How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 What is Bush's foreign policy?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What is Bush's foreign policy?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


25 posted 04-27-2003 09:21 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I've said enough, I'm sorry I began this thread now, Balladeer's offended, Tim thinks I planned this to stir up controversy. For an outsider to even remotely question Bush's methods I'm labeled Anti-American while many of my american friends who happen to agree with me are labeled Unpatriotic.. it's a no win situation. I questioned a governments policies and its been spun into a slander of its people.


Don't be sorry. Michael and Tim do this on just about every thread that involves America.

It's becoming quite humorous.

MIchael is one of the most hypersensitive people your ever gonna meet on the internet. Hell, he gets offended even when you don't say anything.

Only Tim can say something like this:

quote:
The simple minded and arrogant in the crowd hereby bid their adieu...
I know full well what your words say, as I say, they don't make sense to me...  I apologize for my simple mindessness.. ciao


He states an opinion, that you're an anti-American, then immediately modifies it so that he doesn't have to stand by it. It's a nice trick.

If a bit disingenuous the forth or fifth time around . . . .

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 04-27-2003 09:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Was just wondering if you were AWOL Brad.

Eddie:

What gives America the right?  I dunno.  28,000 bombs.  The Shiites at least have the right again to hit themselves with hammers.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


27 posted 04-27-2003 10:09 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

well, you got a chuckle out of me Brad...
that quote says I opined someone was anti-American?  Cannot someone make anti-American statments and still be pro-American? I read the comments made as being anti-U.S.  I do not see them as being pro-American.  I was told they were not anti-U.S., they were anti-Bush.  I don't follow that logic.  If the majority of Americans support the policies of the president and someone indicates those policies are simple minded and arrogant, and those are policies supported by the American people, it follows the American people are simple minded or arrogant for supporting those policies. The other alternative I suppose is that we are all brainwashed.  Yes, I comprehend the words, but I do not follow the logic. Just so there is not confusion, I did not intend a qualifier, I take the comments as anti-American.  That is a right Americans hold dear. (to criticize and oppose, but to also support)  The statements made disagree with the policies and views of the American president and the American people who support those policies and views.  If you feel my views on my country are disingenous Brad, that is certainly your opinion.  If we are going to play semantics, I suspect you will win. Word games are not my forte.  It may well be it is humorous that I stand up for views I believe.  I find your views rather predictible, and have a fair inkling of how you are going to reply to anyone supporting positions of the United States.  I do not know that makes you disingenous or particularly humorous, just consistent.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


