Bush press conference highlights government crisis...
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and how does your preference for a "low-key" president square with W's riding a jet to a carrier landing ? I would say it compares favorably to getting a $200 haircut in Air Force One while it is parked on a runway a LAX...... ;P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I would say it compares favorably to getting a $200 haircut in Air Force One while it is parked on a runway a LAX oh doug. come on. we're talking low-key vs. attention-seeking. clinton's haircut was neither high-profile nor attention seeking. bush's carrier landing, on the other hand... [why would this get modded down? what about this is even remotely disputable?] -c CheeseWeasle
-
JoeSox wrote: So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. How about Clinton turning over control of our mission in Somalia? I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long term commitments for both men and material. They can't be anything but that. Have there been tangible results since 9/11? I think so, we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, we can't change the nature of a group of people who have been at war for decades overnight. As for Iraq, again there is progress. A tyrant has been removed from power, and his henchmen are being rounded up. Where are the WMD? Probably buried in the desert somewhere, or possibly even in Syria.... but Saddam H. isn't going to be using them. And for losing soldiers, unfortunately that is a side effect of war. We don't make foreign policy for other countries, we hav to live with what ad how thy decide to behave. The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. The previous administration would lob a few cruise missles at a threat and call it good. Which is more effective? Personnaly I prefer fighting over there to seeing some half cocked terrorist coming here and killing Americans..... I can think of 3000 reasons to never wait to be attacked again. And yeah, I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them That Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, they are not. not even close. in fact, they're growing stronger. WaPo "Bands of 50 or more pro-Taliban fighters have begun appearing around Kandahar, both along the border with Pakistan and in the interior of the province. Just over the border in the Pakistani town of Chaman, high-ranking Taliban officials are meeting openly and handing out guns, money and motorbikes, according to a witness and Afghan police officials. Poor Afghans who don't share the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam or its mission of jihad are nevertheless accepting Pakistani money to plant land mines and bombs in Afghanistan, they said. " Doug Goulden wrote: We don't make foreign policy for other countries say what? even ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is deeply involved in making foreign policy in other countries; for example, we're withholding money to try to keep other countries out of the ICC. yes, of course it's our money to withhold if we want... but to say we're not trying to set their foreign policy is the same as saying the federal govt. isn't trying to impose a 21yr drinking age on the country by withholding money from the states. -c CheeseWeasle
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Obviously you will believe just about anything you read. I NEVER stated I believe everything in the article. Why do you make judgements like this???? Jason Henderson wrote: Is "The World Socialist Web Site" the place to go for credible journalism now? There is nothing wrong with hearing other people's views on things, no matter what the source. It is my right to decide if it is crap or not. Jason Henderson wrote: I prefer a president who is a little more low key and not looking for attention. So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. Not a good enough reason in my mind. Where's the Beef? Where's the WMD? Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: Where's the Beef It's in Alberta. It smells a little funny but we're assured it's perfectly fine to eat. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Doug Goulden wrote: we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, they are not. not even close. in fact, they're growing stronger. WaPo "Bands of 50 or more pro-Taliban fighters have begun appearing around Kandahar, both along the border with Pakistan and in the interior of the province. Just over the border in the Pakistani town of Chaman, high-ranking Taliban officials are meeting openly and handing out guns, money and motorbikes, according to a witness and Afghan police officials. Poor Afghans who don't share the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam or its mission of jihad are nevertheless accepting Pakistani money to plant land mines and bombs in Afghanistan, they said. " Doug Goulden wrote: We don't make foreign policy for other countries say what? even ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is deeply involved in making foreign policy in other countries; for example, we're withholding money to try to keep other countries out of the ICC. yes, of course it's our money to withhold if we want... but to say we're not trying to set their foreign policy is the same as saying the federal govt. isn't trying to impose a 21yr drinking age on the country by withholding money from the states. -c CheeseWeasle
Hehe, when was the last time the US didn't make a foreign policy for other countries? WW1? :) -- Berlin rules.
-
JoeSox wrote: So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. How about Clinton turning over control of our mission in Somalia? I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long term commitments for both men and material. They can't be anything but that. Have there been tangible results since 9/11? I think so, we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, we can't change the nature of a group of people who have been at war for decades overnight. As for Iraq, again there is progress. A tyrant has been removed from power, and his henchmen are being rounded up. Where are the WMD? Probably buried in the desert somewhere, or possibly even in Syria.... but Saddam H. isn't going to be using them. And for losing soldiers, unfortunately that is a side effect of war. We don't make foreign policy for other countries, we hav to live with what ad how thy decide to behave. The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. The previous administration would lob a few cruise missles at a threat and call it good. Which is more effective? Personnaly I prefer fighting over there to seeing some half cocked terrorist coming here and killing Americans..... I can think of 3000 reasons to never wait to be attacked again. And yeah, I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them That Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. No, actually you don't - not if you're a left wing whiner. Doug Goulden wrote: Have there been tangible results since 9/11? Of course. No new attacks have taken place and I seriously doubt only one was planned. Doug Goulden wrote: They are gone now Of course you'll have a whiner or two saying, "No they're not". But that is idiotic since the point is they're not doing us any harm as they're pretty busy running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers - but doing us here no harm. Doug Goulden wrote: And for losing soldiers Two quick points: 1) soldiers {including reserves} know full well the risks, 2) Los Angeles / Chicago or New York are probably envious of the statistics --> which is not to say anyone should be thrilled, just puts it into perspective. Doug Goulden wrote: The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. Thank God. Doug Goulden wrote: I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them Amen! Mike
-
Doug Goulden wrote: I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. No, actually you don't - not if you're a left wing whiner. Doug Goulden wrote: Have there been tangible results since 9/11? Of course. No new attacks have taken place and I seriously doubt only one was planned. Doug Goulden wrote: They are gone now Of course you'll have a whiner or two saying, "No they're not". But that is idiotic since the point is they're not doing us any harm as they're pretty busy running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers - but doing us here no harm. Doug Goulden wrote: And for losing soldiers Two quick points: 1) soldiers {including reserves} know full well the risks, 2) Los Angeles / Chicago or New York are probably envious of the statistics --> which is not to say anyone should be thrilled, just puts it into perspective. Doug Goulden wrote: The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. Thank God. Doug Goulden wrote: I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them Amen! Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: But that is idiotic since the point is they're not doing us any harm as they're pretty busy running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers - but doing us here no harm. oh, by the way, that's fucking exactly what they were doing on 9/10/01. if you want to make a difference, you have to stop them from "running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers" - get them out of the planning, plotting business altogether. if military force is the solution, then you gotta kill the Bad People or get them to stop doing the Bad Thing. making them run down the road out of sight ain't doing shit. fuckin duh -c CheeseWeasle
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: But that is idiotic since the point is they're not doing us any harm as they're pretty busy running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers - but doing us here no harm. oh, by the way, that's fucking exactly what they were doing on 9/10/01. if you want to make a difference, you have to stop them from "running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers" - get them out of the planning, plotting business altogether. if military force is the solution, then you gotta kill the Bad People or get them to stop doing the Bad Thing. making them run down the road out of sight ain't doing shit. fuckin duh -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: oh, by the way, that's f***ing exactly what they were doing on 9/10/01. Not quite. They were in total control of Afganistan. That gave them the ability to amass weaponry and train forces unfettered by the need to survive. To eliminate the problem radical Islamists have to be eliminated. Can't get them all in 2 years, it'll take the reelection of Bush to make it happen. Mike
-
Chris Losinger wrote: oh, by the way, that's f***ing exactly what they were doing on 9/10/01. Not quite. They were in total control of Afganistan. That gave them the ability to amass weaponry and train forces unfettered by the need to survive. To eliminate the problem radical Islamists have to be eliminated. Can't get them all in 2 years, it'll take the reelection of Bush to make it happen. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: They were in total control of Afganistan how much do they need to say "on this day, you five go do this and you five go do that" ? Mike Gaskey wrote: To eliminate the problem radical Islamists have to be eliminated yeah, that's what i said. CheeseWeasle
-
Doug Goulden wrote: I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. No, actually you don't - not if you're a left wing whiner. Doug Goulden wrote: Have there been tangible results since 9/11? Of course. No new attacks have taken place and I seriously doubt only one was planned. Doug Goulden wrote: They are gone now Of course you'll have a whiner or two saying, "No they're not". But that is idiotic since the point is they're not doing us any harm as they're pretty busy running around in the unpatrolled or uncontrolled (by our forces) areas of Afganistan and Pakistan; planning, plotting, running, hiding, maybe attacking soldiers - but doing us here no harm. Doug Goulden wrote: And for losing soldiers Two quick points: 1) soldiers {including reserves} know full well the risks, 2) Los Angeles / Chicago or New York are probably envious of the statistics --> which is not to say anyone should be thrilled, just puts it into perspective. Doug Goulden wrote: The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. Thank God. Doug Goulden wrote: I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them Amen! Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: No new attacks have taken place What about the post-office anthrax attacks? Or was that determined to be just some random psycho (as opposed to organized psychos). Actually, from what I recall, there were more copy-cat envelopes of flour and baking soda than actual anthrax... Eco
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: No new attacks have taken place What about the post-office anthrax attacks? Or was that determined to be just some random psycho (as opposed to organized psychos). Actually, from what I recall, there were more copy-cat envelopes of flour and baking soda than actual anthrax... Eco
Eco Jones wrote: What about the post-office anthrax attacks? oh, yeah - postmarked Afganistan. Mike
-
Eco Jones wrote: What about the post-office anthrax attacks? oh, yeah - postmarked Afganistan. Mike
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: oh, yeah - postmarked Afganistan. Yes, sarcasm is such a useful tool when trying to have a meaningful conversation. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: Yes, sarcasm is such a useful tool Sorry about that, my mistake. The point I was trying to make is that the anthrax attack was most probably (my opinion) domestic in origin, a product of local and not international terrorists. I seriously doubt that much can be done to prevent this sort of thing, especially if it is the product of one or two sick minds. Ted Karzinski (not sure of spelling) operated for years, sending off the occasional bomb, and lasted that long because he was a single operator who made his bomb and went to the extremes of hand making wooden screws to avoid x-ray detection. Mike
-
JoeSox wrote: So I guess this justifies reelecting him even though our citizens are losing their lives in a country where they need not be. How about Clinton turning over control of our mission in Somalia? I think if you want to try to condemn Bush for Iraq you have to be realistic. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long term commitments for both men and material. They can't be anything but that. Have there been tangible results since 9/11? I think so, we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, we can't change the nature of a group of people who have been at war for decades overnight. As for Iraq, again there is progress. A tyrant has been removed from power, and his henchmen are being rounded up. Where are the WMD? Probably buried in the desert somewhere, or possibly even in Syria.... but Saddam H. isn't going to be using them. And for losing soldiers, unfortunately that is a side effect of war. We don't make foreign policy for other countries, we hav to live with what ad how thy decide to behave. The Bush Administration has taken a policy of reacting to threat before they are fully developed. The previous administration would lob a few cruise missles at a threat and call it good. Which is more effective? Personnaly I prefer fighting over there to seeing some half cocked terrorist coming here and killing Americans..... I can think of 3000 reasons to never wait to be attacked again. And yeah, I know someone is going to say there is no proof that SH had anything to do with 9/11. But if you look at the 1980's when Reagan stood up to Momar Khaddafi, the terrorism slacked of quite a bit. People in the Middle East do understand the concept of force. I think that the Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably undergone a revelation with America's apparent resolve to take the fight to them That Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
:rolleyes:so basically you like being a fascist country. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Doug Goulden wrote: we carried the fight to the people in Afghanistan who supported our enemy. They are gone now, they are not. not even close. in fact, they're growing stronger. WaPo "Bands of 50 or more pro-Taliban fighters have begun appearing around Kandahar, both along the border with Pakistan and in the interior of the province. Just over the border in the Pakistani town of Chaman, high-ranking Taliban officials are meeting openly and handing out guns, money and motorbikes, according to a witness and Afghan police officials. Poor Afghans who don't share the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam or its mission of jihad are nevertheless accepting Pakistani money to plant land mines and bombs in Afghanistan, they said. " Doug Goulden wrote: We don't make foreign policy for other countries say what? even ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is deeply involved in making foreign policy in other countries; for example, we're withholding money to try to keep other countries out of the ICC. yes, of course it's our money to withhold if we want... but to say we're not trying to set their foreign policy is the same as saying the federal govt. isn't trying to impose a 21yr drinking age on the country by withholding money from the states. -c CheeseWeasle
they are not. not even close. in fact, they're growing stronger. The IMU has been pretty much eliminated as a result of action in Afghanistan. Their numbers are sparse and they haven't made a notable attack since the US entered Afghanistan. Central Asia is much safer as a result. (Just an example of them not being stronger in this instance)