Forums > Social Discussion > If I were President
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I am a firm believer that if you are going to complain, offer an alternative.
With that in mind, this is the speech I would have given if I were President. This speech would have been broadcast within 24 hours of word of the prisoner tortures reaching my desk:
"My Fellow Americans, Citizens of Iraq, and People of the World:
"I have recently been made aware of the heinous abuses that have been perpetrated against prisoners under our guard in Iraq. I have been shocked and appalled by the information I have receieved.
"On behalf of all Americans, the U.S. Armed Forces, and especially those who perpretrated these horrific crimes, I offer my most sincere and humble apologies to all who have been affected, both directly and indirectly.
"Please rest assured that there will be a prompt and thorough investigation into these ghastly crimes. All individuals responsible will be apprehended, tried, and brought to swift and decisive justice.
"The United States has a proud history of treating our Prisoners of War with decency and humanity. We have strict policies regarding compliance with both the guidelines laid out in the Geneva Convention and with our own internal standards. These atrocities do not reflect the values of our people our our military.
"The torture of these prisoners has cast shame over our Armed Forces, and indeed over our entire nation. Furthermore, these events have poisoned our good will with the people of Iraq and with the people of the World and, as President, I will not stand for it.
"Thank you, and may God bless and watch over America, Iraq, and especially those who have been affected by these events."
I am a firm believer that if you are going to complain, offer an alternative.
With that in mind, this is the speech I would have given if I were President. This speech would have been broadcast within 24 hours of word of the prisoner tortures reaching my desk:
"My Fellow Americans, Citizens of Iraq, and People of the World:
"I have recently been made aware of the heinous abuses that have been perpetrated against prisoners under our guard in Iraq. I have been shocked and appalled by the information I have receieved.
"On behalf of all Americans, the U.S. Armed Forces, and especially those who perpretrated these horrific crimes, I offer my most sincere and humble apologies to all who have been affected, both directly and indirectly.
"Please rest assured that there will be a prompt and thorough investigation into these ghastly crimes. All individuals responsible will be apprehended, tried, and brought to swift and decisive justice.
"The United States has a proud history of treating our Prisoners of War with decency and humanity. We have strict policies regarding compliance with both the guidelines laid out in the Geneva Convention and with our own internal standards. These atrocities do not reflect the values of our people our our military.
"The torture of these prisoners has cast shame over our Armed Forces, and indeed over our entire nation. Furthermore, these events have poisoned our good will with the people of Iraq and with the people of the World and, as President, I will not stand for it.
"Thank you, and may God bless and watch over America, Iraq, and especially those who have been affected by these events."
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Okay, while yes to some degree you are right. That is why the military has intel people and it is their job to take all the information from "informants" and then tell the commanders what is true and what isnt.
Torture can be compared to paying someone, in that scenario. If I say that I will pay you $100 to tell me whats going on... I bet you would tell me that Elvis was doing a concert in down town Felluja if you thought that it would get you the money.
So... how do you get reliable information? That my friends is a serious question.
The answer, use what works untill it doesn't, then use something else.
Okay, while yes to some degree you are right. That is why the military has intel people and it is their job to take all the information from "informants" and then tell the commanders what is true and what isnt.
Torture can be compared to paying someone, in that scenario. If I say that I will pay you $100 to tell me whats going on... I bet you would tell me that Elvis was doing a concert in down town Felluja if you thought that it would get you the money.
So... how do you get reliable information? That my friends is a serious question.
The answer, use what works untill it doesn't, then use something else.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Whats your point, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 so why compare the two? The only trace of a connection is the fact that terrorists exist within Iraq. Then again show me a country where terrorists definatly dont exist... see my point?
Whats your point, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 so why compare the two? The only trace of a connection is the fact that terrorists exist within Iraq. Then again show me a country where terrorists definatly dont exist... see my point?
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Ahh I didnt realise that is what you were refering to. I personally dont know if justice is being done but if world terrorisim slows then I think that justice in the long run has been achieved.
Ahh I didnt realise that is what you were refering to. I personally dont know if justice is being done but if world terrorisim slows then I think that justice in the long run has been achieved.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Yes? This is why there is "increased chatter" and why we keep going on alert? And why bombs keep blowing up all over the place?
