Was/Is the war worth it? It's way too early to tell in my book. I believe Americans are incredibily short sighted.
And, regarding whether the Iraqi people are happy - goes back to my informed by whom?
I can tell you this. I nearly puked at the spin of this. Oprah had a show about what a 25 year old women's life was in various countries. She had an Iraqi women describe life in Iraq. She mentioned that Valuim is sold w/o a percription at any drug store & that many Iraqi women walk around drugged. She said that is to numb the uncertainty & fear that exists currently. Everyone was starting to "woe is the war". And, this women proceeded to say that this drug problem is not new - just perpetuated. The Valium problem started w/ Saddam. Women were in fear for what may happen to their families. If a husband or loved on was killed, under Saddam regime the women/or family could not mourn or show any emotion. She elaborated that one couldn't express anything, hence the valium for equilibrium. What pissed me off was that *no one* wanted to recognize the latter part of the story. She was essential cut off & put back on tract of how miserable the *current* situation was. She was so manipulated.
Are the Iraqi people happy or happier? None of us know. Please don't go quoting any NYT article. I simply don't believe any media. Face it - doom & gloom sells much better than even the status quo.
And, the question that should be asked is "Will they be happier in the future?" I don't know what my crystal ball says.
Will Kerry be a better leader - can't say. But, I do know for one thing - We don't need President Trial Lawyer. I've pretty much decided who I am going to vote for. And, yah know what - I can't stand Edwards- not to mention he's not qualified to be President. And, behind every great man is an even greater women. Let's just put is this way. I have enormous amount of respect for both Laura Bush & Lynn Cheney. I find T. Heinz rather common w/ very little class.
Yes, another F&I rant.
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
All I can say is, if we can't get our information from the news media (proposed by F&I- unless she can point me towards a program that she feels is unbiased- good luck), and we cannot trust the information from our government (we have proof that they misled us, whether based on their own faulty information gathering or not), then basically we have to look at our crystal balls.
Or watch John Stewart on Comedy Central.
Or watch John Stewart on Comedy Central.
jenwill
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 735
And what in the world does liking the candidates wives have to do with their ability to run the country?
You don't know the real T. Heinz any better than we know the real L.Bush or L. Chaney. If you are going to hold statements made to the press, some of which even Laura Bush downplayed, then you have to hold that same standard to mistakes that the actual President has made in the press- but let me guess- you forgive him, because he looks so darn earnest about it, and everybody makes mistakes sometimes.
Lets give it a rest on any wife bashing- no one here would like it if they made a misstatement in public (and I think we all probably have put our foot in mouth at some point or other) and it was held against our significant others.
You don't know the real T. Heinz any better than we know the real L.Bush or L. Chaney. If you are going to hold statements made to the press, some of which even Laura Bush downplayed, then you have to hold that same standard to mistakes that the actual President has made in the press- but let me guess- you forgive him, because he looks so darn earnest about it, and everybody makes mistakes sometimes.
Lets give it a rest on any wife bashing- no one here would like it if they made a misstatement in public (and I think we all probably have put our foot in mouth at some point or other) and it was held against our significant others.
Nicrez
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,230
Wow, F&I, I didn't think I would agree with anyone, but I agree with you.
You can tell a lot about a man, when you know the woman he lovs and marries. Usually the woman is the evening compliment to him, and exerts a calming force on his faults and a strong influence on his weaknesses...Just ask Rand!
Frankly, if I had to vote for anyone, I wouldn't chose a politician. Sadly, they tend to be the LEAST equipped for such a job. I guess I wouldn't choose a business man either (considering the BANG UP job of Mr. Bloomberg), but there are people out there who care enough about the human populace, and are not yet corrupt to the core. Let's hope they surface in the next election.
As for the Saudi discussions of their way-ward culture, I am not Saudi, nor do I know many Saudis, but I have to say that this post wreaked of intolerance and disrespect. I have no patience for people (of any religion or culture) who wish to harm anyone or have an intolerant attitude toward anyone else.
I respect a person's culture, whether I agree with it or not, and as such, there are people out there who would argue that their country may have it's faults, but the US is becoming a cesspool of immorality and toxic selfish behavior. I do not judge a person, I do not judge a culture. I know of Muslim women who are raised happily in their lives, and honestly become unhappier when they move here to the US. Who is to say that the US and its way of life is any better for everyone? Why is it that people have this irritating quality of thinking that only what they find to be right IS right?
I suppose I find it almost humorous how people sitting on their pretty couches and watching their 30 minutes of news have the gall to talk about Saudis, Iraquis and Afghanis with such authority on their condition, their happiness and their welfare. Face it, we are not Aljazeera, CNN, or PBS and we do not have inside contacts and a camera into the hearts of the muslim nations.
Many people act like they know the truth, but we know knothing except what is spoon fed to us. The truth is never absolute, it is only shaded by what we know, and the rest of the truth may never be known to us.
You can tell a lot about a man, when you know the woman he lovs and marries. Usually the woman is the evening compliment to him, and exerts a calming force on his faults and a strong influence on his weaknesses...Just ask Rand!
Frankly, if I had to vote for anyone, I wouldn't chose a politician. Sadly, they tend to be the LEAST equipped for such a job. I guess I wouldn't choose a business man either (considering the BANG UP job of Mr. Bloomberg), but there are people out there who care enough about the human populace, and are not yet corrupt to the core. Let's hope they surface in the next election.
As for the Saudi discussions of their way-ward culture, I am not Saudi, nor do I know many Saudis, but I have to say that this post wreaked of intolerance and disrespect. I have no patience for people (of any religion or culture) who wish to harm anyone or have an intolerant attitude toward anyone else.
I respect a person's culture, whether I agree with it or not, and as such, there are people out there who would argue that their country may have it's faults, but the US is becoming a cesspool of immorality and toxic selfish behavior. I do not judge a person, I do not judge a culture. I know of Muslim women who are raised happily in their lives, and honestly become unhappier when they move here to the US. Who is to say that the US and its way of life is any better for everyone? Why is it that people have this irritating quality of thinking that only what they find to be right IS right?
I suppose I find it almost humorous how people sitting on their pretty couches and watching their 30 minutes of news have the gall to talk about Saudis, Iraquis and Afghanis with such authority on their condition, their happiness and their welfare. Face it, we are not Aljazeera, CNN, or PBS and we do not have inside contacts and a camera into the hearts of the muslim nations.
Many people act like they know the truth, but we know knothing except what is spoon fed to us. The truth is never absolute, it is only shaded by what we know, and the rest of the truth may never be known to us.
Someone's choice of mates & the way such mate handles themselves in public shows quite a bit. Hiring executives always involves meeting their spouse. And, is *very* telling to the issue of enabling & support of the *ability* for a man to do their job. First ladies are powerful ambassadors of this country. One doesn't have to go past Jackie O to know that. And, from all interviews, sources, etc., I find T.H. to be crass and out of touch. I'm not talking sound bites or phrases taken out of context. All of these ladies have been way more available to the press than in the past. My opinion comes from lots of exposure. When I'm on the fence about something, I tend to look at the whole & not just the individual or one individual thing. I know when making decisions in my husband career; I am *always* consulted & things are bounced off of me. Same with my friends. One only has to read the Pres. biographies to know it translates to the oval office. So, I hope I answered your rather dismissive "what in the world liking their spouses have anything to do...."
People make judgements everyday based on people's perfomance, demeanor & candor.
The media always has a spin. Everyone always has an agenda. You quoted PBS as *the* word. It's not. It's just one source. Not *the* source. And, some I trust more than others. Quite frankly, I form most of my opinions at balance round table discussions, such as on Jim Lehr's show.
Edited to add: BTW, I said *respect* not like. Completely different sentiments.
- Status
300x240.png)