where's the good in bush? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

daswig · 10-18-2004, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

You can't say Bush has done a good job preventing terrorism if an attack doesn't happen. These attacks aren't exactly going on day-by-day. These things take time, years, to plan out. We're not really any safer today than we were 5 years ago except for the fact that us people are more aware of the reality of terrorism - hardly a "good job" by Bush.

Bush has the US military and other ancillary forces out there killing Jihadists in places OTHER than the US. That, in and of itself, is a very good thing. Why? Because there's a limited supply of people willing to kill themselves for their religion, and every one of them we kill over there is one more we don't have to kill over here. Bush has parts of the third world scared to DEATH that we're going to go after them next. Why do you think Libya suddenly "saw the light" WRT their WMD program? It's because they didn't want us to stop on our way back from Iraq and kick the shit out of them on general principles. Getting the Libyan WMD program to go away is a good thing, and Bush didn't even have to invade Libya to do it.

Iraq and Afghanistan are essentially "jihadi sponges". They're sucking the whacked out fundie islamics who want to die gloriously into battle on almost equal terms which WE set, instead of allowing them to plot and attack our civilian population base on their terms. This in and of itself is a good thing for us, even though it's kind of hard on the Iraqi people.

DJ Happy · 10-18-2004, 11:52 PM

Of course, the fact that many of those jihadis weren't even around until the US invaded Iraq is neither here nor there.

By the way, I find the sentiment expressed in your last line quite appalling. It's no wonder the US has a reputation for only valuing US lives while considering the rest of the world's people expendable.

host · 10-18-2004, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Bush has the US military and other ancillary forces out there killing Jihadists in places OTHER than the US. That, in and of itself, is a very good thing. Why? Because there's a limited supply of people willing to kill themselves for their religion, and every one of them we kill over there is one more we don't have to kill over here. Bush has parts of the third world scared to DEATH that we're going to go after them next. Why do you think Libya suddenly "saw the light" WRT their WMD program? It's because they didn't want us to stop on our way back from Iraq and kick the shit out of them on general principles. Getting the Libyan WMD program to go away is a good thing, and Bush didn't even have to invade Libya to do it.

Iraq and Afghanistan are essentially "jihadi sponges". They're sucking the whacked out fundie islamics who want to die gloriously into battle on almost equal terms which WE set, instead of allowing them to plot and attack our civilian population base on their terms. This in and of itself is a good thing for us, even though it's kind of hard on the Iraqi people.

<center>
According to our own military, your "sponges" don't seem to be soaking
up many foreign fighters or "jihadists". Your argument is flawed because
there are probably many more than the 19 people in the "cell" that attacked
us on 9/11, willing to martyr themselves now. 9/11 illustrated just how few terrorists with a workable plan it actually takes to wreak havoc on our economy, our psyche, and our leadership; compared to the the relatively few casualties and minimal property damage that was caused, versus ithe new mindset that 9/11 triggered. How many "Mohammed Atta types", supposedly believing in an immortality sweetened by the company of 70 virgins, will Bush's policies and military actions actually "scare" into abandoning their suicide saboteur strategy? I doubt that you can make these most dangerous terrorists fear our military, or much else, since they have a "vision" of martyrdom.</center>

Quote:

nsurgents Are Mostly Iraqis, U.S. Military Says

Tue Sep 28, 7:55 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The insistence by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and many U.S. officials that foreign fighters are streaming into Iraq (news - web sites) to battle American troops runs counter to the U.S. military's own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem.

In a U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke of foreign insurgents "flooding" his country, and both President Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), have cited these fighters as a major security problem.

But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.

Foreign militants such as Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi are believed responsible for carrying out videotaped beheadings, suicide car bombings and other high-profile attacks. But U.S. military officials said Iraqi officials tended to exaggerate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq to obscure the fact that large numbers of their countrymen have taken up arms against U.S. troops and the American-backed interim Iraqi government.

"They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence. We don't think so," said a senior military official in Baghdad. "What's the main threat? It's internal."........ <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=30&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays">link</a>

daswig · 10-19-2004, 12:03 AM

Basic math for you, Host. On 9/11, 19 Jihadists killed around 2,700 Americans. That works out to well over 100 dead Americans for each dead Jihadi. In Iraq, we've lost a bit over 1,000 servicepeople. Do you think we've killed more than 10 Jihadis? If so, we're on par with 9/11. It's much more likely that we've killed thousands of Jihadis, more, in fact, than the number of people we've lost there. If so, on a strictly statistical basis, the war in Iraq has been a HUGE sucess. Remember the recent op in Sammara? HALF of the captured troops there were African Jihadis. That's not an insignificant number.

Halx · 10-19-2004, 12:43 AM

so far we have:

1: Keeps America Safe
3: Tax cuts help economy
2: Is cool to drink beer with

Ok...

1 - Like any other president couldn't do this? Like any other president wouldn't have taken the same safety measures? First, it's questionable if he actually HAS made us any safer. Second, what makes you think someone can't do it better?

2 - ...or maybe it's just the natural ebb and flow of the world. He cuts taxes for all the wrong people. I for one am being taxed to hell. MY consumer activity is down drastically from several years ago.

3 - I hate beer.

Halx · 10-19-2004, 12:46 AM

Oh yeah.. and death totally intimidates these guys.. yeah. Furthermore, a war is only justified if YOUR side gets more kills than THEIR side!

DJ Happy · 10-19-2004, 03:30 AM

Yes, all suicide bombers are petrified at the mere thought of death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

so far we have:
2: Is cool to drink beer with

I don't know if an alcoholic would be my first choice of person to have a beer with.....

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

I don't know if an alcoholic would be my first choice of person to have a beer with.....

maybe the two of you could just order some coke?

/i mean the soda... yep, that's it...

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Basic math for you, Host. On 9/11, 19 Jihadists killed around 2,700 Americans. That works out to well over 100 dead Americans for each dead Jihadi. In Iraq, we've lost a bit over 1,000 servicepeople. Do you think we've killed more than 10 Jihadis? If so, we're on par with 9/11. It's much more likely that we've killed thousands of Jihadis, more, in fact, than the number of people we've lost there. If so, on a strictly statistical basis, the war in Iraq has been a HUGE sucess. Remember the recent op in Sammara? HALF of the captured troops there were African Jihadis. That's not an insignificant number.

lets see... so what we've got is that we're over there killing some "jihadis" (i've never heard this word before... is it another new conservative word? like "liberal youthlings? seems to be cons. trend). now, don't you think that for every death we cause that the people feel is unjustified, we're opening up the possibility for creating more. and it's not the smart ones that are going to fight in iraq. they're sitting in their caves or wherever tehy hide, recruiting and training people and planning attacks to take place inside the US while we're distracted with the cattle shooting over in iraq.

a long time ago i heard someone say that if your about to get into a bar fight, don't worry about the asshole that's talking shit. worry about his buddy that's with him whose quiet, watchful... the loud mouth will do something obvious, it's the quiet one who's actually planning how to hurt you.

DJ Happy · 10-19-2004, 05:20 AM

I think Bush talks enough bollocks as it is without chucking some coke into the equation.

rukkyg · 10-19-2004, 06:28 AM

As far as being a cool guy to hang out with, that might be true as long as you don't disagree with him on anything. If you say you like Bud and he says Heiniken is better, he'll just say "No. Heinikin is better." and then you'll sit there for 5 minutes in uncomfortable silence until you turn the conversation to God or something.

Stubborn to the core.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-19-2004, 07:18 AM

Jinx I think the fundamental problem with this thread is that your question by nature leaves little room for objective fact, coming from both sides of the aisle. Here's one man's attempt.

The economy. Regardless of what is being said, the economy is doing very well (out said of that deficit thingy...). After inheriting a recession, we have one of the strongest economies ever as far as growth and efficency. The jobless rate is below the 30 year average at 5.4%. The Net loss of jobs is not as bad as spinsters make it out to be, the number is actually around 800,000. That number is misleading at the same time, it's not a sign of economic struggle, rather a changing market. Productivity and efficency in the manufactering sector are at record levels, sadly the trends will continue, we'll need less people to do the same jobs of the past. Our GDP has had it's biggest growth ever. Plus at the same time you have high tech weenie's, like my father, who were banking hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 90's under the technology explosion, but now companies are hiring Asian-Indians who will do the same jobs of the past for less then 30,000 dollars a year.

Here's a subjective one. Bush isn't a pollster. Right or wrong (we are clearly divided here, I'm not going to argue it), I personally for the most part feel right, Bushs' conviction for sticking out the tough decisions is a good quality. Being the president is the most lonely job in the whole world, and being a leader doesn't always mean doing what's popular, it's doing what is right for this country. I'm glad Bush realizes this, and isn't constantly swayed by the public opinion and lack of resolve held by a great number Americans.

Also I like how Bush is a God fearing fundie, so sue me.

Stompy · 10-19-2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Come on, if Gore was in office, he'd STILL be trying to take the first step to attack Al-Queda. Both Saddam and the Taliban would still be in power. Libya would still be working to create WMDs. And the French would STILL hate us.

I'm glad you have that nice ability to see into the dimensions where the timeline splits

To say that Gore would've done nothing is baseless. That's just random "I hate liberals" talk.

trickyy · 10-19-2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

This is one of the main things that really gets to me. I've heard a lot of this "I like Bush because he would be cool to hang out with and have a beer" train of thought.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd rather have a guy who can run a country and not a post-pattern.

i would too. but the thread is about his good points. i don't like him as a president but i still think he is an interesting person. i mean, didn't he call the terrorists "folks" in one debate? that's priceless. we've waging a war against those folks turned evil. i've never met any good ol' boys, and this one is president. maybe i'm the only one who finds this intriguing.

he doesn't drink anymore either, supposedly. but a majority of people would prefer to have a beer with him instead of kerry.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

now, don't you think that for every death we cause that the people feel is unjustified, we're opening up the possibility for creating more. and it's not the smart ones that are going to fight in iraq. they're sitting in their caves or wherever tehy hide, recruiting and training people and planning attacks to take place inside the US while we're distracted with the cattle shooting over in iraq.

IF we were beloved in the middle east by any part of the muslim population, I'd think your arguments would be considerably more valid. We're not popular in the Muslim world, because we refuse to sanction the annihilation of Israel. As long as we're unwilling to sanction the destruction of Israel, we'll continue to be hated, and they will be able to find people willing to die to try to hurt us.

Now, for an example, if there are 1,000 people now who want to hurt us, are we safer if we kill 900 of the less intellegent ones, or if we leave the full thousand in the field? It's much easier to stop 100 people than 1,000. Now apply that to the actual numbers of Jihadis out there, and tell me we're LESS safe after killing a bunch of them off than we are NOT killing a bunch of them off. Can you do that with a straight face?

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

IF we were beloved in the middle east by any part of the muslim population, I'd think your arguments would be considerably more valid. We're not popular in the Muslim world, because we refuse to sanction the annihilation of Israel. As long as we're unwilling to sanction the destruction of Israel, we'll continue to be hated, and they will be able to find people willing to die to try to hurt us.

Now, for an example, if there are 1,000 people now who want to hurt us, are we safer if we kill 900 of the less intellegent ones, or if we leave the full thousand in the field? It's much easier to stop 100 people than 1,000. Now apply that to the actual numbers of Jihadis out there, and tell me we're LESS safe after killing a bunch of them off than we are NOT killing a bunch of them off. Can you do that with a straight face?

actually, i can say we may not be better off. right now, every one we kill will have family and friends say that "x got killed by the infidels." and they'll be pissed. and since we're not doing anything that they could look on us with a positive light, there's nothing to make them think more positively about us. eventually, they'll get to the point where they decide to fight us. so while it's great that there are ones going to iraq and dying there, not hurting us here, but at the same time the 100 intelligent ones are recruiting and training people to attack us HERE. not in iraq. they've got money, sleepers already in place, and more people to send this way.

we may be killing 1 of every 10 terrorists/insurgents, but they're still building upo elsewhere and they'll be able to do something in america because we're stuck in the quagmire that is iraq.

i don't worry about the people who will take a gun to a shopping center, because while they may hurt/kill a few people (even many, but relatively speaking), i'm worried about the ones who will finance, plan and get others to fly a plane into a tall, human packed building. and we're not really doing anything against them anymore.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 04:39 PM

Harry, what was the first true terrorist attack "caused" by our position on Israel on US soil? The first one I can remember was the assassination of RFK by Sirhan Sirhan. That kind of predates all of the recent unpleasantness. We've tried everything short of abandoning Israel to the "tender mercies" of the Arab world. We've tried bringing them to the peace table, we've tried sending in peacekeepers, we've tried just about every option out there, and they STILL keep killing Americans. At some point, we have to say "enough's enough", and just kick the shit out of them, so that they no longer view us as an "easy target", but rather look at us with fear. Better they not want to attack us out of fear of our reprisals than feel free to keep attacking us out of amusement of our lack of will to force them to comply. Warfare is politics carried to the extreme.

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Because there's a limited supply of people willing to kill themselves for their religion, and every one of them we kill over there is one more we don't have to kill over here.

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this.

It's complete nonesense. The war in Iraq is creating MORE fundamentalists and suicide bombers.

Quote:

Bush has parts of the third world scared to DEATH that we're going to go after them next. Why do you think Libya suddenly "saw the light" WRT their WMD program? It's because they didn't want us to stop on our way back from Iraq and kick the shit out of them on general principles. Getting the Libyan WMD program to go away is a good thing, and Bush didn't even have to invade Libya to do it.

Absolutely right. Whilst Bush does not deservse sole credit for this (the EU and especially Britian and Italy were very much involved), this is one good result from Bush's war on terrorism.

Credit where credit is due.

One good result.
One.
1.

Mr Mephisto

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Harry, what was the first true terrorist attack "caused" by our position on Israel on US soil? The first one I can remember was the assassination of RFK by Sirhan Sirhan. That kind of predates all of the recent unpleasantness. We've tried everything short of abandoning Israel to the "tender mercies" of the Arab world. We've tried bringing them to the peace table, we've tried sending in peacekeepers, we've tried just about every option out there, and they STILL keep killing Americans. At some point, we have to say "enough's enough", and just kick the shit out of them, so that they no longer view us as an "easy target", but rather look at us with fear. Better they not want to attack us out of fear of our reprisals than feel free to keep attacking us out of amusement of our lack of will to force them to comply. Warfare is politics carried to the extreme.

well, by your definition, any assination is a terrorist attack. i have a hard time calling RFK that. how many terrorist attacks can you think of between then and when the WTC had the garage blown up? i personally can't think of any. that might be my age showing, as i was still in high school when that happened, but can't remember any others. never heard them being mentioned when talking about terrorism either. my point is, that until OBL got his grudge against america (which by all accounts i've heard is mainly because of the US military presence on Saudi soil, although now that we have pulled out of there, i'm sure he's got other reasons to keep up the fight, like, oh, i don't, iraq?) we weren't a target. they may not have liked us, but they weren't trying to kill us either.

and to repeat something i said in a different thread a while back...

your paper tiger wants steak, and all it got was iraq.

(translation, if you don't want us to seem like a paper tiger, take on a country with a real military that's a real threat)

daswig · 10-19-2004, 06:50 PM

Harry, what else would you call a political assassination? It doesn't cut it as just violent crime, since the entire reason behind it is a political exercise.

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Harry, what else would you call a political assassination? It doesn't cut it as just violent crime, since the entire reason behind it is a political exercise.

Ummm, actually, the official explanations given for both Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald are that they were "lone nuts" with no ties to any governmental (or non-governmental) entity. Why should we hold the actions of a "lone nut" against the Middle East? Hinckley wanted to impress Jodie Foster...should we invade her?

daswig · 10-19-2004, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Ummm, actually, the official explanations given for both Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald are that they were "lone nuts" with no ties to any governmental (or non-governmental) entity. Why should we hold the actions of a "lone nut" against the Middle East? Hinckley wanted to impress Jodie Foster...should we invade her?

So why did Sirhan Sirhan shoot RFK? Wasn't the reason he gave enough? As for invading Jodie Foster, well, if we can get her permission, I'm all for it....

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

So why did Sirhan Sirhan shoot RFK? Wasn't the reason he gave enough? As for invading Jodie Foster, well, if we can get her permission, I'm all for it....

As stated previously, he was fucking crazy. Any casual look over the details of the RFK assassination will reveal that.

I thought people like you didn't need permission to launch an invasion?

daswig · 10-19-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I thought people like you didn't need permission to launch an invasion?

We don't need permission if there's a valid casus belli. Overacting has never been a valid casus belli, so permission is necessary.

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

We don't need permission if there's a valid casus belli. Overacting has never been a valid casus belli, so permission is necessary.

Overacting? Didn't you see Taxi Driver?! I'll never understand you conservatives

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

As for invading Jodie Foster, well, if we can get her permission, I'm all for it....

Funny...

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-19-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Overacting? Didn't you see Taxi Driver?! I'll never understand you conservatives

Hey, at least this time you realized it was a joke...

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Hey, at least this time you realized it was a joke...

I never joke about Jodie Foster.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:12 PM

Jodie Foster once got me out of a speeding ticket. I thought Hinkley's "I did it for Jodie" was one of the more creative dimcap defenses offered, so I started carrying a little pic of Jodie in my wallet. the next time I got stopped, I gave the the officer my DL and the pic of Jodie, looked at him with big puppy-dog eyes, and told him "I did it for Jodie." He laughed and let me go after running my dl and plates.

Now, another time, having a real live machinegun in the front seat of my car kept me from getting a ticket, but that, alas, is another story.

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Jodie Foster once got me out of a speeding ticket. I thought Hinkley's "I did it for Jodie" was one of the more creative dimcap defenses offered, so I started carrying a little pic of Jodie in my wallet. the next time I got stopped, I gave the the officer my DL and the pic of Jodie, looked at him with big puppy-dog eyes, and told him "I did it for Jodie." He laughed and let me go after running my dl and plates.

Now, another time, having a real live machinegun in the front seat of my car kept me from getting a ticket, but that, alas, is another story.

If this is true the first story is funny; the second just plain scary.

Mr Mephisto

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Harry, what else would you call a political assassination? It doesn't cut it as just violent crime, since the entire reason behind it is a political exercise.

so terrorism is any crime with a political motivation? then i guess the unabomber wasn't a terrorist. after all, he wanted to stop progress.

someone who assinates a political figure is not a terrorist. a terrorist is someone whose actions are supposed to cause terror in order to further their goals. that's not to say an assination couldn't fall under that, but you're really pushing it there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

As for invading Jodie Foster, well, if we can get her permission, I'm all for it....

ah... something we can finally agree on!

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:43 PM

Harry, I define terrorism as an act of violence that is meant to cause political change. Political assassinations, "Earth First", ALF, and skinhead "direct actions", et cetera all qualify as terrorism in my book.

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Harry, I define terrorism as an act of violence that is meant to cause political change. Political assassinations, "Earth First", ALF, and skinhead "direct actions", et cetera all qualify as terrorism in my book.

Skinheads don't have direct actions...they have senseless beatings. Equating them with the other two organizations is pretty inaccurate.

daswig · 10-19-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Skinheads don't have direct actions...they have senseless beatings. Equating them with the other two organizations is pretty inaccurate.

Ah.. So to you, Earth First and ALF are somehow better than skinheads? Please elaborate.

TheFu · 10-19-2004, 09:53 PM

Bush realizes there is a threat in the world, Islamic terrorists, and he wants to take the fight to them by going after the terrorists and the countries who willingly support and harbor terrorists.

To answer another poster. I think Gore would have dealt swiftly with the Taliban. Any president would have. I doubt he would have done anything with Iraq as soon as Bush did but Iraq was a problem waiting to happen, WMD's or not, they supported terrorism.

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Ah.. So to you, Earth First and ALF are somehow better than skinheads? Please elaborate.

Fascist skinheads are a murderous bunch of racists. ALF and Earth First, for whatever failings they have, are not. Grouping them together makes no sense.

cthulu23 · 10-19-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFu

Bush realizes there is a threat in the world, Islamic terrorists, and he wants to take the fight to them by going after the terrorists and the countries who willingly support and harbor terrorists.

To answer another poster. I think Gore would have dealt swiftly with the Taliban. Any president would have. I doubt he would have done anything with Iraq as soon as Bush did but Iraq was a problem waiting to happen, WMD's or not, they supported terrorism.

If it's about terrorism then why invade a secular country with minimal ties to terrorism? Why not go after any other number of nations that are stronger supporters of terrorism, ie - Iran, Pakistan, Syria or even our good buddies Saudi Arabia?

high_jinx · 10-19-2004, 10:12 PM

this thread is falling apart faster than an olsen twin at baskin robbins... please bring back some responses related to the title... i want to get beyond terrorism and national security. so what else can bush do for this country? if i'm not scared shitless and thoughtless why should i vote for him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Jinx I think the fundamental problem with this thread is that your question by nature leaves little room for objective fact, coming from both sides of the aisle. Here's one man's attempt....

....Here's a subjective one. Bush isn't a pollster. Right or wrong (we are clearly divided here, I'm not going to argue it), I personally for the most part feel right, Bushs' conviction for sticking out the tough decisions is a good quality. Being the president is the most lonely job in the whole world, and being a leader doesn't always mean doing what's popular, it's doing what is right for this country. I'm glad Bush realizes this, and isn't constantly swayed by the public opinion and lack of resolve held by a great number Americans.

Also I like how Bush is a God fearing fundie, so sue me.

thank you mojo for being the only person to respond with something substantial to my question. while i might not agree with the reasons you're behind bush, at least there is some logical motivation behind it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by high_jinx

...1) it's my opinion that ANY- body in office would make national security and fighting/suppressing terrorism a top priority. quite simply it's a no-brainer obvious issue.

2) no matter how much money we spend or how many terrorist rings we squash, there ARE going to be more terrorist attacks. we're only a suitcase getting through our borders away from something really nasty happening to an entire city. and with all the illegal things being sneaked into our country each year from drugs to weapons to anything you want to name, it's obvious our border security can't prevent that. so, while anti terrorism is and should be a top priority, it's possible to overdo it and have the entire country suffer as a result. i see this happening with the deficit we've racked up, the jobs we've lost, and the health care so many of us (including me) don't have anymore.

3) when speaking of bush and his record, i can't help but think that his invasion of iraq has actually hurt our ability to go after terrorists. it's a siev that all of our resources are leaking into while other countries are much more likely to pose a threat.

that article says that bush has kept us focused for 3 years on our national security, and thats the big reason he should be re-elected. i'm not so sure about that. i think the president is an office that has more than one dimension to it. thats why i started this thread. i was looking for anything i hadn't heard about bush that showed him to be competent at leading this country. it doesn't seem like bush is even thinking about so many things that are so important to our country's future. if national security is all he knows, then he should be our national security advisor, not our president.

any responses to these conclusions i came up with on the end of page 1? i haven't seen any. thanks again to all who've made this an informative thread. i'm learning a lot.

Kalibah · 10-19-2004, 10:34 PM

Add

Protects the sanctity of Marriage
Protects unborn Children
Protects embryos (stem cell )

to the list

hannukah harry · 10-19-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Harry, I define terrorism as an act of violence that is meant to cause political change. Political assassinations, "Earth First", ALF, and skinhead "direct actions", et cetera all qualify as terrorism in my book.

imo, that definition is both too broad and too narrow. but anyways, i don't really know anything about the RFK/Sirhan Sirhan thing. was it politically motivated? i don't know. but you haven't been able to tell me about any terrorist attacks on the US between then and the first WTC bombing.

10-19-2004, 12:43 AM	#45 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	so far we have: 1: Keeps America Safe 3: Tax cuts help economy 2: Is cool to drink beer with Ok... 1 - Like any other president couldn't do this? Like any other president wouldn't have taken the same safety measures? First, it's questionable if he actually HAS made us any safer. Second, what makes you think someone can't do it better? 2 - ...or maybe it's just the natural ebb and flow of the world. He cuts taxes for all the wrong people. I for one am being taxed to hell. MY consumer activity is down drastically from several years ago. 3 - I hate beer. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-19-2004, 12:46 AM	#46 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Oh yeah.. and death totally intimidates these guys.. yeah. Furthermore, a war is only justified if YOUR side gets more kills than THEIR side! __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-19-2004, 07:18 AM	#52 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Jinx I think the fundamental problem with this thread is that your question by nature leaves little room for objective fact, coming from both sides of the aisle. Here's one man's attempt. The economy. Regardless of what is being said, the economy is doing very well (out said of that deficit thingy...). After inheriting a recession, we have one of the strongest economies ever as far as growth and efficency. The jobless rate is below the 30 year average at 5.4%. The Net loss of jobs is not as bad as spinsters make it out to be, the number is actually around 800,000. That number is misleading at the same time, it's not a sign of economic struggle, rather a changing market. Productivity and efficency in the manufactering sector are at record levels, sadly the trends will continue, we'll need less people to do the same jobs of the past. Our GDP has had it's biggest growth ever. Plus at the same time you have high tech weenie's, like my father, who were banking hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 90's under the technology explosion, but now companies are hiring Asian-Indians who will do the same jobs of the past for less then 30,000 dollars a year. Here's a subjective one. Bush isn't a pollster. Right or wrong (we are clearly divided here, I'm not going to argue it), I personally for the most part feel right, Bushs' conviction for sticking out the tough decisions is a good quality. Being the president is the most lonely job in the whole world, and being a leader doesn't always mean doing what's popular, it's doing what is right for this country. I'm glad Bush realizes this, and isn't constantly swayed by the public opinion and lack of resolve held by a great number Americans. Also I like how Bush is a God fearing fundie, so sue me. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 10-19-2004 at 07:21 AM..

10-18-2004, 11:52 PM	#42 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Of course, the fact that many of those jihadis weren't even around until the US invaded Iraq is neither here nor there. By the way, I find the sentiment expressed in your last line quite appalling. It's no wonder the US has a reputation for only valuing US lives while considering the rest of the world's people expendable.

10-19-2004, 12:03 AM	#44 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Basic math for you, Host. On 9/11, 19 Jihadists killed around 2,700 Americans. That works out to well over 100 dead Americans for each dead Jihadi. In Iraq, we've lost a bit over 1,000 servicepeople. Do you think we've killed more than 10 Jihadis? If so, we're on par with 9/11. It's much more likely that we've killed thousands of Jihadis, more, in fact, than the number of people we've lost there. If so, on a strictly statistical basis, the war in Iraq has been a HUGE sucess. Remember the recent op in Sammara? HALF of the captured troops there were African Jihadis. That's not an insignificant number.

10-19-2004, 05:20 AM	#50 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	I think Bush talks enough bollocks as it is without chucking some coke into the equation.

10-19-2004, 06:28 AM	#51 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	As far as being a cool guy to hang out with, that might be true as long as you don't disagree with him on anything. If you say you like Bud and he says Heiniken is better, he'll just say "No. Heinikin is better." and then you'll sit there for 5 minutes in uncomfortable silence until you turn the conversation to God or something. Stubborn to the core.

10-19-2004, 04:39 PM	#57 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Harry, what was the first true terrorist attack "caused" by our position on Israel on US soil? The first one I can remember was the assassination of RFK by Sirhan Sirhan. That kind of predates all of the recent unpleasantness. We've tried everything short of abandoning Israel to the "tender mercies" of the Arab world. We've tried bringing them to the peace table, we've tried sending in peacekeepers, we've tried just about every option out there, and they STILL keep killing Americans. At some point, we have to say "enough's enough", and just kick the shit out of them, so that they no longer view us as an "easy target", but rather look at us with fear. Better they not want to attack us out of fear of our reprisals than feel free to keep attacking us out of amusement of our lack of will to force them to comply. Warfare is politics carried to the extreme.

10-19-2004, 06:50 PM	#60 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Harry, what else would you call a political assassination? It doesn't cut it as just violent crime, since the entire reason behind it is a political exercise.

10-19-2004, 08:12 PM	#69 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Jodie Foster once got me out of a speeding ticket. I thought Hinkley's "I did it for Jodie" was one of the more creative dimcap defenses offered, so I started carrying a little pic of Jodie in my wallet. the next time I got stopped, I gave the the officer my DL and the pic of Jodie, looked at him with big puppy-dog eyes, and told him "I did it for Jodie." He laughed and let me go after running my dl and plates. Now, another time, having a real live machinegun in the front seat of my car kept me from getting a ticket, but that, alas, is another story.

10-19-2004, 08:43 PM	#72 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Harry, I define terrorism as an act of violence that is meant to cause political change. Political assassinations, "Earth First", ALF, and skinhead "direct actions", et cetera all qualify as terrorism in my book.

10-19-2004, 09:53 PM	#75 (permalink)
TheFu Crazy	Bush realizes there is a threat in the world, Islamic terrorists, and he wants to take the fight to them by going after the terrorists and the countries who willingly support and harbor terrorists. To answer another poster. I think Gore would have dealt swiftly with the Taliban. Any president would have. I doubt he would have done anything with Iraq as soon as Bush did but Iraq was a problem waiting to happen, WMD's or not, they supported terrorism.

10-19-2004, 10:34 PM	#79 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Add Protects the sanctity of Marriage Protects unborn Children Protects embryos (stem cell ) to the list