VeeshanVault

You know, I'm a real strong Bush supporter, but I'm forced to agree with this author's accessment of Bush's failings.

I'm glad I read this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KA01

Fareed Zakaria is a good writer, and his opinions are fairly unbiased and moderate. You should check out his Newsweek article from a few weeks ago, about how refusing to grant diplomatic recognition to enemy nations ends up backfiring. It's interesting stuff.

Yes Good post. I am a republican supporter, but the Iraq's situation really got me worried how Bush Administration are percieved in the public eye. In some way, I am a little frustrated with its aggresiveness in nature.

Drakoslay

That was a very good read. It is pretty much right on point.

The crucial measure of military might in the early 20th century was naval power, and Britain ruled the waves with a fleet as large as the next two navies put together. By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.

That's amazing. =o

Good article.

Its become clearly evident for quite some time now that there are other means of handling this situation.

Those defending war with Iraq keep pointing out - correctly - the myriad reasons why the world will be better without Saddam. They assume that, because the cause is just, all anti-war sentiment must be based on either ignorance or willful and irrational anti-Americanism.

Unfortunately, they are blithely ignorant of the real reasons which fuel the anti-war movement around the globe and here at home. This article has explained those reasons better than any I've yet read.

The cause is clearly just. But, just because we can do this alone, doesn't mean it's in our best interests. Indeed, it's becoming more and more clear that unilateral war in Iraq flies directly in the face of long-term American interests. History will not be kind to George W. Bush on this matter.

Mp

Good article. But goddamn was that long!

An excellent read

Very interesting article. I think that the way in which the USA handles itself in post - war Iraq will tell the real tale. They must be congnizant of world opinion and in particular the unease 250,000 troops occupying Iraq will cause with her Arab neighbours.

Kinda scary living in a World where one country controls so much.

Cheers

Mplor wrote:History will not be kind to George W. Bush on this matter.

It will be even worse for those that have to live with the consequences of his actions. He's already marred relations with most of our allies, I don't even know if it's him or those he brought with him.

He won't be re-elected, regardless of the outcome of this. The president and the aggresive cold war folks he brought into office with him have made many Americans, and most of the world very nervous. I voted for Bush, and still think he was a better choice than Gore. Colin Powell would be a much better for that chair though, as would have Joe Lieberman.

Our current course of action is going to make the rest of the world fearful and mistrusting of the US. As the article noted, it's also contrary to how we've conducted business for 100+ years.

Very good article. However, if the media and these great writers would spend as much time as they do fueling anti-American sentiment on educating the public at large of the true issues, there wouldn't be so much anti-American sentiment to write about.

Colin Powell is the one good man in that bunch of suck-ups. The damage we've done do the diplomatic process is terrible. At least Teddy Roosevelt had charisma to complete the cowboy persona.

Midnyte, he is just telling what direction the U.S. is heading under Bush's Administration. It is how many others feel towards the U.S. aggressiveness in foreign diplomacy. Although frustrated with such cow-boy attitude, lot of foreigners are not Anti-America until they are being provoked in one way or other.

Drakoslay



p.s. Most of people are not anti-America, they are instead embrace the idea of freedom and liberty. They just wish to use more subtle alternatives to achieve common goals, rather cow-boy way through the process. Not everyone is the same, you know.

Why Texans should stay in Texas.

miir wrote:Why Texans should stay in Texas.

I left Texas for Florida and never declared war on Utah. (Though I think it would be a keen idea.) Your argument is flawed!11!111

Xouqoa wrote:

miir wrote:Why Texans should stay in Texas.

I left Texas for Florida and never declared war on Utah. (Though I think it would be a keen idea.) Your argument is flawed!11!111

Fuck Utah.

Drakoslay123 wrote:Midnyte, he is just telling what direction the U.S. is heading under Bush's Administration. It is how many others feel towards the U.S. aggressiveness in foreign diplomacy. Although frustrated with such cow-boy attitude, lot of foreigners are not Anti-America until they are being provoked in one way or other.

Drakoslay



p.s. Most of people are not anti-America, they are instead embrace the idea of freedom and liberty. They just wish to use more subtle alternatives to achieve common goals, rather cow-boy way through the process. Not everyone is the same, you know.

I understand what you are saying. Through education though, phrases like cowboy tactics would be replaced with necessary tactics. A man who has killed millions, needs to die. And a governmental structure that houses such a man needs to go as well.

People seem to want to pull the covers over them and hope nothing happens. Our government has boldly decided not to wait for another 9/11, but to take actions in hopes of preventing another 9/11.

It disgusts me to know that people have to die. I hate that Iraq's and Americans will no longer be able to live their lives, kiss their children, smell the fresh air, pet their dogs. But, this is the world we live in. When we watch TV, read books, and close our eyes and use our imagination, we can place ourselves elsewhere, in a utopian world. But, the real world is still out there. You can't make it go away.

Bush has committed political suicide, I believe. I really don't think he will get elected to a second term. But, I respect him for having the balls to do what is right.

phrases like cowboy tactics would be replaced with necessary tactics

Irony!

A man who has killed millions, needs to die

Exaggeration!

Our government has boldly decided not to wait for another 9/11, but to take actions in hopes of preventing another 9/11.

Ignorance!




You're one Bushism short of the grand slam.

miir wrote:

phrases like cowboy tactics would be replaced with necessary tactics

Irony!

A man who has killed millions, needs to die

Exaggeration!

Our government has boldly decided not to wait for another 9/11, but to take actions in hopes of preventing another 9/11.

Ignorance!




You're one Bushism short of the grand slam.

The millions, comes from the article itself. And you once again have affectively said nothing. Very witty rebuttal. Thanks, drive thru.

You fucking retard...

He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians.

Saddam killed Iraqis in the Iraq/Iran war?
Saddam is personally responsible for the Iranian deaths in the war?


Reading comprehension is your friend.


Was Kennedy/Johnson personally responsible for the deaths of millions in the Vietnam war?




edit: American history pwns me

No, LBJ was. Next?

Thank you Masteen.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:People seem to want to pull the covers over them and hope nothing happens. Our government has boldly decided not to wait for another 9/11, but to take actions in hopes of preventing another 9/11.

That's the thing that's bothered me all along. I'll agree completely that the world would be a better place without Sadaam in it. I've yet to see any reports of connections to terroism that comes close to that which some of our "allies" in the region have.

We should have either just gone ahead and done it, or continue to wait for the rest of the world to follow along. They will eventually, even France and Russia. Long term we aren't going to win if we go it alone.

Did anyone else see the report last week that Haleburton had been awarded the contract for rebuilding the Iraqi oil industry when it's over? I heard the report on NPR last Mon(?) and haven't seen or heard anything else on it.

weird my brain glances over midnyte's posts without reading them whether I want to or not. It's weird how a person's instincts for self preservation kick in like that.

I am assuming it is just a bunch of brainless ranting about the omg liberal media turninig honest god fearing american children into socialist hippies.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: The millions, comes from the article itself. And you once again have affectively said nothing. Very witty rebuttal. Thanks, drive thru.

You 'affictively' haven't addressed the point that Saddam Hussein hasn't "killed millions". Being in power while your country is at war cannot be likened to being directly responsible for every death in the aforementioned war.


Can I say that Bush killed 5000 civilians in Afghanistan therefore making him a more reprehensible mass murderer than Osama Bin Laden?





edit: I suppose I could say that, but I would forefeit any semblence of credibility.

kyoukan type-R wrote:weird my brain glances over midnyte's posts without reading them whether I want to or not. It's weird how a person's instincts for self preservation kick in like that.

I am assuming it is just a bunch of brainless ranting about the omg liberal media turninig honest god fearing american children into socialist hippies.

And by continuing to refuse to allow new ideas into your little head is how you will continue to be so shallow and ignorant. But, grats to you on standing firm in your positions. It really shows your ability to adapt and grow as a thinking being.

yeah I'm sure I'm missing out on a lot of individual growth by skipping your stupid shit.

Aabidano wrote:
Did anyone else see the report last week that Haleburton had been awarded the contract for rebuilding the Iraqi oil industry when it's over? I heard the report on NPR last Mon(?) and haven't seen or heard anything else on it.

well the Army contract information is Classified at this point.

according to pacifica.org (basically looks like a homemade 'news' site) A San Francisco Chronicle reporter has reported that Haliburton has received that contract, but that of course has been neither confirmed nor denied by the pentagon since the contract info is classified.

looking for something real at the moment.

kyoukan type-R wrote:yeah I'm sure I'm missing out on a lot of individual growth by skipping your stupid shit.

Unlike yourself, I don't presume to be so important and great that just by missing my post's you will not grow, it was a general comment directed at your consistant behavior on these boards.

I refuse to believe you are really this shallow. You must be one of those people who act different on message boards to amuse yourself or because the real you is very dull and uninteresting.

kyoukan type-R wrote:weird my brain glances over midnyte's posts without reading them whether I want to or not. It's weird how a person's instincts for self preservation kick in like that.

I am assuming it is just a bunch of brainless ranting about the omg liberal media turninig honest god fearing american children into socialist hippies.

Why don't you read the article and comment on it instead of being the asslicking, protagonist that you have become. Great Kyoustupid takes another interesting thread and dummies it up.

On another note, was listening to Kofi Annan today during Q&A where he was asked if the USA/Alliance was legally in position to back up resolution 1441. He did a dance to avoid the answer better than Clinton ever did.

Atokal wrote:

kyoukan type-R wrote:weird my brain glances over midnyte's posts without reading them whether I want to or not. It's weird how a person's instincts for self preservation kick in like that.

I am assuming it is just a bunch of brainless ranting about the omg liberal media turninig honest god fearing american children into socialist hippies.

Why don't you read the article and comment on it instead of being the asslicking, protagonist that you have become. Great Kyoustupid takes another interesting thread and dummies it up.

On another note, was listening to Kofi Annan today during Q&A where he was asked if the USA/Alliance was legally in position to back up resolution 1441. He did a dance to avoid the answer better than Clinton ever did.

Kofi Anus is a complete Dickless ass.

Just finished reading that article and I have to admit, I'm kind of scared for our future as a world power.

The real question though is, will we re-elect in 2004?

I voted for Gore but when 9/11 hit I was glad to have Bush in office. Now I am not so certain. When I think about the cost this war will be and the cost (according to CNN) will be $20 Billion a year after the war, I have to think, "No". Hell just two of those armor piercing missiles could buy me a house and pay my student loans and they are using them for target practice. *sigh*

Bubba Grizz wrote:Just finished reading that article and I have to admit, I'm kind of scared for our future as a world power.

The real question though is, will we re-elect in 2004?

I voted for Gore but when 9/11 hit I was glad to have Bush in office. Now I am not so certain. When I think about the cost this war will be and the cost (according to CNN) will be $20 Billion a year after the war, I have to think, "No". Hell just two of those armor piercing missiles could buy me a house and pay my student loans and they are using them for target practice. *sigh*

Mindblowing to think what they could have done with the billions of dollars they will spend on this 'war'.

miir wrote:

Bubba Grizz wrote:Just finished reading that article and I have to admit, I'm kind of scared for our future as a world power.

The real question though is, will we re-elect in 2004?

I voted for Gore but when 9/11 hit I was glad to have Bush in office. Now I am not so certain. When I think about the cost this war will be and the cost (according to CNN) will be $20 Billion a year after the war, I have to think, "No". Hell just two of those armor piercing missiles could buy me a house and pay my student loans and they are using them for target practice. *sigh*

Mindblowing to think what they could have done with the billions of dollars they will spend on this 'war'.

I'll agree with you on that one. It's sick the things that could be fixed with that money.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:

miir wrote:

Bubba Grizz wrote:Just finished reading that article and I have to admit, I'm kind of scared for our future as a world power.

The real question though is, will we re-elect in 2004?

I voted for Gore but when 9/11 hit I was glad to have Bush in office. Now I am not so certain. When I think about the cost this war will be and the cost (according to CNN) will be $20 Billion a year after the war, I have to think, "No". Hell just two of those armor piercing missiles could buy me a house and pay my student loans and they are using them for target practice. *sigh*

Mindblowing to think what they could have done with the billions of dollars they will spend on this 'war'.

I'll agree with you on that one. It's sick the things that could be fixed with that money.

So you're for the war, but against its budget? Please explain.

Either you like the way Bush is sending our economy down the toilet in hopes of ousting a tin-pot dictator in Iraq, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Millie wrote:

So you're for the war, but against its budget? Please explain.

Either you like the way Bush is sending our economy down the toilet in hopes of ousting a tin-pot dictator in Iraq, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Wow, I wasn't aware that I needed to live in your world of black and white.

I am allowed to realize the need for the war, while also being saddened by the unfortune consequence of the enormous amount of money needed to do so.

Gain a brain, or refrain.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Millie wrote:

So you're for the war, but against its budget? Please explain.

Either you like the way Bush is sending our economy down the toilet in hopes of ousting a tin-pot dictator in Iraq, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Wow, I wasn't aware that I needed to live in your world of black and white.

I am allowed to realize the need for the war, while also being saddened by the unfortune consequence of the enormous amount of money needed to do so.

Gain a brain, or refrain.

Your last line is very cute, but you need to realize that you can't mix realism and idealism here. You can't champion a battle, and then pay lip service to the lost funds, opportunities, and consequences of funding a long-term war.

The fact of the matter is that this IS a black-or-white decision for the Bush administration. Bush and his cronies have proven themselves incapable of funding a war and maintaining a viable domestic agenda at the same time. This administration sees things with a very acute case of tunnel vision. If Bush has war on the mind, he's going to spend whatever it takes to go to war. He's going to concentrate solely on the conflict in Iraq, and pay little (if any) attention to other matters. The money he will spend on this fight, coupled with the already-crippled economy, will send us ever deeper into recession.

So the bottom line is: do you want war or economic recovery? Do you want $20 billion a year invested in your well-being, or do you want it invested in a hopelessly out of date, unrealistic, and non-functional "missile defense" network? Do you want to improve the job market for millions of impoverished Americans, or do you want to blow our funds in a hopeless hunt for an elusive dictator? It's really a choice between the two.

Atokal wrote:Why don't you read the article and comment on it instead of being the asslicking, protagonist that you have become. Great Kyoustupid takes another interesting thread and dummies it up.

Antagonist.

Keep working on those big words.

Millie wrote:

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Millie wrote:

So you're for the war, but against its budget? Please explain.

Either you like the way Bush is sending our economy down the toilet in hopes of ousting a tin-pot dictator in Iraq, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Wow, I wasn't aware that I needed to live in your world of black and white.

I am allowed to realize the need for the war, while also being saddened by the unfortune consequence of the enormous amount of money needed to do so.

Gain a brain, or refrain.

Your last line is very cute, but you need to realize that you can't mix realism and idealism here. You can't champion a battle, and then pay lip service to the lost funds, opportunities, and consequences of funding a long-term war.

The fact of the matter is that this IS a black-or-white decision for the Bush administration. Bush and his cronies have proven themselves incapable of funding a war and maintaining a viable domestic agenda at the same time. This administration sees things with a very acute case of tunnel vision. If Bush has war on the mind, he's going to spend whatever it takes to go to war. He's going to concentrate solely on the conflict in Iraq, and pay little (if any) attention to other matters. The money he will spend on this fight, coupled with the already-crippled economy, will send us ever deeper into recession.

So the bottom line is: do you want war or economic recovery? Do you want $20 billion a year invested in your well-being, or do you want it invested in a hopelessly out of date, unrealistic, and non-functional "missile defense" network? Do you want to improve the job market for millions of impoverished Americans, or do you want to blow our funds in a hopeless hunt for an elusive dictator? It's really a choice between the two.

Hi. My answer remains the same. Just because in your opinion it is a black and white issue, doesn't make it so.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice to achieve. Take one step backwards to take two steps forward. I'm sure you have heard these phrases. Why? Because, sometimes they pertain.

You ask which "one" of those I want. I want them all. I want security, peace, no homeless people, no misery, no violence, etc.

You assume if we didn't have this war, they would in-turn spend this money on solving some of the terrible social problems we face in society today? Laughable. While, that we be noble, that is not the way our government works. You fail to realize that without problems, politicians would have no platforms to run on. I don't see them cutting their life lines, do you?

Millie wrote:So the bottom line is: do you want war or economic recovery? Do you want $20 billion a year invested in your well-being, or do you want it invested in a hopelessly out of date, unrealistic, and non-functional "missile defense" network? Do you want to improve the job market for millions of impoverished Americans, or do you want to blow our funds in a hopeless hunt for an elusive dictator? It's really a choice between the two.

How about none of the above. Everytime the gubmint, be it GOP or Democrat controlled sticks its fingers into the economy, it fucking makes it worse.

Here's a news flash: THE ECONOMY ISN'T BROKEN. A lot of very big companies had been cooking their books for years. A lot of new companies that sprang up during the tech boom were hiding debt to artificially push stock prices. We are just actualizing losses all at once that should have been spread out over 10-15 years.

masteen wrote:

Millie wrote:So the bottom line is: do you want war or economic recovery? Do you want $20 billion a year invested in your well-being, or do you want it invested in a hopelessly out of date, unrealistic, and non-functional "missile defense" network? Do you want to improve the job market for millions of impoverished Americans, or do you want to blow our funds in a hopeless hunt for an elusive dictator? It's really a choice between the two.

How about none of the above. Everytime the gubmint, be it GOP or Democrat controlled sticks its fingers into the economy, it fucking makes it worse.

Here's a news flash: THE ECONOMY ISN'T BROKEN. A lot of very big companies had been cooking their books for years. A lot of new companies that sprang up during the tech boom were hiding debt to artificially push stock prices. We are just actualizing losses all at once that should have been spread out over 10-15 years.

Its all about inflated P/E's coming back down to earth~

The thing is, the dollars spent for making weapons is pumped back into the economy. You can't cite that there will be a huge and lasting economic hit because of any war. If you look back at 1991, the economy rose to record heights in the years following. The crash back to the ground came about because of a multitude of things that came in a fairly rapid manner.

The World Trade Center was destroyed. That in itself would be a huge blow if it happened due to natural causes such as earthquake. Add to that the fact that terrorist attacks were involved and the sheer amount of deaths and it was a huge blow.

Then the Enron and Worldcom financial deceptions really dealt the killing blows. There was (and is still) so much corruption and white collar crime that is keeping the stocks from rebounding. It was too much at once for people to handle and still show faith in the system. At this point, a war will do nothing but help the economy in the long run.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: Then the Enron and Worldcom financial deceptions really dealt the killing blows. There was (and is still) so much corruption and white collar crime that is keeping the stocks from rebounding. It was too much at once for people to handle and still show faith in the system. At this point, a war will do nothing but help the economy in the long run.

Look at the stock market today, its up over 250 points. I just think Americans hate uncertainty, and it looks as though war is just on the horizon. Then again, if Greenspan lowers rates tomorrow, it will have an adverse effect...that fucking duncemonkey~

I loved watching the bond market bounce before Greenspan's press conferences. It used to be more fun when Alan had the sense not to monkey with shit. Ever since he got married, he's been doing too much fiddling, possibly inspired by the newfound fiddling his joint is getting

masteen wrote:I loved watching the bond market bounce before Greenspan's press conferences. It used to be more fun when Alan had the sense not to monkey with shit. Ever since he got married, he's been doing too much fiddling, possibly inspired by the newfound fiddling his joint is getting

Its gotta be the Viagra~

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You assume if we didn't have this war, they would in-turn spend this money on solving some of the terrible social problems we face in society today? Laughable. While, that we be noble, that is not the way our government works. You fail to realize that without problems, politicians would have no platforms to run on. I don't see them cutting their life lines, do you?

I'm not assuming there would be no government spending without this war. I'm assuming that the money would be BETTER SPENT (or, dare I say it, invested in business and jobs) if we were not blowing the whole wad on a stupid campaign in Iraq. How hard of a concept is that to understand?

masteen wrote:How about none of the above. Everytime the gubmint, be it GOP or Democrat controlled sticks its fingers into the economy, it fucking makes it worse.

Here's a news flash: THE ECONOMY ISN'T BROKEN. A lot of very big companies had been cooking their books for years. A lot of new companies that sprang up during the tech boom were hiding debt to artificially push stock prices. We are just actualizing losses all at once that should have been spread out over 10-15 years.

"Every time" the government fiddles with the economy, it makes things worse? Perhaps you haven't learned the lessons of the Great Depression, the New Deal, or (more recently) Alan Greenspan's work with the economy during the 90s (before he started smoking crack). The government is certainly capable of giving the economy a needed boost, and it is certainly capable of ending recessions (and even depressions) in times where laissez-faire approaches have failed.

As for the idea that our economic problems are all tied to shady or inept business practices in the past: that's true, to a significant extent. But it's also true that Bush has done nothing to remedy this situation. In fact, he's made things a lot worse. His cowboy tactics have forced many international investors out of our businesses, and driven oil prices through the roof (and I hope I don't need to inform you how high oil prices effect ALL areas of our economy). Furthermore, his increased defense spending (the highest it's been since the Reagan years) is wasting money that we don't even have. Let's not even get into the fact that Bush was in bed with the Enron and Worldcom people for years. He was very much connected to their scandals.

Bush is, to a limited extent, inheriting age-old problems. At the same time, he's also exacerbating them.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The thing is, the dollars spent for making weapons is pumped back into the economy. You can't cite that there will be a huge and lasting economic hit because of any war. If you look back at 1991, the economy rose to record heights in the years following. The crash back to the ground came about because of a multitude of things that came in a fairly rapid manner.

The economy rose to record heights because, prior to the dot-com boom, the economy was being managed well for a change. This had nothing to do with the 1991 war, which in fact nearly ruined the economy at the time. Clinton beat Bush in the subsequent election because Bush had fucked up the economy and lost public approval.

In order for a war to stimulate the economy, it needs to last long enough for industries to recover, and for jobs to be created. It also needs to be a successful war. WWII comes to mind as the only time a war has ever benefitted our economy in the long run (unless you want to consider certain aspects of the Cold War, but that's material enough for its own discussion thread).

The first Gulf War tanked our economy, as did Vietnam, Korea, and all the other stalemates before it. I expect no different from the upcoming fight.

Most of the decline in market during the wars, was for uncertainty of the outcome. Again, it did not take long at all, after the wars, for the market to recover and head on its way. It is all about uncertainty, and tie that into the past three yeards of dot.coms and scandals. It will make for an interesting market over the next few months.

Gurugurumaki wrote:Most of the decline in market during the wars, was for uncertainty of the outcome. Again, it did not take long at all, after the wars, for the market to recover and head on its way. It is all about uncertainty, and tie that into the past three yeards of dot.coms and scandals. It will make for an interesting market over the next few months.

No doubt. What I'm most concerned about is how the oil companies will react. There's the very real possibility that they'll:

a) See how Americans are willing to pay $2+ per gallon at the pumps, and how they now consider $1.75 to be "cheap."

b) Keep gas prices artificially inflated to $1.75 or $2 as a result.

How much does gas cost in Europe?