WIll we believe him again?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, August 22, 2005 08:56
VIEWED: 11093
PAGE 2 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SERGEANTX

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:40 PM

Maybe the war noises about Iraq are just a conspiracy to cover up Bush's secret peace negotiation. Yeah, I bet that's it. I bet Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have cooked up secret plans for a sneak withdrawal from Iraq and the Iran thing is just a distraction to give us time to pack up all our stuff.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe the war noises about Iraq are just a conspiracy to cover up Bush's secret peace negotiation.

When the red states find THIS out, he'll become their anti-Christ.

Not sayin' they WANT war, but....Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
My only hope is that there are enough fence sitters in the Bush supporter camp who will fall away if they try this crap again. But its a slim hope.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I'm no fence sitter. I voted for Bush in 2004 ( not 2000 ) because I saw no reasonable alternative. Bush hasn't lied, so I trust him to that extent. That some don't agree w/ his actions, I can understand.

But let me make this abundantly clear.... there won't be any support by me for any policy that sends our troops into yet another M.E. country.
I doubt even the few hard core Bush supporters would even back such action.

Over the next couple of years ( if not sooner ), here's what needs to be done , IMO.
a) Bring our troops home from Afghanistan
b) Same for Iraq
c) In the event Iran DOES act up, let the rest of the world deal w/ it first.

We all saw the staged protest around the world by various anti-American, anti-Capitalist groups whining for peace. That's all well and good. But there are other evils in the world, and I'm tired of the US taking the lead and then getting hammered by everyone because we're such 'war mongers'.

Iran defies the world community, let the rest of the world deal w/ it.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SERGEANTX

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:46 PM

That's reassuring AURaptor. I'm hearing more comments to that extent from Republicans and they do give me hope. I hear other opinions as well, but it won't take that many reasonable people to offset them.

Dedication to reason, above and beyond party affiliation, is what's need right now more than anything. From both sides.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Over the next couple of years ( if not sooner ), here's what needs to be done , IMO.
a) Bring our troops home from Afghanistan
b) Same for Iraq
c) In the event Iran DOES act up, let the rest of the world deal w/ it first.

Speaking as a Brit who voted for the Labour party (Tony Blair) I did not support the war in Iraq, any more than I would support a premature withdrawl. I can cite only one instance from memory where a military led regime change has worked and that would be Germany (tho the situations are so different It would take a thread on its own to explore them). Foriegn troops are still in Germany, sixty years on.
Your third point, let the world deal with it first, again my reservations there would take an entire thread to explain, but please, America has arguably the most powerfull military in the world. If Iran acts up it makes sense that America leads from the front, but, lets be honest, the American administration has to realise that it is part of the world community.
Not that theres this world community, and then there's America there above that somewhere.
Most of the objections to America's millitary strategies are not with the fact they did, but the fact they did it without the support of the international community. The attitude was, do as we tell you or get lost. Thats what the international community has a problem with.

p.s. I'm careful to say they about America instead of you, as I wish to distinguish between the American nation and goverment from your goodselves as Americans.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

RUE

Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:25 AM

Hope this formats right ....

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
8/5-7/05 45 (approve) 51 (disapprove) 4 (unsure) 1,004 (polled)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
(date approve disapprove)
Aug 13 47 52
Aug 12 47 51
Aug 11 46 52
Aug 10 48 50
Aug 09 47 51
Aug 08 47 51
Aug 07 47 52
Aug 06 47 52
Aug 05 48 50
Aug 04 48 50
Aug 03 48 50
Aug 02 49 49
Aug 01 48 50

Perhaps the US people have wised-up a least a little. Though it looks more like what my BIL has said - they tend to line up behind whoever looks like the strongest bully. At this point dubya isn't looking so strong.

Not that I'm cynical or anything, but mid-term elections are coming up, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't doing so well, and something had got to happen to take people's eyes off things like that. Now way back in another thread I predicted another attack on US soil within 18 months. If I recall correctly (and I could have it wrong) there is perhaps 6 months left on the calender. So it's either Syria, Iran or an attack.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:50 AM

Quote:
Citizen wrote:

Most of the objections to America's millitary strategies are not with the fact they did, but the fact they did it without the support of the international community. The attitude was, do as we tell you or get lost. Thats what the international community has a problem with.

Lets see, which Int'l community members did NOT back the U.S. going into Iraq.

