Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Every president has done it in every war that we have undertaken. I am not saying I agree with it, but it is better to get popular support for a war to be sure that once it is embarked upon, the inevitable turn of opinion against the war will not necessitate the withdrawl of forces before the mission is accomplished. Re-read what you just wrote. You appear to be acknowledging that Bush did lie, and that it is OK that he did so, in order to gain popular support. So is popular support for a bad decision more important than honest discourse and the possible rejection of such a decision? That strikes DFA as a dangerously complacent line of reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think it's inaccurate to say Bush wanted to go to war. I doubt Bush knew whether he wanted to go to war or not. Check out Rumsfeld's War on Frontline. A good point, although even if it wasn't Bush's idea, he's still complicit and, ultimately, the one acting as leader and facilitating the nefarious desires of his cabinet and advisers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Every president has done it in every war that we have undertaken. Harpell- You've used this lie before. FDR didn't fabricate Pearl Harbour, and didn't fabricate Germany declaring war on us. Read an f'ing history book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Bush haters, it might help a bit to look at the bright side: 1. Bush gets to deal with his Iraq mess. Though, I'm sure those of you with friends, family in the armed forces or in Iraq, won't find this especially encouraging, I don't think Kerry differed that much with respect to his believable plans to solve the Iraq mess. Let Georgie get himself out of this mess. 2. I think Bush is actually less likely to start up a draft than Kerry would have been to. It seems clear that one thing that the generals want over there are more troops. Kerry could start up the draft and blame Bush. Bush starting up the draft will be suicide for Repubs in the house in two years. By the same reasoning, Bush has more invested in actually achieving a reasonable outcome in Iraq than Kerry would have. 3. Even though the all three branches of govt are thoroughly GOP now, one issue in which I think the repubs would revolt against George is if he attempts to further increase the deficit. On the other hand.... oh I guess you guys already know about the downsides... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Anyone what to bet how long it will take Bush to reinstate the military draft? We are going to need more cannon fodder. No strike that- improvised explosive device fodder. My son is 19 years old. This is not good. More fear-mongering from the left. Try a new tack - this one is getting old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 good points chuck he'll just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole thus paving the way for a Democratic landslide in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Every president has done it in every war that we have undertaken. I am not saying I agree with it, but it is better to get popular support for a war to be sure that once it is embarked upon, the inevitable turn of opinion against the war will not necessitate the withdrawl of forces before the mission is accomplished. This is the crux of the Bush doctrine. Lie to the public so there is no honest debate of your policy. Give speeches like a moderate then go back and behind the scenes skirt environmental laws, line the pockets of your rich benefactors, and develop an arrogant world policy. If you can't make your case for war to the public then lie. This is good public policy? What a crock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think Bush is probably less evil than everyone is making him out to be. I'm sure he absolutely believes he's doing what's best for the country, and isn't intentionally lying or misleading anyone. He doesn't strike me as that nefarious. I think the biggest problem is the decision making strategy, culture, and advisors he's surrounded himself with. He's seems awfully isolated from any position opposing his own, and as such he's not forced to think critically about the reasons against his actions and at least consider them. He always seems a little shocked and disdainful when people voice a strongly differing opinion, as if he just doesn't understand how anyone could think that way. Which strikes me as though he's never really considered the differing opinion beyond summarily dismissing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 More fear-mongering from the left. Try a new tack - this one is getting old. Fear-mongering from the left? This from a supporter of the party that leveraged fear to the maximum to justify a war? Orange alert! Orange alert! Come on, troller ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 If you feel bad - just think about the house or the Senate. Oh wait... They have on shininig star in Illinois. If Obama manages to avoid spewing out the typical liberal rhetoric (as he has so far), he might be able to build a decent coalition in the future. Of course, Hilary will not be too thrilled by this prospect. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think Bush is probably less evil than everyone is making him out to be. I'm sure he absolutely believes he's doing what's best for the country, and isn't intentionally lying or misleading anyone. He doesn't strike me as that nefarious. I think Osama bin Laden believes that what he's doing is the best for the Muslim world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think it's inaccurate to say Bush wanted to go to war. I doubt Bush knew whether he wanted to go to war or not. The following is from David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush: The president began to talk about the problem of Iraq from his very first days as president, at the same time as he talked also of the danger from Iran. But he always talked about it as something that he was going to do before the end of his term. A lot of the books that have been written about the president's thinking subtly mislead or misdirect the reader. President Bush always intended to deal with Iraq someday, but that is not the same as intending to deal with it today. It was one of his long list of things he intended to accomplish as president -- to negate the danger from Saddam Hussein. How precisely he was going to do it, I am sure he did not know; whether it would take a military invasion, whether some other method would work. Source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 (edited) I think Bush is probably less evil than everyone is making him out to be. I'm sure he absolutely believes he's doing what's best for the country, and isn't intentionally lying or misleading anyone. He doesn't strike me as that nefarious. I think the biggest problem is the decision making strategy, culture, and advisors he's surrounded himself with. He's seems awfully isolated from any position opposing his own, and as such he's not forced to think critically about the reasons against his actions and at least consider them. He always seems a little shocked and disdainful when people voice a strongly differing opinion, as if he just doesn't understand how anyone could think that way. Which strikes me as though he's never really considered the differing opinion beyond summarily dismissing. Per your first point, that's very generous, and may be true, but then again, appearances can, and do, deceive. Secondly, that seems pretty spot on. There have been some quotes from people in his administration to the effect that they create their own reality, which goes a long way toward explaining this aspect of his persona. Edited November 3, 2004 by Dr_Flash_Amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think Bush is probably less evil than everyone is making him out to be. I'm sure he absolutely believes he's doing what's best for the country, and isn't intentionally lying or misleading anyone. He doesn't strike me as that nefarious. I think the biggest problem is the decision making strategy, culture, and advisors he's surrounded himself with. He's seems awfully isolated from any position opposing his own, and as such he's not forced to think critically about the reasons against his actions and at least consider them. He always seems a little shocked and disdainful when people voice a strongly differing opinion, as if he just doesn't understand how anyone could think that way. Which strikes me as though he's never really considered the differing opinion beyond summarily dismissing. Watch "Rumsfeld's War", read the Washington Post. What's most frightening is not that he's isolated himself from opposing viewpoints, but actively persecuted those with opposing viewpoints within and outside his administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Forget about the war for a second and lets look at how this is going to affect our enviroment. Look at what the administration did to the enviroment the past four years. They pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, they rolled back the clean air act, they completely eliminated the roadless act, etc. Now, look at the fact that we have a republican senate and the president is going to be able to appoint some new justices here soon and the ones that he has in mind are extremely conservative. The president is going to be able to do whatever he wants. He already is planning on reopening the Arctic to drilling. It amazes me that our country has been so affected by the republican rhetoric that we look past the real issues. I myself am very scared to see what is going to happen in the next four years, especially because every branch of our government is going to be conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Every president has done it in every war that we have undertaken. Harpell- You've used this lie before. FDR didn't fabricate Pearl Harbour, and didn't fabricate Germany declaring war on us. Read an f'ing history book. Maybe you should read some more. But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 . I am more than willing to give Georgie some leeway in kicking some ass for a while. Scott, you and the American people have spoken. Let the world take note: America supports the invasion of another nation on false pretenses, because Americans need their president to have leeway to kick some ass for a while. (Whose ass is not really the issue. Any non-Christian ass will do.) My most urgent wish for this election was that America would rehabilitate its international reputation by throwing Bush out. Apparently, the high percentage of civilized nations that remain appalled at the USA's actions in Iraq have not placed blame on the American people thus far, because they believed Bush not to have the support of a majority of Americans. No more. The international good will we engendered in WWII is gone, gone, gone... along with the federal surplus; along with our constitutional right to be protected from search and seizure without warrant; along with our right to habeas corpus and a trial. The worst president in a hundred years has the unequivocal support of a majority of Americans. All you Bush voters, remember this day four years from now, when you look back at how much horribly worse off the country and the world will be. Look back again twenty years from now, by which time it will have become politicallly impossible to ignore the massive bills coming due (for the next generation). Pope and Iain, I appreciate your optimism. I'm wondering how to keep the moral dialogue going for the next four years. Though this morning I feel tempted to flee to Canada, I prefer to stay here and stand up for the America I still believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Forget about the war for a second and lets look at how this is going to affect our enviroment. Look at what the administration did to the enviroment the past four years. They pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, they rolled back the clean air act, they completely eliminated the roadless act, etc. Now, look at the fact that we have a republican senate and the president is going to be able to appoint some new justices here soon and the ones that he has in mind are extremely conservative. The president is going to be able to do whatever he wants. He already is planning on reopening the Arctic to drilling. It amazes me that our country has been so affected by the republican rhetoric that we look past the real issues. I myself am very scared to see what is going to happen in the next four years, especially because every branch of our government is going to be conservative. One of the first things that went through DFA's head this morning when the alarm went off and NPR announced Kerry's concession. Damn scary, to be sure. Just trying to stick to one topic for the sake of a coherent debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Maybe you should read some more. But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down. HUH? We launched an embargo to change Japanese behaviour. They decided to attack us instead of modifying militaristic policies. War is not the end game in all disputes Harpell (you believing this would explain your opinions) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Maybe you should read some more. But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down. HUH? We launched an embargo to change Japanese behaviour. They decided to attack us instead of modifying militaristic policies. War is not the end game in all disputes Harpell (you believing this would explain your opinions) Regardless, FDR knew that the reaction of this embarbo would be war and he was right. If diplomacy fails, you are right, I do feel the only recourse is war. What do you suggest? Ignoring the cancer in hopes taht it goes away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markinore Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Dem or Rep, you can't deny that this means: 1) four more years of scientific decisions based on advice from an imaginary friend. 2) four more years of bad country music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 people say that you have to have war to have peace... But doesn't that mean that you will always have war if there is going to be peace? And doesn't that mean you can never have peace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 people say that you have to have war to have peace... But doesn't that mean that you will always have war if there is going to be peace? And doesn't that mean you can never have peace? You think we are in peacefull times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Dem or Rep, you can't deny that this means: 1) four more years of scientific decisions based on advice from an imaginary friend. 2) four more years of bad country music. 3) At least the converse or inverse or obverse or corollary or whatever of #2 is four more years of inspired, righteously raging punk rock music. Should be a banner few years for Anti-Flag et. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You think we are in peacefull times? Ever stop to wonder why we're not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.