All this war is doing is fanning the flames.
Quote:
Ahh I didnt realise that is what you were refering to. I personally dont know if justice is being done but if world terrorisim slows then I think that justice in the long run has been achieved.
Yes? This is why there is "increased chatter" and why we keep going on alert? And why bombs keep blowing up all over the place?
All this war is doing is fanning the flames.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Perhaps, some think, that if you fan the flames enough it will get too hot for the terrorists to poke their heads out of their caves.
Perhaps if you make the price of terrorisim too high, none will be willing to pay. Fighting fire with fire?
Perhaps, some think, that if you fan the flames enough it will get too hot for the terrorists to poke their heads out of their caves.
Perhaps if you make the price of terrorisim too high, none will be willing to pay. Fighting fire with fire?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
They're wrong. That has already been shown. Terrorism is cheap. And there is no price higher than death. Terrorists are more than willing to pay that price.
Quote:
Perhaps, some think, that if you fan the flames enough it will get too hot for the terrorists to poke their heads out of their caves.
Perhaps if you make the price of terrorisim too high, none will be willing to pay. Fighting fire with fire?
They're wrong. That has already been shown. Terrorism is cheap. And there is no price higher than death. Terrorists are more than willing to pay that price.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Well I'll avoid arguing semantics, think what you will.
Well I'll avoid arguing semantics, think what you will.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Look, the only way you're really going to stop terrorism at its source is to kill its demand. You think these people are afraid of dying? Being captured? These people strap bombs to their bodies and fly planes into buildings. They're not afraid of very much.
The only way that we are going to put an end to terrorism is to eliminate the underlying conditions that spawn the sort of rage manifested in Al Qaeda. That means that these nations need to be taught how to use their most valuable resource, people (not oil), to run their economies. When the people are fed, housed, and covered for medical problems, terrorism will no longer be necessary.
Trying to stop terrorism by bombing innocent innocent people, destroying entire nations, and in general carrying on the way that the U.S. has been is like trying to put out a fire by throwing kerosene at it.
But it works out very nicely for Bush and Company. They get to spend huge amounts of money on these wars, stuffing their friends' pockets with lucrative military contracts. They also get to gain control of Iraqi oil and rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, again lining friends' pockets with more contracts. AND because the efforts make terrorism worse, they get to be even tighter and more restrictive about civil rights.
This may be among the worst corruption in the U.S. Government since Nixon.
Look, the only way you're really going to stop terrorism at its source is to kill its demand. You think these people are afraid of dying? Being captured? These people strap bombs to their bodies and fly planes into buildings. They're not afraid of very much.
The only way that we are going to put an end to terrorism is to eliminate the underlying conditions that spawn the sort of rage manifested in Al Qaeda. That means that these nations need to be taught how to use their most valuable resource, people (not oil), to run their economies. When the people are fed, housed, and covered for medical problems, terrorism will no longer be necessary.
Trying to stop terrorism by bombing innocent innocent people, destroying entire nations, and in general carrying on the way that the U.S. has been is like trying to put out a fire by throwing kerosene at it.
But it works out very nicely for Bush and Company. They get to spend huge amounts of money on these wars, stuffing their friends' pockets with lucrative military contracts. They also get to gain control of Iraqi oil and rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, again lining friends' pockets with more contracts. AND because the efforts make terrorism worse, they get to be even tighter and more restrictive about civil rights.
This may be among the worst corruption in the U.S. Government since Nixon.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
You ideas are a foundation. However, who is going to feed, shelter and immunize the world? Who's responsibility is it?
Communisim is a great idea, and that is exactly what you are proposing, everyone treated equally, given what they need to survive comfortably and everyone working for the better of society.
This is an outstanding ideal. However it is riddled with flaws. Communisim has never worked. There isnt a communistic country out there that is better off than a greedy capitalistic democracy.
Terrorisim flourishes in a communist society. Why? Because people will always want more. Organised crime flourishes, the government that is supposed to be working for the people will actually be grinding the people down because they feel that they should have more. Greed is the foundation of terrorisim and that you can never destroy. Man will always be greedy.
You ideas are a foundation. However, who is going to feed, shelter and immunize the world? Who's responsibility is it?