28 posted 04-27-2003 10:29 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

I've intentionally stayed out of this fracus because I felt it was a Lose/Lose situation. I am, however, going to exrecise my right to change my mind and make a few simple statements. I will begin by saying that I am not doing this to begin/continue any arguments or to insult anyone. If tht is what happens then I will apologize in advance. having said that:
Aenimal- Originally, the mission was not to police the areas that had been cleared of hostilities. I did not then, nor do I now agree that they should have remained docile on this point, but rather just pointing out an interesting reality. Protecting the oil wells WAS, however, a stated goal of the conflict. I have- admittedly- dropped my obsessive viewing of the Middle East with everything that was going on in my life, and with the chance of my foster son being injured decreasing so much. I do seem to recall, however, that the military forces are now being used in conjunction with the Iraqi constabulatory to maintain a measure of order. It might be a bit late, but it is something.
As for the inspectors, I would have to -temporarily- agree with the decision not to allow Mr. Blix and company back into the country just yet. During the last stages of the conflict, during the battle for Baghdad, a significant weapons cashe was found in a building that Hans Blix HIMSELF inspected. Now that the war is over he's going to do a better job?? I would concede the point that a couple of outside observers would be a good thing, however I do not agree with turning it over to the UN at this time. Allowing the UN to completely take over the humanitarian effort is completely acceptible. I don't feel there is anyone that does it better.
Balladeer- I do not actually feel that long term relations between North and South are even going to get a bruise. I don't even feel that they are going to be damamged in the short-term. I am completely unaware of any of the statements being quoted in this thread, however, reading them here, it just seems like it's another case of "We don't get along, deal with it." For whatever reason, The American President and the Canadian PM (if I understand it properly) are just simply shooting their sewers off about a truckload of "Who-friggin'-cares". Just because I don't like a former boss, and denounce everything he stands for doesn't mean that every manager I meet is that way. I happened to like the one that replaced him. It happens.
I, as a very conservative American, did not read any American bashing statements in the original posting, and find it quite ludicrous that anyone did. Everyone is talking on here about anti-American and anti-Canandian sentiments, yet NO ONE that I have EVER talked to (and I talk for a living) has stated anything against the canadian people or their government. I have found the opinions to range between love and respect to complete ambivelence. Anyone who half studies American history will see the Canadian's fingerprints embedded in the pools of blood shedby American fighting men. When America was attacked for the second time (the World Trade Centers were hit twice) Canada was on scene before the dust settled. I have friends from another discussion board that sent me condolences on the off chance I might have known anyone there. This is- to my rememberance- the ONLY conflict that the Canadians did not drop everything to become involved in. And as I stated in another thread here somewhere, even Michael Jordan sat out of the game once in a while. Canada just happened to choose this particular game to call in sick (so to speak).
To answer another statement, I don't see this as Canada holding out a glad hand and then snubbing us with the other. See above for my reasons. The ones that I would see that happening with would be the "Terrible Trio". The US has done more to protect French interests in the past 100 years than the French themselves did. And now, they want to damn us for the conflict and then they want us to give them a stake in the rebuilding contracts that are going to be worth billions of dollars to their economy. When the old Soviet Union had the worst winter on record, and their people were literally starving, they came screaming to the US for wheat and financial aid (and we were ENEMIES at the time). When the international community was demanding reparations at the end of WWI and the Germans were unable to handle it, the US stepped in and paid a great amount of their war debt for them... including the cash PM Chamberlain wanted for Britain... and also assisted them with economic aid to get their country back in order. Enter WWII. When the Wall came down, the US sent billions in economic assistance to help with the merging of the two former enemies. Enter this. Kind of disingenuous, eh?
Oh, I almost forgot... last one, I promise...
I have been to several sporting events with the Canadians challenging the Americans, and have heard the boos from Americans in a few states, not just NY. I don't see it as anti-Canadian sentiments as much as the Expos, or the Maple Leafs, or whatever being the "enemy" of the day. It is the same as the Degers being boo'd every time they enter Cincinnati for a Reds/Dodgers contest.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts, and (bad commercial quote imminent...) I thank you for your support.


When the morning cries and you don't know why...

[This message has been edited by Ringo (04-27-2003 10:36 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


29 posted 04-27-2003 10:58 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tim,

What I called into question was the apology, not your views. I think you've fleshed out your views well enough to validate my point.

I hope my views are predictable, I've stated and restated them enough times. Curious though if you are still getting them wrong as many have here. So, what are they?

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


30 posted 04-27-2003 11:42 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

The original thread started with a statement that Secretary of State Powell stated to the Canadian press that President Bush had snubbed the Canadians.  I did not see that as being a statement Powell would make. I also found it unusual that such a statement was not plastered all over the American media.  I checked the Canadian media and was unable to find such a statement, in fact I found the contrary to be the case. Perhaps the statement was made, I just would like to see some documentation.
Perhaps if my apologies are perceived as disingenous, I should re-evaluate my choice of words.  I do admit to being somewhat frustrated at that statement being made as a starting point to criticize policies of the United States.  
If Powell made such a statement, I am clearly in the wrong and a disservice has been done to our close allies to the north.
If such a statement was not made, then a misleading statement was made to set the tone for the rest of the thread.
If I have crossed the line, I apologize. Not for my positions which I still hold, but my presentation.

Brad, would you like the Reader's Digest Condensed or the Unabridged version?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


31 posted 04-28-2003 01:03 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Oh, one or two sentences should do nicely. It's not a difficult position -- or perhaps it is if you can't see the difference between being anti-administration and anti-American. The only thing I'd add is my position on rhetorical moves.

Oh, and one more question, why is that many people accuse those you disagree with as having an 'agenda' and excuse those you agree with by making a mistake?

Didn't George Carlin do a bit about that?



Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 07-17-99
Posts 8273


32 posted 04-28-2003 03:40 AM       View Profile for Severn   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Severn

Jason - don't worry, I'm staying out of this one...and it's something I've observed myself...

K
JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


33 posted 04-28-2003 12:04 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

quote:
Recently Bush cancelled a scheduled trip to Canada when Colin Powell was asked by a canadian reporter if this was a snub due to Canada's stance on the Iraq war. Powell admitted that it was indeed but added that we shouldn't worry as neighbours it will eventually blow over. Is international relations the place for petty emotions and were Canadians not entitled to their own opinion?


Aboslutely, Canada is entitled to its own opinion, and no one has agrued that.  But as a Nation we are entitle to express our umberage that our neighbor, ally, and a most favored nation, chose not to back us up at a critical time.  President Bush chose this 'snub' to express that umberage, he did not advocate invading Canada, or any other such activity.  He chose a simple act to say "We respect your stand, we are disappointed you chose not to stand with us."  He chose to do this because as the leader of this country it was his responsibility to express ourselves on the National stage.

If my neighbor watches me jump a thug get in a fight in the front of my house and stands there doing nothing, I would feel less than happy with that neighbor.  Would I move or try to force him to move, or build a big wall between our houses? No, would I go to his next BBQ?  Equally no.  But soon, relations would return to normal, and my neighbor and I both understand that.

Now that it is done with, things will return to normal as far as relations between us. No lasting harm was done.

The harm lies in those who chose to make a mountain out of an anthill, those who look to any incident, any comment, any anything, to trash the leaders of our nation, or our government.

Our leaders and our government are not perfect. They never have been, and we can look to both sides of the aisle to find stupidy, corruption, and immorality.  But that does nothing to strengthen our nation.  We have an obligation to question our government, equal to our obligation to support our government. Constantly looking for any possible thing we disagree with and making an unweildy issue of it serves no useful purpose.

Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
Nil Desperandum, Fata viem invenient

morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


34 posted 04-28-2003 12:18 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

"IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."


God Dickens was a genius!!  I had (hmm... seems to be a cliche on this thread) decided to stay out of this one but...

Another quote, a la Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

Firstly I must say that intolerance is showing it's ugly head around here. At one point while I was reading, I started wondering when Ron would step in to act in his Umpire's role but maybe the arrangement around venting in the Alley is a little looser than I thought (let me assure everyone that that was NOT a sarcastic comment... tempers are a little high in here so I just thought I should declare that)

I see nothing wrong with the original post, quite frankly. In fact I would have added that a level of incompetence, bordering on stupidity, in safeguarding the heritage of three thousand years, has resulted in much of the history of mankind going up in flames or into thieves' hands. One wonders if there was something deliberate about this.

Now I know that my last statement may result in an online butt-kicking but I am from the school that teaches that saying what you honestly think is not a crime. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but somehow I do not think this is one of them. Lets face it, Americans are ultra-sensitive right now. They are ultra-sensitive to the point of near paranoia BECAUSE of (I believe) inept foreing policies and diplomatic practices by thier Government. How so? Simple: The foreign policies practiced by Bush et al have resulted in world disapproval, which has resulted in Americans feeling threatened which... need I say more? The last poll I saw, said that 70% of Americans approved of Bush and his policies but I think that it is high time that US citizens start wondering what went wrong after 9/11. Lets face it people, there has never before been such an outpouring of love and support for the United States as happened after 9/11. The ENTIRE world, save a mere few, was behind America, INCLUDING France, Russia, and Germany and Canada. I read so much about cooperation from those countries in trying to catch those responsible for the horror of 9/11.

Which brings me to my Dicken quote... It was the best of times (in terms of support) for America, in the worst of times (in terms of the events of 9/11 AND in terms of the inability of the US government to make the best of that support) In plain terms, the Bush administration dropped the ball. Period. So why, you ask, do so many Americans support the Bush administration? Elementary, my dear Watson: After what happened at the WTC, Americans are in an extremely sensitive collective state of mind. They see their country and their way of life as under threat from any many (?) directions. It is human nature for people in a situation like that to be apprehensive. It is also human nature for people in situations like that to look for strong leadership and like him or not, in George Bush they see strong leadership. Trouble is, in George Bush they also have wrong leadership...

Any man who can be called The Leader of The Free World must have certain attributes which few others have. One of these is the ability to be calm in the eye of a storm and to see the bigger picture at ALL times. He cannot afford to be totally parochial. I said in an earlier post some weeks ago that the business of America is the business of the world. What George Bush did was to forget this and the result is costing the US in terms of goodwill. Quite frankly, Bush's handling of the whole situation ie. post 9/11 and Iraq, has been rather myopic and ordinary from a man who is expected to be all seeing and extra-ordinary.

It is easy, and expected for Americans to think that anyone who criticises Bush is snubbing America. Those of us who know better, should not allow this to deter us from speaking our minds and saying what needs to be said without allowing ourselves to get emotional too. Aenimal, I understand how you feel as a Canadian (quite similarly to the Americans I suppose, with the whole SARS thing right now) but don't hold anything against our American friends (and they ARE our friends) I think history will show them what you and so many others are seeing now.


Garfield

[This message has been edited by morefiah (04-28-2003 12:28 PM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


35 posted 04-28-2003 12:39 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

It is amazing how many people allow their emotionally-based biases to rule their minds when dealing with issues such as this one. (slowly, shakes head from side-to-side.)

[This message has been edited by Opeth (04-28-2003 12:40 PM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


36 posted 04-28-2003 01:12 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

The sad part of this whole thread is that I allowed myself to get caught up in the emotions of it and that completely sidelined the intitial comments. I prefer to leave emotion out of it and use logic and reason. Many of you have made excellent points and counterpoints and have brought back the depth to the conversation. My anger has never been with you but with those more intent on labeling then in thinking. I said I wouldn't take part in this thread  but allow me these last points:


Brad: I'm in no way sorry for what I've said, I think I stated clearly enough times that this was never anti-american but anti policy. He refuses to see this and while he maintains focused on producing the exact quote he ignored all other points and counterpoints completely.
I recall an excellent poem you wrote early on in the confilct and the backlash you got for it.

Ringo

I realize that policing was not originally called for while the protection of the oil wells was. But if you're going to sell this war as "for the people of Iraq" shouldn't
there have been some effort to help police and protect the newly freed populace?
As for not allowing Blix and UN inspectors in, you have to understand the perceptions some may have about this
"There's a joke going around the UK at the moment that the reason it’s taking so long to find the WMD’s is one of logistics, after all it takes time to ship them in and the “Made in Iraq” stickers haven’t even been printed yet" taken from Crazy Eddie post and like Eddie I'm not suggesting this is my opinion, far from it. However it shows that there is a perception amongst some people and countries that this could be the case. Therefore I think it's vital that the US includes Blix and co. to join in and prove to the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is indeed evidence. It's simply a matter of removing doubts and soothing fears.

JP

There is a difference between helping you defend yourselves and joining you in an attack on someone else. The US wasn't directly threatened by Iraq, had it been rest assured we would have joined without hesitation. On the other hand, were you attacked as you were on 9/11 we would have joined immediately as we did in Afghanistan.
We along with the UN understood and had clearer reasons in attacking the Taliban regime. With regards to Saddam's regime while we did not approve of his methods we awaited the UN's approval and more proof before moving. It's as simple as that. If canadians weren't supportive of the US why let some of our soldiers over or why patrol the persian gulf? I have by the way never completely defended the Canadian government's decision to not offer assitance of some sort, I think it was a mistake although to tell you the truth we simply wouldn't have had the resources with most of our troops still based in Afghanistan. My point was never to make this an issue of Canada's view vs the US it was about Bush's attitude and policy's. And as for showing umberage, there is a HUGE difference between a neighbourhood setting and a Global scale. We're talking about shaky relationships albeit temporary between two G7 nations. And by the way I've also stated that Chretien is equally childish he has also responded in less then savoury ways and I do not advocate them. Thus the statement I made earlier
And that's not a shot at the US but the entire international community including Canada. Bunch of children in the sandbox, well to hell with all of them.

Morefiah

I hold absolutely nothing against americans as I've stated before. Why would I come to a primarily American forum amidst primarily American friends and insult them? All i ever meant was that there seems to be little respect or etiquette in Bush's administration which I find disturbing attributes for the leader of the free world.
I'm not sure what you mean by the SARS reference but maybe that's better left for another discussion this one has me worn out. Again I have apologized for getting emotional but understand my frustration in being labeled as I was.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-28-2003 01:16 PM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


37 posted 04-28-2003 01:48 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Recently Bush cancelled a scheduled trip to Canada when Colin Powell was asked by a canadian reporter if this was a snub due to Canada's stance on the Iraq war. Powell admitted that it was indeed but added that we shouldn't worry as neighbours it will eventually blow over."

~ Without the time to research this claim, I'll just give you the bennefit of the doubt and regard it as factual.

"Is international relations the place for petty emotions and were Canadians not entitled to their own opinion?"

~ Define "petty emotions?"
~ Of course the Canadian government has a right to its own opinion, however if that opinion differs with its closest neighbors - who happens to be Canada's strongest ally, then they could expect a "snubbing" in return.

"The Bush administrations foreign policy is absolutely appaling,"

~ I disagree. It is not appalling. It is strong and decisive.

"this war was fought for the Iraqi freedom but once the looting began soldiers did not assist, when asked they said it was not their mission to police. I found that amusing when you consider there were alot of military units keeping a sharp eye on oil wells."

~ This is not the same issue as foreign policy. Besides that, this is two issues that have nothing to do with each other. The protecting of the oil wells was to prevent the enemy from setting them on fire. The looting problem was an entirely different matter, and was unexepected. After reading various articles about the looting, I came to this conclusion - 1. It was unexpected. 2. A decision had to made and made quickly. 3. The Americans did not want to appear to be taking over the country, so they allowed the looting to occur. Whether that decision was correct is another issue which could be discussed at another time.

"And while the US continually stated that they did not wish to undermine the UN I find it appaling that now that the war is over the US has denied UN inspectors access to search for those Chemical weapons and others of mass destruction, saying that their own inspectors were on the case and the UN would simply get in the way. Is this good policy,"

~ Yes, it is. If the U.N. would of enforced its own resolutions and supported the war effort, then Mr. Blix would have every right to gather his team and do the job in searching for those weapons, but since the U.N. balked...they are out, and justifiably so.

"is this the way to endear yourself to the international community?"

~ The U.S. does not set "endearing" as a number one priority when dealing with the international community.

The Bush administration determined that Saddam was not in compliance...Saddam hadn't been in compliance for over a decade, so they decided it was time ato "show some muscle" by bullying the bully. Now the bully is gone.

Of course, all Saddam had to do was comply. He made his own bed, now he has been blown-up in it.


  

[This message has been edited by Opeth (04-28-2003 01:52 PM).]

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


38 posted 04-28-2003 02:17 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Did or did not the Secretary of State tell the Canadian press that the president of the United States snubbed Canada?  That is not a difficult question.  Everything I read is to the exact contrary.  Where is the evidence Canada has been snubbed as indicated. Please, someone show me. The position of virtually every American I know is that Canada is a valued ally and respected for their bravery and heroism in past conflicts.  Everyone (American), including myself, who expressed an opinion in the thread agreed with this assessment.

Brad, it is hard to gauge your positions because you change topic quite effectively or go Socratic.  But in threads I have observed, you were against Afghanistan but approve of the results.  Interesting take, sort of the yes but reasoning.  On Iraq, you take the approach, it is a judgment call, but the U.S. is going about it the wrong way. I have not seen you directly and succinctly set out your position on many issues. Such an approach allows one to avoid being tied down to any one position except for the fact you are consistent, in at least the threads I have read, of not agreeing to any action or policy of the U.S. government, only the results.  I temper that with not reading all your threads.

George Carlin could and does effectively employ language for satirical purposes.  You also effectively use language.  My response after your last comment was quite honestly was huh? Where did that one come from? You feel free to read into other's comment perceived motivations and "agendas" and criticize others for doing the same.
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


39 posted 04-28-2003 04:03 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Aenimal....

I hope you did not get me wrong. I also have Canadian relatives who have told me that the WHO response to the whole SARS thing rubs you guys the wrong way EVEN as you are working so hard to get on top of things. Sounds like a national crisis to me. So that was why I said that there may be some similarities in terms of the national psyche just now.

As for my comments about holding things against them... I think I may be one of the few here who realize how hard you have tried to maintain that you are NOT carrying grudges. You are right about your efforts to show that foreign policies are what you ariginally tried to speak to. It's just that there have been a few knee-jerk responses to what you said. I found it all interesting though, so I guess I can say it here and now: I love coming here to enjoy the cut-and-thrust of good debating every day. Best thing is: It is normally from a basis of heart-felt opinions.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


40 posted 04-28-2003 07:14 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Aenimal said:
quote:
I recall an excellent poem you wrote early on in the confilct and the backlash you got for it.


I wrote no such poem. I don't know how to write such a poem. Like 911, I see no way to improve on the impact of war. I may someday write a poem on 911 or on the war, but I haven't yet, and it won't be a political poem, it will focus on the fact that I was crying and my daughter was smiling at the pretty pictures.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


41 posted 04-28-2003 07:50 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Brad, it is hard to gauge your positions because you change topic quite effectively or go Socratic.  But in threads I have observed, you were against Afghanistan but approve of the results.  Interesting take, sort of the yes but reasoning.


Well, nobody's perfect. If I change the subject, it's just because I see multiple subjects. But that was exactly my position on Afghanistan. I can't get the words of this administration to fit the actions (No stated goal was met), but I'm pleased with the results. I'm at the same time distressed with what's happening now. How much money did this administration allocate to Afghanistan in the current budget?

quote:
On Iraq, you take the approach, it is a judgment call, but the U.S. is going about it the wrong way.


Yep. Hey, somebody does read around here.

quote:
I have not seen you directly and succinctly set out your position on many issues.


Now why do you say that? You've gotten me right twice.

quote:
Such an approach allows one to avoid being tied down to any one position except for the fact you are consistent, in at least the threads I have read, of not agreeing to any action or policy of the U.S. government, only the results.  I temper that with not reading all your threads.


Only if by tied down you mean I have to tie myself to one slogan or another. I see no reason to do that. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have to write anything. I could just cut and paste.

quote:
George Carlin could and does effectively employ language for satirical purposes.  You also effectively use language.  My response after your last comment was quite honestly was huh? Where did that one come from? You feel free to read into other's comment perceived motivations and "agendas" and criticize others for doing the same.


Why do you think that I'm above the fray? I certainly don't. I criticize all of us for finding 'agendas' in our opponents and forgiving the 'mistakes' of our friends. When I wrote that, I was actually thinking of Jeng Zha Min's comments regarding the, uh, downing of an American plane incident a few years back.

His point was that America was too powerful to make mistakes. As ludicrous as that sounds, it seems that's the approach we all take to an opponent. To be honest, I read some of your stuff, compare it to others I've read and wonder if there's some class out there, call it Neocon 101, that teaches this type or rhetorical manuevering? I'm not being critical here, simply explaining my own bias.

I simply don't buy that you, Michael, or Opeth are any less biased than I am and so I'm going to continue to point that out as tedious as that may be sometimes.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> What is Bush's foreign policy?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors