Thats a crock of shit, the President isn't afforded the choice to "turn the other cheek" when it comes to matters of national security.

[QUOTE][i]

Bush's opinion of you are with us or against us is horrible. Since when does Bush decide what is the best for everyone else in the world? [QUOTE]

I have to agree with that. Unless there is some greater benefit to Bush's actions that no one is privy to yet, his actions are questionable, mainly regarding Iraq.

Some people enjoy Bush's style of ' just watch me' or as it were, ' taking the bull by the horns.' I think all leaders should have those characteristics. I just prefer those to envelop some tact and diplomacy with such resolve.

I guess I don't see the purpose of this thread, considering how many anti-Bush threads there already are.

That is certainly true, but I wonder about Iraq.

I am certain Sadam needed his people and his neibors to fear him. That would explain all the lies about WMD's, even at the cost of war. If it was known that he was defenseless, he would have been taken down by his own people or one of his neibors.
I think he would rather lose to us than another country. After all it looks like a war of religions now. So in a way Sadam went out in a way that might hurt us more than he ever could have done on his own.
So, the question is, has this administration gone too far.

I guess I don't see how this thread differs from this one:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=52377

It's a relatively new phenomenon. From the Atlantic:

So, uh, thanks Reagan!

I believe analog was talking about the concept of suicide attacks in general not specific to Muslim extremist suicide attacks.

Hell, kamikaze pilots are a prime example of such tactics.

I really don't know if the administration has gone too far or not enough. Have they bitten off more than they can chew? Or did they take small bites instead of big ones? I look at terrorism like lung cancer. If you smoke,you have a better chance of it attacking you than if you don't.

So how does Bush deal with terrorism? Does the U.S let terrorists exist as long as U.S interests are not targeted and take a chance they won't attack ( I can't believe I am even thinking that terrorists might think of the rules of engagement concerning war) or does Bush go hard at every turn knowing as long as the U.S tries to eradicate it, those so inclined will have more reasons to attack?

It's hard to see a win win situation given the context that exists. Maybe something catastrophic like a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki might bring the world back to peace. I hate to think that way but something that rocks the world might be the recipe for a reality. But when does it come back to bite your ass?

I was taking it in the context of the thread "terrorists" => "suicide bombers" => "Muslim extremists"

*shrug*

The Atlantic is wrong.

In World War II, kamikaze pilots acted as "human missiles" by flying their planes, heavily laden with explosives, directly into enemy warships. After World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" were used against the French colonial army.

"Turn the other cheek" is more complicated than that. The original greek uses two different words for strike. The first word suggests the relationship between a slave and an owner, and typically involves striking with the back of the hand. By "turning the other cheek", you are telling the assailer to strike you in a manner that suggests a peer, with the palm of the hand.

It's a brilliant way to stand up to someone non-violently and assert yourself as an equal at the same time.

Seems to me we just played this out last week. :rolleyes:


By the way:

BAD

GOOD

Well now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly learned something new today. Now, my day's not a total loss, afterall. :D Thanks, Peetster.

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Too far, or not far enough. I only hope we know soon.

I hope that nothing catastrophic happens, but sadly you may be correct

You know, if we would just establish a "we'll leave you alone unless you fuck with us, and if you do we'll annihilate you and ONLY you" foreign policy, we'd have a much better time of it.

That's just my opinion though.

That might work...but, who would the "only you" be? These radical fundamentalists are not connected to any one country. They are connected through a twisted and perverse view of Islam. Though a lot of nations do support them. Do you annihilate the supporting nations, or go after just the individual terrorists themselves. Hell, we can't even find Osama, how are we going to succesfully identify and take out a less charismatic figure?

It doesn't.

Now merged for your enjoyment.

Article III, section b, subsection 2 of the vast right wing conspiracy's guide to the new world order.

Jesus, how do you argue with any of this.

145 views and 120 replies, i didn't really have anything to add - i just didn't want to be left out.

Bush fuckin rocks!!!

If the nation is supporting the terrorists that attacked you, get 'em. Afghanistan was supporting the terrorists that attacked us, and we got them. Iraq was not, though interestingly enough Saudi is more connected to the 9/11 terrorists than Iraq was, yet we didn't go after them. What we're doing makes no frikkin' sense from a "get the terrorists" standpoint.

Like I mentioned to analog in the post above yours, the Atlantic was exploring Muslim suicide attacks (which were rare pre-1983). The culture of suicide in Japan has of course been documented for centuries, but the Koran's teaching of the shameful nature of suicide has only been corrupted for the last 20-odd years.

So, no, in the context of Muslim suicide attacks (which is what the article, which of course you read, explored), the Atlantic is not wrong.

What are you talking about? I don't see any constructive criticism in your response to my point .

If you want to read an actual guide to political manipulation instead of insinuating that I'm engaging in conspiracy theorizing, bone up on Machiavelli.

Reading some books on the topic would be your first step to "argue with any of this." After that, you can engage me with why you think his writings were wrong and/or are not being adhered to by those in political power.

I've seen Bush criticized countless times for supposedly injecting his Christian belief into policy. Now he is getting it for doing the opposite. Beautiful.

Actually, I don't think that is the opposite. It would seem a citisicism for injecting christian belief into policy......Badly. But you are correct, he does get alot of flak for pretty much anything he does, I wonder what this is an indication of?

Easy. Democratic payback for eight years of right wing Clinton bashing. Bush just happens to be the Republican that got the hotseat (Presidency). He could be the best president that this country has ever seen, and he would still be criticized for blowing green boogers. In my own little opinion, the only way that the Republicans could've avoided it would've been to have nominated McCain back in 2000.

actually i'm giving him flak for playing politics with religion and being a hypocryte.

George Bush has assembled one of the best teams of Presidential advisors in US history. His handling of the responsibilities of his office has been inspiring and rock solid. He is a great man and a great President.

Given the nature of this board and post, and my memory of Art's posting past (which could be wrong), I am forced to throw this quote out there...

Simpsons:
Comic Book Guy: A sarcasm machine, thats a good invention
Frink: Glaven! Its off the scale! <machine blows up>

sarcasm Art?

well IMO you would be horribly wrong right now...

cut the sarcasm yourself, yeah?

...no sarcasm here.
thanks.

No wonder we had security failures and terrorist attacks on our soil.. If our own government relies on what CNN says in order to stay informed I'm sorry to say we are all doomed. CNN is reality TV at its worst. Only a foolish polotician would watch mainstream news programs in order to stay informed. One of the few reasons I could see them doing so would be in order to see exactly what the people outside of polotics see. To see themselves from the peoples perspective.

Sorry that was completely off topic. The only downside to Bush for me is he seems to support the increasing authority that law enforcement and government enjoy through bills like the patriot act, DMCA etc. This is a trend that started in the Clinton era and Bush/Congress has kept it going strong.

Well said, Art. I believe history will agree with you. It will be very interesting to see (in the future) all the details about the current situation that aren't available for public consumption. I strongly suspect the vast majority of criticism toward his actions will have no legs to stand on.

I wonder if there is truth to that science article saying that Democrats and Republicans are different enough so as to have different MRI scans when watching the same data and imagery. Here's how I would write it:

George Bush has assembled one of the worst teams of Presidential advisors in our history. He has presided over two of the worst intelligence failures in our history. His handling of the responsibilities of office has been troubling. Instead of focusing on a successful conclusion to the war on terror (Bin Laden and his top deputy remain on the loose, and Afghanistan is devolving into pre-Taliban rule-by-warlords), he took us on a hastily planned unnecessary diversion into Iraq. He may well be a warm, compassionate man, but he is no great President.

My opinion is definitely similar to Art's observation, Spar. I think any failures were inherited. I also think that he's doing the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's dirty work that should have been done years ago.

Seems like you're contradicting yourself. First you say the Democrats would've gone after *any* Republican President, then you turn around and offer a Republican who they wouldn't have gone after.

So either:

(1) The Democrats are acting completely out of spite and would have bashed any Republican including McCain, or

(2) There is something about Bush, besides his party affiliation, which invokes this reaction from Democrats.

So which is it?

he's probably suggesting c) McCain is the only one who gets respect for what he's done versus the new order of Republicans

Aside from disagreeing politically on various issues, I support Bush and generally denounce Kerry.

c = 2.

If there is any Republican who wouldn't get bashed, then it doesn't make sense to claim Democrats are acting out of spite. In particular, if it's true that McCain wouldn't get bashed then the following isn't true:

(fixed typo)

I could go on and on about how i "dislike" Dubya.... but one of the major things that stands out is what i heard a few days ago, this is not an exact quote but ill get the point across.

Bush said somthing that he doesnt make his decisions based on polls, but the polls are the people of our country! so basically hes saying he does not listen to US. punkvoter.com is a great anti-bush group founded by Mike of NOFX, its very intersting.

That's similar to what I say to my father-in-law when he criticizes Clinton for "pandering" to the polls--don't you want someone who represents your interests?

Seems to me to be self-defeating if you vote someone in after you know he won't pay attention to the needs and wants of the people--but it's more silly to chastise an elected official for doing it!

Whats right is not always easy.

Its funny how the "left" (hate to play that card) bitches that Bush doesn't listen to the polls, and that he should, yet when it comes to the homosexual marriage issue, which over 60% of the country is opposed to, you get all pissy.

Abortion is another issue. I know that mostly its a 50/50 issue as a whole. But if you look at the general pro-life platform (which allows for incest and rape and late term women's health), the majority would prefer limiting it to that.

Thats just something I find interesting, only when it suits you and your agenda.

An elected official must walk a fine line with polls and the public's "wishes".

While he/she should listen, they should not be as a flag in the wind.


By analogy, when you hire a surgeon, you tell them what you want, but you do not try to run the operation, because part of what you are paying for is the surgeon's expertise in doing the "right thing".

This is the same for politicians.

We (try) to pick the best ones to run the country and then we put the job in their hands.

If we don't like the job they did we can "fire" them at the next election.

The founding fathers set up a constitutional representative government for the express purposes of avoiding tyranny by monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and also - in fact - the tyranny of the majority as well.

Elected leaders are entrusted with decisionmaking power. They are not elected to be puppets of some arbitrary series of constantly fluctuating poll data. This is quite elementary.