|
Post by trevor on Feb 27, 2008 0:41:00 GMT -4
I have worked with both and was very good friends with many of the guys who did their fast jet training for the F/A 18. Actually the bush pilots are generally a brighter bunch than the jet jockeys. Harvard or Yale, no but I did go to university so that one doesn't do it for me either.
Secondly I am in no way trying to say that you guys are morons for voting Bush in, He got in because he ran the best campaigns. There's nothing wrong with that. And I did just jump on the hype bandwagon when refering to him as a moron.
I don't like him or his policies though.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2008 1:13:01 GMT -4
Neither do quite a lot of Americans. While a (very slim) majority voted him in, the second time at least, there are also 49.3% of voters who didn't vote for him. Just because he's our President doesn't mean we have to like or agree with him--just ask any Republican talk show host what they thought of Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 27, 2008 3:39:01 GMT -4
Absolutely, but in the end the majority won. Maybe you guys need compulsory voting like Australia.
What I dislike is the 'If you're not with us, you're against us' stance that GWB takes. Especially when preparations were being made for the Iraq invasion and the 'coalition of the willing' rubbish.
The French were absolutely pounded by anti french rubbish - changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries for goodness sake and some TV newscaster (I forgot his name) having a real go at them saying that they had no right to go against the wishes of the US because of the help they received during WW2.
What a load of hogwash! Who the hell did these people think they were telling another country how and what to believe in and stand up for.
This is the sort of sentiment that the current administration fostered, And I am sorry for getting emotive now and getting off track a little but how anybody in their right minds can think that the invasion of Iraq and the killing of so many civillians was justified is beyond me. And please don't spout the war on terrorism bit because that is a crock.
I do not believe in conspiracies I think they do bad enough things out in the open.
This is not anti - US rhetoric. It is one of the things that causes me to dislike the current US administration.
Trev.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 27, 2008 6:24:20 GMT -4
trevor what is the matter f you? you dashed all hopes After three years with Bush, I think he did good things for the government although there were bad things like encouraging Israel to continue bombing Lebanon in 2006. As for the good things, he insisted on the UN tribunal that will judge Syria for the murder of the prime minister and other assassinations that took place and are still taking place. Now, here is the issue. Since Bush is strongly anti-Syria, many say thta Syria is waiting for his leave to start dealing with America and controlling Lebanon again like in the past when Syria could agree with America and entered Lebanon. Some say that as long as Bashar Assad is safe, we will continue to suffer, but there is another theory that says that lebanon will not be saved unless both America and Syria sit together and stop fighting over the country. This theory that might be applied by Obsama, should include:(and is for the benfit of the March 14 bloc, not Hizbollah) 1- returning the Golan heights 2-Cutting off the head of Hizbullah 3-Syria wouldn't agree to be incriminted, so they can do a scenario like Lokerby to say that Syrian officials did the crimes without the knowing of Bashar (everyone knows that this is impossible) I don't know what path Obama will choose. Will he work out a truce between Syria and America? and will this be for the benefit of Lebanon, or will they agree to limit Hizbollah in return of Syria having an upper hand in something in Lebanon? or will he just continue to face Syria and Iran? the coming days will show. unfortunately, we eat and drink politics in this country, but the good things in life have their place too. I am watching the series of LOTR and refreshing my memory of that wonderful movie, with all the natural scenes that are breathtaking. As for books, I decided to bring a book but still didn't get to the library to buy it. Projects are done at work. to get myself entertained, I am listening to new nice songs that came out like this one www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPbMOdHyQ7wwe have almost a singer for each citizen...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 27, 2008 12:19:16 GMT -4
Absolutely, but in the end the majority won. Maybe you guys need compulsory voting like Australia. Compulsory voting? I would rather have the people who don't care enough to become informed, form an opinion, and vote it to NOT vote rather than having them cast an uninformed vote because they were forced to. The French have long been perceived by the American public as rude, arrogant, and ultimately ungrateful for the things the U.S. has done for them, such as protecting them during all three World Wars (I, II, and Cold). Iraq and the rumblings that France would prefer to set up a counter-pole to American power was simply the "last straw" for many people. Weren't you telling us earlier that our having elected President Bush was a concern for everyone in the world? And that's your problem, because reasonable people CAN believe that the Iraq war was and is worthwhile. That includes myself and any Iraqi who likes having a government that doesn't keep rape chambers, feed dissidents into shredders, gas its own citizens, and spend huge amounts of capital on extravagant palaces. Rather than listening to one side of the argument and declaring those on the other "out of their minds" or "stupid", maybe you should listen to both sides and at least try to understand the other position. I find it reasonable to be against the Iraq war. I think you're mistaken, but I won't deride you a stupid or crazy for holding that opinion. There seems to be very little of that sort of even-handedness on the anti-war side.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2008 13:45:03 GMT -4
After three years with Bush, I think he did good things for the government although there were bad things like encouraging Israel to continue bombing Lebanon in 2006. He's been in office seven years. Each Presidential term in the US is four years; it's in our Constitution that no President may serve more than two terms; if that person was Vice President first and became President following the death/resignation/medical incapacitation of the preceding President, that person is only eligible for two full terms of his/her own provided he/she served less than two years of his/her predecessor's term. Further, to know if Bush has been a good or bad President, you really ought to look at more than just his policy toward your country. I, for one, am not really happy about his policy toward our own!
