umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
I did, too. I can understand love of the party but of this twat? GMAFB People that love him so much should be over in Iraq with a gun in their hand doing his dirty work.
I did, too. I can understand love of the party but of this twat? GMAFB People that love him so much should be over in Iraq with a gun in their hand doing his dirty work.
We really need to have a beer or two to hash this out, as i believe my stance stems from a frustration with the inability/indecision to act. To me, that is resolve - "yeah, it suck...but this is what we need to do so roll up your sleeves and resolve it"
The reason we need to hash it out over some beers is because IMHO there is a lack of resolve in society as a whole so for me we're crossing a whole lot of boundaries to get into that one.
Resolve = admirable
Resolve to do stupid stuff = not admirable
Resolve to follow a broken path = politics/personal feelings and desires.
2Xtreme21
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2004
- 7,044
- 0
- 0
Your argument is that not "acting" is cowardly. K, so we "acted" by ousting a government that had nothing to do with September 11th, further BOLSTERING the very terrorists who attacked us. So you want to answer me as to what we "resolved" by attacking a sovereign nation based on lies told to us by our leader?
Bush had all the support in the fvcking world and he ABUSED it for his own fvcking good. Our President deserves to rot in hell for what he's done.
Edit: Don't take my comments personally. You're allowed to have whatever belief you want and I don't want to seem like I'm directing my frustrations at you. It's more the idea as a whole that people can still support our president with all the blood on his hands.
I understand what you're saying about resolve, I really do, I just think that "resolve" and "staying the course" are two very different things. You're right, resolve is willingness to get the job done (and I wouldn't disagree that our society could use more of it), but I don't think it makes specific demands of the exact steps we take to do that job. If something isn't working right, then I don't think it's showing a lack of resolve to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. I see no conflict between being resolved to defeat terrorist groups and saying that maybe we should reconsider some of our methods on account of their impact on civil liberties (or for whatever other reason). Part of having resolve is a willingness to stick it out through tough, dirty jobs that need to be done. But that doesn't mean making the job as hard and dirty as possible is the best way to show resolve...in other words, I think it's more about the end goal than the way in which we get there.
As for the beers...you know what would be cool, a way to "have a beer" over the internet. I'm not quite sure how it would work, but you're an expert in the area, maybe you could figure out a way
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Hey conjur, explain to me your obvious contradiction:
1.Bush says that we need to "stay the course" and finish the job in Iraq. You, I assume, and everyother left winger in the country say that staying the course is a bad idea cause it is not working and that we need to do something different.
2. The hunt for Osama has not been working and we have not caught him, so the president changed his strategy and how we go about chasing him. So now the president has changed his course, and you say that is a bad thing and that we should have kept doing what we had been doing for the past 5 years.
So what is it? Should we stay the course on only the things you want us to stay the course?
It is ok to use a failed strategy to get Osama, but not ok to use a failed strategy in Iraq?
Or could it just be that you want to score points and make politcal points by pointing out everything the president does that you disagree with?
President wants to stay the course, that's a bad idea. President wants to change his strategy, that's a bad idea.
Please explain to me how your LOGIC works.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I understand what you're saying about resolve, I really do, I just think that "resolve" and "staying the course" are two very different things. You're right, resolve is willingness to get the job done (and I wouldn't disagree that our society could use more of it), but I don't think it makes specific demands of the exact steps we take to do that job. If something isn't working right, then I don't think it's showing a lack of resolve to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. I see no conflict between being resolved to defeat terrorist groups and saying that maybe we should reconsider some of our methods on account of their impact on civil liberties (or for whatever other reason). Part of having resolve is a willingness to stick it out through tough, dirty jobs that need to be done. But that doesn't mean making the job as hard and dirty as possible is the best way to show resolve...in other words, I think it's more about the end goal than the way in which we get there.
