81% Approval Rating. God Help Us!

[J'Pol]

I see the problem, you are looking at this totally on the basis of how it will effect America's standing on the world stage. Either short term or long term.

I am seeing it from the point of view of the people you / we liberated. I think the risks we took were acceptable given the results we achieved. There may be longer term rammifications, I accept that. It is how we deal with the future that will determine how that works out.

In the meantime go to sleep tonight thinking of the milllions of people who can now do the same without worrying quite so much about what tommorrow will bring.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 18:58


I think the risks we took were acceptable given the results we achieved.

You and I, we didn't take any risks. We just watched other people die on TV while we sat around musing risk vs. benefit. Would you hold the same opinion if your boy had died there.

If George Bush had come to my door and said, "Saddam Hussein is abusing his people, we need to free them. Get your gun and follow me". I would have shut the door in his face, just like the parents of all those who have died would of. I'd tell him that there are lots of bad men, I don't have any interest in Iraq and there is a self help option available called, "revolution". Give them my best.

If he said that Saddam Hussien was a threat to my way of life and the safety of my children (which is what he said), I would have gone.


Do you want to suit up and fire the first bullet to free the Congo or do you want to sit at home and talk about acceptable risks? If you say "yes", I salute you for your idealism and valor.

[J'Pol]

Again with the selective quoting.

If you look at the context, particularly just before that sentence, when I say "you / we" it is obvious that I am using the words as plural and talking about our nations. The "we" immediately thereafter is quite obviously referring to the USA and the UK. I never said or implied you and me.

Incidentally I have taken serious risks (including life threatening ones) for what I believe in. I am now 42 and it is unlikely that I will be required to fight for my country, though I do continue to take risks for what I believe in.

If someone is old enough to be called to arms, then they are old enough to decide how to respond.

I hope you aren't just using emotional topics and language to validate your point of view. Now that would be wrong, wouldn't it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.

That is, to put it mildly, a pile of crap.

Prove it.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 20:03
Again with the selective quoting.

If you look at the context, particularly just before that sentence, when I say "you / we" it is obvious that I am using the words as plural and talking about our nations. The "we" immediately thereafter is quite obviously referring to the USA and the UK. I never said or implied you and me.

Incidentally I have taken serious risks (including life threatening ones) for what I believe in. I am now 42 and it is unlikely that I will be required to fight for my country, though I do continue to take risks for what I believe in.

If someone is old enough to be called to arms, then they are old enough to decide how to respond.

I hope you aren't just using emotional topics and language to validate your point of view. Now that would be wrong, wouldn't it.

I intentionally reduced the "we" down to the extreme (you and me), to make a point, not to distort what you were saying.

Anyone can talk philisophically about what should be done by someone else. But at some point, idealism meets reality, and that is when a gun is put in your hand. Are you willing to take it for THIS cause (freeing the Iraqi people)?

I am not, are you ( I have magically made you 21 again)? How about the Congo. Oppressed people, just like Iraq.

I respect you for endangering you life for what you believe in, I'm just asking if you believe in dying for Iraq?

I agree with you that evoking stock response sympathy to win favor is cheap (women, children, puppy dogs), and I don't engage in it. I just wanted to test your philosophical resolve.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+3 May 2003 - 20:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 May 2003 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.

That is, to put it mildly, a pile of crap.

Prove it. [/b][/quote]
Clocker knows crap, that&#39;s for sure&#33; He is the avatar ass-master.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+3 May 2003 - 20:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 May 2003 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.

That is, to put it mildly, a pile of crap.

Prove it. [/b][/quote]
Which part is crap erudite boy.

I base this statement on a debate I listened to, which included a couple of political commentators from the Middle East. By that I mean from the region, living in it and commentating on it. They expressed the belief that the anti war marches would give Hussain reason to believe that the USA would not go into Iraq as it would be unpopular, on a worldwide basis.

The big marches in the UK would also mean that we would not support you (plural) and as such you would not wish to go to war, as you would be totally isolated.

They expressed the strong opinion that this would lead to him being even more recalcitrant then usual and would not step down. ergo the war would become more likely.

I listened to this, from people who seemed to know what they were talking about and concluded that it was probably correct.

You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.

[j2k4]

It seems the boat may have sailed

I&#39;ll try to.....respond....to...ah...well...

After having missed so much, I can only do this on the cheap, as time is still short.

An array of you are insisting, in this case, on a resurrection of segregation-as it applies to the fly-specks and pepper of Dubya&#39;s foreign-policy.

I won&#39;t attempt that, but:

Hobbes-

You demand accountability, attack from several fronts (lives lost, big oil, imperialist tendencies, ad infinitum), then meekly admit you&#39;d be satisfied if we&#39;d only find WMD?
If the WMD is eventually found, whether it be somewhere in Iraq, or Syria, or wherever else, will you still be satisfied?
The media has been making a collective ass of itself by demanding, from the backseat, "ARE WE THERE YET?" Please don&#39;t tell me you wish to join THAT chorus?
Don&#39;t you find it the least bit curious that (depending on which poll) between 60-80% of U.S. citizens (which, given polling practices in the U.S., constitutes a majority of Democrats-most polls are conducted in urban settings, phone polls, too) have said they supported the effort, period, and 80% of THEM had no qualms about the pretext for Saddam&#39;s removal?
Blood/oil/empire lust must be awfully catchy.
Anyway, they&#39;re not done looking, and as the Libs are demanding that we effectively police and rebuild the entire country of Iraq, set up a new government, find Saddam and his cronies, involve the U.N., apologize to France, Germany, Russia, AND the Hollywood left, drastically reduce the on-site presence, stay out of Syria, establish Palestine, calm Israel, hunt for terrorists, and keep Afghanistan propped up, just to cite a FEW objectives, the hunt for WMD is, for now, necessarily and justifiably compromised.

I&#39;m afraid I&#39;ve gone a bit afield here; but why is everyone so quick to condemn the U.S., and Dubya in particular?
Under the best of circumstances, no president has more than eight years to enact, or try to enact, his platform. I&#39;ve forgotten what his platform was, it&#39;s been so long since he&#39;s had anything on his plate that didn&#39;t have as it&#39;s genesis the horrible events of 9/11. In effect, he&#39;s had to make it up as he goes along.
I AM NOT AN APOLOGIST for the short-comings of this administration; there are plenty, especially on the domestic side, but some of these things are lacking nothing other than stewardship (such things as judicial appointments, border control, etc.) that can only come from the man himself. The Democrats are attempting to capitalize on this lack of oversight, and are, for the most part, showing how philosophically barren and bereft they are.
They bitch alot, but where are the ideas (Opening HERE for proud Democrat to step to the plate)?

I could go on (and will attempt to, later), but you jerks ran this thread onto the second page, thus precluding me from continuing without reviewing your posts .

You guys..........you&#39;re just exercising me, aren&#39;t you?

[hobbes]

What is that meek about WMD? That is all I want, period.

I am neither for nor against Bush, he just happens to be in charge.

Bush justified the coalition attack on Iraq by declaring firmly that it has weapons of mass destruction, as well as chemical and biological weapons. He was not willing to wait for the next 9/11 to do something and was tired of listening to the impotent UN.

Ok, fine. Iraq is a threat to US security, linked to Al-queda- Go, George go&#33;

Ok, where are the weapons, where are the links?

Meanwhile, we see stirring images of freed people, statues toppling, and humanitarian aid on the way. We start to get the warm fuzzies and before you know it, 81% don&#39;t think we need to find those weapons anymore. Got distracted by the shining baubles.


I am not condemning Bush at all, I&#39;m just waiting to see what he told they had to justify his invasion. It is not really me, that needs to see them, it is those countries who don&#39;t trust us to begin with. If they aren&#39;t there, it will just confirm that we are the liars that they already think we are. Imperialists set on raping Iraq of it&#39;s oil. What is our defense?



The sole point of this thread was to point out that people can be so easily distracted. I am willing to give George all the time he needs, and I still have trust in my government. So I haven&#39;t closed this case file yet, just jotting down interesting notes about a very distractable populace and the fact that I predicted this would happen.


J2, you know I don&#39;t join choirs, they would just obscure my lovely voice.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.

Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about.