England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

Oh, it was Russia, France and Germany. I get it now. So, if those 3 main players have a change of heart if Iran goes bad, the U.S. is supppose to let bye gones be bye gones and happily all join hands in ..doing what, exactly? Folks think going into Iraq was poorly defined mission, wait 'till they get a load of Iran!

I'm not for any leaving Iraq or Afghanistan early. The job MUST be seen through. But it also must be undestood by the citizens of Iraq that THEY are suppose to help do in the terrorist, if there is any peace to be had there.

And btw, wasn't Japan post WW2 another example of military led regime change leading to the making of a vibrant, strong and independent country?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Lets see, which Int'l community members did NOT back the U.S. going into Iraq.

England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

I would like to point out that in at least 3 of the 5 countries you listed, perhaps all 5... polling has shown their respective populations to be decided against supporting the US....

Perhaps everyone else just has stronger democracys than your supporters ?

Also you should add to this list these countrys who sent troops at first, then pulled out ( or are in the process of pulling out ) due to lack of popular support at home

Nicaragua
Dominican Republic
Honduras
Philippines
Thailand
New Zealand
Tonga
Hungary
Portugal
Moldova
Poland
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Italy

It seems in countrys responsible to their populations, your support is weak at best

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

G1223

Sunday, August 14, 2005 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

But seriously, and sadly, the response also indicates that yes, they'll buy it again. The true believers have lost touch with what it means to be American, in my opinion, and embraced a vision of America as an imperialistic, 'ruler of the world'.

You mean the america lets it self be treated as cheap sex toy and thanks the enemy for being good to us.

Yeah I remember the Carter era we lost respect by being the world's bitch. I could avoid doing that. Espaiclly when Iran which does not have a missle with range to attack us needs a weapons program to protect themselves from us.

The reality is that Iran has missles in devolpment and those mssiles can strike Israel. Why would they do that you ask? Because Israel is our ally. It has been one of the few representive governments in the region and is surrounded by nations that would murder women and children or at least support the organizations that do so.

TANSTAAFL

CITIZEN

Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And btw, wasn't Japan post WW2 another example of military led regime change leading to the making of a vibrant, strong and independent country?

Short answer No.
Long Answer:
The American occupation force in Japan helped the gorverment of Japan to enact changes that had already begun to gain support in Japan during the 1920's. It was not military regime change of the Iraq mold because the goverment was never dissolved and removed, more it was gradually changed over the course of several years with the full cooperation of the current administration and people.
I'd also like to point out that American troops weren't withdrawn from Japan until the mid '50's, about a decade after the occupation began.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

What exactly is your point here? That a minority of countries supported the invasion? The UN voted against millitary intevention in Iraq, meaning the majority of UN countries were opposed to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, it was Russia, France and Germany. I get it now. So, if those 3 main players have a change of heart if Iran goes bad, the U.S. is supppose to let bye gones be bye gones and happily all join hands in ..doing what, exactly? Folks think going into Iraq was poorly defined mission, wait 'till they get a load of Iran!

No, America as the biggest player should be allowed to do what the

it likes right! Who cares about anyone elses opinon. It wasn't just the three main players though was it? It was the majority of UN nations. The largest percentage of the international community that the American administration thumbed their noses at. Which was my point. America in that action brought in to question the very point of having the UN, whats the point if the UN rules only apply to the members who choose to follow them?

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not for any leaving Iraq or Afghanistan early. The job MUST be seen through. But it also must be undestood by the citizens of Iraq that THEY are suppose to help do in the terrorist, if there is any peace to be had there.

I'm glad to hear it. I didn't pick up that sentimate from your post for which I apologise. You've got to remember though that the likelyhood is that any significant withdrawl within the next ten years will be premature, these things don't happen over night no matter how much we may want them to.
Lastly, yes it is partly the responcibillity of the Iraqis to help fight the insurgents (which they are involved in doing actually). You've got to realise that the insurgents would most likely not be there if the international community had been more solidly behind the action. If the action could have been seen as a real international coalition, rather than a coalition of 'the willing' then the middle eastern community at large may very well have backed the invasion also. In such a case any insurgency that occured would be on a much smaller scale, less well supported/funded, and far more likely to burn out.
The sad fact is that it may have only taken a bit more time to get the international community behind millitary intervention in Iraq, it was Bush's impatients that said otherwise.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE