What the heck is wrong with "W"? [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

SoonerProphet

7/31/2006, 06:32 PM

Those who have been so keen on dissing the U.S. foreign policy in the area over the last few years should go ahead and step up to the plate here.

We're waiting......

Not sure where you are going with this...is it some kind of leading question. Outside of hectoring and sending "harsh" statements of our own I see no real solution. An armed U.N. force, don't forget our previous foray into the Levant ended in disaster, won't solve the problem. Inevitably sides would be chosen and hillarity would ensue.

I noticed you left the biggest potential problem in the area off your list. What (if anything) do you propose be done about Iran and their "peaceful" nuclear program? What about Syria's sabre-rattling? Any cause for concern there?

I think I'm good with sitting back and watching this one for a while.....

I've mentioned in the past the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and non-proliferation treaties are quickly becoming as worthless as the paper they are printed on. It becomes a hazardous double standard.

What about Syrian sabre-rattling...they gonna role into the Golan with some antiquidated T-72's and challenge the IDF, hardly. If we are wise we support the Ba'athist there so no Muslim Brotherhood government takes it place. Cause we've seen how well spreadin' "democracy" has worked in the region.

This **** will pass and will be back to the status quo

Harry Beanbag

7/31/2006, 07:33 PM

This **** will pass and will be back to the status quo

Probably, but the status quo is just a ticking nuclear time bomb. Some place is gonna get nuked within 10 years, IMO. I hope it's not a U.S. city.

I've changed my mind a little bit about Iraq. In hindsight, I wish we could have spent all that money on finding a practical and viable energy source. That's the only way to make the Middle East irrelevant (and too poor to raise all this hell) again.

Widescreen

7/31/2006, 08:12 PM

The scene from Team America w/ Hans Blix and Kim Jong Il is hilarious because it's 100% true. Every time the UN sets a deadline, rogue nations laugh because it doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile, Iran will continue to build whatever weapons they want.

Kim Jong Il: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

critical_phil

7/31/2006, 09:13 PM

Your post, or our President?

depends on your perspective, i suppose.

i'll change my opinion of him when he starts fixing more things than he breaks.

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 10:01 AM

Not sure where you are going with this...is it some kind of leading question. Outside of hectoring and sending "harsh" statements of our own I see no real solution. An armed U.N. force, don't forget our previous foray into the Levant ended in disaster, won't solve the problem. Inevitably sides would be chosen and hillarity would ensue.

Of course it's a leading question. I want those who bashed "W"'s handling of Iraq to lead us to a solution to the current war in the ME. Iran is almost an identical situation to Iraq and Israel is back at it with the terrorists. I want those highly educated and intelligent French people to settle things down. If I was "W", I'd be calling them out right about now. I'm petty like that.

I've mentioned in the past the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and non-proliferation treaties are quickly becoming as worthless as the paper they are printed on. It becomes a hazardous double standard.

Of course it's a double standard. The whole point of having a military is to have superior weapons with superior fire power.

This **** will pass and will be back to the status quo

That's what American's thought about both world wars. But hey, at this point I'm okay with millions of Europeans dying due their own pacifism and apathy before the US gets involved. No sweat off my back. Until NK or Iran can get a missle more than 50 miles outside their borders I'm not gonna too riled up.

Okla-homey

8/1/2006, 10:08 AM

"W"orthless.....

Oh just stop it.:D

If he went on TV and said something like, "Bring It!" the libs would p1ss themselves.

If he said something like, "give peace a chance" the cons would p1ss themselves.

Its a lose-lose if he opens his mouth. IMHO, the best thing to do is to quitely ensure the Israelis have everything they need to keep up the fire...which we are doing.

In the meantime, we stay engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. That way, the jihaadis can't effectively bring decisive force to bear anywhere on the regional battlefield. Its actually a pretty classic "pin 'em down and pound the shiite out of 'em" move. Me likey.

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 10:08 AM

Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

Exactly! I hate reading all of these news stories about "so and so wants stronger wording" and "so and so won't approve the statement because the wording is too strong" and "so and so didn't technically use the word "reject" so we think there might still be a resolution". Are we supposed to care that EU foreign ministers expressed "utmost concern" at civilian casualties?

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 10:26 AM

i'll change my opinion of him when he starts fixing more things than he breaks.

Whats he broken?

Seems to me he is doing lots of difficult shiat that Clinton and others didn't have the balls to do, like standing up to the people that attack and kills us.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 10:28 AM

Exactly! I hate reading all of these news stories about "so and so wants stronger wording" and "so and so won't approve the statement because the wording is too strong" and "so and so didn't technically use the word "reject" so we think there might still be a resolution". Are we supposed to care that EU foreign ministers expressed "utmost concern" at civilian casualties?

This is why the UN and the EU (sans the UK) are both worthless and irrelevant.

Okla-homey

8/1/2006, 10:34 AM

Are we supposed to care that EU foreign ministers expressed "utmost concern" at civilian casualties?

I agree. Its war. People in and out of uniform get killed in war. Even more so when the jihaadis hide among civilians. The ones who are culpable for civilian casualties are the ones who conduct operations from civilian areas. The international law of war clearly states that civilian facilities which would otherwise be off-limits become fair game when they are used by the enemy for storage of supplies, planning, billeting or from which to launch attacks.

Tear Down This Wall

8/1/2006, 10:46 AM

The Syrians ain't gonna do dick. They're just a pawn of Iran. It's truly sad. I had a good friend in law school from Syria, he was a Christian. One of my ex-wife's best friends was a gal whose dad was Syrian and mother was Lebanese. Good people. Christians all. But, they were run out of Syria after Iran fell and its new, radical leaders began to influence Syrian politics.

The whole region is a tragedy because Iran used to be such a good friend to the U.S. There are millions of people in Iran and Syria, muslim and Christian, who don't want the radical leadership that is in place, but can't speak up because they or their families will be tortured and/or executed.

Iran, today, is like the Soviet Union of the old Cold War. If you could get their leadership to fall, diplomacy would be much easier in the region. For their wild religious beliefs and insane hatred of Israel, the Iranian leaders risk millions of innocent lives in several countries.

Hope against all hope that some leader in some country somewhere grows the balls to depose these bullies, because it apparently, and sadly, ain't gonna be us.

critical_phil

8/1/2006, 11:06 AM

Whats he broken?

is this a serious question? really? if so, why don't you tell me all the things he's fixed so i can limit my response.

Seems to me he is doing lots of difficult shiat that Clinton and others didn't have the balls to do, like standing up to the people that attack and kills us.

if by standing up you mean waging vague war on an unconcerned country, then yes i agree with you.

who are and others? you'll not get any argument from me that HillBilly could have done much more to nip these things in the bud. who else could have?

here's the problem with your point of view Tuba. as far as i know, you don't recognize that these are systemic problems. they are the result of ineffective leadership, at many levels, on BOTH sides of the aisle.

i feel like i've been cheated by bush during his presidency. i was wrong about him. he's just a politician......and a bad one at that. let me repeat: I WAS WRONG. i really thought he could institute some changes in '00. i was also dumb enough to still believe that in '04. at this point, he appears to be one of the most devisive leaders the U.S. has ever had. it's sad.

if the tremendous neglect of issues important to U.S. citizens, along with the meddling in other people's business, doesn't **** you off, then you may have a problem.

Okla-homey

8/1/2006, 11:27 AM

at this point, he appears to be one of the most devisive leaders the U.S. has ever had. it's sad.

Not really in the same ballpark, historically speaking that is.

Jefferson, Adams (both of them), Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Coolidge, Hoover, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were all probably more devisive.

In W's case, the media, Hollywood and the "intelligentsia" dislike him -- the average Joe doesn't hate the guy. The guys above were despised by a great number of average Joes.

mdklatt

8/1/2006, 11:29 AM

In W's case, the media, Hollywood and the "intelligentsia" dislike him -- the average Joe doesn't hate the guy.

There's no way the intelligentsia makes up 70% of this country. ;)

critical_phil

8/1/2006, 11:34 AM

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 11:56 AM

homey, i will defer to you as the historian regarding lincoln, johnson etc.

You do recall that the civil war was fought as a direct result of Lincoln's policies, right? Yes, the same Lincoln that is on the $20 in your pocket and is generally considered one of the great Presidents of the United States.

And for the record, I'm not comparing W to Lincoln. I'm just sayin' that I don't agree with judging a President for being "divisive".

But back to my original point - what would you Bush-haters do differently about the current situation? Sit back, relax, and hope it doesn't blow up in your face? That's what Billy did, and that's likely part of the reason why the towers fell.

Okla-homey

8/1/2006, 12:44 PM

There's no way the intelligentsia makes up 70% of this country. ;)

If I know anything about the polling process, it's this; pollsters can profoundly affect the outcome of a poll by the questions they ask.

If you ask, "Do you think W is doing a good job" you'll get one set of responses.

If you ask, "Do you think anyone could be doing a better job and if so, who?" you'll get quite a different set of responses.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bashing W doesn't improve matters even a smidge. If anything, I for one wish this nation would rally behind him because such a sense of unity strikes fear in the hearts of those who wish us ill.

The public figures who loudly, publicly, and repeatedly bash him are only hurting our cause. That's not to say they don't have that right or that they are not patriotic. That's just to say I lament their doing so.

The vast majority of the guys fighting this war still like and respect W. That's good enough for me.

Tear Down This Wall

8/1/2006, 12:49 PM

homey, i will defer to you as the historian regarding lincoln, johnson etc.

fwiw, i am just old enough to remember how ****ed off the general public was at jimmy peanut - so i'd still say that public frustration with W is in the same ballpark.

i'll shut up now.

Except the economy isn't tanked like it was under Carter. Also, we re-elected Bush despite all of the media hyped "public frustration" with him.

I'll throw this in as a bonus, anyone remotely working for the Democratic Party should take this and run with it:

-The reason the Democrats keep getting their butts handed to them despite W's consistently low poll numbers is that many Bush supporters are not happy with him because he hasn't gone far enough in the war against terror. This class of people, including folks like your truly, may be unhappy with Bush for not going far enough, but not so unhappy that we'd vote for some hagged out leftist from Massachusetts. After all, even though Bush isn't near as aggressive as many of us want him to be, he's a hell of alot more aggressive than some communist/terrorist-sympathizing Democrats would be.

Fortunately, we already know the Democrats don't get it because we are watching them attempt to throw their Senator who understands the stakes of the terror war most, Joe Lieberman, overboard.

Suck me.

Osce0la

8/1/2006, 12:51 PM

I just like how I saw on one news channel last night that they said that there will not be a cease fire, and then I flip to another channel minutes later and they said a cease fire will be coming in the next couple of days...

Okla-homey

8/1/2006, 12:52 PM

The dems are gonna run Hillary. They'll lose. The end.

Osce0la

8/1/2006, 12:54 PM

Except the economy isn't tanked like it was under Carter. Also, we re-elected Bush despite all of the media hyped "public frustration" with him.

I'll throw this in as a bonus, anyone remotely working for the Democratic Party should take this and run with it:

-The reason the Democrats keep getting their butts handed to them despite W's consistently low poll numbers is that many Bush supporters are not happy with him because he hasn't gone far enough in the war against terror. This class of people, including folks like your truly, may be unhappy with Bush for not going far enough, but not so unhappy that we'd vote for some hagged out leftist from Massachusetts. After all, even though Bush isn't near as aggressive as many of us want him to be, he's a hell of alot more aggressive than some communist/terrorist-sympathizing Democrats would be.

Fortunately, we already know the Democrats don't get it because we are watching them attempt to throw their Senator who understands the stakes of the terror war most, Joe Lieberman, overboard.

Suck me.
I agree, I don't think we've done all we could do, and I don't think we should pull out of Iraq until we have done everything we can do. If we pull out now the whole thing was a lost cause from the beginning and all that have died over there lost their lives for a wasted effort. I wouldn't have ever voted for Kerry because his main focus was getting the troops home as soon as possible (which I am all for - except that we would've left an unfinished job over there).

Octavian

8/1/2006, 12:59 PM

Tear Down This Wall

8/1/2006, 01:04 PM

Conressional redistricting has done more to divide this country than anything.

Both the Dem and GOP leadership have created their own safe-havens and then played to the most extreme liberal/conservative viewpoints in congressional elections.

Avg Joes in the general public aren't as divided as the "political class" (elected leaders, party activists, lobbyists, etc..)

OTOH, W's strategy has always been to play to the base and win 50%+1 of the electorate....good for winning elections, bad for governing.

Agree with the first three sentences.

The bottom line is this, though: W could walk up to me and kick me in the nuts, the family jewels, and I'd still vote for him over a commie-lib yankee Democrat. That's just the way it is. The man ain't perfect, but he's leaps and bounds better than what the other side has to offer - a white flag in foreign policy and open season on unborn children! Crab-scented duck farts!

TexasLidig8r

8/1/2006, 01:06 PM

The United Nations is an anachronism that has long outlived its usefulness. It simply acts as a convenient conduit to allow foreign countries to allow intelligence officers and spies into the United States carte blanche.

And we keep dumping millions, and billions of dollars into this black hole.

For example, in the US budget for 2005, this little nugget appeared...

. . . The President's budget contains a request for the United States to provide a $1.2 billion loan to the United Nations for renovation of its headquarters complex in New York City. The proposed loan would be repayable over thirty years with an interest rate of 5.5 percent. Since all UN member states would be responsible for repayment of the loan, the United States would be responsible for paying its share, or 22 percent, of the repayment costs. Over the life of the thirty-year loan, total payments would reach $2.5 billion; the amount would be lower if the loan was paid back over a shorter period of time. The budget request contains $6 million for administrative costs associated with making such a loan to the UN In principle, United Nations officials hope to begin work on the Capital Master Plan, the term by which the renovation plan is known, in the final quarter of 2004 which corresponds to the first quarter of fiscal year 2005.

So, we give a friggin loan, 22% of which we will have to repay.. to ourself???

BAH.

Octavian

8/1/2006, 01:09 PM

This is why the UN and the EU (sans the UK) are both worthless and irrelevant.

considering the USA legitimized its liberation of Iraq based on a United Nations resolution, and Israel is basing it's incursion into Lebanon on the same, you might need to rethink that.

as for the EU being irrelevant...hope you were joking.

Tear Down This Wall

8/1/2006, 01:10 PM

The only thing we should pay the $1.2 billion to do is relocate somewhere outside the United States. Fake bear skin-wearing, bigfoot-believing, snake-vomit vendors.

Octavian

8/1/2006, 01:13 PM

The bottom line is this, though: W could walk up to me and kick me in the nuts, the family jewels, and I'd still vote for him over a commie-lib yankee Democrat. That's just the way it is. The man ain't perfect, but he's leaps and bounds better than what the other side has to offer - a white flag in foreign policy and open season on unborn children! Crab-scented duck farts!

you might not be in that moderate Avg Joe Q Public category I was takin about ;)

Tear Down This Wall

8/1/2006, 01:23 PM

:D Probably not.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 01:34 PM

is this a serious question? really? if so, why don't you tell me all the things he's fixed so i can limit my response.
I was asking a serious question. What has be broken in your opinion? I'll let you answer first, since i asked the question first.

if by standing up you mean waging vague war on an unconcerned country, then yes i agree with you.

here's the problem with your point of view Tuba. as far as i know, you don't recognize that these are systemic problems. they are the result of ineffective leadership, at many levels, on BOTH sides of the aisle.

i feel like i've been cheated by bush during his presidency. i was wrong about him. he's just a politician......and a bad one at that. let me repeat: I WAS WRONG. i really thought he could institute some changes in '00. i was also dumb enough to still believe that in '04. at this point, he appears to be one of the most devisive leaders the U.S. has ever had. it's sad.

if the tremendous neglect of issues important to U.S. citizens, along with the meddling in other people's business, doesn't **** you off, then you may have a problem.

I'm not really sure what you expect from the man. Anyone who knew what the hell a "compasionate conservative" was knew he wasn't going to be a Reagan conservative (even if spending is still lower per GDP than it was back then).

You say he is tremendously neglecting the issues of importance to U.S. Citizens, yet the facts do not back that up.

What issue is greater than our national security? The only thing that has to be asked is, have we been attacked since 9/11? We all know the answer to that one.

I think the current economic boom that is happening, despite being in a war and energy crisis, is because we hav n'o been attacked and taxes are low. The debt sickens me, and frankly scares me, buts its really picking two evils. High debt, or fight a war and keep my *** employed and my family fed. Hmm...

As for Iraq being an "unconcered country", I suggest reading the link in my sig.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 01:44 PM

considering the USA legitimized its liberation of Iraq based on a United Nations resolution, and Israel is basing it's incursion into Lebanon on the same, you might need to rethink that.

as for the EU being irrelevant...hope you were joking.

Actually, I thought the USA legitimized its liberation of Iraq based on the violation of the cease fire of the first gulf war.

And, Israel could give a rats *** about the UN considering the UN has had 2000+ troops there to disarm Hezbollah, and all that happened to Hezbollah is they got 13,000 rockets shiped to them while the UN watched.

