Bush major policy address

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yeah, those dope smoking hippies and their free love ethic scare me a lot more than Kalashnikov-wielding ... well ... pretty much anybody running around the streets with one would worry me more than dope smoking hippies.....

 

It's not the hippie - they have no power. It's the elite-left we need to fear.

[Camilo]

Don't be a jackass. Why are you limiting to lefties? I think we have to fear people on both ends of the spectrum. Give one extreme the power and you're screwing over half the country. The other extreme, the other way around. KK, you love to shit on the hard left point of view and blame everything on liberals. Do you think everything would be just peachy in this country if hard-line right wing conservatives were in power?

[Stonehead]

 

Arrrggghhhhh!!!

[foraker]

 

Nothing improves obfuscation more than a mouth full of jujubees. (Like my solid gold neck tie? Halliburton bought it for me)

[JayB]

Apparently none of the tens of millions of people who literally risked their lives to cast their votes in the elections held to advance the cause of democracy in their countries agree with your perspective either, and their opinion counts rather more with me than yours.

 

 

 

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience?

 

I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical.

 

I think that you are right on all of those fronts, Matt, but on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around.

I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting.

 

With regards to the first point, it seems clear that if the population saw no distinction between what the democratic process that was made possible by the invasion and forcible removal of Hussein had to offer them, or the multitude of other outcomes that could be brought about by either abstaining from or sabotaging the process - they would most likely not have voted in such large numbers, or would have perhaps pencilled in Saddam as a write in candidate. As far as I know the "Bring Back Saddam!" movement failed to muster much enthusiasm outside of the folks intent on detonating both themselves and folks on their way to the polling stations - so it seems to me that they must have discerned a difference between the their totalitarian past and the possibility of a democratic future.

[Stonehead]

I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting.

 

Yeah and maybe a few clandestine British commandos to agitate the Shiite south.

[Mal_Con]

The only thing that unites the sunni and shia is they both want us to leave. They each plan to set up their own brand of islamic republic and kill off the other one. The Kurds don't mind us but want to cut off chunks of turkey and iran to make their own country, and we are in the middle of all this, for what?

[JayB]

JayB, there are times when you sound like an intelligent sort, and then there are times when you sound like my dad: take something someone says, blow it completely out of proportion, assume that the only other possible option available is the ridiculous one you propose. yes, yes, I'm completely aware that other people do this too but it still doesn't help make your point and win converts to your view....

 

When I'm exaggerating something to the point of absurdity its supposed to be amusing and point out what I think is a shortcoming of someone's reasoning - the reductio ad absurdium.

 

I just thought it was hillarious and telling that people are willing to engage in the "moral-equivocation-at-a-distance" bit by asserting that the present US was - literally - on the same plane as the Taliban. My guess is that were they were to stumble upon a divorce proceeding on the grounds of adultery, and say, a public stoning for the same offense - I don't imagine that they'd be indulging in the same glib, shallow pop-nihilism concerning the two governments - but who knows.

[cj001f]

My guess is that were they were to stumble upon a divorce proceeding on the grounds of adultery, and say, a public stoning for the same offense - I don't imagine that they'd be indulging in the same glib, shallow pop-nihilism concerning the two governments - but who knows.

 

And if they were in a marriage procession being bombed, they might find the two rather similar, no?

 

Or perhaps they'd just be annoyed that Afghanistan (or Iraq) is still a war torn country ruled by fundamentalists years after being invaded by "liberators" troubling. Hell, maybe they'd just be pissed to hear rich white Americans sitting in suburbia proclaiming the virtues of "freedom" while fellow Arabs were beings shot, starved, and dying needlessly. Of course they may think of abstract concepts such as liberty as things other than the semantic arguments of rich foreigners.

[cj001f]

It's not the hippie - they have no power. It's the elite-left we need to fear.

Damn educated rich people! To the reeducation camps with them! Divest them of their property!

[Stonehead]

Norway is a country that enjoys the virtues of freedom. So, why don't THEY hate Norway?

[Dru]

Norway isn't free. Its' taxes are too high. Norwegians are slaves of the Scandinavian socialist groupthink. They are #16 on Bush's list of countries to bring bombs and freedom to - they DO have oil.

[AlpineK]

Because Norway is full of monkeys.

[Stonehead]

Maybe they extol the virtues of da kine.

 

[JayB]

My guess is that were they were to stumble upon a divorce proceeding on the grounds of adultery, and say, a public stoning for the same offense - I don't imagine that they'd be indulging in the same glib, shallow pop-nihilism concerning the two governments - but who knows.

 

And if they were in a marriage procession being bombed, they might find the two rather similar, no?

 

Or perhaps they'd just be annoyed that Afghanistan (or Iraq) is still a war torn country ruled by fundamentalists years after being invaded by "liberators" troubling. Hell, maybe they'd just be pissed to hear rich white Americans sitting in suburbia proclaiming the virtues of "freedom" while fellow Arabs were beings shot, starved, and dying needlessly. Of course they may think of abstract concepts such as liberty as things other than the semantic arguments of rich foreigners.

 

They might, but given that one was an accident, and the other an outcome upheld and sanctioned by the legal code both underpinning and enforced by the other society - one could rightly call their judgement into question.

 

With regards to the second point, my hunch is that most of the Arabs in question are rather more irked with the Arabs who are engaged in a campaign to kill them than the aforementioned rich suburbanites sitting several thousand miles away - but one never knows. It's telling that for large segments of the Left the principal target of personal hatred, and threat to the well-being of the Arabs in question, is the rich white suburbanite rather than the jihadi detonating the car in the marketplace, the mosque, or the police station.

[JayB]

Norway is a country that enjoys the virtues of freedom. So, why don't THEY hate Norway?

 

There certainly haven't been any bombs detonated in mainland Europe, or plots to do the same thwarted there recently - have there? Even the French seem to be acting irrationally and taking this non-threat seriously. Good thing we know better than their security services.

[Stonehead]

Well, I wasn't being serious about that statement but since you responded. Maybe the reason is that Norway doesn't have an overarching foreign policy.

 

Oh wait, this is that absurbo adhominem thingy.

[cj001f]

It's telling that for large segments of the Left the principal target of personal hatred, and threat to the well-being of the Arabs in question, is the rich white suburbanite rather than the jihadi detonating the car in the marketplace, the mosque, or the police station.

Please, more absurd reductions. Does marginalizing others make it easier to rationalize your pablum? The "right" hates anyone who thinks that capitalism isn't the bees knees, and believes the state may have a role in something other than enforcing farcical interpreatations of judeo-christian historical morality. I can't wait for the next cliche of leftists you'll trot out!

[mattp]

Apparently none of the tens of millions of people who literally risked their lives to cast their votes in the elections held to advance the cause of democracy in their countries agree with your perspective either, and their opinion counts rather more with me than yours.

 

 

 

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience?

 

I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical.

 

I think that you are right on all of those fronts, Matt, but on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around.

I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting.

 

With regards to the first point, it seems clear that if the population saw no distinction between what the democratic process that was made possible by the invasion and forcible removal of Hussein had to offer them, or the multitude of other outcomes that could be brought about by either abstaining from or sabotaging the process - they would most likely not have voted in such large numbers, or would have perhaps pencilled in Saddam as a write in candidate. As far as I know the "Bring Back Saddam!" movement failed to muster much enthusiasm outside of the folks intent on detonating both themselves and folks on their way to the polling stations - so it seems to me that they must have discerned a difference between the their totalitarian past and the possibility of a democratic future.

 

What the F___ are you saying here, JayB -- that we should feel no compulshion to respect what the actual VOTERS might think?

on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around.

 

As far as your argument about the lack of "bring back Saddam" votes -- I even LESS understand what you are talking about. Is THAT a reality -- for anybody????

[fear_and_greed]

Did he say evil doers? I can't stop laughing when he says that.

[TREETOAD]

(always have to have a worldwide enemy to keep up the Defense Department budget )

 

It often seems people have to have an enemy to understand and feel comfortable with their own identity.

 

For years the USSR was a common quantifiable enemy around which Americans could rally, and through this shared hatred and fear, in some perverted way we could identify with each other as Americans.

 

You should check to see where Wolfiwitz,Rove,Cheney,etc were when the "Cold war" was just getting going They have been at this shit for many years, behind the scenes pushing this evil empire doctrine. Check to see where they all went to school and who was their mentor. Good reading

[TREETOAD]

why is it that there is a need to identify ourselves as americans or poor dru as a canadian. why not develop an identity as a resident of this planet. borders are arbitrary, manmade definitions. would it not be better if we all considered ourselves part of one large community rather than divided units?

 

Imagine ....

Imagine there's no heaven,

It's easy if you try,

No hell below us,

Above us only sky,

Imagine all the people

living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries,

It isnt hard to do,

Nothing to kill or die for,

No religion too,

Imagine all the people

living life in peace...

 

Imagine no possesions,

I wonder if you can,

No need for greed or hunger,

A brotherhood of man,

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

You may say Im a dreamer,

but Im not the only one,

I hope some day you'll join us,

And the world will live as one.

[JoshK]

I fear the home-grown western leftist more than Islamic fundementalists - more than China or any manifestation of the former USSR.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAH!! God you ARE paranoid!

 

Oh, you mean like Timothy McVay!?

[JayB]

 

 

Apparently none of the tens of millions of people who literally risked their lives to cast their votes in the elections held to advance the cause of democracy in their countries agree with your perspective either, and their opinion counts rather more with me than yours.

 

 

 

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience?

 

I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical.

 

I think that you are right on all of those fronts, Matt, but on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around.

I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting.

 

With regards to the first point, it seems clear that if the population saw no distinction between what the democratic process that was made possible by the invasion and forcible removal of Hussein had to offer them, or the multitude of other outcomes that could be brought about by either abstaining from or sabotaging the process - they would most likely not have voted in such large numbers, or would have perhaps pencilled in Saddam as a write in candidate. As far as I know the "Bring Back Saddam!" movement failed to muster much enthusiasm outside of the folks intent on detonating both themselves and folks on their way to the polling stations - so it seems to me that they must have discerned a difference between the their totalitarian past and the possibility of a democratic future.

 

What the F___ are you saying here, JayB -- that we should feel no compulshion to respect what the actual VOTERS might think?

on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around.

 

As far as your argument about the lack of "bring back Saddam" votes -- I even LESS understand what you are talking about. Is THAT a reality -- for anybody????

 

No - just saying that the aspirations of the millions of people who voted should be the focus of our efforts and policies - rather than those intent on blowing them up on the way to the polls.

[JayB]

It's telling that for large segments of the Left the principal target of personal hatred, and threat to the well-being of the Arabs in question, is the rich white suburbanite rather than the jihadi detonating the car in the marketplace, the mosque, or the police station.

Please, more absurd reductions. Does marginalizing others make it easier to rationalize your pablum? The "right" hates anyone who thinks that capitalism isn't the bees knees, and believes the state may have a role in something other than enforcing farcical interpreatations of judeo-christian historical morality. I can't wait for the next cliche of leftists you'll trot out!

 

So would you say that, on the whole, the Left's outpouring of condemnation directed at the administration and its supporters has been matched by an equaly energetic condemnation of the Taliban and the Jihadi's operating in Iraq?

 

Unfortunately someone in my household is inverting the power structure that I was hoping to impose on my household by means of my farcical interpreatations of judeo-christian historical morality that I've been striving to impose on the world - and I've got to fold some clothes and do the dishes.....