You know, Ive never been one to support president Bush, as some of you know from my other posts. But I do have to give him credit. Tonight, he did what he has failed to do many times: he took resposibility for something that he did wrong. Whether he did it for political reasons or whatever, he still stood up there and told the nation that he takes responsibility for the completely inadequate response by the government to Hurricane Katrina.
Now, it doesnt excuse what happened and it certainly doesnt absolve him of his mistakes, but I now have hope that maybe he will follow through in his promises to improve the things that failed New Orleans so badly.
I do not support his policies nor his style of government, but I cannot simply find fault with the man because I do not support him. When people do right, whether they be republican or democrat or neither, I think we should say so. Even a loyal democrat such as myself. Hopefully, this means that the people effected by Katrina will get the help and support they so desperately need. I have hope that President Bush will do it right, and if he does, ill be the first to say so.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Off-topic: Personally, I like Tony Blair rather a lot. I think he's great. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Bush is finally growing up.
Either that, or Rove is having him play a different tune. It's hard to tell anymore.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
That speech was a lot of Hoo Ha. More sound bites and catch phrases and it bit too "preachy."
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
At first I was really pleased when I read this; and then the very fact that I was pleased and surprised made me angry. Why should I be surprised when the leader of the federal government takes responsibility for the screw-ups of the federal government? That's his job. I am glad that he said what he said, but I also don't think it goes far enough.
Jen
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think the fact that there is so much surprise and hoopla over the fact that Bush has shown the beginnings of what every President should be expected to do as a bare minimum speaks volumes about the current administration and the public perception of it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I don't think what you just said is a fact, I wasn't surprised, and Bush has given many good speeches during his time in office. Unless you have completely forgetten many of the ones he gave after 9/11, and so on. The public perception you speak of could just be your perception, and not necessarily the public's perception
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Bush bashers will take any excuse to bash Bush. If they can't find one, they make it up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Bush has given many good speeches during his time in office. Unless you have completely forgetten many of the ones he gave after 9/11, and so on.
I can recall two in several years that I would consider "good;" I'm afraid I can distinctly recall six that I consider "deplorably bad." Does that match your assessment?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Bush bashers will take any excuse to bash Bush. If they can't find one, they make it up.
Whereas Bush lovers will support everything he says and does, no matter how much it offends intelligence and common sense.
The pendulum swings both ways.
Posted by Zak (Member # 273) on :
Before Bush, I was incredibly moderate. I could see some of the points on the right, and some of the points on the left. When the election of 2000 ended with half the people voting for each candidate, I foolishly thought, "Look! America is moderate, too!" Boy, was I wrong. (I won't even go into the atrocious Republican voter fraud of both elections and their dirty, undemocratic methods of voter intimidation, lies, and illegal tactics, because there aren't enough hours in the day...)
I really didn't know much about Bush back then. I do know, and I am sickened to the core.
I think everyone can agree that he messed up in New Orleans. Or did he? Haliburton is hard at work building oil refineries to get at all that oil they couldn't before when there was a city in the way. (more info can be found here http://forum.truthout.org/blog/comments/2005/9/5/15022/66151/1). Way to take advantage of a disaster and get taxpayers to fund your GOP buddies to make you guys even richer, at the expense of the people of New Orleans.
But on a more human level, why would you outsource a no-bid contract for corpse removal and counting to a company that is owned by a company that has been caught in many "body hiding" scandals? Don't believe me? Look here:
FEMA, La. outsource Katrina body count to firm implicated in body-dumping scandals
And huge areas of Louisiana (around New Orleans) are under armed guard, and nobody (not even the press) is being allowed inside. I've heard there are estimates that tens of thousands of bodies could be inside these areas (far from where the cameras are rolling), but we'll probably never know the real number, because they'll find a way to get rid of the evidence.
There's so much out there that would blow the public's minds if it was revealed, but you'll never hear about it if you wait for the media to inform you. And you'll hear intricately crafted lies and misinformation if you listen to FOX.
I don't want to sound like an angry Liberal, which I'm not. I'm just so disghusted by this administration and how they're destroying this country. I don't even care about speaches any more, except to listen and say,"Hmmm. Bush says things are going well in Iraq. So the truth must be that things are going terribly in Iraq. He says that Social Security is bad, so it must be good. He says he cares about the security of the American people, but we can see that he doesn't (other than his "base" of rich bastards)."
I've learned that, whenever you hear one of his cronies speak, the truth is either the exact opposite, or you're not really hearing what he's really saying. You think his speaches mean one thing, when taken at face value, but when you think, "how else can this be interpreted?", it scares the hell out of you.
Sorry, I could go on for hours (days) about those evil snakes, but I won't. And it's not just mindless Bush bashing. HIS ACTIONS MADE ME THIS WAY!!! I guess my big flaw is that I read extensively, and don't believe what I see on TV.
Posted by Hmm216 (Member # 8403) on :
"Whereas Bush lovers will support everything he says and does, no matter how much it offends intelligence and common sense."
Posted by Hmm216 (Member # 8403) on :
Sorry about that I dont know how to do a quote....
Anyways,
I dissagree, Many people who love bush talk about his mistakes when they are made. Whereas Bush bashers just love to bash bush for anything and everything he says and does. Even when he does something good Bush bashers will find something negative to say about him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hmm216: Sorry about that I dont know how to do a quote....
Three ways...
First, in the post you want to quote there are quotation marks at the end of the line that begins with the date...click on that and it will quote the whole post and put it in bold, like I did up top.
quote: You can also hit "Full reply form and then use the UBB tag labeled Quote, then cut and paste between the two quote tags...to look like this did.
" Or you could just use the quotation marks on the keyboard, and cut and paste, to look like this."
Posted by Hmm216 (Member # 8403) on :
Thank You Kwea, I am going to try it out with this post.
Posted by Hmm216 (Member # 8403) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hmm216: Thank You Kwea, I am going to try it out with this post.
I think I got it, Thank again! Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1) Dubya has always said "I'm a uniter, not a divider." while maintaining the most bellicose noncompromising attitude toward those who disagree with his policies.
2) Parse the speech: what it says is different from what your mind is hearing/translating. In fact, I've been meaning to start a such a thread. So wait to clobber me on my thread instead of derailing this one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Like Dubya said in NewOrleans: Let the looting begin.
[ November 25, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Eh, I guess its kind of the point of a forum to be able to ramble on about your opinions and perceptions, but I'm in sort of a mood because of something which happened in my personal life which I am NOT going to go into here. But the end conclusion was that people are going to look at the exact same information and percieve it in oppposite ways. It really has very little to do with fact, because you don't know what fact is. Until you give me concrete evidence that Bush is evil (and I don't mean news articles) or that Bush is good, I will reserve the right to percieve his actions in whatever way I choose, regardless of how many news articles or essays or diatribes I hear. So basically what I'm saying is that I fail to see the point of bashing Bush or lauding Bush. Sure, its fun, but I think its pretty darn pointless and, forgive me for saying it, but I think, in my opinion, in my perception, that it makes people look horribly immature.
Sorry. I've got a lot on my mind.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Hmm. This'll surprise most people who know my political orientation, but I have been agreeing with Bush on a number of issues lately -- or, a least, on Iran. They need to be stopped, I can't imagine anything more dangerous than a fundamentalist theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. Not even Kim Jong Il would be more of a threat to the Western world.
I just wish Bush were competent to do the job. He spent the first five years of his presidency doing all he could to destroy any hint of international good will or cooperation, as well as the very apparatus designed to prevent countries like Iran from acquiring such weapons. He created a war (undeniable, the only question's whether he forged it or made a mistake) against a largely secular, controlled country which has never actually initiated hostilities against us, and now we're too depeleted to stop Iran ourselves.
In short, we're helpless, impoverished, and overstretched. Inflation's on the horizon, our military's exhausted and dying by the thousands, and we've done little (if anything) to stimulate a new market in the US as jobs bleed overseas.
And now that we have a real enemy, we can't stop them. Bush doesn't have the intelligence, class, history, or grace to stop them diplomatically, and no objective observer could witness the past five years of US history and NOT blame us for Iran's desire for nuclear weapons.
Great.
Well, the fundamentalists who elected him did want the end of the world...
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: [...] He created a war (undeniable, the only question's whether he forged it or made a mistake) against a largely secular, controlled country which has never actually initiated hostilities against us [...]
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Bush doesn't have the intelligence, class, history, or grace to stop them diplomatically, and no objective observer could witness the past five years of US history and NOT blame us for Iran's desire for nuclear weapons.
Great.
Well, the fundamentalists who elected him did want the end of the world...
Yeah, it's really easy to use diplomacy to stop madmen with nukes. Of course, it's the western world's fault. After all, if crazy islamic extremists hate someone, it can't possibly be because they're crazy islamic extremists, right? They must have done something wrong!
I don't know... You're the one who's sounding awful lot like a fundamentalist. It's a wonder you don't agree with your buddies in Tehran.
Oh wait, I'm sorry. You did.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: After all, if crazy islamic extremists hate someone, it can't possibly be because they're crazy islamic extremists, right? They must have done something wrong!
Do you mean they were born crazy? Or that Islam is a crazy religion? Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that they can now legitimately hate us even more than they did when they started killing us, because we've been killing thousands of them too, means that they can be extra crazy?
There will always be extremism. But it's blatantly clear that now more people than ever will see this as a cause worth pursuing.
'Crazy' seems to me to be such a shallow word. When I hear about terrorist attacks, it's the word I want to use, and yet, it's an easy word. It both denies that we had any part in creating this problem, and it denies that we'll ever be able to do anything about it. Oh, yeah. Give them some pills and they'll be fine.
Why can't we take some responsibility and then actually try to make the world a better place?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: [...] He created a war (undeniable, the only question's whether he forged it or made a mistake) against a largely secular, controlled country which has never actually initiated hostilities against us [...]
quote:The action comes two days after air raids aimed at punishing Iraq for threatening planes enforcing "no-fly" zones over its territory.
For nearly a decade, U.S. and British fliers have enforced a ban on Iraqi aircraft in the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, established to protect Kurdish and Shiite Muslim minority populations after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Iraq refused to recognize the restrictions after 1998, resulting in a low-level air conflict for the past two years.
"Iraq will continuously defend its space and territory with all means that's possible," Iraqi Trade Minister Mahdi Saleh said Sunday as Egyptian trade officials landed in Baghdad.
Also, it's debateable for Iraq to say it's defending itself -- these planes were over Iraqi soil. I personally agree with their presence there, but it's perfectly legitimate for Iraq to view itself as an invaded country. Because, uh, it is. Deservedly so, in my opinion, but I can see how they might take umbrage at -- or defend against -- the presence of foreign troops. Particularly after those foreign troops conducted air raids against them.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Bush doesn't have the intelligence, class, history, or grace to stop them diplomatically, and no objective observer could witness the past five years of US history and NOT blame us for Iran's desire for nuclear weapons.
Great.
Well, the fundamentalists who elected him did want the end of the world...
Yeah, it's really easy to use diplomacy to stop madmen with nukes. Of course, it's the western world's fault. After all, if crazy islamic extremists hate someone, it can't possibly be because they're crazy islamic extremists, right? They must have done something wrong! [Roll Eyes]
I don't know... You're the one who's sounding awful lot like a fundamentalist. It's a wonder you don't agree with your buddies in Tehran.
Oh wait, I'm sorry. You did.
"Your buddies in Tehran"?
Uh-huh. Guy, Iran was about to undergo a rather intense culture change. Its younger generations are far more liberal and open to Western ideals than the older, orthodox clergy running the country now. I'm not saying there would have been a coup, but we certainly could have helped along democracy through exchange programs, contributing toward the spread of the Internet (and thus foreign ideas), and charity -- it's harder to hate the country that builds you a hospital or funds your elementary schools.
Bush has not only radicalized the entire Islam world against us, he's rather spectacularly ignored any alternatives to fostering democracy in Islamic countries beyond bombing them.
As far as your response goes, it's not exactly on point with anything I said -- are you pleading intentional ambiguity or low SAT scores for turning "Bush doesn't have the intelligence, class, history, or grace to stop them diplomatically, and no objective observer could witness the past five years of US history and NOT blame us for Iran's desire for nuclear weapons." into "Yeah, it's really easy to use diplomacy to stop madmen with nukes. Of course, it's the western world's fault."?
Diplomacy could not only have been used to encourage liberalization in the Islamic world, I can't see how anything else can be. How can you call Iranian clerics crazy for wanting nuclear weapons -- look at the differences between how Bush treated Iraq and tiptoed around North Korea. In a world where the only safety is the size of one's weapons, of course they -- and every other country which believes itself at risk of villainization and invasion -- will want nuclear weapons.
Nothing that's happened so far is unpredictable. I just wish we'd had a competent president in place before any of this happened -- I can't imagine how much better off we'd be, in terms economic, military, and moral.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Well said, Lalo.
There was an interesting piece on NPR about military humanitarian efforts in other countries in Africa, such as Ethiopia, with the goal of raising goodwill in Muslim populations and potentially gaining valuable intelligence from same. They're putting in wells and irrigation systems in impoverished communities and things along those lines. It's a pity those efforts (which one participant termed "the 'real' war on terror") are only funded to something like $27 million a year- contrasted with our current spending in Iraq.
Even Bush occasionally does something I approve of, such as his technology supporting efforts. By and large, though, his responses tend to inspire in me either anger, disgust, or somewhat surreal amusement. The latter comes from seeing the same handful of responses- cut taxes on the wealthiest, fund faith-based initiatives, hand off no-bid contracts to cronies- used in wildly different situations from Iraq to New Orleans.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe that if President Bush were to remove Karl Rove as his campaign guru (after all, he's not running for election any more) and sign him up to do his magic on America's image in the Islamic world, many, many problems would be solved.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: How can you call Iranian clerics crazy for wanting nuclear weapons -- look at the differences between how Bush treated Iraq and tiptoed around North Korea. In a world where the only safety is the size of one's weapons, of course they -- and every other country which believes itself at risk of villainization and invasion -- will want nuclear weapons.
You seem to be making an assumption that so many make, namely that Iran wants nukes to defend itself against America.
The thing is, Iran has been trying to get nukes ever since they had their little revolution, and it wasn't for defense. The official policy of the country is to destroy western civilization and wipe Israel off the map. Their president wasn't saying anything remotely new when everybody got all shocked and started doing the vierges offensées act.
This has been the policy of the Islamic Republic since 1979. It has nothing to do with defense, it has to do with their obsession with making holy war on anything that doesn't correspond to their rigid, fanatical definition of Islam. Diplomacy doesn't work with that kind of mentality ; nor does appeasement. The only solution is a direct confrontation, and the sooner the better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Guy, Iran was about to undergo a rather intense culture change.
People thought Iran was going to continue to undergo cultural change largely peacefully until the Shah fell, too.
I also find it very, very strange to regard the Islamic world (by which I take you to mean the Middle Eastern Islamic world) as not radically antagonistic towards the USA prior to Dubya.
I mean, they were, you know. Hostage crisis, both WTC bombings, barracks bombing, and a constant simmering and state-sponsored hatred of the USA for its support of Israel.
quote:I'm not saying there would have been a coup, but we certainly could have helped along democracy through exchange programs, contributing toward the spread of the Internet (and thus foreign ideas), and charity -- it's harder to hate the country that builds you a hospital or funds your elementary schools.
How do you do that without violently overthrowing the old guard, exactly? They may be religious fanatics, but they aren't that stupid to let such things go on. No, they'd cry "spies" (and be right in a few cases), and cry "culture war against Islam" (and also be right in a few cases), and that would be that for ideas of massive charities and democratic fostering programs.
I agree, though, that he hasn't done enough to peacefully foster democracies throughout the world. None of the USA has, which by the way includes you if you spend energy like nearly every American.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I think every body should just take it easy with the 'fanatical' Islam and 'fundamentalist' Islam and the 'it's not a war-mongering' Islam, and everything else about the religion. Just like every religion it has ways to be perceived and ways to be enacted.
Second, if you want a nice description of all the, wonderous or heinous or whatever you want to call it, acts we are doing in Iraq, feel free to ask me. I've been here a while now, and I won't bullsh^t you.
Of course, the shortest explanation: It's not as bad as it seems... ALL of it.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
quote:I'm not saying there would have been a coup, but we certainly could have helped along democracy through exchange programs, contributing toward the spread of the Internet (and thus foreign ideas), and charity -- it's harder to hate the country that builds you a hospital or funds your elementary schools.
I didn't see this. Wow. I have to say that I am stunned. I have personally taken Iraqi children to school. My brother, who is with me here, has built them soccer fields and other things for recreation. We have delivered countless supplies to schools and hospitals. This wasn't just around Baghdad, either. We did it there, sure. We also hit the rural areas, too. I am an infantryman, and I have to say, if I am taking kids to school, helping with hospitals, bringing supplies to schools, and other such S.W.E.A.T. type operations, I am sure the rest of the country is being helped with it.
Internet? It's not a huge deal in Iraq. I have to tell you. They will get it soon, but the Army can't even give free phone service or internet to Joe.
Also, I send a shout out to all the people who support the troops with gift packages that send clothes, books, food, and all sorts of other wonderful things to us, so we can pass them out to the Iraqi population.
Like I've been saying since the dawn of time. Cultural hegemony takes time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This has been the policy of the Islamic Republic since 1979. It has nothing to do with defense, it has to do with their obsession with making holy war on anything that doesn't correspond to their rigid, fanatical definition of Islam.
So... why haven't they fought more wars?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Iranians didn't suddenly become anti-American in 1979. America supported the Shah for the entire duration of his regime; that the anti-Americanism manifested to a much greater extent almost immediately after the revolution isn't surprising. The returning Ayotollah played to that and used it.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote: This has been the policy of the US Government since 1980(or 1901). It has nothing to do with defense, it has to do with their obsession with making holy war on anything that doesn't correspond to their rigid, fanatical definition of Democracy (or Christianity, or Capitalism).
Any statement you make about the other side can and will be used against you. We are ALL guilty of the same bulls*** when it comes to this stuff. The US, in the form of the CIA, put the Shah in power. We sponsored a military coup that led to a militaristic, theocratic regime with a HORRIBLE history of human rights abuse. Then, we put a whole lot of weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussien and set him loose on Iran. Then, we told Hussien that we would turn our backs if he wanted Kuwait, and instead pounced on HIS turned back as soon as he did. We have imposed sanctions on any country in the Middle East that didnt do exactly what we wanted that destroyed economies and left people to suffer who had no idea why the US hated them. We plowed a fertile field and sowed seeds of hatred and fear. Now, we get to deal with the fully grown consequences of OUR governments actions.
Nobody has ANY right to deny our very obvious culpulbility in what is going on right now. But, that is exactly what people are being encouraged to do. Hate mongering nastiness is being espoused by the highest levels of authority, so how do we expect people to react. I personally hold hope that people will see beyond the angry bullshit and acknowledge our role in creating the world as it is today and our responsiblity in creating a better one for the future. I hold that hope for people across the world, but, since I live in the US, this is where I have to try and see it implemented.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
You don't have to have an open conventional war to be engaging in warfare with another country.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Jeff,
quote:I also find it very, very strange to regard the Islamic world (by which I take you to mean the Middle Eastern Islamic world) as not radically antagonistic towards the USA prior to Dubya.
I mean, they were, you know. Hostage crisis, both WTC bombings, barracks bombing, and a constant simmering and state-sponsored hatred of the USA for its support of Israel.
Who's regarding "the Islamic world (by which I take you to mean the Middle Eastern Islamic world) as not radically antagonistic towards the USA prior to Dubya"? Of course there was hatred. I'm calling into question Bush's pathetically incompetent response to (and exacerbation of) it, not its existence in the first place.
Honestly, I thought you better than misconstruing my positions like that.
quote: quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'm not saying there would have been a coup, but we certainly could have helped along democracy through exchange programs, contributing toward the spread of the Internet (and thus foreign ideas), and charity -- it's harder to hate the country that builds you a hospital or funds your elementary schools. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How do you do that without violently overthrowing the old guard, exactly? They may be religious fanatics, but they aren't that stupid to let such things go on. No, they'd cry "spies" (and be right in a few cases), and cry "culture war against Islam" (and also be right in a few cases), and that would be that for ideas of massive charities and democratic fostering programs.
I agree, though, that he hasn't done enough to peacefully foster democracies throughout the world. None of the USA has, which by the way includes you if you spend energy like nearly every American.
I have to disagree. Iran has a great deal of wealth, but its peasants see little of it. Sure, the government can expel all the charity and hospitals they want, but that'd only hasten resentment of the theocracy running the country today, to say nothing of the good will we'd win. Either way, we win. And charity's a fraction of the cost of bombing them.
And yes, Jeff, I'm just as at fault for the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East as Bush is. I do, after all, use energy.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I didn't see this. Wow. I have to say that I am stunned. I have personally taken Iraqi children to school. My brother, who is with me here, has built them soccer fields and other things for recreation. We have delivered countless supplies to schools and hospitals. This wasn't just around Baghdad, either. We did it there, sure. We also hit the rural areas, too. I am an infantryman, and I have to say, if I am taking kids to school, helping with hospitals, bringing supplies to schools, and other such S.W.E.A.T. type operations, I am sure the rest of the country is being helped with it.
Congrats, dude, you're part of the solution. But did you mean this as a refutation of anything in particular?
quote:Internet? It's not a huge deal in Iraq. I have to tell you. They will get it soon, but the Army can't even give free phone service or internet to Joe.
Also, I send a shout out to all the people who support the troops with gift packages that send clothes, books, food, and all sorts of other wonderful things to us, so we can pass them out to the Iraqi population.
Like I've been saying since the dawn of time. Cultural hegemony takes time.
Honestly, I'd have to disagree with you on the Internet's relevance (once widely adopted). There's a reason why the Communist Party put up the Great Firewall of China, and why Iran's threatening to break off into its own Internet network (seriously) -- the introduction of foreign ideas is the greatest threat in existence to any totalitarian government. The more people who discover, and possibly adopt opinions contrary to those the Iranian theocracy want them to have, the more support and loyalty that theocracy loses.
IMHO, the Internet's the single greatest invention in human history. There's never existed a larger, freer communications protocol for unlimited, unbound expression, interaction, and research. For so long as the Internet remains free, I don't think any peoples can not be for long.
But, yeah, I've had friends in Iraq too. I'm glad to hear your experience hasn't been as hellish as theirs -- and I hope it stays that way. Good luck, dude.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Actually, on the subject, I also agree with Bush on the nationality of the Internet's root servers. I do not want the UN (or any other censoring body) to have an ounce of control over Internet traffic. For so long as the US doesn't interfere with it, I want it located here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eddie,
quote:Bush has not only radicalized the entire Islam world against us, he's rather spectacularly ignored any alternatives to fostering democracy in Islamic countries beyond bombing them.
...
Of course there was hatred. I'm calling into question Bush's pathetically incompetent response to (and exacerbation of) it, not its existence in the first place.
Honestly, I thought you better than misconstruing my positions like that.
I didn't misconstrue a thing. You did not correctly write the idea you intended to convey, Eddie. Now that you've corrected yourself to criticize Bush's exacerbation of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, I agree with you.
quote:I have to disagree. Iran has a great deal of wealth, but its peasants see little of it. Sure, the government can expel all the charity and hospitals they want, but that'd only hasten resentment of the theocracy running the country today, to say nothing of the good will we'd win. Either way, we win. And charity's a fraction of the cost of bombing them.
Of course you're aware that to a large extent, the "peasants" see and hear what news of the world beyond Iran (and within Iran) that the government wants them to see, right? Or do you really think that people who have had it pounded into them (both with bombs we in part supplied, and by their government's propaganda) wouldn't assign motives other than honest charity to such charity?
Of course they would. Their government would tell its people that such charities weren't really designed to help the Iranian people, but were in fact a Great Satan Zionist inspired move against Iran and Islam in order to spy on and subvert the good Iranian people. And it would be often believed too, because the people in Iran don't have access to the media we have.
quote:And yes, Jeff, I'm just as at fault for the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East as Bush is. I do, after all, use energy.
If you'd paid attention to what I actually said you might have noticed I didn't say you were as responsible for such sentiments. I said you, too, share a portion of the burden for anti-American sentiments around the world.
quote:IMHO, the Internet's the single greatest invention in human history. There's never existed a larger, freer communications protocol for unlimited, unbound expression, interaction, and research. For so long as the Internet remains free, I don't think any peoples can not be for long.
Seperate from my antagonism to your other ideas, I'd put the Internet at most #2. Writing, after all, comes first.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
No, not much of a refutation. Anyway, I would say that 'hellish' is all you can describe war as, especially for those of the infantry. I just accept it as the norm and go about my business. Thanks for the kind words.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The pendulum swings both ways.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)