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Feb 27, 2008 13:55:21 GMT -4
I know he has very bad policies, but I ws speaking only about few things he helped us in. As for the three years, I was speaking about the tradgedy that took yrs since three yrs and his policies since that time. I know he has been in power more than three yrs.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 28, 2008 4:34:00 GMT -4
That, I do understand. However showing gratitude and being asked to go against something you believe in don't and shouldn't go hand in hand.
Yes because he does things like invade foreign countries against the UN's orders.
Look I do understand your sentiment, however it was a conflict that was thrust upon the people of Iraq whether they liked it or not. We were not there, we were safe when the bombs started dropping, we were not the ones who lost families, saw our children's broken bodies only to be told it was for there own good. Yes Saddam Hussein's rule was over and yes he did some unbelievably evil things to innocent people, but I have a lot of Persian friends (which maybe makes me biased) both here in Australia and from back when I lived in the UK and played soccer together and I'm sorry to say none agreed with the invasion as it occurred. They wanted the UN to spend more time evaluating the situation.
I have listened to both sides of the argument but I disagree with the US in this instant. The reports that have come out after the fact, indicating that the threat from WMD was exaggerated greatly, show us that Iraq was not an international threat.
Secondly there are many other countries who persecute people, why are they not invaded to protect the innocent? Turkey as an example have a terrible human rights record, but the US does nothing about the murder of the Kurdish people bordering them. But Saddam Hussein's treatment of the Kurds was one of the key reasons for the invasion.
In 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus illegally and to this day occupy the northern third of the island. The US helped them in this instant by supplying weapons and aircraft to them because they had a personal interest in securing a base on the island that the President of Cyprus denied them. People died in this conflict too but in the end the US got their Cypriot base in the Turkish occupied side.
So you see I don't think Bush and the rest of his administration could give a flying you know what about the people of Iraq what they do care about is US interests over seas and control of the middle east.
I'm sorry Jason but I will have to disagree with you on this one, I appologise for any insults that you may have felt, I do tend to lash out a bit when I get emotive and they definitely were not directed at you personally, I have nothing but respect for you, but I don't think there was enough done peacefully before the invasion began.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 28, 2008 12:21:34 GMT -4
That, I do understand. However showing gratitude and being asked to go against something you believe in don't and shouldn't go hand in hand. A simple "no we don't care to assist you" would have been fine. Actively blocking our attempts to defend ourselves merely because the French felt like being contrary to American desires was the impression we received, and the reason for the backlash. We can argue about whether the UN authorized it or not, but my basic position is that President Bush had every right to resume military operations against a country that had broken the condidtions of our cease fire in the First Gulf War. My point, however, was that you seem to find it perfectly fine to tell Americans what they should be doing when they chose their leaders, but apparently this is a one-way street; we can't say anything at all about how other countries run things. Which is part of the point - they did not have the ability to make their opinions known. The closest they came was in their attempted uprising after the first Gulf War which ended in disaster because Bush Sr. and Clinton feared world opinion too much to support them. And since neither one of us was there, though I do live in a community that has lost family members there, our opinions are equally valid on that basis. But no one could know that until Saddam was removed from power, since he was actively obstructing any attempts to discern his WMD capability. Well, primarily because many other countries are not in a position to threaten their neighbors in a strategically significant area of the world and do not support terrorism as Iraq did. Of course the Iraq war is not being fought entirely altruistically on the part of the US - we have real concerns with the stability of the Middle East because of how that area effects the world economy - but I could argue that the US should have a strategic interest in a violent area before we commit troops. If US soldiers are going to die then there had better be some benefit to the US in the action they're fighting in. In my opinion Iraq does provide defense to the US and will provide badly needed stability to the region. The fact that we're helping the Iraqis is gravy. Good gravy, but not enough by itself to loose as many American lives as we have without the other objectives the war fulfills. We have taken diplomatic actions to restrict the Turks. US poilcy has changed in substantial ways since 9/11. Things that were done during the Nixon administration are simply not relevent to current policies. It was a different world in 1974. You might as well say you dislike current US foreign policy because of the Spanish-American War. I think you're wrong, that President Bush does care about the Iraqi people, but even if you were correct, if in this case US interests also benefit the Iraqis then what's the problem? We get stability in the region and a new ally, they get a more democratic government that won't abuse them as Saddam did and the new economic opportunities that come with re-joining the world community after being a pariah for the last 15 years. What price in lives was getting rid of Saddam worth to the Iraqis? In the end I think it will be a positive balance. More people will ultimately be positively effected by his removal than were killed during the War or would have been killed and abused by Saddam's regime. Things are already looking up for them. Well thank you, and I hope you haven't felt that I insulted you personally. I feel that there wasn't enough done to Iraq during the years between the end of the Gulf War and 9/11, and that what President Bush did was essentially clean up a mess that should have been seen to long before he came to office. Naturally things were uglier this time around than they would have if his dad had finished the job the first time around, or if Mr. Clinton had been concerned with national security rather than not making waves. The American and Iraqi lives that have been lost were the cost of more than a decade of complacency and placing world opinion before doing what was necessary.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 29, 2008 6:08:16 GMT -4
Yeh fair enough Jason, I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is stability, we now have a situation where muslim factions are at loggerheads and I think as soon as the coalition forces withdraw there will be civil war. I think the Iraqi government are allies at the moment because they do need help, but remember Saddam Hussein was also an ally and look what happened to him. People are being killed every day with car bombs and the like so I don't think things are looking up for them either. But one thing I will agree with you is that the job should have been finished in the first gulf war. I don't know if this sounds hypocritical or not but I think it would have been quicker and less painful for all concerned.
Now, hows the election going?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 29, 2008 12:08:26 GMT -4
Yeh fair enough Jason, I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is stability, we now have a situation where muslim factions are at loggerheads and I think as soon as the coalition forces withdraw there will be civil war. I don't think there's stability yet, but the way things are looking now there will be. The majority of the news that comes from Iraq these days is good (which probably explains why it no longer claims headlines as it did a year ago - the main stream media much prefers to dwell on what they see as failures of the Bush Administration rather than successes). The Surge is working. Saddam was an ally of convenience against Iran. As Henry Kissinger said, refering to the Iraq/Iran war, "too bad they can't both lose." During the Cold War the U.S. was willing to turn a blind eye to humanitarian problems in a regime as long as it supported the wider struggle against the Soviets. As I said earlier, things have changed for the better now. We are still supporting some regimes that we probably shouldn't, but our tolerance for tyrants is lower than it was. If you think people are still being killed by car bombs every day then you haven't kept up with the news. I think we do agree there. Well, my prediction that the next president will not be named Clinton is looking better and better every day, though we probably won't know for sure unless Texas and Ohio both go for Obama. Unfortunately I don't really like any of the candidates who are still in the race so it's going to be a "lesser of two evils" situation for me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 29, 2008 15:28:24 GMT -4
My two cents: I think the job should have been done in the first Gulf War also. I couldn't believe they were pulling out at the time. It puzzled me - like as if in WWII after liberating Paris, the Allies had gone home. See, Jason, we're not always at odds here...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 29, 2008 16:03:08 GMT -4
My two cents: I think the job should have been done in the first Gulf War also. I couldn't believe they were pulling out at the time. It puzzled me - like as if in WWII after liberating Paris, the Allies had gone home. See, Jason, we're not always at odds here... According to Bush the Elder, it's because they couldn't work out an exit strategy that would have actually succeeded; they figured it would be another Vietnam.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 29, 2008 17:35:48 GMT -4
There was a potential problem with keeping the coalition together. Many of the host countries were happy to sign up to the stated war aim of liberating Kuwait, but got a little nervous at the prospect of a segue into a war of conquest.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 29, 2008 17:44:45 GMT -4
Like I said: Bush Sr. worried too much about world opinion and too little about the future of Iraq. He may have been counting on a popular uprising to topple Saddam, and such an uprising did happen, but when it did we let Saddam crush it, and it came to nothing.
|
|