The Speech
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Thursday, January 18, 2007 20:22
VIEWED: 3830
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't beat someone until they're your friend?
Originally posted by SimonWho:
At present Iraqis are treated as 'gooks' by the US government, military and media. That's why you're going to lose, surge or not.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
Just thought I would open the floor for some partisan bickering….
I just can’t understand the Neo-con thinking here. Does Bush really intend to continue a costly war in Iraq and threaten Iran and Syria at the same time….Isn’t “Napoleon complex” applicable here?
Napoleon won wars.
Yes, Napoleon won wars - until Waterloo.
I am not and never have been a Bush fan. However, I continually listen to as many sides of this debate as possible. I am not a military strategist (nor are most of us). Since Bush was elected there has been ongoing discussion about his intelligence and inflexibility not to mention stories that he believes god talks to him. Stories are just that - stories. If I could accept that our current president is an intelligent, thoughtful person who is willing to truly consider all options and make good decisions then I (and others) might be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, to trust him (believe him) to "do the right thing." There are so many people with political irons in this fire, I'm even less sure.
So, the speech - George Bush is not an eloquent speaker - this speech was more of the same - in my opinion. I have come to distrust this man and his administration.
Guess time and history will be required to see the outcome and George Bush's legacy.
I do enjoy hearing a person speak with some eloquence and command of the English language. I have yet to hear a Bush Jr speech that meets that criteria. Thus I may be prejudical against the man.
"I was on the loosing side. Still not sure it was the wrong side."
Siri
The Legacy idea reminds me of something I heard said of Lincoln, if he hadn't of been killed before he was call to account for his legacy, he wouldn't be remembered so fondly
The long line of military professionals that have spoken out against the actions of this administration, and the reaction to this opposition reminds me of Hitlers tinkering with planning on the Eastern Front.
Colin Powell --- really like to hear why he resigned
Anthony Zinni --- spoke out against Bush foreign policy pre 911. Said it was borderline insane
Really makes you wonder
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't beat someone until they're your friend?
Well, in this case, that may be so. The broader picture is that you can't beat someone until he decides to stop fighting you. In the case of the Iraqis, they want us to leave, and there is a core militant wing dedicated to driving us out or dying - the problem being that for every two that die, they get four more to join the cause.
That's part of why the WW2 analogy to Iraq that some wingnuts use is faulty. The general populace was ready for the war to be over, and there was no guerilla army wanting to continue it. In this case, there is a threefold problem:
1., Core group of natives that hate us and want us gone
2., Core group of non-natives that hate us and want us gone
3., Two groups that hate each other, and want the other dead, but also want to see us gone
IMO, we can deal with 2. (sealing borders and killing a finite amount of people), but 1. and 3. are problematic. We can't deal with 1. and 3. by killing them, because we only breed more resistance. We have to either befriend them, and make them want us to stay, or leave, and let them duke it out.
Adding more troops with no diplomatic solutions in place is asking for trouble.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Colin Powell --- really like to hear why he resigned
Anthony Zinni --- spoke out against Bush foreign policy pre 911. Said it was borderline insane
Don't forget General William Odom either, he's not been shy in his criticisms himself.
As a CIC with no proper military experience, it pays to listen to your generals, that's WHY they're generals for cryin out loud - and when they're telling you that your plan is an idiotic fiasco, they damn well mean it.
I just wish more of em had the balls to say no to an obvious lunatic.
-Frem
PS - Don't get me started on Lincoln, you'll get pages of evidence, and start wondering why we built a monument to a monster.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, maybe I'll squeeze in one leetle anti-Bush post. Bush really IS a uniter !
So many have put aside their differences to join together in this one thing - 
BUSH
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
PS - Don't get me started on Lincoln, you'll get pages of evidence, and start wondering why we built a monument to a monster.
He may seem like a monster when we put him in the context of now, but I think it was necessary at the time. Yes, he did many things we would not ever tolerate again, and his most successful general (Sherman) ravaged the South, but what would you have suggested he do, given that half the country wanted to kill the other, and continue to enslave blacks? Of course, in hindsight, there are things that could been seen that would have been better. But he handled it fairly well, given the circumstances.
Besides, the man was a lawyer, and we all know what that means...
Quote:
I do enjoy hearing a person speak with some eloquence and command of the English language. I have yet to hear a Bush Jr speech that meets that criteria. Thus I may be prejudical against the man.
Yes. I prefer to read the transcripts for just that reason - so I don't have to hear him saying the words, and can assign them different stress levels and such.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dude, where did you learn your history ?
Here's a hint - most of what's taught as such in the american public school system ain't nothin of the sort.
Lincoln didn't care one whit about slavery and in fact supported an amendment to enshrine it forever in the US Constitution.
As for killin ? the South wanted to voluntarily secede from a Union based on consent of the governed, thus removing that consent, without violence... ain't how it happened, but that is what they wanted.
As for what came after, you tell me, man - how much of YOUR dollar goes to support the parasitic fedgov ?
He didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Dude, where did you learn your history ?
I could ask you the same question.
Quote:
Lincoln didn't care one whit about slavery and in fact supported an amendment to enshrine it forever in the US Constitution.
So, tell me again why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation?
The way I learned it, he personally supported it, but wanted to do whatever was necessary to keep the Union together. Once that was accomplished, he would have been willing to free the slaves (you know, had he not been shot).
Besides, even those of his Northern supporters (those on the border, in Illinois, or those he forced to stay with the Union) would have balked at him declaring that the Civil War was about slavery. There was no hope to free the slaves if the Confederacy remained, and there wouldn't have been a lot of safety had they remained a nation.
Link, please.
Quote:
As for what came after, you tell me, man - how much of YOUR dollar goes to support the parasitic fedgov ?
As of now, none. One of the perks to being a minor, I suppose.
Quote:
He didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves.
Slaves? Really? Is the United States government so bad? Granted, there's rampant corruption, inept or fanatic politicans, and plenty a bogus or broken system (drug laws, social services, public schools, the health care system, social security) but the fundamentals of America itself are nice. Better than most places, anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My understanding was that the Declaration was intended to cause a large scale slave revolt in the south that would have disrupted the southern war machine. The Union didn't go to war with the South to abolish slavery, it went to war in part because it believed the succession was illegal and because the South tried to remove union military posts from their newly declared teritory.
However the South left because it believed that if it remained slavery would be abolished. So the war did in effect start because of slavery, just that that wasn't the reason folks in the North were told at the time.
The history of most countries are glorious myths used to sell national ideals. The true reasons things happen are usually more messy and less noble.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s a bit piratenewish. You might be a slave, but I’m not.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
He didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME