Bush's Thanksgiving Trip? - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Temptress

Moderator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-06-15

Posts 7136
Mobile, AL

0 posted 2003-12-02 12:27 PM

Well...here I go. I hope this discussion continues for a while.

I am really curious how everyone feels about Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. I have only noticed one poem about it in Open, and didn't really agree with the negative view of it.

Discuss please

I'll add some thoughts later. I just wanted to get it started.

All of my impurities are right here on my sleeve. This is Me"---Faith Hill

SEA

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 2000-01-18

Posts 22676
with you

1 posted 2003-12-02 10:16 AM

I haven't heard much about it, I saw a bit of it on the news, and that's it. I really think it was great. I happen to think he is a great President. I don't care that some people think it was just a photo op....I saw the smiles of the folks over there,(on the news) they seemed happy he was there, that is all that really matters, isn't it? That the President being there made people there, happy? Made them feel like he cared? They are serving their country, are far away from their families, and I can't even imagine how hard that must be. So if it made them happy, then it was a good thing.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

2 posted 2003-12-02 12:53 PM

I actually think it was a very good thing for the troops, and for the country. Yes, it was a photo-op, however, I really do not believe that was the full intent. If it was going to be something to get mileage out of, and that was it, he wouldn't have kept it a large of a secret as it was.
America's military is over there doing a tough job, and is getting, relatively speaking, very little thanks for it. The Democratic presidential candidates (No, this isn't a slam, or disrespect) are to a one vilifying the mission that is being carried out, and telling the world that we have no reason to be there. If we have no business being there, that means our troops have no reason being there, and are not performing a very valuable mission, and are- indeed- completely wasting their time and their lives for no good cause. A great many Americans are screaming at the top of their lungs that same exact sentiment. To the average Marine, Sailor, Soldier, or Airman in theater, who has no clue about big picture, and couldn't care any less if he ever got the "big picture", this has the ring of them being unappreciated, and their sacrifices being unappreciated by the people they have sworn to serve. To them, it seems as if their friends and comrades who have been called to make the ultimate sacrifice are not being honored for doing the duty they have been called upon to do.
That brings morale crashing through the proverbial floor... ESPECIALLY during holidays.
What President Bush did was let them know that there are still Americans that don't know them personally, and who have no stake in their individual lives, hopes, or dreams that are thinking about them, and who are understanding of the sacrifices they are making by not being in a comfortable house, with all of the creature comforts that we complain about, and by being away from their families.

We are all equal but we’re individually different
and able to reach the impossible if we try.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

3 posted 2003-12-02 03:21 PM

Puhleeze.

Tangibly many probably feel he went to console the troops and attempt to boost their morale, but intangibly it is quite obvious why he REALLY went, so he can save his own butt for 2004. It was nothing but a "patriotic" publicity move in my opinion, and if he believes that I am going to suddenly vote for him next year because he carved turkey in Baghdad for the troops, he is sorrrrrrrrely mistaken! Only the most shallow soul would switch sides after an act like that, and as far as I'm concerned, NOTHING will encourage me to support him now. He has already brought enough harm on the world as it is, environmentally, socially, and constitutionally, and his lies are among the worst ever spoken in America's history.

You know what my opinion on this is? It was nothing but a selfish ulterior motive, and if Kohlberg ranked him on his Moral Scale, he'd be at a mere 2 right now. It's all about him, him, him. I happen to have visited Fort Carson numerous times with my friend Randy Meador, who is enlisted there in the National Guard, and a majority there share my beliefs that they were not affected one bit by his visit. Nope, sorry Bush, but thanks for playing!

By the way, I think this would suit best in The Alley!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (12-02-2003 03:34 PM).]

inot2B
Member Elite

since 2000-09-18

Posts 2205
Arkansas

4 posted 2003-12-02 08:51 PM

Glad you asked. I felt so proud that the President of the USA would go over and visit the troops who are defending our Country as well as other countries. Yes, he put his life in jeopardy for the short time he was there, but so do our troops. I believe before leaving the President made sure all the important people knew what he was going to do and a plan was set up to transfer power smoothly if something would of happened to him. Was it a ploy for votes? I also saw Sen. H. Clinton over there. Did she do it for votes? I don't care, it was the look on the troops faces that counted. They seemed so happy to see someone who would risk their life when they didn't have to, come visit them.
Yes I am proud of my President!!!!
The only thing that surprised me was that a small number of the MEDIA knew about plans for the trip and they kept their mouthshut.

Temptress

Moderator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-06-15

Posts 7136
Mobile, AL

5 posted 2003-12-02 09:41 PM

Thanks for the thoughts so far everyone. I'm enjoying reading them.

Noah?
Why would I want this in The Alley? It isn't a complaint..I'm not flamin' or complainin', etc.

Thanks for the suggestion though...

All of my impurities are right here on my sleeve. This is Me"---Faith Hill

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

6 posted 2003-12-02 09:51 PM

A couple of things come to mind;

"I reject the cynical view that politics is a dirty business."
       --Richard M. Nixon

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." --Henry Louis Mencken

"Everything a politician does is political" -- (paraphrased by me of something said by?  Kissinger?  don't recall)

The mantle of leadership imbues a pernicious shadow across any and every action regardless of its import or intent.

If a man takes care to make sure his property is safe and secure so that visitors or passers by won't be injured is it because he truly doesn't want someone to be injured or is it because he wishes to avoid a lawsuit?  What if it is both?

What if Bush hadn't visited Iraq or the troops in the field?  What would be said about him?  That he doesn't care about the troops -- that Iraq is too insecure for him to visit?

It is a two edged sword.  But to say that the President chose the edge that brought some degree of comfort and morale to the troops in the field (be they righteously deployed or not they are deployed) most likely gives an indication of what lies beneath the political petina.

In the end -- politically it is a wash -- so I give the trip a thumbs-up.  Bush may be my ideological opponent -- but he is not my enemy.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

7 posted 2003-12-03 12:42 PM

Noah- We have discussed our political beliefs before, and never seemed to agree on much. Once again, I must respectfully disagree with you. I do not feel that his trip was done to save his butt for 2004. A simple trip like that would never do it, and to accuse him of believing it would dishonors- not only the president- your intelligence as well, for believing an ENTIRE presidential staff would believe that it could.
As for saving his keester for 2004, I do not believe that he needs this tiny little trip to do so. The economy is strong, as evidenced by the GDP being higher than it has been since 1985 (when a Republican was president, BTW),and having grown for the 3rd quarter in a row, the GNP is also on a steady increase. Exports are up, housing starts are up, housing sales are up, unemployment is declining for the 4th month in a row, Car sales are on the rise, personal savings are beginning to increase (slowly), and there are too many other factors to include.
As for his lies being among the worst in America's history...
While it is true that there are not any WMD's that have been found, there have been a few polls where the country as a whole feel safer with Sadam Hussein out of the picture. It would have been better that Pres. Bush ver. 2.0 announced that the Middle East had a cockroach problem and needed an exterminator (the coalition).
Although I have conceded that point,I cannot agree that his lies are among the worst. By doing so, you are placing him ahead of such notables as:
Gen. Grant, with the array of scandals he had during his watch,
the Tammany Hall scandal- and all of the lies told there-
President Lincoln, who announced that he freed the slaves, when in fact, he freed the slaves in a separate country that he had no rights to. That would be like an American President issuing a proclamation that the slaves in Angola were now free...
Oh, should I include Gen. Washington who lied to the Continental Congress about the conditions at Valley Forge as to get more support?
How about President Roosevelt, who denied having a mistress?
Pres. Truman, who KNEW pearl Haarbor was to be attacked and said nothing as to involve the US in a war to oust a tyranical regime that invaded its neighbors (sounds slightly familiar??)
President Kennedy, who also denied having a mistress or six.
President Johnson who lied about going into Cambodia and Laos to fight the soldiers of a regime that invaded its neighbors to place them under forced rule that they didn't ask for (Where have I seen that before?)
President Nixon for ALL of his lies
President Reagan for the Iran-Contra lies
President Bush ver 1.0 for the "No New Taxes" lie
Pres. Clinton for- Whitewater, denying Monica, denying Paula Jones, not inhaling, Vince Foster, etc.
While we are on the subject of Pres. Clinton, and bringing up the subject of lame, BS photo ops... During his first Veteran's Day as Pres, he was walking throughout Arlington for a "solitary moment" honoring the military men and women therre, and just "happened" to find a miniature flag that he lovingly put intothe ground beside a grave marker... PUH-LEEZ. THAT was a shameless photo op that was designed to make the fact that he was a draft dodger all better... the same sort of senseless ploy which you accuse the sitting president of.
LEt's not forget MRS. Clinton, and her "I have always considered myself to be a New Yorker" speech.
Ted Kennedy and "I know nothing about Chappaquiddick"
There are far too many astronomical lies that have been told by too many politicians to place this president among the top contenders.
And you mentioned:
"Only the most shallow soul would switch sides after an act like that, and as far as I'm concerned, NOTHING will encourage me to support him now."
It seems to me that statement is just as shallow, which is suprising as I know you are not a shallow person at all.
I know that everything I said in this reply is in direct conflict with your firmly held beliefs, and that we will NEVER agree on anything when it comes to ideology, and politics, however, please know that my points in here are only in answer and not in conflict with you or your right to believe what it is you do.

We are all equal but we’re individually different
and able to reach the impossible if we try.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

8 posted 2003-12-03 07:52 AM

Without any evidence, it would be pure conjecture to suggest that the president made the trip for a photo-op in order to boost his 2004 campaign.

However, our ex-president Bill Cliton, DID, on numerous occasions, stage events to make himself look patriotic - to boost his poll ratings with the political voting "fence-sitters."

I can't remember the year, but on one Memorial Day, while walking past the thousands of dead soldiers graves (each with a flag stuck into the ground next to the grave markers), Mr. Cliton happened to come across a flag that had (or did it?) fallen over...

our empathizing ex-prez, Mr. Cliton, reached down unfurled the flag, stuck it back into the ground, looked over his shoulder to make sure the cameraman captured his almost-perfectly planned photo-op or Kodak moment, if you will, and bowed his head in solomn prayer....how sweet...awww!

But wait a moment...

The problem with this entire scene, and one his aides must of completely overlooked was this...

How does a flag fall over and furl itself without any outside assistance?

GUILTY

And that was only one occasion where he shamed veterans nationwide.

Now, what was that about Bush?

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-03-2003 08:04 AM).]

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

9 posted 2003-12-03 11:25 AM

Once again, Bradly, we may never agree on anything politically, but I respect your opinions and I also do not hate Bush, I simply pity him full-heartily and take him as an opponent and not an enemy.

However, yes, I do believe he is one of the biggest liars America has ever seen...and his term isn't over yet. What makes him an even worse liar than many of whom you mentioned is the fact he doesn't lie directly, he lies indirectly. His administration is frequently using euphemisms to substitute for his true agendas, he decodes certain words so citizens look them at other ways. The environment is at stake with his plans so-called the "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" campaigns, and he has destroyed over 200 environmental documents that have endured over 30 years. He has spat on our very own constitution, stolen the First Amendment from the honorable working man, and slowly our nation is becoming a stone cold oligarchy. He has put Medicare at the brink of doom. He waged a falsified war and has killed over 17,000 people so far, and I don't know what you have to say about the 54 Iraqi deaths the other day during Bush's visit, but I'll move on. Finally, I'd love to give credit to Abe and SharaRose for providing the following information from me from a global perspective:

Could all this really be true!!!! Amazing if it is. Voting Records of
Arabic/Islamic States listed below are the actual voting records of
various Arabic/Islamic States.
These voting records are recorded in both the US State Dept and United
Nations' records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United
States,
still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000.
annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000.
annually
in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000.
annually
in US Foreign Aid.

In the last year The Taliban terrorized the people of Afghanistan and
gave safe
haven to Osama Bin Laden, they received $143,000,000. in US Foreign Aid.

Sudan voted 75% against the United States and received $1,121,000 in US
Foreign Aid.

The Palestinian Authority will receive $500 million dollars in US
Foreign Aid over the next five years!
Israel, it must be noted, receives $3 billion in US Foreign Aid.
However, for the last five years it has an average record of voting with
the United States 94% of the time.

There is clearly no incentive for most countries to support the United
States, as they will receive US Foreign Aid regardless of their stances.

Perhaps it is time for the United States to deny things such as money,
scientific, technological, medical expertise, and education to nations
who simply will not assist or protect American interests? Worse yet,
your Federal dollars go to and support all of the anti-American groups
trying to destroy the "American way of life." This may still not balance
the budget, but it seems a good place to start.
It might not hurt to send this to all your Congress people and have your
friends do the same.

And you call my comment that NOTHING will encourage me to support him now ignorant? Well I'll tell you something, I am not a person who gets angry or upset easily, but there are two things I don't tolerate; dishonesty and cowardice, and Bush is both those things. Therefore, I find my statement to not be any more valid. I myself feel that our current democratic nominees are not the best this nation has ever had, nevertheless I shall support the winning candidate as I have a creed that I shall never re-elect a dishonest man.

Look beyond the front porch, there is much more than the media meets the eye!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

10 posted 2003-12-03 12:21 PM

Are you really suggesting, Noah, that we should only feed a hungry man if he will first agree with everything we say?

If the purpose of Foreign Aid is to "buy friendship," then it should ALL be eliminated. If the purpose is to help people who can't otherwise help themselves, it should NOT depend on political agendas.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

11 posted 2003-12-03 01:18 PM

No Ron, perhaps I should clarify.

The source was from an e-mail I received from Abe sent to me from SharaRose. I didn't necessarily agree with the closing statement completely though I decided it was necessary to post. The message is all in red colored font and italized. And my intent in sharing this is not to say we should cut the annual budget on all these lesser developed countries, as I believe we are simply not giving enough, just simply to show you all the statistics in how the world beyond the U.S reacts to this nation. In fact, Israel is the only nation at the time the war began that had more of an approval than a disapproval rating to the war. Every other nation had a majority disapproval!

And, to answer your question Ron, no, that is not what I believe at all. Political agenda should not interfere with how we feed and console the less fortunate. That is cruel and injust in my mind. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and as much as I'd like to see that certain type of Foreign Aid abolished where you "buy" friendship, it would be a double-edged sword to many in this type of debate. After all, the message said it "might not" hurt to send this, it didn't say "it won't hurt", so of course I can see where you came in with those questions.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (12-03-2003 01:24 PM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

12 posted 2003-12-04 04:17 PM

This is an e-mail from a Captain in Iraq circulating. Can I verify that it is true? No, and anyone against Bush will probably swear it's false but it rings pretty true with me......

Amazing, first-hand report of the President's visit with the troops on Thanksgiving Day.
"We knew there was a dinner planned with ambassador Bremer and LTG
Sanchez. There were 600 seats available and all the units in the
division were tasked with filling a few tables. Naturally, the 501st MI
battalion got our table. Soldiers were grumbling about having to sit
through another dog-and-pony show, so we had to pick soldiers to attend.
I chose not to go.

But, about 1500 the G2, LTC Devan, came up to me and with a smile, asked
me to come to dinner with him, to meet him in his office at 1600 and
bring a camera. I didn't really care about getting a picture with
Sanchez or Bremer, but when the division's senior intelligence officer
asks you to go, you go. We were seated in the chow hall, fully decorated
for thanksgiving when aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed
up.

That was my first clue, because Bremer's been here before and his
personal security detachment is not that big. Then BG Dempsey got up to
speak, and he welcomed ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. Bremer thanked
us all and pulled out a piece of paper as if to give a speech. He
mentioned that the President had given him this thanksgiving speech to
give to the troops. He then paused and said that the senior man present
should be the one to give it. He then looked at Sanchez, who just
smiled.

Bremer then said that we should probably get someone more senior to read
the speech. Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of
the United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with
hollering. Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just
began cheering with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It
was just unreal. I was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but
also because I was only two tables away from the podium. There he stood,
less than thirty feet away from me! The cheering went on and on and on.

Soldiers were hollering, cheering, and a lot of them were crying. There
was not a dry eye at my table. When he stepped up to the cheering, I
could clearly see tears running down his cheeks. It was the most surreal
moment I've had in years. Not since my wedding and Aaron being born.
Here was this man, our President, came all the way around the world,
spending 17 hours on an airplane and landing in the most dangerous
airport in the world, where a plane was shot out of the sky not six days
before.

Just to spend two hours with his troops. Only to get on a plane and
spend another 17 hours flying back. It was a great moment, and I will
never forget it. He delivered his speech, which we all loved, when he
looked right at me and held his eyes on me. Then he stepped down and was
just mobbed by the soldiers. He slowly worked his way all the way around
the chow hall and shook every last hand extended. Every soldier who
wanted a photo with the President got one. I made my way through the
line, got dinner, then wolfed it down as he was still working the room.

You could tell he was really enjoying himself. It wasn't just a photo
opportunity. This man was actually enjoying himself! He worked his way
over the course of about 90 minutes towards my side of the room.
Meanwhile, I took the opportunity to shake a few hands. I got a picture
with Ambassador Bremer, Talabani (acting Iraqi president) and Achmed
Chalabi (another member of the ruling council) and Condaleeza Rice, who
was there with him.

I felt like I was drunk. He was getting closer to my table so I went
back over to my seat. As he passed and posed for photos, he looked my in
the eye and "How you doin', captain." I smiled and said "God bless you,
sir." To which he responded "I'm proud of what you do, captain." Then
moved on..."

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

13 posted 2003-12-04 06:32 PM

Balladeer, I am a bit curious why you think anti-Bush people would believe this letter to be false. Nothing about it seems unreasonable or grotesque and you know how I am fiercely against Bush. Yet I know well Bush was in Baghdad and at least some were glad.

Obviously some troops were happy with him making a suprise visit, obviously some weren't. Obviously some greeted Bush with open arms and I am not going to deny that fact, though I believe strongly in my opinion Bush's primary incentive was to help himself rather than help others.

So, if you please, I'm just curious why there'd be any suspicion to this letter's credibility.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2003-12-04 09:01 PM

Well, Noah, this missive portrays Bush in a very positive light...a man who flew 34 hours with minimum fanfare over hostile territory to spend two hours with the soldiers in the field. You say the obviously some soldiers weren't happy with his visit. Please tell me how that is obvious...it certainly does not state that here nor have I seen any reports to verify that fact.

It has been brought up in this thread about Hillary's visit over there as being the true photo op yet you have ignored that completely so I ask you that directly now. You have a state senator with no military ranking and nothing whatsoever to do with the troops in Iraq making a visit. You have Bush, commander-in-chief of the Armed forces, flying there at a time when rockets are being fired daily, as opposed to little more than street fighting when Hillary went, and you call his a photo op and say nothing of hers. I can assure you that Bush could have come up with other ways to get photo ops than by going through what he did there. The problem with hatred or absolute prejudice is that you lose the ability to rationalize without prejudice or recognize anything that goes against your views. It appears that there would be absolutely nothing Bush could do that you would call favorable and that's a sad thing. Bush has done some things that I strongly disagree with but I will give him credit for what I think he does well....and I believe this is one of them....obviously so do the soldiers he sent there.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

15 posted 2003-12-04 10:05 PM

I know little of Hillary's visit, and I am pretty sure that, too, in my opinion, was a photo-op stunt. That is why I didn't bring light to that subject, as we haven't gotten a lot of coverage about her visit here.

I happen to think 34 hours is very reasonable, as I remember it taking 26 hours for me to get from Denver to Frankfurt, Germany when going on vacation to Ireland last summer. And I have been keeping attentive to the attacks continuing in Iraq, with one vessel crashing six days prior to Bush's visit.

I have a close friend who is enrolled at Fort Carson, a major military unit facility in my home-state, who as a matter of fact is a registered member and part of our ever-growing family here at Passions, Hypnosis, and multiple times I have went down there with him and met many of his acquaintances. Many do not support of Bush, and many said they despised shaking his hand on his recent visit there, some even said they wanted to spit on their hand prior to shaking his hand. Believe me, there are many down there in Iraq who weren't happy to have him around that the media didn't wish to convey.

Finally, you mis-read me on what I said about me saying NOTHING would make me approve of him. I meant NOTHING would encourage me to vote for him next year, obviously if he actually did bring peace to a nation in the world, or boosted the economy tenfold, or accomplished an act of diplomacy, I would give him a thumbs-up for that, and praise that act, or anything else that I believe in my creed. However, a majority of the things he has done I have disapproved of bitterly, and I have my own philosophy that I will NEVER re-elect a constantly dishonest man, NEVER re-elect one who promotes war and violence and NEVER thoroughly attempts to use diplomacy, NEVER re-elect one who holds so much more prejudice to his people than you are accusing me of. Is that really prejudiced? I have my convictions, I have my druthers, and I don't ask of much, so I find it far from prejudiced. I was upset when Clinton told a big whopper during his second term, if someone was about to use his name again, and if I was old enough to vote then and if that was actually his first term, I would be reluctant to re-elect him, although his lie really put no one in danger but himself and those suspect within the moment. I happen to think Clinton was one of our better presidents in recent years in office, and in my opinion his lies were rather modest compared to the on-going lies Bush says or his administration passes onto him, which a majority of them are from behind closed doors and not up on the podium, yet deeply affecting the world. And is saying that prejudiced, or having my own set of morals and sentiments? Well, I find that sad myself, and personally, that hurts my feelings too. I honestly feel this is why so many young people like myself are reluctant to embrace the general public and speak their minds, they fear being misunderstood and say something that says like something else to another. And I'm sorry if you feel I am being prejudiced, as I don't believe in prejudice and never make it my intent to be so. And I can also say that I do not hate anyone, not even Bush. I simply scorn him with deepest pity, and I only pray he thinks of what he does each moment of the way and thinks of the consequences is all. I believe in the notion of "turning the other cheek" and that is what I will do. All I can say is I must move on and offer a spirited wave, speaking my mind while looking ahead, simple as that.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (12-04-2003 10:20 PM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2003-12-04 10:26 PM

Yes, Noah, ypu have your convictions and you are certainly entitled to them, as all people are. Nothing I said was meant to intentionally offend you and I hope you know that. We have gone through a period where all of the Clinton shennanigans have been ignored or swept under the table, first with slick WIllie and now with Hillary.....even to the point of saying Clinton's lies were "modest", as if classifying lies into degrees somehow makes him more honest. Yes, I feel that, by your many statements in poems and different threads you have a prejudice against Bush and I have the same against Clinton so there is no difference between us except that we have different targets.

Peace...

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

17 posted 2003-12-04 11:18 PM

Thank you Balladeer! I knew you could understand my frustration in my previous response! And though we may have opposing targets and will likely be opinionated rivals political-mindedly come now and 2004, I just want you to know that I respect and tolerate all you say, as I believe in the First Amendment and the joy of our God-given speech and through settling our differences, we gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of each other!

God Bless!

Love,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

18 posted 2003-12-04 11:57 PM

Amen, Noah...

ice
Member Elite

since 2003-05-17

Posts 3404
Pennsylvania

19 posted 2003-12-07 09:11 PM

It is very encouraging to open a page such as this and see that "regular" people do get together and discuss current events...
I applaud you all in your ability to clearly speak your minds on this and other sensitive topics...

I have read all that has been said here, the back and forth discussion about if Bush was waxing political at Thanksgiving...I do see it as a photo op, but believe any president, so close to a new election day, would have done the same...
If it matters at all, I must say that after reading all points of view I lean to the "Noah" side of things...

I know this president is a liar of the most high degree, as is most all of his cabinet....but as one commenter said, so was Clinton and several other presidents (maybe all of them) btw lying about sexual hijacks to me is no great sin and does not effect adversely in any great degree this nations security, my opinion.

This war was promoted by lies, as most have been in the past, so maybe I should forgive this president?

I have many of the lies that Bush has told in my files,(as well as those told by his administration) and information on the international laws that have been broken by the past several administrations, pertinent to Iraq in particular and recent wars in general, Perhaps this is not the forum to open up a discussion of that sort? Would the "Alley" be a better place?

Ford Hume aka ice

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

20 posted 2003-12-07 09:42 PM

Yes! pipTalk Lounge is more of a general board and while we must respect each others opinions and political views as this is a place of respect and tolerance, I think the best place to discuss Bush's administration's lies, Clinton's lies, etc. would be in The Alley or maybe Philosophy 101.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

21 posted 2003-12-07 10:28 PM

"I know this president is a liar of the most high degree, as is most all of his cabinet...."

~ How do you know this? Please, provide me with clearcut evidence that Bush and his cabinet are liars. Or, is it just your opinion based on your subjective thoughts, media speculations, and peer persuasions?

"but as one commenter said, so was Clinton and several other presidents (maybe all of them) btw lying about sexual hijacks to me is no great sin..."

~ Let me remind you, Clinton lied under oath and that is a felony called perjury. I don't recall Bush lying while under oath.

"...and does not effect adversely in any great degree this nations security, my opinion."

~ That could be debated. Since Clinton was such a liar, and I can say that because there is clear-cut proof, could greatly affect the nation's security in many ways.

"This war was promoted by lies, as most have been in the past, so maybe I should forgive this president?"

~ Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Where is the proof that it was based on lies, and please do not direct me to websites that report conjecture, half-truths, and unprovable innuendos and statements.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

22 posted 2003-12-08 12:45 PM

Yes, ice, the Alley would be more appropriate for the views you express although, if you check there, you will see it has been done several times and no minds have been changed yet.

I would like to discuss one point you said , though...

btw lying about sexual hijacks to me is no great sin

I have heard so many normally decent, moralistic and basically honest people say that same thing. They see the President of the United States commit adultry, use his office to seduce a girl half his age, lie to his wife, the country and the Grand Jury, committing a felony, all while in office...and they say "So what? As long as the economy is good for ME I don't care." He was the posterboy and idol of every business executive who is under indictment now because he showed how all rules could be ignored, even breaking the law. But he exposed us for what we are...do what you want as long as I am not affected.

My biggest problem is with the children. When we were kids the President of the United States was like a god, a symbol of everything we wanted to be. How many kids said "I want to be President when I grow up!"? Many. Then, of course we grow up and we realize that the President is a normal human being with all the strengths and weaknesses we all have...but, as children, he is a hero. Clinton took that away. He cheapened the office of the Presidency in a way that had never been done before. CHildren were exposed to his weaknesses on the evening news, the papers, the conversations between adults trading Bill and Monica jokes. They read of him cheating on his wife and heard their parents saying "So what? That's ok." He killed the innocence of the children's view of the presidency in the same way a man would by telling all kid's that Santa Claus was a fake, instead of letting them discover it as they grew up. He showed them that lying and dishonesty is no big deal...and many adults like you backed him up. To me that is the true Clinton legacy....be happy with it because it's going to be with us for a very long time.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

23 posted 2003-12-08 02:08 AM

Balladeer, with all due respect, I do agree that Clinton did lie and it was unnecessary and inappropriate. And I did say that I believe Clinton was one of the better presidents we've had in recent years and I still stand by that belief and also that his lies (again I'm saying were still inappropriate) were modest in comparison to many others.

However, I think your whole claim on this particular incident tearing apart the innocence of chldren and how they idolize their president as a hero is abstract. Very few times have I considered a politician to be a "honest" man, and as Bradly has previously stated examples of lying politicians in American history, the Clinton lie, though disturbing, is not groundbreaking on this issue. I happen to think incidents like the John F. Kennedy assasination affected children a whole lot more than his lie for instance. 40 years later it still is being widely talked about in the news, and I think something like that brought too much fear to the children, fear to want to be president. And time and time again, though I wish it wasn't so, politicians tend to have an inclination to lie, simple as that. Believe me, that "legacy" has been around long before Clinton started his so-called reign of terror.

And even if a significant amount of children are affected by the Clinton scandal, has Bush really done any better at all trying to restore the innocent view of heroism of a president in a child's eyes? A Thanksgiving visit and his constant vows that America will prevail do not overshadow such things as the images of Uday and Qusay assasinated on silver screens worldwide, Bush's lie that the end of major combat in Iraq is over when more people have died there after the proclamation was made than during the war itself, the constant despair and shame spoken beyond Iraq but other major cities across the world, all the lies still spoken behind closed doors at the White House time and time and time again. Bush may not have committed purgery, nevertheless him and his administration and their euphemisms and bad use of words and misleading information are all lies, only putting not only the innocence of America's children in danger but also destroying the innocence of children all across the world. Practically the entire Middle East, France, Germany, London, North Korea, and so forth...the administration's onslaught has made America more hated than ever, and in the Middle East because of Bush's administation and the speculations made by their leaders in response to the administration's attacks, there will be more Osama bin Laden's than ever, as more and more Iraqi's rage in anger each day, and the shooting of 54 Iraqi rebels urged by U.S commanders is only the beginning of what can escalate as the innocent children there are constantly surrounded by gunsmoke and shrapnel and tears, which either inevitably leads to grave sadness or anger, which the anger leads to hatred and the hatred only puts many others innocence at risk. It's all a domino effect. And if America's children now aren't broken-hearted by what's going on, then it otherwise must all look just like a violent videogame they enjoy playing!

Argue as you wish, but the whole "lying and dishonesty is no big deal" thing has been going on forever, and to blame it's whole reincarnation on Clinton is kind of biased and also arguably an abstract kind of argument! I've become somewhat biased to Bush but although I think he is one of the greatest liars I've known in my life, I certainly don't consider him the father of all liars, and Clinton certainly isn't either. Just like what Opeth asked for ice, prove it, and echoing his words, not by so-called subjective thoughts, peer persuasions or speculations and innuendos. And I understand this goes for me too and my argument, so somehow this puts both sides into a constant draw, and somehow I feel intuitive arguments are somewhat necessary in this kind of echelon, so know I will respect any response in a friendly manner!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (12-08-2003 02:32 AM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

24 posted 2003-12-08 07:45 PM

Ahh, dear Noah, I could answer everything you discussed but what's the point? You are speaking of your thoughts and predictions when stating that America is more hated than ever, there will be many more Bin Laden's due to Bush, etc etc etc. They have no basis in fact. Did you see the movie "The Ugly American" when it came out? No, ofcourse not...it was in the 60's long before you were born. America has always been hated by a certain faction of people around the world and always will be. So what? The vast majority of those who hate America are people we would be worried about if they LIKED us! LOL! Views have indeed changed due to Bush and I'll give you an example. When the leader of Qatar was interviewed, he replied on national tv - "This is not Mr, Roger's neighborhood over here. These boys play rough and they respect only strength and power. For the first time the Arab world respects the United States and it's President."

I could say that there are plenty of reasons to be glad we are in Iraq....for example, half a million children under the age of 6 are not now dying of hunger. Massive graves are being uprooted to show the tens of thousands of victim who were slaughtered and are not being now. The prisons where anyone against the regime were tortured and murdered are now shut down. Would you prefer that the children were still dying of hunger? Of course you wouldn't...

I could give more examples but the one that stands above all is that we have a better chance to think that a major attack like 9-11 is less likely to occur. You do remember that date, right? Unfortunately many don't....or pretend that it wasn't important. The terrorists regimes have been dealt serious blows. They are in hiding and their resources are being seized. They are being arrested all over the world and are so busy trying to save their hides they don't have time for 9-11's. There is little doubt that Iraq was, and would have continued being, a safe haven for them to plan and execute future attacks. Can I prove such attacks would have occured? Nope. It's the paradox that how can someone prove that something would have occured that was prevented from occuring? We cannot know. I'm surious as to what you had to say when Clinton bombed Iraq and made his speech to Congress that Iraq was the biggest threat to the United States in the world and every force, up to and including nuclear weaponry was acceptable to use to counteract this threat? What did you say then, Noah?

As far as Bush endangering the world, I could argue the opposite. Had Clinton acted when the first WTC bombing was thwarted, when the Cole was blown up....had he declared a war on terrorism then and acted the odds are there would have been no 9-11. Osama Bin Laden said in one the tapes played that they were so encouraged by the lack of action and response by the United States in those incidences that they were encouraged to go ahead with their plans for 9-11. I'm not making that up, Noah...it's in the transcripts. No, Clinton was too busy decreasing the size of the military which we are paying for now.

Anyway, my dear friend, you will continue to believe what you wish and ignore that which casts doubt on it and I shall go on with my own beliefs, too. History will dictate which of us is right and, if it's me, I'll hunt you down wherever you are and scream out, "SEE??!!

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

25 posted 2003-12-09 12:04 PM

And I shall be waiting to do the same also!

Even if you are right to an extent on Clinton reluctant to go and dismantle the terrorist network, how much has Bush paid attention to al-Qaeda ever since dropping some bombs, or the Taliban, Michael? Very little. I don't believe in war in any circumstance, but his justifications in warring even lost focus. He just drops some bombs, let them all scatter about, and his administration misleads our people right into Iraq, almost entirely forgetting about al-Qaeda, who may be decentralized yet possibly more dangerous than ever before. Coincidence?

And yes, I absolutely believe every child must be fed and cared for. But if you are so glad we are in Iraq and this is a major reason why they've fought, why not go do the same in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc? There are millions of children elsewhere living the exact same tragedy I'm sure, what about them, what about them? Sorry, but as much as I care for the children, I don't believe in that form of violent response.

Of course never has a president we've had had an intense like/dislike relationship. I accept that fact. Along with believing in our First Amendment, that is why I have much respect for all you have to say despite disagreeing with you much of the time.

Despite Clinton's flaws, I think you are spending a bit too much time in the then, and should look more to the now. History is meant to be read, it is meant to be known, but it shouldn't cancel out the day. Because right now, the headline isn't about Clinton, it's about Bush. Clinton's reign of terror has come to an end, and Bush's goes on. I have lived my adolescence witnessing the past, and now I am witnessing the present and what the future may bring. Who knows what history unfolds next, but we are all the actors on this grand stage of life and using too many flashbacks, asides and soliloquys will only hold back the play as it progresses. There will be those for peace and those for war, those who promote love and those who promote hate, those who imagine and those who just don't think about it at all. But while I keep the past like a reference guide in my pocket, I will be taking account here. Then I will draw detailed comparisons.

Wow, seems like we both strayed from the main topic quite a distance! Ah well, I do enjoy discussing current events with you, it is quite a pleasure!

God Bless You!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

ice
Member Elite

since 2003-05-17

Posts 3404
Pennsylvania

26 posted 2003-12-09 01:07 PM

Opeth
Please be patient, I have very little time to spend on the computer, but I will show what looks like lies to me. You of course must decide in your own mind if they should be categorized as lies. Do you consider a deception a lie? If so the list will be much longer. Anyway, what I have found is documented by examining speeches and what has not been rebutted as "taken out of context" in the media.. by Bush or his close associates.

An example lie....
Lets start back when the first lies were told to increase the backing of this war by American citizens...keep in mind, at this point the administration had already decided to invade Iraq.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
(Exert from President Bushes State of the Union address 1/28/03.)

At this point the president already knew that the document that this was taken from was a forgery..everyone in the administration knew this was a lie, because previous to this speech the CIA had sent an operative ( an ex ambassador , name not revealed by the CIA) to check out the story....After hearing the speech,that operative stated ""They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," .... "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly." ( Quoted in The New Republic)

I will post more like this in the future if there is intrest..

Ford Hume aka ice

ice
Member Elite

since 2003-05-17

Posts 3404
Pennsylvania

27 posted 2003-12-09 02:20 PM

Balladeer
I need to make something perfectly clear before responding to this topic again...and that is that I am in perfect agreement with those who think Saddam is, or was a madman, and should have been removed from his position of power for the good of the world. It is now plain that he was no immanent threat to the United States. But my real argument is with the reasons given for his removal, and the false pretenses used to convince the public that those arguments were valid....This is a huge subject, I am still not sure if this is the right forum to discuss it in, but my conscience compels me to respond to what your last reply to Noah (Mistletoe Angel)
*********
"The vast majority of those who hate America are people we would be worried about if they LIKED us! LOL"

According to what has been in the papers, over the last ten months (more so in Europe than in The United States) That majority seems to be most of the rest of the world, or am I reading it wrong? And am I to assume by what you say, that we should disregard the way they feel, thus jeopardizing any future alliances with these countries buy trying to make them look like fools?

Results of a BBC poll aired June 18,2003, some pertinent results from that poll...

"The survey, for a television debate program called "What The World Thinks of America," revealed that 57 percent of the questioned had a very unfavorable, or fairly unfavorable attitude toward US President George WE. Bush."

"Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda terrorist"

"It was rated more dangerous than Iran, by people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil, and more dangerous than Syria by respondents in all countries except Australia, Israel and the United States."
*
This does not surprise me, It is plain that the world sees us as a rogue bully, that thumbs its nose at international law and opinion.
*******

"Views have indeed changed due to Bush and I'll give you an example. When the leader of Qatar was interviewed, he replied on national TV - "This is not Mr, Roger's neighborhood over here. These boys play rough and they respect only strength and power. For the first time the Arab world respects the United States and it's President."

I think you are confusing "respect" for fear..something we accuse the terrorists of instilling in others..
********
"I could say that there are plenty of reasons to be glad we are in Iraq....for example, half a million children under the age of 6 are not now dying of hunger."

No doubt about it, Saddam let his people starve, of course the U.N. sanctions over the last ten years or so didn't help anything either.
*******
"Massive graves are being uprooted to show the tens of thousands of victim who were slaughtered and are not being now. The prisons where anyone against the regime were tortured and murdered are now shut down."

An excellent reason to have brought Saddam to justice long before this time, (most of the dead in those graves were buried 6 to 10 years ago) or perhaps dragging him to The Hague, like was done with Melosevic, and trying him for crimes against humanity. The reasons for this invasion have changed quickly, and often, falling, as they are proven to be falsehoods.
Maybe I would think differently if humanitarian reasons would have been given for this invasion in the first place....but that of course is not the case, or at least an unstated reason until recently.
********
"I could give more examples but the one that stands above all is that we have a better chance to think that a major attack like 9-11 is less likely to occur."

Worldwide terrorists, ( at least those such as al Qaeda) by what proof we have today, have had no good relationship with Iraq, Saddam being a secular leader, they avoided his company..so there is no reason to think we are safer from those who were inspired by religious fanaticism to act out violently against us. (at least from inside Iraq). There is strong reason to believe that al Qaeda has a presence today in Iraq...I do believe that the fundamentalist Muslims have had their eye on Iraq for a long time, but would not play games with Saddam.....now they see an in, to perhaps developed a stronghold and kill a few Americans at the same time
*********
"The terrorists regimes have been dealt serious blows. "

Yes they have, and we hit them where they were, in Afghanistan. But one of their head men is still free, and still a danger to us....but because of the Iraq invasion, we have changed our focus from freeing the world of the Osama type terrorists, to the pipe dream of turning Baghdad into Los Angeles.
**********
" Clinton was too busy decreasing the size of the military which we are paying for now."

The record shows that this is also a myth and that the only reason that Bushes invasions and wars seem successful is that they are being fought with the Clinton military.. , military money was spent more wisely in the Clinton years, and not on some pipe dream , star wars fantasy ..another long subject that could be discussed in a topic of its own.
***********
"Anyway, my dear friend, you will continue to believe what you wish and ignore that which casts doubt on it and I shall go on with my own beliefs, too. "

Beliefs are wonderful, and easy to express. Truths are hard to examine, especially through a haze of petrodollars. Of course we must examine our own feelings for falsehoods, but real facts are harder to come by than opinion, the truth is found in places hidden by spinners and politicians who are basically afraid of it, perhaps because they do not want to admit being wrong? So I have turned aside my opinion and tried to dig out the facts, and have come to the conclusion that any emotional impulse must be stifled for a while, now I look to law and documented truths to save us..there are laws, proposed and on the books, that in my opinion are the saving grace of humanity, call me secular if you like.
*
Ford Hume aka ice

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

28 posted 2003-12-09 03:10 PM

Wow! With all that's been said here the past few days, we could make dozens of new threads of discussion from them!

This truly is a wonderful multi-faceted debate that I hope others join in! I'm sure we could get many other interesting views!

Love,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

S Arthur Grey
Senior Member

since 2001-03-19

Posts 719
woven by a poet's loom

29 posted 2003-12-09 04:47 PM

Always interesting how folks mix up opinion, belief and fact. Then throw in the huge propensity for "governing" with lies as your source of information and look what you get. Creates quite a stew, though it's hardly anything new.
Almost poetic in a noisome sort of way.
Now some will call this tidbit a fact and others an opinion I suppose, but this discussion seems to need a reminder:

Iraq is about OIL.

How the situation has been "handled" over the years may be about other things, but ask yourself who wants oil and who has it?

s.a.g.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

30 posted 2003-12-09 10:13 PM

I was thrilled when I found out that Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving. It was the right thing to do. I don't think he did it as a photo-op. I think the man has too much personal integrity for that to have been a driving force behind the trip.

Bush isn't perfect and I don't agree with all of his policies but I think he is the best thing the White House has seen in quite a long time, and I agree with Balladeer that his anti-terrorism policies are keeping America safer from terrorists, especially from possible attacks on the scale of 9-11.

Appeasement of the terrorists, as most European governments and liberals in America and the world over seem to favor, has proven to escalate attacks in the past, and in my opinion, directly led to the conditions that made 9-11 possible.

Yes, we should definitely disregard what these countries say regarding us and our policies when what they think should be done conflicts with what we see as necessary in terms of our national security. And in my opinion, we haven't tried to make any of them look like fools. If they look like fools, they did that all on their own. And yes, Saddam should have been taken care of long ago. Bush 'the first' caved to the international climate when he left the job undone. So much for following the wishes of the international community.

It is a known fact that the Arab culture, as a whole, does not respect weakness, and the blood-thirsty barbarians from amongst them equally disdain it and are more than happy to use it to their advantage. They respect (and fear) resolve of will, which they are now witnessing from America, and which I believe is the only stance that can lead to the survival of the free world.

The terroristic attacks in Iraq right now (and there is Intelligence linking Iraq with al Qaeda operatives prior to the war, and al Qaeda does deal with secular regimes against what they perceive to be a common enemy and equally attacks religious regimes, like Saudi Arabia, when it suits their purposes) are being perpetrated in hopes that we will turn tail and run as in the past when the body count rises (that won't happen as long as Bush is still President,) hoping to sway the political climate in America against Bush. They would be even more ecstatic over a Bush defeat in the next election than the Democrats.

The concept of a world at peace would only succeed if everyone were willing to practice peace, but such is not the case. As long as there is the mindset out there that the deliberate killing and bombing of innocent civilians is okay, even honorable, to advance an agenda predicated on hatred for all other cultures and religions other than one's own, countries that cherish individual liberty are duty-bound to deal with that danger, and not appease it. I don't think it can be said that many people are 'for' war. I think it can be said that sometimes it's necessary for the survival of freedom.

Remember 9-11. Remember the horror, the agony, the burning flesh, and those who chose to plummet to their deaths instead of being burned alive. No one should ever be faced with a decision like that. Remember those buried and trapped beneath tons of rubble, slowly suffocating for days. Visualize the men, the women, the screaming children on the planes, minutes, moments and then seconds before slamming into buildings. Imagine that your mother or father or child or wife or husband were one of those victims. Put yourself, really put yourself, in the shoes of the real life victims for just one agonizing moment. Experience their nightmare. And then honor their memories. Put their real, horrific suffering and death into the equation when debating world politics and policies. And I'm not talking about revenge. I'm talking about never letting it happen again. Whatever it takes, we can't ever let it happen again.

Freedom is not free and a peace at all costs is not peace.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

31 posted 2003-12-09 10:56 PM

According to what has been in the papers, over the last ten months (more so in Europe than in The United States) That majority seems to be most of the rest of the world, or am I reading it wrong?

Yes, ice, I believe you are reading it wrong...or the wrong is that you are simply reading it. I don't know your history but, as for myself, I have lived in foreign countries, including Europe, for over 14 years. I am in a fair position to know how average people feel about the United States. Believe it or not, we are fairly well regarded in the majority of the world. Browsing headlines of people trying to sell newspapers does not necessarily give you the true picture or the right to say that "most of the world" is against the US. Right now there are 26 other countries in Iraq helping the allies. Don't see too much of that in the papers, do you?

"Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda terrorist"

"It is plain that the world sees us as a rogue bully, that thumbs its nose at international law and opinion."

It is natural that the United States is the greatest threat to the world because it has the POWER to be the biggest threat. Whether it would have any intentions of world domination or not, it does have that power and that power alone makes it the largest threat. If you were to walk into a room to stand next to a 6'10", 350 lb professional football player, you would feel an immediate intimidation. It's a natural reaction. He may be the nicest fellow in the world but knowing that he had the power to pulverize you at his whim would be intimidating...and you would feel it. Pit bull owners understand what I mean exactly. That a feeling many areas of the world get who do not know a great deal about the US. They simply know there is a big country out there that could pulverize them. Why should they not consider them a threat?

It is plain that the world sees us as a rogue bully, that thumbs its nose at international law and opinion.

[Personal attack removed - Ron]

I think you are confusing "respect" for fear..something we accuse the terrorists of instilling in others..

I wasn't the one to make the statement. It was the leader of Qatar and those he spoke for. You can tell him he's confused...I'll pass.

No doubt about it, Saddam let his people starve, of course the U.N. sanctions over the last ten years or so didn't help anything either.

I have to smile at that one. Funny how the UN sanctions promotes starvation but didn't stop Hussein from building 15 palaces worth millions apiece and allowed him to carry an account of over two billion dollars in the national back, not counting whatever else he has squirreled away in other parts of the world...the kids going hungry were due to the sanctions....

Maybe I would think differently if humanitarian reasons would have been given for this invasion in the first place....but that of course is not the case, or at least an unstated reason until recently

That's a very big maybe you put there and, to me, that is one of the major points of this whole issue. I don't think you would have felt differently....nor do I think the American people would have felt differently. If Bush would have gone to congress and the American people and said, "Half a million kids are dying annually and people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq and we should do something to stop it", would you have said, "Sure, go ahead" or would Congress have said it? I find it unlikely. Noah points out the fact that there are many other countries with those same conditions and why aren't we there but we can only be in so many places and I don't know if he means that, if you can't help all of them, don't help any of them. I happen to feel that Bush felt there was a good reason to believe Iraq was, or would be, a valid threat to US security. No one objected when Clinton stood before congress a declared the same. Who complained when he dropped bombs on Baghdad? Did you...or any others calling Bush a madman? I;m glad we went, for whatever reason, and I'm glad kids are being fed and lives are being spared and I would like to see the same happen to any country ruled by dictators who feed on the instillation of fear and murder of their citizens. The smokescreen people who hide behind that do not share those views is "Well, he didn't tell us the truth." That's their out.

we have changed our focus from freeing the world of the Osama type terrorists, to the pipe dream of turning Baghdad into Los Angeles

[Personal attack removed - Ron]

peace..

[This message has been edited by Ron (12-10-2003 12:29 AM).]

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

32 posted 2003-12-09 11:19 PM

Balladeer,

Out of all the people on this site who discuss politics, philosophies, or social issues, I admire you most of all. Your replies here have been intelligently written, articulate, logical, and civil.

As a member of the U.S. Navy, I must say that I do not believe we should be in Iraq. I disagree with the war, but not because of what the liberals believe - that it is for oil or that Bush lied about it being for a fight against terrorism, etc.

To me, it is a rather simple matter, and I always KISS...

1. Iraq is not a direct threat to our national security.
2. We cannot force democracy on countries that do not understand the concept of democracy. Especially, when their they have lived under a certain way for so many years. Let them be what they want.

Not one American life was worth this mess.

Now, with that being said...

since we did go over there... We, as a nation, should stand together and back the decision, therefore backing the troops. So, as a navy chief, I stand by my president and am ready to be called upon to do my part in this Iraqian conflict. And all of those who continue to protest and call the president a liar, etc.. they need to shut the hell up.

Family is family. We are family.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (12-09-2003 11:25 PM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

33 posted 2003-12-09 11:52 PM

Opeth, I certainly agree that not one American, or allied life, was worth this mess...we are together on that.

No, I do not believe that Iraq is a threat to us, either.....now. I do remember, however, all of the years of how HUssein reacted to the UN inspectors. He threw up every roadblock he could. He disallowed them to inspect his palaces, schools, hospitals and a variety of other areas. He threw them out on occassion. He made it virtually impossible for them to do their job, the job he had agreed to let them do. Who would not look at this action and not feel he had something to hide? I certainly did, as did I think a large majority of the world. Then 9/11 comes along. I do not think it was unreasonable to consider Iraq as a supplier of terrorist weapons to the highest bidders....a threat that would have to be dealt with. I do not fault Bush with the decision to act....I do fault him with how it has been handled afterwards.

Yes, it would be good if we pulled together as a country. Actually I think we have. There will always be dissenters and political headline-seekers but, for the most part from the people we don't read about, I feel that the country backed the president fairly well, especially those who remembered 9/11 and do not want to see another one.

Best of luck to you, soldier..

Tim
Senior Member

since 1999-06-08

Posts 1794

34 posted 2003-12-10 12:16 PM

"We cannot force democracy on countries that do not understand the concept of democracy. Especially, when their they have lived under a certain way for so many years. Let them be what they want."

I generally concur with Opeth and Balladeer except for the one statement.

One, why do we assume someone cannot understand the concepts of democracy?  It the inability to comprehend democracy endemic to the Middle East?

Perhaps somewhat the same view was taken of the far east and the Germans following WWII.

Democracy has worked in the Middle East. Lebanon was a working democracy until the Syrians invaded and controlled the country.

Let them be what they want?  That seems to be the crux of the problem, who is "them"?
Certainly the dictators, despots and ruling families are not much for wanting democractic reform.  The terrorists are not much for democracy.

Democractic forms of government do not have to be identical to the American model.

The Middle East has been able to avoid entering the modern world because of its oil revenues and hatred of Isreal and the U.S. which allow its leaders to maintain control.

I have had the occasion to meet numerous individuals from the Middle East.  They seem to want what most people want, a good and decent life for their themselves and their children.  Perhaps if given the chance, they might be able to achieve their goals.

Craw
Member

since 2003-09-11

Posts 73
Scotland

35 posted 2003-12-10 08:36 AM

I think what sticks in the craw of a lot of people is the hypocrisy and cant that surround the attacks on, and continuing occupation of, Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody in their right minds would argue that Saddam or the Taliban were anything other than cruel dictators, or that their people are better off without them. However exactly the same principle applies to many other countries' governments, some of whom, over the years, have been sustained by the USA and Britain. In fact if you cast your mind back not too far you will remember that both Saddam's Iraq and the Taliban were recipients of American and British money and weapons when it suited our policy to favour Iraq over Iran and the Taliban against the Soviets. Allied soldiers in both countries are currently being attacked by weapons we supplied in the first place. Given this background of political self-interest, the rest of the world is understandably cynical about talk of 'making the world safe for democracy'. Perhaps they would be more convinced if Bush and Blair turned their attention to countries like Saudi Arabia or China, two dictatorial governments with atrocious human rights records, or made a genuine effort to compel Israel to abandon the systematic dehumanisation of the people of Palestine. The USA and Britain's position has nothing to do with morality, so people are justified in asking what it is to do with. Oil? A paragraph in the history books?

S Arthur Grey
Senior Member

since 2001-03-19

Posts 719
woven by a poet's loom

36 posted 2003-12-10 10:41 AM

Speaking of lame, BS photo ops . . .
(someone listed a few earlier on this thread)

The big luscious looking turkey photo? Now revealed to be a fake, an advertiser's photo prop.

So there!
Now this one too can go to top of the phony leadership opportunity list, until the next equally gaging photo op pops up.

Sad how many believe this stuff(ing).

s.a.g.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

37 posted 2003-12-10 05:01 PM

Tim,

You may be correct, but what I have seen and what is known so far is this - where are the democratic freedom-fighters of Iraq like the kind we had here in our country during the Revolutionary War?

To me, it seems the overall populace of Iraq either does not desire to fight and die for freedom found in a democracy or the populace does not understand the concept of democracy and therefore lack in caring for it.

Either way, I still say we shouldn't be over there "forcing" our type of government on them.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

38 posted 2003-12-10 06:29 PM

Afraid I have to agree with Tim on this one. It has happened so many times throughout history. Look at the Chinese, for example. They have gadzillions of people. WHo could rule them in a tyrannical fashion if the banded together? Problem is they don't have the chance to band together. From birth many countries have their citizens under military rule. Children from birth are brainwashed as much as possible. People are placed in menial jobs with limited education. Their view of the outside world is whatever their rulers tell them it is. There was a North Korean on 60 Minutes not too long ago speaking of his country. He said that North Koreans have no idea what the rest of the world is like. They believe all of the other countries are exactly like theirs. They have no access to newspapers, television, radio....no way of knowing that they are living to such harsh conditions and poverty - they think everyone is. For those able to avoid the brainwashing they are watched. At the first sign that they may band together with other like-minded individuals, they are put in prison or just disappear, which happened a lot in Iraq. It can be easy to say "Why don't you rise up?" but much harder to do when you are just a small person against the might and grandeur of the military and every movement of yours is watched and you have no individual rights. The same tactics worked for years in the United States during the era of slavery. I doubt the blacks didn't want freedom but they were segregated and denied education in such a way it was impossible for them. There were no such controls in the American Revolution. We were ruled by England but not in such a fashion. Had there been that type of control and tyrrany then we would all be ordering crumpets now. They gave us enough freedom to band against them. Many countries today do not have that luxury....

Craw
Member

since 2003-09-11

Posts 73
Scotland

39 posted 2003-12-11 04:57 AM

Surely you're not describing the American 'Revolutionaries', that loose coalition of slave-owners, sociopaths, cut-throats and racketeers as 'democratic freedom fighters'. The only freedom they were worried about was freedom to make more money and occupy land that wasn't theirs. (Ring a bell?)

Repression by Britain (not England, which was not a politican entity in the 1760s and is not a political entity today) took the awful form of expecting the colonists to help pay for their own defence and obey the law.

[This message has been edited by Craw (12-11-2003 05:13 AM).]

Sunshine

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-25

Posts 63354
Listening to every heart

40 posted 2003-12-11 08:46 AM

Please, everyone,
remember that this is the lounge,
and not the Alley.
Thank you.

Ericc
Member Elite

since 2003-01-31

Posts 4178

41 posted 2003-12-12 06:18 PM

Hi everyone,

I have seldom seen such differing views expressed with such respect and caring for anothers opinion.

You should each be proud of this love displayed.

I know I am proud to bare witness.

Love,
Eric

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.