What do you guys make of this
http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm
Look who signed it!
Printable View
What do you guys make of this
http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm
Look who signed it!
Figures.
Funny how they fail to mention any domestic initiatives at all.
Here's looking forward to 2008!
I wondered whether it was real, or not. I mean most of us infer that that is what some major players in America are up to, but I didn't expect them to be forthright about it.
IF you look at this:http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm, then you can see that Rumsfeld was all for invading Iraq in 1998. :eek:
That would be no surprise... but a recent nac statement seems they are less in bed with Rumsfield as one might think... they seem to slam him here.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/troops-20050713.htm
That is because you are a cynic. You don't believe that people are acting on their convictions and as such have nothing to hide.Quote:
I mean most of us infer that that is what some major players in America are up to, but I didn't expect them to be forthright about it.
You instead believe that there is some ulterior motive behind their actions so the have to go slinking around behind people's backs to get things done.
There is one thing I can safely say about Bush that I could not say about any president before him (that I knew). He acts from his convictions and is completely honest and forthright about what he is planning and doing.
President Bush and Tony Blair are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn't that Bush and Blair sitting over there?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III." The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big t!ts."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big t!ts? Why kill a blonde with big t!ts?"
Bush turns to Blair and says, "See, I told you no one CARES about the 140 million Muslims".
LOL That's a good one MB!
I hate to go into default and bash Bush, he certainly appeals to a lot of Americans because they voted for him and I won't poop on the leader of a friend nation. But..Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Wouldn't you rather have a pragmatic leader than one who acts solely on convictions? He threw away all progress made by the Clinton administration regarding N-Korea because of his conviction that one shouldn't deal with non-democratic regimes (which he does just the same), he 'stretched the truth' to get into Iraq (just as much the fault of legislators though), which was out of his conviction that an American foothold(bases) should be created in that region, I mean what other reason was there? Terrorists?? :rolleyes:
By the way, I think my own Prime-Minister is a huge fool, thank god he isn't so powerfull :bigyello:
The only progress Clinton made was to decimate our military, sell our balistic missle technology to china, cut off the CIA's nads, create an un-sustainable budget, make the situation worse in palestine by dealing with terrorists, fire a rocket that missed bin-laden, Prop up our economy on an unstable bloated market, then rocket our economy straight into a recession. I'll take George Bush's form of progress any day.
As far as NK goes. That "UN" sponsored deal was doomed from the start.
Clinton's progress with North Korea consisted of promising Nuclear power plants and fuel in exchange for NK halting their nuclear weapons program.Quote:
He threw away all progress made by the Clinton administration regarding N-Korea
Clinton never delivered on his end and NK continued development in secret. Bush's contribution is to say, you won't be making a fool of us again, let's get some other parties involved, parties that are closer to your borders and may have greater influence.
again the cynic in you says that he really didn't believe Iraq had WMDs, he had ulterrior motives.Quote:
he 'stretched the truth' to get into Iraq
To clean up the cesspool of terrorist nations that the Middle East had become by promoting Democracy in the region.Quote:
...which was out of his conviction that an American foothold(bases) should be created in that region, I mean what other reason was there? Terrorists??
http://www.why-war.com/encyclopedia/...lliam_Kristol/Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...5&postcount=11
:wave:
Of course I believe that people are acting on their convictions - why else do people act? If their conviction is greed, then they act upon it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
As for your second paragraph - do you not think this is true is some cases regarding Bush/Blair/Iraq? If so, you must think that these men are totally incompetent.
It's nice to know that you've 'pigeon holed' me already. Makes manipulation of an argument much much easier :lol:
And a final note about convictions. If Bush is a Christian (?) and he is acting on his convictions then what does that say about keeping the church and the state seperate? What does your constitution say about it?
Edit: And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD, why the blame on terrorists? You certainly cannot hold the moral ground regarding this, so you may as well join me in the gutter ;)
Your logic escapes me.Quote:
As for your second paragraph - do you not think this is true is some cases regarding Bush/Blair/Iraq? If so, you must think that these men are totally incompetent
The costitution says that Congress shall pass no law that promotes one religion over another. It says nothing about separation of church and state.Quote:
If Bush is a Christian (?) and he is acting on his convictions then what does that say about keeping the church and the state seperate? What does your constitution say about it?
We've had this discussion before. Bush has always been honest about wht he went into Iraq (WMDs, Regime Change, Democracy etc.)Quote:
And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD,
That is where the blame lies. The Middle East breeds terrorists; we're going to clean it up.Quote:
why the blame on terrorists?
That’s obviously your opinion which you are entitled too of course. But you don’t have any proof to back your assertion now do you?Quote:
Of course I believe that people are acting on their convictions - why else do people act? If their conviction is greed, then they act upon it.
You’re a left wing Neville Chamberlain type who will never learn that evil has to be dealt with not appeased or apologized too. How’s that for “pigeon holing” :)Quote:
It's nice to know that you've 'pigeon holed' me already. Makes manipulation of an argument much much easier
The constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state but you are forgiven for being so ill informed because you are not a citizen of the US.Quote:
And a final note about convictions. If Bush is a Christian (?) and he is acting on his convictions then what does that say about keeping the church and the state seperate? What does your constitution say about it?
Just because you fail to understand or cannot fathom the reasoning doesn’t mean there is no moral ground to stand on. Like I said you are a Neville Chamberlain type who would have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt in perpetuity like your type did with Hitler (oops I said the H word!). I refuse to go into a long post explaining everything because you will not understand it anyway. Lets just say we disagree and move on.Quote:
Edit: And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD, why the blame on terrorists? You certainly cannot hold the moral ground regarding this, so you may as well join me in the gutter
X
I agree that you would be very unlikely to understand anything more complex than 'Yea Haw: Let's go to war'
So as you suggested, let's move on.
:rolleyes:
Funny. I didn't see the US 'cleaning up' Northern Ireland. In fact your countrymen by in large funded 'em. I suppose there is some slant on why an Irish terrorist, is different from an Middle-Eastern one? If you cannot demonstrate the difference then shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I agree Bush has always been fairly honest about being a war-monger. I believe he has been quoted as saying as much.Quote:
And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD,
YOU are the one that ducks and dives, my friend. You and Xanith - particular Xanith forget that this forum has a number of posts going back to pre-Iraq war, and all your 'reasoning' all your 'logic'
. . . which of course has since been proven to be a pack of ill-informed, right wing, bigoted lies.
Don't forget the Baltics/KosovoQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I'm just wondering . . . Are any other Americans embarrassed about what their fellow countrymen say?
I know I am about some fellow Brits.
You'll find plenty of Americans who are embarrased what by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Howard Dean say. These are politicians who can do nothing but say how bad this country and its military are. So yes you do have your political compatriots in this country.Quote:
I'm just wondering . . . Are any other Americans embarrassed about what their fellow countrymen say?
If you think I have ever changed my position on these matters in these discussions, then I understand why you think Bush has changed his position. You don't remember what has been said from one day to another.Quote:
YOU are the one that ducks and dives
No, there is no difference. People in the US have funded the IRA terrorists just as they are now funding the Islamic terrorists. The difference between then and now is that we have realized that terrorism is a threat to our national security and we have a president who is willing to do something about it.Quote:
I didn't see the US 'cleaning up' Northern Ireland. In fact your countrymen by in large funded 'em. I suppose there is some slant on why an Irish terrorist, is different from an Middle-Eastern one?
(i) At least you don't believe you are representative of what is a great nationQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
(ii) I've already said that I know Bush doesn't change his position. I think you do
(iii) Hang on a minute. What about all the rhetoric about 'protecting our allies' I am assuming - and I could be wrong here - that the UK is a US ally? Where was your support when the IRA was blowing up civilians, then?
I know what you are trying to say - you just seem to have a little trouble in saying it. I shall paraphrase for you:
"I couldn't give a monkey's about you lot. if you get blown up - so what? As long as it's not us Americans."
That's fair enough - you are entitled to your point of view. But for goodness sake just say what you mean.
Flattery will get you nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
This argument is specious. Our policy now cannot be made retroactive. If we go back far enough in history we can always find policies that contradict today's policies.Quote:
Hang on a minute. What about all the rhetoric about 'protecting our allies' I am assuming - and I could be wrong here - that the UK is a US ally? Where was your support when the IRA was blowing up civilians, then?
you have me confused with someone else.Quote:
Bush doesn't change his position. I think you do
I know that technically 10 years is history, but come on -don't you think you're clutching at straws on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Please remember that the US was planning to leave Hitler alone untill he started atacking US vessels (one of his many tactical blunders).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I'll take the points made regarding N-Korea, I'll admit I'm not fully briefed.
As far as US security is concerned, one could argue that it was better served with the isolation of Iraq (which worked, O.F.F. scandals are nothing) than with a badly planned war.
Nobody is saying that Saddam is :thumb: but if arguments used to remove his regime are purely moral arguments, then one would be obliged to do the same werever they apply.
No, I really don't see how today's administration can be held responsible for what was allowed to happen 10 or more years ago. Even the previous administration was full of appeasers.Quote:
I know that technically 10 years is history, but come on -don't you think you're clutching at straws on this one.
One could argue that point and in fact it is arqued in this country every day.Quote:
As far as US security is concerned, one could argue that it was better served with the isolation of Iraq
You're believing your news media providers again.Quote:
...than with a badly planned war.
Who is arguing that the motives were purely moral? They were in the interest of self defense.Quote:
but if arguments used to remove his regime are purely moral arguments, then one would be obliged to do the same werever they apply
Saddam wasn't a threat to the US, anybody knows that and knew that.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Who is arguing that the motives were purely moral? They were in the interest of self defense.
Good for you!
Actually, Saddam was a threat to the US and what's left over from his time as president is still a threat to the US. Same with Afghanastan. WMDs sitting on top of ICBMs are not the only way to attack a country. Just as New York City or London or Madrid or the dozen other countries that have been attacked. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Iran are/were all funneling resources to these maniacs.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
As far as the IRA giving england hell. Would you have approved if the US bombed the tar out of Ireland? If Engand asked for it I guarentee it would have been done. If they thought it would have helped they would have done it themselvs. The RAF is more than capable of leveling Ireland.
Never heard of any indication (except partison retoric) that Saddam was ordering jihadi's to the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Afghanistan is a totaly different story, there where huge Al-Qaida camps there.
That's more or less my point. It is inappropriate to bomb areas due to terrorism whether it's in the Middle East or in Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I'm sure America would be delighted to level yet another civilian population, too, especially if it was by invitation.
As a matter of point, the US only outlawed the IRA as an illegal organisation AFTER the 911 atrocities.
So it was the same administration, the same policies, but a different game.
Where does this bigoted hatred come from?Quote:
I'm sure America would be delighted to level yet another civilian population, too, especially if it was by invitation.
Mabey you and CORONA BEER can hang out and compare your conspiracy theories with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CORONA BEER
I never said he did but he did allow them to train in his country and come and go as they please. That is what I mean by resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
Only to a very small extend. As we all know by now, Saddam didn't have a good relation with Al-Qaida.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Beter have gone looking in other countries ;)
The situation in Ireland and the Middle east are two seperate issues. Bombs aren't always necessary as in Lybia, philippians, and Syria. Sometimes they are. The IRA wasn't running Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
If you honestly believe the american people enjoy leveling countries then you have a seriously twisted view of the world and Americans in particular. The Taliban and Saddam were both given many opportunities to avoid what happened to them. They wouldn't take it.
Outlawing the IRA was more of a legal issue than a policy issue.
It only took 4 guys to kill and wound people in london.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
I agree with that statement 110%Quote:
Beter have gone looking in other countries ;)
Yes, and 4 people can be anywhere, even right under your nose. There's very little point invading countries to find 4 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
quite a few more than 4 terrorists have been killed in IraqQuote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
Great, now the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
One step at a time
Why not just stay in Iraq and let the rest of them come to us? It's been working pretty well so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
For you maybe... Some people who've been attacked since might disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I don't buy the whole 'fight the terrorists overthere' line, especially because it was only thought up when things turned not to be so rose-colored.
One thing we cannot do is let terrorists dictate our policy.Quote:
For you maybe... Some people who've been attacked since might disagree.
It may seem that way to you over there, but over here we were always told that was one of the reasons for going into Iraq.Quote:
I don't buy the whole 'fight the terrorists overthere' line, especially because it was only thought up when things turned not to be so rose-colored
I didn't say that, just suggested that it hasn't worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Well, it does seem like that to me. At least it is not the argument that was used to persuade foreign lands such as mine to support the war, be it politically or military.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I am over here, and I was never told that....oh wait, I don't listen to Fox news. I do remember the study that showed that the majority of Fox viewers believed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 even after Bush had gone on the air to state explicitly that there was not. Is that what you mean when you say it was always one of the reasons?
As for fighting them over there, it is not actually working, but you have to look into history to see why.
The terrorists are not actually a bunch of people. They may look like they are, but we have taken out any number of people, and the terrorists are still there. That is because the organization can exist without any one or several of its parts.
To destroy the ant hill of terrorism, it is not sufficient to kill an ant or two. You must remove the source of its growth and sustenance.
The sustenance is the view of the people who fund the organization, and the view of the people who directly or indirectly recruit for the organization. If a leader speaks of the organization in a positive way, even if they are neither associated with the organization, nor a recruiter, then a person in the audience will receive a favorable impression of the organization. Thus if a mullah speaks of al-whatever without calling it a bad thing, he instills a positive view in the mind of a willing listener. That listener might then be more inclined to donate time, money, or their life to al-Q.
So as to the war: We will lose!
That's hardly surprising, nobody has ever come even close to winning a war of this type. That's largely because winning has no definition in this type of war. You are reaching for some endpoint, but the endpoint has no firm measurement. We are having a hard time even figuring out what our actual objectives are. Sure, some feel that killing terrorists is the objective, but it isn't. We have not sent out a single suicide bomber of our own. Therefore, we have other objectives, and other guidelines that limit the ways we can meet any stated objective. A few points:
1) We can't sustain what we are doing currently forever. We might continue for a year, or a decade, but not forever.
2) Whenever we leave, if Al-Q is still bombing ANYBODY in Iraq, they will be able to claim victory. What we say at that point will make no difference to the audience al-q is targeting.
Therefore, for the organization al-q, it is only necessary to remain in existence. When we tire of this and quit the field, they can claim victory, and this claim will be believable to that audience from which they derive sustenance.
The net result of Iraq will be a stronger and more dangerous al-q. There will be some dead ants, but the ant hill will be larger and stronger than ever.
This is failure.
Do you all ever get tired of repeating yourselves - we were all in a thread two weeks ago that was just like this.
Seems a silly waste of time. I've seen all these same arguments - I think we all know each others position!
People on the left will never agree with people on the right.
It's up to politicians to forge a common "action-plan" out of uncommon points-of-view.
The overly left-thinking countries will be all out against the "action-plans" that appear right-ist to them. They will call us extremists - and liars - and abusers of power. So be it - either it will be clear 10 years from now that this was all a good idea or we will all be dead.
I could start making stabs are debating issues in this thread - but it's all been said before.
I would just like to point out that your closest ally(Brittain) has reelected for the third time a government from the left. Also, a country that opposed the war: France has a conservative government.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Left and right were terms I chose to simply make my sentences - they are so relative to each country and each persons point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
We recently sentenced a nut to life in prison - a extreme-right Christian terrorist - who blew up doctors at abortion clinics - in the name of religion. He had no remorse at his sentencing - said he was doing good work in killing these doctors.
I consider myself a conservative (I'm sure some people are laughing right now) - but certainly not as conservative as that nut case.
Why do people believe that there is only one mold that you must fit in. I do not agree with all the "planks" in Bush's "party-platform". But I more agree with Bush's conservative view of smaller government control, his economic views and stuff like that.
I do believe that some kind of action needs to be occurring in the middle east. I'm far from privy to the kind of information that the governments use to decide where that action should occur.
So some of you think Iraq was a mistake. Maybe you think Afghanistan would have been a better choice - right? More al-Q in that country - right? Maybe some of you think that the real bad boys are the Saudis. Maybe Pakistan really is the evil power.
Are you ready to send your fellow citizens to a war in one of these countries based on your knowledge and opinions? That would be pretty arrogant of you. I know what I know - and it certainly isn't enough to make a decision at all - other then to support my leaders that they are not doing selfish acts, but attempting something with good at the end.
If you think we are acting selfishly, then that's fine. I can't imagine a motive for that myself.
Moral reasons? Irrelevant, since they are simply putting a facade on the arguments I just put forth - "oh - I'm better then you - do what I say instead". That's still arrogant.
By the way, I like your last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I do have a thought about this quote, though. There was a Nazi tank commander in WWII (when else, duh) called something like Jochen Pieper. He was tried and convicted after the war for various things (including the Malmedy massacre, I believe), and sentenced to a really long time in jail.
Eventually, he was released, and got back together with some of his old friends. Later, he was murdered, but that is pretty much irrelevant.
He was a nazi from start to finish. He never changed his beliefs, despite all that happened to him. After 10 years, it was not clear to him that Hitler was a bad idea.
I suspect that we are all like that. Some will change their minds about this and that, but if you don't like Bush now, you probably won't like him 10 years from now. If a policy seems wrong to you now, you can find calamities down the road that can be attributed to this.
An excellent example is MB blaming the recession at the end of the 90's on Clinton. Personally, I'm a strong believer in chaos theory, and saying a politician did something like that seems nuts. However, something did that. If I were to place the blame somewhere, I would place it squarely on the computer in front of me, but that's another story. We had the greatest period of economic growth in this century during the later years of the Clinton administration, but it is the economic downturn that began around the election at the end of that administration that he claims is the Clinton legacy.
What a nutcase, it was CLEARLY Ford's doing!!! Should never have let that bumbling bum into the White House!
No, there was a reason I attributed it to Bill Clinton. Startup companies were being taxed into non existance. Small startup technology providers that could have survived a market bubble burst didn't have the capital to bounce back. there starts the unemployment downward spiral. Tax the rich and feed the poor doesn't work. The rich are the ones who own the jobs and you better believe that they'll fire you or me before they take a hit to their own pocket. Al Gore(the idiot that he is) was more responsable for the economic growth than Clinton. Unleashing the information superhighway was his winning lottery ticket. Even the dumb get lucky sometimes.
actually there were several "polls" that claimed a majority of people regardless of where they got their news believed this link.Quote:
I am over here, and I was never told that....oh wait, I don't listen to Fox news. I do remember the study that showed that the majority of Fox viewers believed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 even after Bush had gone on the air to state explicitly that there was not. Is that what you mean when you say it was always one of the reasons?
I am a news junkie. I don't rely on television for all my news. If, however, you just watched the evening news to get your info then I am not suprised that you are unfamiliar with the reasons we went to war. Fortunately for us the old dominant media: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, are no longer our only sources thanks to other outlets like Fox News, Radio and Blogs.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go get my marching orders from Rush Limbaugh:)
BTW I do not repeate myself, repeat myself, repeat myself...
I'm not sure that employment figures are a national phenomem (sp?). I believe it's more a state, maybe even a local, issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
The president likes to take credit for good unemployment figures - but it's not really in his control.
Clinton federal corp taxes didn't kill me as much as Connecticut corp taxes did.
Just for the record, I don't even own a TV. I get NO news from television sources, only from radio, print, and you folks :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Clinton did sell us to China.
Masterblaster i'm low on cash, you think i should sell these people a clue?
Dont quit your day-jobs.