Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Robert Harris, Jan 29, 2003.
Here it is in short form:
Ain't it the truth?
Went ahead and pulled it to post here, Robert, since the page may change:
The way I see it he is the only man standing UP to the terrorists that brought down the economy.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with part of your statement.
All goverments are fighting terrorism (as in al Qaeda) -- France, Germany, Australia, Indonesia have all captured terrorists linked to al Qaeda. So you have to be referring to either Afgahnistan (where there are/were also Canadians, Brits, Australians), or Iraq...
The people who brought down the economy were bin Laudin and al Qaeda (notice how we hardly hear those names lately?), NOT Iraq. If the rumors are true, the worst Iraq did was supply funding for al Qaeda... as did Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, etc.
So, all countries are "standing up against the terrorists that brought down the economy". What Bush is doing is "standing up against Iraq", with the stated purpose of protecting US interests; in my opinion a collection of security, resource and political issues.
Actually, there's a lot of mounting evidence that al Qaeda cells are in operation inside Iraq. There were some news posts here in the last couple of weeks that talked about that.
Whether Iraq is or is not directly involved in al Qaeda is not entirely relevant to me anyway. It's not all about that. It's about he's a frickin' cancer in that entire region, and we need to kick his ass hard. Maybe some stability can result then.
<small><i><b>(Scratchin' my head)</b></i></small> You have me a little confused. I thought it was all about stopping the terrorists? Since al Qaeda is known to have cells in many Middle/Far eastern countries, how is kicking Saddam's butt going to bring about stability?
The real terrorists will still be out there once Saddam's gone. :huh:
The War is against Terrorism not al Queda, not bin Laden, not the Taliban. Terrorist's support comes from governments that give them residence and sanctuary. The Bush doctrine proclaims that we will seach out the terrorists and the "governments" that harbor them.
It is so sad to see that the outrage and unity the whole world felt on 9/11 slowly fade from memory. One man has remained focused on that immorality. And for that steadfastness is berated by Europe and his own countrymen. His call for armed intervention in Iraq is to preclude another act of defiance against all humanity. How would it be if he called on America on August 2001 to invade Afganistan because he had knowlege of an impending attack on America? He would have been looked at as a fool. Perhaps now, he has seen the future and is stopping an attack before it happens. Anyone who sees this war as an attack on Iraq alone fails to see the message he intends to send to all terrorists and Terrorist Governments.
Don't tread on me!
This is like a cancer that needs to be surgically removed before it spreads throughout the whole world. A single sniper in DC brought a whole State into fear. Try living in that community with 100 possible snipers for the rest of your life. That is the future of this world if we continue to follow the path of appeasement.
I don't recall us specifying one group of terrorism. I do, however, recall, "you are either with us, or against us."
I am still waiting for Mr. Bush to include the Al Aqsa, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc...
You're right, it does... so why did the US offer economic incentives to North Korea, a member of the axis of evil, in order to get them to stop their nuclear program?
Oh, right... they can <b>defend</b> themselves.
As to supporting terrorism, more support, money and supplies have come out of Saudi Arabia (hundreds of millions of dollars), Syria and Iran than Iraq.
It's not that I'm against the idea... I just want people to be honest. IMO, attacking Iraq is about:
- preventing Saddam from gaining nuclear capability, after which it will be a North Korea situation.
- removing an objectionable leader.
- for as much as people have been shooting down the UN, the US has been making great use of the fact that Iraq is/has been flouting UN resolutions.
- to make a statement... just what the statement is, is a little open to question. The US views it as a warning to terrorists and supporters. Some countries, considering the poor evidence thus far presented -- and this can change easily -- feel the basic message is "you don't want to piss us off".
- oil: delicate subject... is it the main objective, no. Is it a consideration, of course (which is why there are plans for occupation and use of oil resources)
Are you kidding? Ask the British who just stopped a plan to use aerosol Ricain how they feel. Ask the Australians about their people killed in Bali. The rest of the world wants to fight, find and destroy the people doing this. The US seems presently focused on Iraq, which apparently has only vague connections to the active terrorist cells. No wonder the people of the world are confused.
You obviously have a lot of respect for Bush, but to say that "only he" has remained focused on the groups who commit and support terrorism is ludicrous.
Sorry, but patriotic rah-rah isn't a replacement for fact.
No, but you have to admit, it is much more fun. Now if only they could get some better-looking cheerleaders...
Chess pieces in your way of obtaining your goal i.e. win the game, should be taken out as not to disrupt your plan. Pawns, or Bishops.
OK guys. Having carefully analyzed what the President has explained about his foreign policy let's take a look at his domestic lies and argue about those. Very good column by Bob Hebert today.
Bait and Switch
By BOB HERBERT
[P] resident Bush has learned how to deliver a moving speech. But Tuesday night's State of the Union Message did not address the most important question facing the American people: What kind of nation are we becoming?
The president spoke passionately about bringing "food and medicines and supplies and freedom" to the Iraqi people. But he is leading a hard-right administration here at home that is seriously eroding the economic security, the access to health care, the civil rights and civil liberties and the environmental protections of the American people.
The first part of the president's speech was crafted to create exactly the opposite impression. He promised an economy "that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job." He proposed a prescription drug benefit for some retirees. And he said he was ready to commit $1.2 billion to research into environmentally friendly hydrogen-powered automobiles.
But those were largely bait-and-switch proposals. Despite rising unemployment, the president's plan for the economy was simply a continuation of his tax-cut mania. There was nothing in the way of a job-creation program or a real economic stimulus. And there was absolutely zero help offered to the states and local governments whose budgetary knees are buckling under the weight of their worst fiscal crisis since World War II.
The president's prescription drug benefit, tempting at first glance, is tied to a restructuring of Medicare that will curtail, not enhance, the delivery of health services to the elderly. It was designed to look like an act of compassion. It's not.
I have a friend who has a car dealership in Connecticut, and he and I discussed this yesterday. Here's what he told me:
"OK, I have a dealership with low inventory. I have low inventory because no one is buying vehicles right now (or at least Fords, which is what he sells). I can't hire more people to sell and maintain vehicles I don't have on the lot, and I'm not going to take in any new vehicles on the lot until I know I can sell them. So what will this tax break do for me?"
That was his logic, as a "small" business owner. He's also a millionaire, and he's telling me the plan is crappy.
The plan is crappy, and being promoted with lies -- as is much of domestic policy. That's why some folks -- those who can see through those lies -- are skeptical about what he and his team are telling us about international stuff. I don't know enough to really assess this policy independently but I don't trust the bastard to be telling the truth so am unwilling to join the cheerleaders.
As my ex-wife once said about Donald Trump, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue were notarized." Trump didn't like that much when it hit the papers, and I am sure Bush doesn't like being called either.
A complete tax reorganization is needed but right now may not be the time to do it as there is a lot on the table.
Lies and Bastard are strong words and denote bitterness. I may not agree on a lot of what any politician does, but I don't see the man as evil, or even dishonest in his perception.
As fare as the Iraq thing goes, even Steve nows the value of need to know.
I agree but we need solutions now, Fritz, to me the SoU address was sort of a rehash of something he did a year or two ago. Same babble, no action, and that includes Iraq which I am pro of getting involved in.
So what would you do (this question goes to anyone and everyone) in Bush's position to turn things around?
1.. Go in, take names, kick some ass.
2.. Make sure that once they're down, keep 'em down.
3.. Make damned sure that you aren't penalized tax wise for being married.
4.. Cut out the double tax on medicare and social security.
5.. Standardize the tax tables across the board. Flat fixed rate somewhere under 20 percent, regardless of what the income is above the poverty level.
"Lies and Bastard are strong words and denote bitterness. I may not agree on a lot of what any politician does, but I don't see the man as evil, or even dishonest in his perception."
Bitterness and disgust. I have been watching and participating in domestic policy matters for over 40 years, going back to the Kennedy Administration. Yes, all politicians like to bullshit us but -- believe it or not -- there used a high degree of honesty and objectivity in budgeting and the like, and presenting data on the cost and effects of program or tax changes. Used to be that you could believe the numbers in the budget documents and the Economic Report of the President and similar policy documents -- more or less believe, anyway, there always is some uncertainty and a little fudging.
This honesty started going out the window in the Reagan years, when the president's budget documents became fiction (see David Stockman's book on the subject if you doubt it. He was budget director and admits that they just made up numbers to tell the story they wanted to tell. That's how they explained that the big tax cuts would lead to smaller deficits because they would stimulate the economy and bring in more revenue. Everybody who knew anything knew at the time that those claims were a load of xcrap. But the administration lied and lied and got what it wanted from Congresss. And lo and behold, the deficits grew and grew and we needed to raise taxces again in both the first Bush administration and under Clinton.
Under Clinton there was something of a swing back to honest numbers in policy discussions, and the budget came into surpluses.
But the Bush folks have gone back to lying, we are watching the deficits rise to astronomical levels even before the next round of tax cuts (which may not happen if Congress wakes up), and you can't believe anything coming out of the Office of Management and Budget and the White house on economic policy matters. They lie and lie.
Interesting that the two highest level firings in this administration have been the Secretary of the Treasury and the White House conomic policy advisor. Paul O'Neill had some wiggy ideas but he tended to open his mouth and tell the truth, often embarassing the liars in the WH. The economic advisor, whose name I have already forgotten, created a lot of the policy lies but could not explain them convincingly, so also embarrassed the other liars and had to go.