Communisim is a great idea, and that is exactly what you are proposing, everyone treated equally, given what they need to survive comfortably and everyone working for the better of society.
This is an outstanding ideal. However it is riddled with flaws. Communisim has never worked. There isnt a communistic country out there that is better off than a greedy capitalistic democracy.
Terrorisim flourishes in a communist society. Why? Because people will always want more. Organised crime flourishes, the government that is supposed to be working for the people will actually be grinding the people down because they feel that they should have more. Greed is the foundation of terrorisim and that you can never destroy. Man will always be greedy.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
It's theirs. But we need to give them the tools to be self-sufficient. It's in our best interest.
Quote:
You ideas are a foundation. However, who is going to feed, shelter and immunize the world? Who's responsibility is it?
It's theirs. But we need to give them the tools to be self-sufficient. It's in our best interest.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
The tools have been there since the dawn of time... some people just dont give a rats patooy and would rather live off of the wellfare of others.
The tools have been there since the dawn of time... some people just dont give a rats patooy and would rather live off of the wellfare of others.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
I am all for helping people, physical tools maybe hard to come by, this is true, but the tools of life all mankind is equipt with. The human mind weighs what (I forget) 7 lbs? (Or is it 7 oz?? I hate forgetting statistics), it is the most powerful weapon against hunger, the most powerful weapon against needs and wants. People need to think of soloutions, that work and then imploment them, I hear a lot of ideas but hear even less of action.
I am all for helping people, physical tools maybe hard to come by, this is true, but the tools of life all mankind is equipt with. The human mind weighs what (I forget) 7 lbs? (Or is it 7 oz?? I hate forgetting statistics), it is the most powerful weapon against hunger, the most powerful weapon against needs and wants. People need to think of soloutions, that work and then imploment them, I hear a lot of ideas but hear even less of action.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
I cant agree more. But, lets all try to think the single problem of world hunger to its end soloution.
The soloution to world hunger is quite simply, feed the world. Produce enough food to get people up and off their backsides to the point that they can start providing for themselves, or at the very least have something that they can offer in return for food.
How then, can this be accomplished?
I cant agree more. But, lets all try to think the single problem of world hunger to its end soloution.
The soloution to world hunger is quite simply, feed the world. Produce enough food to get people up and off their backsides to the point that they can start providing for themselves, or at the very least have something that they can offer in return for food.
How then, can this be accomplished?
SILVER Member
Classic 90's Fire Dancer... Poi, Staff, Doubles, and Breathing
743 posts
Location: South Lake Tahoe, USA
Classic 90's Fire Dancer... Poi, Staff, Doubles, and Breathing
743 posts
Location: South Lake Tahoe, USA
Posted:
But Iraq had Nothing To Do With 911!!!!!!!!!!
The First Bush should have finnished what he started and killed Sadam along time ago! But what I want to know is... WHERE IS Osama!!!!!!!!!!
Also Didn't we just take over Iraq, Why is my Gass prices Going Up!!!!!!!
Lick Bush in 04'
Quote:
All I can say is this:
9/11 death toll - approximately 3,000?
Iraq Body Count - 9,000 to 11,000. AND COUNTING.
I don't think I need to say any more. And if I do, I probably shouldn't.
But Iraq had Nothing To Do With 911!!!!!!!!!!
The First Bush should have finnished what he started and killed Sadam along time ago! But what I want to know is... WHERE IS Osama!!!!!!!!!!
Also Didn't we just take over Iraq, Why is my Gass prices Going Up!!!!!!!
Lick Bush in 04'
FIRE IS ALIVE!
IT LIVES AND BREATHS!
IT CONSUMES, AND DISTROYS!
BUT WE CONTROL IT,
AND DANCE WITH FIRE!!
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
ha! it seems that some trade is 'fairer' that others....
Quote:
Ever heard of "Fair Trade"?
ha! it seems that some trade is 'fairer' that others....
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Burzaruka, that's an oversimplification. Certainly we have the ability to feed the world, but the problem is more about equitable distribution of resources. One country in particular, consumes about 80% of the worlds resources, but people living in that country do not appear to want to share anything. In fact, they are happy to invade third world countries to ensure their energy resources. And to rub salt into the wounds they turn around and tell people living in that county, and the rest of the world, that's it's in the best interests of the invaded county.
"Fair Trade" as proposed by America is based on their policy of what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
Quote:
The soloution to world hunger is quite simply, feed the world. Produce enough food to get people up and off their backsides to the point that they can start providing for themselves, or at the very least have something that they can offer in return for food.
How then, can this be accomplished?
Burzaruka, that's an oversimplification. Certainly we have the ability to feed the world, but the problem is more about equitable distribution of resources. One country in particular, consumes about 80% of the worlds resources, but people living in that country do not appear to want to share anything. In fact, they are happy to invade third world countries to ensure their energy resources. And to rub salt into the wounds they turn around and tell people living in that county, and the rest of the world, that's it's in the best interests of the invaded county.
"Fair Trade" as proposed by America is based on their policy of what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
actually iraq wasn't a 3rd world country untill the UN sanctions.
actually iraq wasn't a 3rd world country untill the UN sanctions.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
The whole point of what I said was for it to be over simplified. I wanted to lay a foundation for discussion and see what others could and would build off of it.
The question is how do you stop world hunger?
I wonder if anyone will actually be able to come up with a viable idea...
The whole point of what I said was for it to be over simplified. I wanted to lay a foundation for discussion and see what others could and would build off of it.
The question is how do you stop world hunger?
I wonder if anyone will actually be able to come up with a viable idea...
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
how do you start? All the aid the US gives every year. 100% of it should be untied aid, not loans, or aid with strings tied. Just straight up aid. Americans pride themselves on giving X amount of money of aid (which amusengly they think is more then anyone in the world, when a couple of arab nations give more) when it's all business investments that put the world in debt.
Obviously you can't regulate what's comeing from private organizations, but the government should not endorse loan sharking the world.
Also, start writeing off debts, the WTO can certainly shoulder the burden.
Don't allow GM crops to be marketed to third world companies. The last thing they need is crops which they cannot regrow themselves and need to pay some genetics company for seeds every 5 years.
Lift several of the nonsense sanctions that are place on nations.
Now, some of this is beyond the US control, some of it's up to the WTO (which the US has a fair degree of muscle with) and the UN. But I don't see the US trying to bring about any change, the people who have more power then anyone to do so.
how do you start? All the aid the US gives every year. 100% of it should be untied aid, not loans, or aid with strings tied. Just straight up aid. Americans pride themselves on giving X amount of money of aid (which amusengly they think is more then anyone in the world, when a couple of arab nations give more) when it's all business investments that put the world in debt.
Obviously you can't regulate what's comeing from private organizations, but the government should not endorse loan sharking the world.
Also, start writeing off debts, the WTO can certainly shoulder the burden.
Don't allow GM crops to be marketed to third world companies. The last thing they need is crops which they cannot regrow themselves and need to pay some genetics company for seeds every 5 years.
Lift several of the nonsense sanctions that are place on nations.
Now, some of this is beyond the US control, some of it's up to the WTO (which the US has a fair degree of muscle with) and the UN. But I don't see the US trying to bring about any change, the people who have more power then anyone to do so.
SILVER Member
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
if i were president... is a song off Bizzare Ride 2 the Pharcyde
if i were president... is a song off Bizzare Ride 2 the Pharcyde
It is our fantasies that make us real. Without our fantasies we're just a blank monkey' - Terry Pratchett
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
I didnt ask what the US should do or how the US should stop or have anything to do with world hunger...
How would YOU stop world hunger?
I didnt ask what the US should do or how the US should stop or have anything to do with world hunger...
How would YOU stop world hunger?
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
well the topic is the thread is "if I were president" and people are talking about what they would do if they are president. So maybe you should expect an answer of what someone would do if they were president to stop world hunger when you ask that question in this thread.
well the topic is the thread is "if I were president" and people are talking about what they would do if they are president. So maybe you should expect an answer of what someone would do if they were president to stop world hunger when you ask that question in this thread.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Point taken Robotface, but for clarification of my question, lets think outside the US for this little experiment into the logic of world problems.
Point taken Robotface, but for clarification of my question, lets think outside the US for this little experiment into the logic of world problems.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
I spent just about all day sitting in front of my TV watching CSPAN today. For those that dont know there was a commite meeting about the above topic.
I would like to retract almost everything I said about the incidents that had been going on since JANUARY of this this year. None of it was right, morally, leagaly or socialy and to think it humorus was not only wrong but inhuman of me. For that I apologise. I wish that I could take back all that was said but I can't. I am told that it isn't the mistakes that you make that matter, it is what you do after you have made the mistakes that count.
Quote:
Some of the "torture" that the prisoners went through is actually almost comical when you think about it. Like the prisoner that was told to stand on this wooden box and if he fell off he would be electricuted... thats not torture, that is something that you would expect to find at rush week for any frat at any college in the US.
Some of it is mild psycological warfare. Sometimes saying please isnt enough to get someone to tell you the information that you want to know.
Besides in a recent poll by USA Today, like 80% or higher of Iraqis believe that Saddam tortured and murdered Iraqis. What these few individuals went through is comparitivly nothing compared to what saddam did.
I spent just about all day sitting in front of my TV watching CSPAN today. For those that dont know there was a commite meeting about the above topic.
I would like to retract almost everything I said about the incidents that had been going on since JANUARY of this this year. None of it was right, morally, leagaly or socialy and to think it humorus was not only wrong but inhuman of me. For that I apologise. I wish that I could take back all that was said but I can't. I am told that it isn't the mistakes that you make that matter, it is what you do after you have made the mistakes that count.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
This is an expert of an email my mom passed around the family from my brother who is currently in Iraq. I doubt these are his words but it really doesnt matter who said them. The author brings up an interesting point, really in all honesty a pointless point, but a point none the less.
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
> > editor. This will put things in perspective: Liberals claim President
> > Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his
> > prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst
> > president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start
> > the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE
> > 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. FDR
> > led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
> > 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
> > Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
> > attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
> > of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in
> > 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a
> > quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800
> > per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
> > Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
> > platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
> > multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
> > President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban,
> > crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North
> > Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
> > 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers. Bush did all this
> > abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst
> > president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how
> > long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it
> > took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day
> > operation.We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq
> > for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm
> > billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and
> > the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy
> > Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
> > It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
> > Florida!!!
This is an expert of an email my mom passed around the family from my brother who is currently in Iraq. I doubt these are his words but it really doesnt matter who said them. The author brings up an interesting point, really in all honesty a pointless point, but a point none the less.
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
> > editor. This will put things in perspective: Liberals claim President
> > Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his
> > prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst
> > president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start
> > the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE
> > 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. FDR
> > led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
> > 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
> > Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
> > attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
> > of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in
> > 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a
> > quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800
> > per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
> > Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
> > platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
> > multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
> > President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban,
> > crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North
> > Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
> > 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers. Bush did all this
> > abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst
> > president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how
> > long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it
> > took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day
> > operation.We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq
> > for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm
> > billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and
> > the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy
> > Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
> > It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
> > Florida!!!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Yes we did, in fact. Even if we didn't fire the first shot.
Fighting terrorism is a great thing, but this country has a very annoying and damaging habit of fighting "Wars on Concepts."
You can fight a war against another country. You can (generally unsuccessfully) fight a war against guerillas and terrorists.
However, you CANNOT fight a war on drugs, terrorism, AIDS, poverty, or anything else that doesn't physically exist.
Terrorism has existed since the dawn of civilization. This country was founded and won its independence, in part, due to terrorist acts (the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, and were such an act committed today, would be branded as such by the Bush administration).
These "Wars on Concepts" have already begun to completely destroy this country. The Wars on drugs and terror have subverted the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, illegal forfeiture, and self-incrimination. Now, due process is also at risk of being made obsolete.
It is true that we were hit first, I'm not denying this. However, the appropriate response would have been to very quickly invade Afghanistan and root out Al-Qaeda. Instead, we waited over a month, giving them plenty of time to run and hide. Then, after failing to behead the organization by finding OBL, we decided to drop the ball and go running after Iraq, which had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
In fact, it is commonly known that Bush had planned to invade Iraq and depose Saddam long before Sept. 11. However, Sept. 11 was one of the greatest things that ever happened to Bush because it gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted and justify it in the name of 9/11.
The party line is that Saddam was a terrorist. He wasn't. He never used terrorism. Torture, chemical weapons, genocide, totalitarianism, military force, yes. But not terrorism. He was too much of an egomaniac to go sneaking around cloak-and-dagger like that. Saddam is much more like Hitler than like OBL.
The same E-mail you quoted said that Al Qaeda had been "crippled." Tell that to the people of Madrid, of Saudi Arabia, and of Baghdad. Because now that Saddam is gone, Al Qaeda has moved in.
And so, in fact, this entire process has been horribly mis-managed by the Bush administration. They have struck too slowly and at the wrong places. They should have hit Afghanistan within a week and Iraq should have been left out of it.
There is no evidence that this country is any safer today than it was on Sept 10, 2001. If anything, Bush has made it more dangerous by stirring the hornet's nest.
Quote:
Let's clear up one point: We didn't start
> > the war on terror.
Yes we did, in fact. Even if we didn't fire the first shot.
Fighting terrorism is a great thing, but this country has a very annoying and damaging habit of fighting "Wars on Concepts."
You can fight a war against another country. You can (generally unsuccessfully) fight a war against guerillas and terrorists.
However, you CANNOT fight a war on drugs, terrorism, AIDS, poverty, or anything else that doesn't physically exist.
Terrorism has existed since the dawn of civilization. This country was founded and won its independence, in part, due to terrorist acts (the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, and were such an act committed today, would be branded as such by the Bush administration).
These "Wars on Concepts" have already begun to completely destroy this country. The Wars on drugs and terror have subverted the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, illegal forfeiture, and self-incrimination. Now, due process is also at risk of being made obsolete.
It is true that we were hit first, I'm not denying this. However, the appropriate response would have been to very quickly invade Afghanistan and root out Al-Qaeda. Instead, we waited over a month, giving them plenty of time to run and hide. Then, after failing to behead the organization by finding OBL, we decided to drop the ball and go running after Iraq, which had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
In fact, it is commonly known that Bush had planned to invade Iraq and depose Saddam long before Sept. 11. However, Sept. 11 was one of the greatest things that ever happened to Bush because it gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted and justify it in the name of 9/11.
The party line is that Saddam was a terrorist. He wasn't. He never used terrorism. Torture, chemical weapons, genocide, totalitarianism, military force, yes. But not terrorism. He was too much of an egomaniac to go sneaking around cloak-and-dagger like that. Saddam is much more like Hitler than like OBL.
The same E-mail you quoted said that Al Qaeda had been "crippled." Tell that to the people of Madrid, of Saudi Arabia, and of Baghdad. Because now that Saddam is gone, Al Qaeda has moved in.
And so, in fact, this entire process has been horribly mis-managed by the Bush administration. They have struck too slowly and at the wrong places. They should have hit Afghanistan within a week and Iraq should have been left out of it.
There is no evidence that this country is any safer today than it was on Sept 10, 2001. If anything, Bush has made it more dangerous by stirring the hornet's nest.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
You are arguing semantics. Terror has existed since Cane and Able (if you believe in that).
You can fight a war on drugs, terror, poverty and hunger. It is a very hard thing to do but in the mid 80's the drug problem was actually on the decline, in fact it wasnt untill Hillary Clinton's reign did the war on drugs flip.
If that isnt terrorisim then I don't know what is.
I think you are right though, we should have hit Afganistan sooner, but the facts are, that we couldnt move against a country on the other side of the world, in force within a mater of a week. Sure we could have started dropping bombs the next day, but there was a good deal of pandimoium that even the most collected and prepared country in the world (militarily speaking) need to regroup a little.
Just in case you havnt been to the airport in 3 years, I can testify that the security measures there are insaine. The odds of anything getting through air port security has been greatly reduced. I would be that the other mass transit systems are under similer security. So in that sence the country is safer.
You are arguing semantics. Terror has existed since Cane and Able (if you believe in that).
You can fight a war on drugs, terror, poverty and hunger. It is a very hard thing to do but in the mid 80's the drug problem was actually on the decline, in fact it wasnt untill Hillary Clinton's reign did the war on drugs flip.
Quote:
He never used terrorism. Torture, chemical weapons, genocide, totalitarianism, military force, yes. But not terrorism.
If that isnt terrorisim then I don't know what is.
I think you are right though, we should have hit Afganistan sooner, but the facts are, that we couldnt move against a country on the other side of the world, in force within a mater of a week. Sure we could have started dropping bombs the next day, but there was a good deal of pandimoium that even the most collected and prepared country in the world (militarily speaking) need to regroup a little.
Just in case you havnt been to the airport in 3 years, I can testify that the security measures there are insaine. The odds of anything getting through air port security has been greatly reduced. I would be that the other mass transit systems are under similer security. So in that sence the country is safer.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Terrorism is when a non-military force intentionally targets civilians or civilian facilities/property, usually using covert means.
When a military force does that (as in Saddam's case), it's war crimes.
When a non-military force targets a foreign military force, it's guerilla warfare.
A military force is defined in the Geneva Convention as a uniformed force operating under the flag of (and officially supported/recognized by the government of) a nation (not a direct quote, but the direct quote is similar).
Saddam had a military and committed war crimes. That isn't terrorism. Terrible, yes, but not terrorism. The Viet-Cong were not a military and used guerilla warfare. Al Qadea are terrorists.
The rebels that founded this country used both terrorism and guerilla warfare to liberate themselves from England.
People don't know the definition of terrorism and that's why it gets used in witch hunts like this. Just like "Communist" got misused in McCarthy's time.
Quote:
If that isnt terrorisim then I don't know what is.
Terrorism is when a non-military force intentionally targets civilians or civilian facilities/property, usually using covert means.
When a military force does that (as in Saddam's case), it's war crimes.
When a non-military force targets a foreign military force, it's guerilla warfare.
A military force is defined in the Geneva Convention as a uniformed force operating under the flag of (and officially supported/recognized by the government of) a nation (not a direct quote, but the direct quote is similar).
Saddam had a military and committed war crimes. That isn't terrorism. Terrible, yes, but not terrorism. The Viet-Cong were not a military and used guerilla warfare. Al Qadea are terrorists.
The rebels that founded this country used both terrorism and guerilla warfare to liberate themselves from England.
People don't know the definition of terrorism and that's why it gets used in witch hunts like this. Just like "Communist" got misused in McCarthy's time.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
On the subject of missuse of the word terrorism. There are no terrorists engageing americans in iraq currently. The ones who are
with contractors could be considered terrorist perhaps, btu the contractors are working for a occupying army in an occupied land, and they are almost always armed and militarily trained. many of them are more like mercenaries then civilians (something bush gets a bit antsy about)
The attacks on the contractors and soldiers is guerilla warfare., Some of it's actually legit warfare because they are wearing uniforms and are fighting under the iraqi flag.
Even on ocassions where the soldiers wore uniforms the media still refered to it as terrorism. Ive noticed they have mostly started sticking to insurgents, probably because they looked to damn stupid saying terrorists all the time I dunno, but I think the damage has already been done by the media as painting this as a picture of terrorists vs americans, and the administration certainly backs it up, because afterall the war is over guys. Bush said so himself.
Your article does make a point, but the only point is it's to early to call bush the worst president ever. A decade or 15 years from now when america is defined as a fascist theocracy quasi-democracy by foreign political science students, Then it will be a safe call bush the worst president ever for leading america down that road.
Because honestly where do you think this will lead? 'liberating iraq' is going to take a great deal longer then expected, and I figure it's likely going to end on saddam being executed by the iraqi's, foreign powers pumping more funding into the iraqi insurgents, a portion of iraqi's being outraged with saddams exection and a violent explosion of the nation, remember after our lovely torture/beheading in retalation incident it's likely going to be already spiraling into violence untill the point of saddams execution.
And I figure america will end up pulling out of there like they pulled out of vietnam and leaving the nation in chaos.
What else will be happening in the world? More terrorist attacks on european nations who backed the US like we saw in madrid and other places, and most likely some attacks or threats in america. Think america is secure? Millions of tons of drugs come into your country every year and you can't stop it and never could with all the money you put into the war on drugs. Thousands of immigrants come in not only from mexico but on ships. Do you think you can stop explosives, crude biological and chemical weapons like ricin anthrax and cyanide which we know terrorists have the capability to manufacture? and terrorists themselves?
Every terrorist attack results in a redoubleing of the american war on the concept of terrorism which accomplishes nothing but insult and enrage an angry beehive in the middle east and elsewhere, and the cycle continues.
Soon, it starts looking a hell of a lot like 1984 with terrorists attacks happening regulary, some of them real some fabricated and the terrorism being used as an excuse for everything wrong with society.
15 years latter you have america, the fascist theocracy quasi-democracy.
Edit: I was really tired in in a weird state of mind when I wrote this, and I still am but after reading what I wrote it does seem a little fanatical, dogmatic and exagerated. But I still think it indicates the tangent that bush's actions are takeing america and the world, perhaps the magnitude is a bit off kilter.
On the subject of missuse of the word terrorism. There are no terrorists engageing americans in iraq currently. The ones who are
with contractors could be considered terrorist perhaps, btu the contractors are working for a occupying army in an occupied land, and they are almost always armed and militarily trained. many of them are more like mercenaries then civilians (something bush gets a bit antsy about)The attacks on the contractors and soldiers is guerilla warfare., Some of it's actually legit warfare because they are wearing uniforms and are fighting under the iraqi flag.
Even on ocassions where the soldiers wore uniforms the media still refered to it as terrorism. Ive noticed they have mostly started sticking to insurgents, probably because they looked to damn stupid saying terrorists all the time I dunno, but I think the damage has already been done by the media as painting this as a picture of terrorists vs americans, and the administration certainly backs it up, because afterall the war is over guys. Bush said so himself.
Your article does make a point, but the only point is it's to early to call bush the worst president ever. A decade or 15 years from now when america is defined as a fascist theocracy quasi-democracy by foreign political science students, Then it will be a safe call bush the worst president ever for leading america down that road.
Because honestly where do you think this will lead? 'liberating iraq' is going to take a great deal longer then expected, and I figure it's likely going to end on saddam being executed by the iraqi's, foreign powers pumping more funding into the iraqi insurgents, a portion of iraqi's being outraged with saddams exection and a violent explosion of the nation, remember after our lovely torture/beheading in retalation incident it's likely going to be already spiraling into violence untill the point of saddams execution.
And I figure america will end up pulling out of there like they pulled out of vietnam and leaving the nation in chaos.
What else will be happening in the world? More terrorist attacks on european nations who backed the US like we saw in madrid and other places, and most likely some attacks or threats in america. Think america is secure? Millions of tons of drugs come into your country every year and you can't stop it and never could with all the money you put into the war on drugs. Thousands of immigrants come in not only from mexico but on ships. Do you think you can stop explosives, crude biological and chemical weapons like ricin anthrax and cyanide which we know terrorists have the capability to manufacture? and terrorists themselves?
Every terrorist attack results in a redoubleing of the american war on the concept of terrorism which accomplishes nothing but insult and enrage an angry beehive in the middle east and elsewhere, and the cycle continues.
Soon, it starts looking a hell of a lot like 1984 with terrorists attacks happening regulary, some of them real some fabricated and the terrorism being used as an excuse for everything wrong with society.
15 years latter you have america, the fascist theocracy quasi-democracy.
Edit: I was really tired in in a weird state of mind when I wrote this, and I still am but after reading what I wrote it does seem a little fanatical, dogmatic and exagerated. But I still think it indicates the tangent that bush's actions are takeing america and the world, perhaps the magnitude is a bit off kilter.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hey Burzaruka, you can't expect to get your point across by dismissing peoples ideas as "semantics" every time someone disagrees with u. IMHO, that pro bush email u posted is an excellent example of semantics (play on words) because it's all words without substance. In reality, it means nothing and proves nothing because the examples are ridiculous.
Hey Burzaruka, you can't expect to get your point across by dismissing peoples ideas as "semantics" every time someone disagrees with u. IMHO, that pro bush email u posted is an excellent example of semantics (play on words) because it's all words without substance. In reality, it means nothing and proves nothing because the examples are ridiculous.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com