As for the beers...you know what would be cool, a way to "have a beer" over the internet. I'm not quite sure how it would work, but you're an expert in the area, maybe you could figure out a way
Nice post. I agree wholeheartedly.
I enjoy speaking with you. We may be on different sides but I'm pleased that you can articulate your point so succiently (sp?)
That's what politics are - a disagreement on direction not disimilar on some very heated business meetings I've been in. Everybody has their agenda, and to prove this agenda action is normally taken to prove the direction you are taking is the "right" one.
Again, thank you for a well written post. My main point of starting this thread was "hey, prez is speaking - if you love him or hate him, at least watch it so you can be informed on the admin's stance"
Come on, you're smarter than that. Just because one particular approach isn't working doesn't mean ALL possible options have been exhausted. We didn't spend nearly enough time hunting for Osama, giving up at the point we did was silly, and in any case, we didn't really have enough time to TRY any other approaches before we were off invading Iraq. In Iraq, by contrast, we've spent a LOT of time "staying the course" with our current approach. I may differ from my fellow lefties, but I don't think that means we have to leave, I think it means we need to do something other than what we are doing. We have established, IMHO, that simply "staying the course" is not a good option...at least not the way Bush means it. There is nothing wrong with sticking around and getting the job done (I think at this point we might be morally obligated to do so, the "Pottery Barn Rule" if you will), but what we are doing is NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE.
Edit: I realize that we did not stop hunting for Osama, that's probably poor phrasing on my part...I'm just arguing that we had hardly reached a point with him where we could reasonably declare our current approach wasn't working.
Ok I have a few questions.
When did Iraq mean bin laden? Everytime I hear a story about bin laden he is not in Iraq. And there is a topic here in P&N that says Saddam did not want anything to do with bin laden
How is cutting funding going to catch bin laden faster?
More of a statement but Conjur is not a lefty.
You realize Bush said he did not know where bin laden is and does not case.
First, it would help if you used logic yourself.
You're comparing two completely different scenarios both requiring completely different strategies and tactics.
I will not play your BS freeper games.
BTW, your lumping me into a "left winger" category is duly noted and summarily dismissed.
Yes, it's quite comforting to know that we have a President who can't do anything right and that he has enough resolve to keep bringing in the body bags.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Actually Eisenhower almost quit before the invasion started.
and
BTW: by the time a General is high enough in command to be in charge of a war they tend to be near retirement. Franks served from 1967-2003, 36 years.
General Schwarzkopf retired in August of 1991, the Gulf War had eneded only 5 months before that.
*sigh*
I said on that day "this now pussified country doesn't have the heart or the stomach for war, but we're going to war."
You're just proving my point and what i said on that day.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I understand what you're saying about resolve, I really do, I just think that "resolve" and "staying the course" are two very different things. You're right, resolve is willingness to get the job done (and I wouldn't disagree that our society could use more of it), but I don't think it makes specific demands of the exact steps we take to do that job. If something isn't working right, then I don't think it's showing a lack of resolve to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. I see no conflict between being resolved to defeat terrorist groups and saying that maybe we should reconsider some of our methods on account of their impact on civil liberties (or for whatever other reason). Part of having resolve is a willingness to stick it out through tough, dirty jobs that need to be done. But that doesn't mean making the job as hard and dirty as possible is the best way to show resolve...in other words, I think it's more about the end goal than the way in which we get there.
As for the beers...you know what would be cool, a way to "have a beer" over the internet. I'm not quite sure how it would work, but you're an expert in the area, maybe you could figure out a way
Nice post. I agree wholeheartedly.
I enjoy speaking with you. We may be on different sides but I'm pleased that you can articulate your point so succiently (sp?)
That's what politics are - a disagreement on direction not disimilar on some very heated business meetings I've been in. Everybody has their agenda, and to prove this agenda action is normally taken to prove the direction you are taking is the "right" one.