Its obvious they collaborate with terrorists groups now, and they obviously have no problem sexually abusing people in the 3rd world or taking bribes from dictators, so F'em.
Kick their blue asses outta new york and sell the land to Donald Trump.

And the EU is irrelevent. The best they can do is muster a strongly worded letter. Commiting troops is beyond them.

mdklatt

8/1/2006, 02:05 PM

What has be broken in your opinion?

I can answer that. In less than five years we've gone from everybody around the world waving American flags in the aftermath of 9/11 to almost the entire ****ing planet hating us, including siding with Saddam Hussein over us. Let that sink in: In the battle between us and Saddam Hussein we were seen as the bad guys. Bush is uniting our enemies (like Iran and Venezuela) and dividing our allies. The two craziest countries on Earth are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons (assuming NK doesn't already have them). The spread of democracy in the Middle East seems more likely to bring the durka durkas to power than secular moderates. Our foreign policy succs.

Of course, I'm sure you'll blame every past Democratic administration for this, because lord knows the pubz don't believe in taking responsibility for anything any more than the dimz they criticize for doing the same thing.

Octavian

8/1/2006, 02:07 PM

What issue is greater than our national security? The only thing that has to be asked is, have we been attacked since 9/11? We all know the answer to that one.

Does W deserve credit for us not being attacked? What he has he done to make us more secure?

The Dept. of Homeland Security was a Dem idea (they wont admit it now) he grudgingly accepted and then flaunted as his own.

Five years after the towers fell:

There was never a program from the Admn. to quard our borders...they are still wide open

al-Qeada has not been beaten (nor have the measly Taliban who supported them) and bin-Laden is still at-large,

The war in Iraq (which is, btw, now led by Shia gov't who condemns Israel) has earned us more enemies than friends

Rerecruitment for AQ went up and Iran (who many thought was on the verge of opening up w/ their younger, more pro-Western generation coming of age)chose a hardline conservative gov'tof their own

North Korea has openly defied the Admn. and proceeded to forge ahead w/ and active nuclear program after we refused bilateral negotiations.

China has pimp-slapped the Admn. in trade policies and further positioned herself as America's bank while securing oil and military pacts in hot spots across the globe.

The Admn. still hasn't explained how they can hold hands w/ the Saudi Royals and denounce Islamofascism in the same sitting (leaving people in every region confused)

The relationships w/ our Cold War allies have taken a major hit and international oppinions of America and her people are at an all-time low.

That's not making us more secure.

I think the current economic boom that is happening, despite being in a war and energy crisis is because we havn't been attacked and taxes are low.

He's spending money we don't have. He borrows and spends. Fun for us (hey, who doesn't like less taxes and more commodities?)...but runaway deficits on all fronts are bad for the grandkids.

As for Iraq being an "unconcered country", I suggest reading the link in my sig.

Every country in that region is a concerned country....that doesn't mean a full-fledged occupation of the whole country was the best option. As usual, the Dems did little to present a viable alternative and W waived the bloody shirt.

He's not the evil leader that much of the world thinks he is and he does get too much blame for events beyond his control, but he ain't gonna be judged too kindly in history books either.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 02:17 PM

In the battle between us and Saddam Hussein we were seen as the bad guys.
No thanks to such things as, the media's war on Bush, or the oil for food thing.

Bush is uniting our enemies (like Iran and Venezuela) and dividing our allies. .
So Bush should appease the world, bend over and take it, just to make the commies and terrorists feel good?

Nice. :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 02:20 PM

Does W deserve credit for us not being attacked? What he has he done to make us more secure?

The Dept. of Homeland Security was a Dem idea (they wont admit it now) he grudgingly accepted and then flaunted as his own.

Why shouldn't he get credit for it? He has been the Prez since 9/11, and has administered the GWOT via his powers as CIC of the armed forces, despite the libz calling for us to cut'n run everytime an election rolls around.

I wonder, can the dims take credit for invading Iraq then as well? Since it was their idea first? I think it was John F. Kerry that actually called for it before 9/11, before he was for it but against funding it, and then finally being against it.

Octavian

8/1/2006, 02:21 PM

Actually, I thought the USA legitimized its liberation of Iraq based on the violation of the cease fire of the first gulf war.

:confused:

surely you didn't

The Admn. repeated "UN Resolution 1441" so many times they heard it in their sleep.

And the EU is irrelevent. The best they can do is muster a strongly worded letter. Commiting troops is beyond them.

They're militarily weak because they're a confederation (don't tell SicEm)...but they're already an economic giant and we need their support on a number of fronts....hardly irrelevant.

C&CDean

8/1/2006, 02:24 PM

The people that hated Bush 6 years ago are the same people who hate him now. They're just too stupid to realize that their blind hatred is killing this country. Like Homey said, everyone should be rallying behind him. For ****s sake people, he's trying. It's a hell of a lot more than we can say about Bill.

And mdklatt's post about "everybody waving flags after 9-11 and now everybody hates us" was so ridiculously stupid and naive I won't touch it.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 02:25 PM

:confused:

surely you didn't

The Admn. repeated "UN Resolution 1441" so many times they heard it in their sleep.

Maybe so, however the resolution to go to war that most of congress voted for didn't specifiy 1441 as being the only reason.

Octavian

8/1/2006, 02:26 PM

Why shouldn't he get credit for it? He has been the Prez since 9/11.

So everything that happens is accredited to the PTOS at the time?

Thank gawd Clinton/Gore invented the internet...oh wait. ;)

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 02:27 PM

And mdklatt's post about "everybody waving flags after 9-11 and now everybody hates us" was so ridiculously stupid and naive I won't touch it.

Well, its how the progressives see the world. Even with their heads so deep in the sand...

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/palestinians-celebrate-911.jpg

mdklatt

8/1/2006, 02:28 PM

The people that hated Bush 6 years ago are the same people who hate him now.

Don't forget the people who hate him now that didn't hate him six years ago.

And mdklatt's post about "everybody waving flags after 9-11 and now everybody hates us" was so ridiculously stupid and naive I won't touch it.

I guess it was naive of me to believe what Dubya said in his post-9/11 speech about the world finally uniting against tyranny and terrorism.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 02:29 PM

So everything that happens is accredited to the PTOS at the time?

Thank gawd Clinton/Gore invented the internet...oh wait. ;)

Well, you see there is this little difference. You see, the internet was driven by private investment. National security is driven by the government.

Thats all for today class. :D

mdklatt

8/1/2006, 02:32 PM

Well, its how the progressives see the world.

Does that make you a regressive?

C&CDean

8/1/2006, 02:35 PM

Don't forget the people who hate him now that didn't hate him six years ago.

I guess it was naive of me to believe what Dubya said in his post-9/11 speech about the world finally uniting against tyranny and terrorism.

Bush has done his part to fight tyranny and terrorism. He can't help it if you guys haven't been on board. It's pretty hard to unite folks when the media is filling the ignorant masses' heads full of pathetic bull****, don't you think?

My only beef with GWB is that he hasn't locked arms with Israel, the UK, and whoever else is willing to play and completely decimated the entire Middle East.

See, you guys bitch when he doesn't do something, and you bitch when he does. So, it goes back to the whole you hated him then, you hate him now thing.

If there's anything to hate him for now it would be the crawling growth of government. I ain't happy about it, but I can overlook that right now in the name of fighting terror.

Fugue

8/1/2006, 02:37 PM

Bush has done his part to fight tyranny and terrorism. He can't help it if you guys haven't been on board. It's pretty hard to unite folks when the media is filling the ignorant masses' heads full of pathetic bull****, don't you think?

My only beef with GWB is that he hasn't locked arms with Israel, the UK, and whoever else is willing to play and completely decimated the entire Middle East.

See, you guys bitch when he doesn't do something, and you bitch when he does. So, it goes back to the whole you hated him then, you hate him now thing.

If there's anything to hate him for now it would be the crawling growth of government. I ain't happy about it, but I can overlook that right now in the name of fighting terror.

Ed Zachary, spek.

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 03:21 PM

I can answer that. In less than five years we've gone from everybody around the world waving American flags in the aftermath of 9/11 to almost the entire ****ing planet hating us, including siding with Saddam Hussein over us. Let that sink in: In the battle between us and Saddam Hussein we were seen as the bad guys. Bush is uniting our enemies (like Iran and Venezuela) and dividing our allies. The two craziest countries on Earth are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons (assuming NK doesn't already have them). The spread of democracy in the Middle East seems more likely to bring the durka durkas to power than secular moderates. Our foreign policy succs.

And we have a player.... :D

I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but you failed to specify exactly *why* the "entire world" went from loving the US to hating the US. You did, however, imply that it was W's fault. Good enough. I'm going to assume that IYO the tide of sentiment changed over this whole "Iraqi War" thing. If that's the case, here we are again - same situation, the only difference is one freakin' letter (n instead of q). Is the world now rallying around the US for NOT DOING ANYTHING? No, in fact, they are continuing to blame the US for not resolving the issue. "It's America's fault because Israel is using American made weapons!!!"

What I want to know is this: WTF are France, Russia, and China doing to stabilize the region? Is their plan really to issue "strongly worded" letters to all involved parties? I think the US ought to sit back and wait for the inevitable - but I'm not so sure we should liberate France this time.

TexasLidig8r

8/1/2006, 03:38 PM

Dear Israelis and Hezzbowl.. Hizz... err... Iranian/Syrian backed Terrorists,

Please, sil vous plait, stop killin' each other. Don't make me get angry. If we get angry, we may just have to prematurely surrender thereby possibly igniting WWIII.

Tell ya what, we will agree to trade you some cheese and great fermented grape juice for oil since our previous arrangement was disclosed by those filthy imperialistic, American pigs and their Nazi Like leader, George Bush.

Now, stop it.

Viva La France.

Sincerely,

Jacque Chirac
President of France and Permanent UN Security Council Member and President of the "Me Too" Dogpiling Group of Nations

NormanPride

8/1/2006, 03:59 PM

Option one: Sit there and do nothing. World complains that their "policemen" aren't doing their "job". People blow each other up in the Middle East. There's a chance they try to blow us up too.

Option two: We blow the ever-livin' **** out of them. World complains that we're too violent. Lots of people die. Middle Easter countries hate us and their families in the US get angry as well. Economic problems arise with the relative destabilization of the region. Terrorist groups really want to blow us up, but may not have the chance.

Which side of the coin do you want? War advocates can't expect everyone to love them, and peace advocates can't expect everyone to get along. If there was a way of saying "**** OFF" to the world, I'd choose that. We've got enough of our own issues to deal with everyone else's, damnit. Foreign policy = drain.

Jeopardude

8/1/2006, 04:07 PM

Have you ever been there? Lets make all these so called high falutin representatives of other countries have to abandon their NY condos and food,perks and ammenaties and live in the sweltering heat with out 24/7 take out.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Oklahoma!

JohnnyMack

8/1/2006, 04:07 PM

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 04:10 PM

NP, I'm going to have to ask you to quit being logical. This is my "bad **** is going to happen if we follow the Hollywood/French FP of STRONGLY WORDED letters pleading for peace" rant.

The "let's make sense" thread is over on the football board.

TIA.

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 04:13 PM

These people have hated each other for so long it makes OU/Saxet look like an episode of Teletubbies. Falling in step with W and thinking you can ride in like Paladin and solve anything is so ridiculous it defies description.

The only thing that's more ridiculous is thinking that the violence in that part of the world won't escalate and will simply go away by itself. Given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle (thank you SP), it seems a bit ignorant to simply ignore the situation.

Ike

8/1/2006, 04:19 PM

The only thing that's more ridiculous is thinking that the violence in that part of the world won't escalate and will simply go away by itself. Given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle (thank you SP), it seems a bit ignorant to simply ignore the situation.

given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, perhaps its time to remind the middle east and NK what mutually assured destruction really means. Perhaps we can make sure that they understand that given the size of our nuclear arsenal, it really means that ALL of them die, while only some of us do. In other words, as soon as nukes are deployed, we win.

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 04:22 PM

given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, perhaps its time to remind the middle east and NK what mutually assured destruction really means. Perhaps we can make sure that they understand that given the size of our nuclear arsenal, it really means that ALL of them die, while only some of us do.

Well, if we sit back with our heads in the sand long enough, they'll have enough so that ALL of us die too. But maybe if we send just one more strongly worded letter, then everything'll be okie-dokie.

Ike

8/1/2006, 04:26 PM

Well, if we sit back with our heads in the sand long enough, they'll have enough so that ALL of us die too. But maybe if we send just one more strongly worded letter, then everything'll be okie-dokie.

I was thinking more along the lines of a strongly worded missile. ya know, some chin music to let em know we mean business.

Stoop Dawg

8/1/2006, 04:40 PM

Furthermore, how many strongly worded letters has the UN sent to Hezz-whatever expressing "utmost concern" for the almost weekly attacks on Israel? Anyone?

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 05:02 PM

given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, perhaps its time to remind the middle east and NK what mutually assured destruction really means.
Something tells me they really didn't give a **** about what we would do to them after 9/11.

These people are expecting virgins, and lots of them for a very long time, if they kill us. I doubt the good ol MAD strategy of the cold war is really going to apply here.

OklahomaTuba

8/1/2006, 05:05 PM

These people have hated each other for so long it makes OU/Saxet look like an episode of Teletubbies. Falling in step with W and thinking you can ride in like Paladin and solve anything is so ridiculous it defies description.

Thats great and all, but the only other solution i've seen from people like you is running away, then bending over, grabing our ankles and taking it over and over and over again.

Thats the big problem with people running in opposition to the hawks right now, they got nuthin.

C&CDean

8/1/2006, 05:52 PM

These people have hated each other for so long it makes OU/Saxet look like an episode of Teletubbies. Falling in step with W and thinking you can ride in like Paladin and solve anything is so ridiculous it defies description.

Oh. But if W had a D behind his name you'd be all "kippee ai ya mother****er!!!" wouldn't you? That's what I thought. Meh.

olevetonahill

8/1/2006, 06:01 PM

Something tells me they really didn't give a **** about what we would do to them after 9/11.

These people are expecting virgins, and lots of them for a very long time, if they kill us. I doubt the good ol MAD strategy of the cold war is really going to apply here.
Then lets just hire all the prostitutes in the world medically restore em to virgin status ( the durkas wont know the dif ) send em over and tell the Idiots they are theirs if they lay down their weapons.
I should be Sec Of State ;)

Vaevictis

8/1/2006, 10:26 PM

Bush has done his part to fight tyranny and terrorism. He can't help it if you guys haven't been on board.

Bush had a peak approval rating of 90% after 9/11. Given that there's about a 50/50 split in this country right now, that tells you that about 80% of the Democratic party approved of his job performance at one point.

We were on board. But we're not going to stay on board if we think he's just conducting us to a train wreck.

sanantoniosooner

8/1/2006, 10:29 PM

My opinion about all this is right, but I'm not sharing it.

mdklatt

8/1/2006, 11:40 PM

I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but you failed to specify exactly *why* the "entire world" went from loving the US to hating the US. You did, however, imply that it was W's fault. Good enough. I'm going to assume that IYO the tide of sentiment changed over this whole "Iraqi War" thing.

That's part of it. When you get booed for trying to do something about Saddam Hussein it's apparent that diplomacy isn't part of your skill set. I don't think the Iraq war is wrong, I think our execution of said war has left a lot to be desired. Plenty of people in our own military and intelligence agencies anticipated the kind of problems we've had, but Dubya ain't one for dissenting opinions, is he? Instead, he's shocked--SHOCKED!--that a country full of people that hate the everlasting **** out of each other might go at it once the lid is taken off. Yugoslavia, anybody?

If that's the case, here we are again - same situation, the only difference is one freakin' letter (n instead of q). Is the world now rallying around the US for NOT DOING ANYTHING? No, in fact, they are continuing to blame the US for not resolving the issue.

You're preaching to the choir. That two-faced nonsense from all the world's do-nothing contries has been ****ing me off for a long time. Bitch and moan and bitch and moan for us to do something, and then get their panties in a wad about us being imperialists. The biggest bull**** is that we catch hell for doing stuff in our own interests when that's how every other country works. That's the whole damn point of a nation state to begin with!

That being said, it's highly dissapointing that the tide has turned against us so quickly since 9/11. In a rare moment of non-cynicism, I thought that could be our Independence Day, something that unites everybody against a common enemy. Well, we sure have ****ed that away. We've become the common enemy. You can say a lot of bad things about Slick Willy, but that boy was one hell of a politician. He had all of Europe slobbing his knob. Imagine Bush's determination (without the refusal to ever admit he's wrong) mixed with the diplomatic skills of Clinton. We'd be getting **** done.

What I want to know is this: WTF are France, Russia, and China doing to stabilize the region? Is their plan really to issue "strongly worded" letters to all involved parties? I think the US ought to sit back and wait for the inevitable - but I'm not so sure we should liberate France this time.

In hindsight, it appears that the pre-Iraq status quo in the Middle East was stability. We want democracy to work in Iraq. Okay, then what? The *******s in charge in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular are terrified of this because it destabilizes their regimes. Well isn't that the whole point, to spread democracy throughout the region? Isn't the democracy the key to rational behavior? Counter-example A: Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Counter-example B: Hezbollah and Lebanon. Counter-example C: Iran and our good friend Mahmoud. The neo-cons plan to spread democracy is only a good deal if you assume that the Middle East is full of George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons. I don't think it ever occurred to them that instead you'd get a bunch of durka durkas elected to office. I'm sure it occurred to somebody, but Bush prefers the company of yes men. Oops!

Speaking of Iran, there's another Bush ****-up. I cringed when I heard Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". Was it true? Sure--to a point. The Iranian goverment is certainly a problem, but the Iranian people were very pro-Western by Middle Eastern standards and desired a change. Iran was probably the best place for the kind of democratic revolution we were hoping forin Iraq. Notice how I'm using the past tense. Apparently that whole axis of evil business created enough ****ed off Persians to put elect another durka durka. Democracy can sure be a bitch. Oops!

I hope to hell we don't **** off the Pakistanis enough for them to "embrace democracy".

TexasLidig8r

8/2/2006, 08:45 AM

Oh please Klatt.. do NOT espouse Bill Clinton as being a master in foreign diplomacy! Can you even set forth what his foreign policy was... that is, besides benign neglect and ceding control of US military forces to incompetent UN commanders?

His Secretary of State was widely regarded as an ineffective joke, his response to the FIRST World Trade Center bombing was... well,.... what again?

Oh, that's right, in 1995, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick was calling for increased separation between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, and the halting of intelligence sharing and investigations had begun into Chinese illegal contributions to the Clinton presidential campaigns.

On June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more. Shiite militant terrorists with connections to bin Laden are thought to have been responsible for the attacks.

We did nothing.

On Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were injured. The attacks were blamed on bin Laden's terrorist group, al-Qaeda, which by this time had developed into a worldwide network.
In response, on Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The attacks were ineffective.

Perhaps the Euros loved Clinton because he essentially did nothing in terms of foreign policy.. he did not push American interests over any other country's interests and was looked upon as being soft in terms of pressing American interests abroad.

Now.. I'm neither Republican or Democrat.. but if you want to prop up Clinton, stay away from his non-existent foreign policy.

mdklatt

8/2/2006, 08:56 AM

Oh please Klatt.. do NOT espouse Bill Clinton as being a master in foreign diplomacy! Can you even set forth what his foreign policy was... that is, besides benign neglect and ceding control of US military forces to incompetent UN commanders?

Not a foreign policy expert, an expert politician. Collectively giving the world the finger as Bush is doing isn't going to get you very far. The current administration ain't no great shakes at foreign policy, either. Blowing up your enemies is not foreign policy, it's a military operation. Good foreign policy is turning your enemies into friends, or at least figuring out a way so that you don't have blow them up.

Fugue

8/2/2006, 09:04 AM

Not a foreign policy expert, an expert politician. Collectively giving the world the finger as Bush is doing isn't going to get you very far. The current administration ain't no great shakes at foreign policy, either. Blowing up your enemies is not foreign policy, it's a military operation. Good foreign policy is turning your enemies into friends, or at least figuring out a way so that you don't have blow them up.

I just don't think we will ever be able to turn the militants into our friends. We could give them each a sack of gold and if they had the chance they would rip out our throats at the next opportunity. All they understand is being blown up. I agree it would be nice to make friends but I don't thinks its realistic.

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:06 AM

Speaking of Iran, there's another Bush ****-up. I cringed when I heard Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". Was it true? Sure--to a point. The Iranian goverment is certainly a problem, but the Iranian people were very pro-Western by Middle Eastern standards and desired a change. Iran was probably the best place for the kind of democratic revolution we were hoping forin Iraq. Notice how I'm using the past tense. Apparently that whole axis of evil business created enough ****ed off Persians to put elect another durka durka. Democracy can sure be a bitch. Oops!

I hope to hell we don't **** off the Pakistanis enough for them to "embrace democracy".

So now Bush is to blame for Iran? This keeps getting better and better! I guess he shouldn't call out our enemies who support terrorism and actually kill Americans, and do nothing. Much like Clinton, huh??

And I hope you really don't think Iran is a democracy, cause if so, your head is further in the sand than what I thought it was, and that's pretty damn deep.

mdklatt

8/2/2006, 09:07 AM

I just don't think we will ever be able to turn the militants into our friends. We could give them each a sack of gold and if they had the chance they would rip out our throats at the next opportunity. All they understand is being blown up. I agree it would be nice to make friends but I don't thinks its realistic.

Good foreign policy is turning your enemies into friends, or at least figuring out a way so that you don't have blow them up.

That's why we need to cure our reliance on Middle Eastern oil to make them impotent and irrelevant, because we're sure as hell never gonna fix that mess no matter how many of them we kill.

Fugue

8/2/2006, 09:09 AM

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:10 AM

Not a foreign policy expert, an expert politician. Collectively giving the world the finger as Bush is doing isn't going to get you very far.

Cute leftist talking point your parroting, but Bush didn't do that, and you know that. The only ones giving any fingers was the terrorist supporting nations, and those with Saddam's bribes in their wallets, and those fingers were towards us and our allies.

Of course, the fact that Clinton basically gave our national security the finger by not going after our enemies and letting them grow stronger and more aggressive didn't help either.

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:13 AM

By the way, since the world was so for us after 9/11, where was all the help with Afganistan?

TexasLidig8r

8/2/2006, 09:14 AM

That's why we need to cure our reliance on Middle Eastern oil to make them impotent and irrelevant, because we're sure as hell never gonna fix that mess no matter how many of them we kill.

Whether your're right, left, Republican, Democrat, independent, Libertarian or apolitical, I believe we can all probably agree on this point. Unfortunately, the oil companies are so ingrained with the Middle East, that it is financially, not in their best interest, in the short term or extended term, to spend a huge amount of money in developing alternative fuels or researching other sites. For them, it is simply the cost of doing business (and, didn't Exxon just post the second largest quarterly profit of any business post WWII?)

mdklatt

8/2/2006, 09:14 AM

By the way, since the world was so for us after 9/11, where was all the help with Afganistan?

Where was all the help with Iraq? :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:17 AM

Where was all the help with Iraq? :rolleyes:

sucking off saddams oil bribe teet @ the UN it turns out.

Funny how you fail to recognize the impact of the oil for food corruption @ the UN in your analysis while blaming Bush for the evils of the world.

Face it, old europe is decaying thanks to the failure of its socialist model, and has no backbone anymore. They are more worried about their state benefits and fitting into their really tight jeans than protecting themselves from crazy *** muslims.

They are the model for "progressives" like you it seems. So it should be no surprise that they don't give a rats *** if their daddy Unlce Sam goes to war, or if Israel get attacked by terrorists. Hell, all one has to do is look at Spain. The first sign of problems and they **** themselves and run away, just like good eurotrash does these days. They will just appease, appease, appease. This is why the EU is irrelevant.

JohnnyMack

8/2/2006, 09:19 AM

Thats great and all, but the only other solution i've seen from people like you is running away, then bending over, grabing our ankles and taking it over and over and over again.

Thats the big problem with people running in opposition to the hawks right now, they got nuthin.

I never said run away. You like to say that and try and paint me as some left-wing coward nutjob. I don't think I need to restate my views on the middle east yet again, but if you can't remember let me know. Otherwise stop acting like a *********.

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:25 AM

I never said run away. You like to say that and try and paint me as some left-wing coward nutjob. I don't think I need to restate my views on the middle east yet again, but if you can't remember let me know. Otherwise stop acting like a *********.

Oh sorry.

Was the Correct PC term "redeploy" to victory then?

JohnnyMack

8/2/2006, 09:28 AM

Oh. But if W had a D behind his name you'd be all "kippee ai ya mother****er!!!" wouldn't you? That's what I thought. Meh.

Nope.

Try and keep up.

Arabs hate the Jews.

Jews hate the Arabs.

Don't really give a **** unless one of those parties directly harms us, then we should carpet bomb them into Bolivian.

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:34 AM

Nope.

Try and keep up.

Arabs hate the Jews.

Jews hate the Arabs.

Don't really give a **** unless one of those parties directly harms us, then we should carpet bomb them into Bolivian.
You're right JM. We should just ignore all this stuff. Its happened for so long, its never gonna affect us.

http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0246-0603-2912-0856_TN.jpg

JohnnyMack

8/2/2006, 09:35 AM

You're right JM. We should just ignore all this stuff. Its happened for so long, its never gonna affect us.

http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0246-0603-2912-0856_TN.jpg

Moat.

A big one.

And a big wall.

Fugg the rest of 'em.

OklahomaTuba

8/2/2006, 09:38 AM

Moat.

A big one.

And a big wall.

Fugg the rest of 'em.

Isolationism is back in style baby!

Tear Down This Wall

8/2/2006, 10:07 AM

You know what's funny about this whole thread, it completely exposes the lefties among us as so hateful toward Bush that they ignore the crazy terrorist.

Crazy terrorist:
We will not stop fighting, never accept a cease fire, and will continue our Quixotic quest to have a Muslim-governed region from Spain to Afghanistan.

American leftist:
This is George Bush's fault! The Israeli response is "disproportionate!" There needs to be a cease fire now! Why didn't Condi go over there sooner? Why won't Bush make the Isrealis stop? Are Hezbollah really terrorists anyway? All they did was kidnap a couple of Isreali soldiers and lob missles at Israeli civilians. Is that so wrong? Whaa-whaa-whaa...cry, cry, cry...whine, whine, whine.

It's really quite sad that there is a segment of our society that is so hateful to Bush that they can't see real world threats. The leftists are the pawns of the terrorists, much like the West's useful idiots and fellow travelers were to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Sadly, they don't realize it.

NormanPride

8/2/2006, 10:46 AM

Isolationism is back in style baby!

If we can pull it off, what's wrong with being isolationist? You LIKE dealing with the euro-idiots and durkas out there? I'm all for figuring out how to live by ourselves and doing it.

But the US is too dependent on foreign money to go that route. Thanks, consumers. (says the man with a Nissan :O )

Stoop Dawg

8/2/2006, 12:59 PM

If we can pull it off, what's wrong with being isolationist? You LIKE dealing with the euro-idiots and durkas out there? I'm all for figuring out how to live by ourselves and doing it.

But the US is too dependent on foreign money to go that route. Thanks, consumers. (says the man with a Nissan :O )

If you really, truely want to know what's wrong with isolationism, just hop over to google and do a search. There are plenty of people who have said it much better than I or anyone else on this board can.

But, in a nutshell, isolationism as a couple of glaring weaknesses:

1. It allows minor incidents that could be taken care of fairly easily to escalate into major ones that require significantly more money and American lives to resolve (see WWI, WWII).

2. It ignores the world economy. American's ain't getting rich off each other. We're getting rich off other countries.

3. It's simply implausible. We can't close our borders, no matter how much money we spend attempting to do so. There's just too much border. And too much money to be made off tourism.

What's even stranger, to me, about those who claim to be "liberal" and "isolationists" is how they justify both positions at the same time. One of the typical "liberal" tenants is helping the poor and redistribution of wealth. How can they truely believe in humanitarian issues - then turn their back on the rest of the world? Perplexing.