Again, thank you for a well written post. My main point of starting this thread was "hey, prez is speaking - if you love him or hate him, at least watch it so you can be informed on the admin's stance"
Sometimes I wonder if that's not what democracy was really intended to be, a large scale extension of the kind of debate (often heated, never borning) that goes on during any (good) decision making process in any business. At work I often find I learn the most from my peers that I disagree the most with, but for some reason political discussion never seems to quite work the same way...I'm glad I can at least add you to the short list of people who I can debate a political issue with where I actually learn something, even if it's just coming to a deeper understanding of my own views and those on the other side.
As someone in a technical field, I'm sure you'll understand my desire to see political science being treated more like, well, science. In my profession, and in yours as well I assume, people can sit around a table and debate a lot of issues...but at the end of the day, if someone makes a particularly convincing argument, the person with the opposing view will often say "Hmm, I never thought of it that way before" and that's the last you'll hear of their old argument. Of course this doesn't happen all the time, and quite often intelligent people can disagree about something and both be right, but it seems like those kinds of things happen a lot less often in politics than they probably should.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Ok, I will admit that most post may have been a little weak. I was trying to make a very difficult comparision in an enviroment that is not really suitable for that type of arguement.
Here is the point I was trying to make:
I find it odd that the same group of people who complain that Bush refuses to change his tactics in Iraq also complain when Bush changes his tactic in the hunt for Osama.
Back up to this post:
Stay the course in Iraq <---- bad
Change the course with Osama <---- bad
No mater what Bush seems to do there is a group of people who will say it was a bad choice.
Put it another way: We should change our course in regards to our failed policy in Iraq, but we should not change our course in regards to our failed policy in going after Osama.
Does my frustation make more sense now?
BTW: we have not "stopped" the hunt for Osama or Al Qaeda.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone faulting Bush for going to war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Too bad he stopped and essentially gave up. So much for your hallowed "resolve"
Rainsford,
Watch some of the action's of UK parlament, then watch our own. The rituals and sides of the aisle in parlament is pretty dang astounding.
You are absoletely correct that this is what democracy is.
My only hope is that people will step outside themselves and a mob mentality. I have, just so happens that I fall on the right.
Watch some of the action's of UK parlament, then watch our own. The rituals and sides of the aisle in parlament is pretty dang astounding.
You are absoletely correct that this is what democracy is.
My only hope is that people will step outside themselves and a mob mentality. I have, just so happens that I fall on the right.
See my previous reply to your BS reply.
Also, if you'll note my first post in this thread I said he stopped the hunt for Al Qaeda (in 2001) and provided evidence of such in a later post. I note you have failed to address that in any way, shape, or form.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Was the war pointless when we started it?
Or just pointless now that things have turned into a mess?
The war may have been a mistake, but that doesn't erase the fact that we are there now and what we do in Iraq today will have been consequences for years and years.
Our choices are stay there until we win the war.
Or come home, hand the terrorist a huge victory and sit on our hands waiting for the next big terror attack, hoping and praying that our intelligence agencies stop it before it happens.
Being opposed to a war doesn't equate to being opposed to war in general though.
The problem isn't that soldiers are dying. It's that soldiers are dying and things over there are getting worse, not better. That, to most people, feels like a waste of lives and bad planning/execution.
That's exactly what I did about 3 years ago. I stopped "drinking the Kool-Aid" and actually started doing some research into the Iraq invasion and into 9/11-related events from various news sources and that's when I found that everything I'd been in support of re: invading Iraq was a complete lie. I know Red Dawn did a similar thing in coming to the conclusion that the Iraq invasion was unjust and based on lies and deceit.
The evidence is beyond overwhelming; it's incontrovertible at this point. All that's missing is a Congress with the moral fortitude to do the right thing and stop being a rubber stamp.
It was pointless when we started it. Lest many of you forget that a large percentage of Americans opposed the war before it ever began.
Now, however, we can't just bring the troops home and pretend nothing happened. We created this mess, we need to accept the responsibility for fixing it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter