Topic awaiting preservation: Draft Bill Set for Spring 2005 (Page 2 of 3)

quote:

---

There is no getting through to you, believe what you want, I give up.

---

Whats not getting through to me Ramasax? Is it you disagree with me that a politician would vote differently if his child were involved in a war?

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

I suppose that could be true Jestah, but he obviously doesn't care enough about those who have already died. If he did we wouldn't be there, or bringing more troops. So that kind of relativity is lost to me; I think so long as Bush is alleived of immediate fault, it doesn't really matter for him. So long as the cause is 'juste" enough.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

I suppose that could be true Jestah, but he obviously doesn't care enough about those who have already died. If he did we wouldn't be there, or bringing more troops. So that kind of relativity is lost to me; I think so long as Bush is alleived of immediate fault, it doesn't really matter for him. So long as the cause is 'juste" enough.

---

I'm sure he cares as much about the soldiers as anyone else does. Its just human nature not to really care too much unless it personally relates to you. How many times do you read in the newspaper of a terrible accident where six die and while you think its terrible you're not entirelly broken up about it. On the other hand if those six people happened to be friends of yours, your reaction would be completely different. Its the same thing really. Those politicians who decide our military's fate don't have family or friends who are personally involved. Its very easy to support war when its outcome has little effect on your life.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

That's the point exactly that I was trying to make.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Notice how it always comes back to Bush, man you guys suck. heh. For once, could we not jump to conclusions about how Bush feels or somesuch other crap you have no way of knowing. What if I started bashing John Kerry or better yet Hillary Clinton every chance I got? Oh wait, I did do that. I have tried to refrain a bit though as it does nothing for the conversation. I know you guys hate Bush, you are now not only beating the dead horse, you are carving up the mangled remains and eating it for lunch. Give it a break for a while, will ya?

Jestah, go back and read my last post. I edited it because I missed your second post.

And no, I don't disagree with "that a politician would vote differently if his child were involved in a war?" I just think this is an assanine way of fixing the problem. The draft is a bad idea, period. Once again, forcing an entire generation into servitude to keep our politicians in check is silly.

Why not just start a movement to get the common man/woman in there a bit. People who have lived shitty lives doing shitty things and have a real grasp of what it means to be a human. All politicians in Washington are out to lunch, because they have all for the most part lived privelaged lives. They have never flipped a burger, laid brick in the hot sun, paid student loan bills out the ass becuase their parent were too poor to send them to school, or experienced anything that the average everyday American has done at one point or another. It is not just Republicans and not just Democrats, they are all fucking morons.

I support Bush not because he is the greatest thing ever, but because I believe that we cannot sit idly by while Islamic extremists destroy Western Civilization as we know it and he is the best man to carry out the task, all IMHO of course. We can argue all day about Iraq, but sooner or later we would have had to deal with it, just as sooner or later we will probably have to deal with N.Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... War is inevitable, and instituting a draft is not going to change that fact. Shit happens, learn it, live it, accept it.

You see it differently, but that is what democracy is about. We can, as a nation, both say we hate something and love something at the same time. You guys on the left show the world that America does care, and us on the right show the world that America has a backbone. It all balances out in the end. blah blah blah.

edit:

Sanzen, sorry missed this one:

quote:

---

The reason I say Kerry would never sign the bill, is because of all the flack he caught for tossing away his medals of honor.

---

People change, and John Kerry seems to change daily. *cough* I know this makes me a hypocrite for the above statements, but how could I resist? He also voted for the 87million before voting against it.

Ramasax
"I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him."

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-26-2004 09:16)

quote:

---

Notice how it always comes back to Bush, man you guys suck. heh. For once, could we not jump to conclusions about how Bush feels or somesuch other crap you have no way of knowing. What if I started bashing John Kerry or better yet Hillary Clinton every chance I got? Oh wait, I did do that. I have tried to refrain a bit though as it does nothing for the conversation. I know you guys hate Bush, you are now not only beating the dead horse, you are carving up the mangled remains and eating it for lunch. Give it a break for a while, will ya?

---

It doesn't always come back to Bush. I've addressed how this bill would effect the executive as well as the legislative branch. It just so happens that Bush has been beating the war drums louder then anyone.

quote:

---

And no, I don't disagree with "that a politician would vote differently if his child were involved in a war?" I just think this is an assanine way of fixing the problem. The draft is a bad idea, period. Once again, forcing an entire generation into servitude to keep our politicians in check is silly.

---

Neither bill aims to keep politicians in check. Both bills aim to reduce the likelihood for going to war unless its absolutely necessary. At first you it sounded as though you disagreed with whether or not it would work. I don't know if you still do but do you have a better solution that addresses the entire country and not just a specific group?

quote:

---

Why not just start a movement to get the common man/woman in there a bit. People who have lived shitty lives doing shitty things and have a real grasp of what it means to be a human. All politicians in Washington are out to lunch, because they have all for the most part lived privelaged lives. They have never flipped a burger, laid brick in the hot sun, paid student loan bills out the ass becuase their parent were too poor to send them to school, or experienced anything that the average everyday American has done at one point or another. It is not just Republicans and not just Democrats, they are all fucking morons.

---

Thats not the case. There are plenty of examples of politicians who have come from humble beginnings to hold high government offices. Sens. Byrd and Clinton, Pres. Clinton, Sec. Paul O'neill are just a few. The problem is, when you get that far in government you begin to associate soley with the wealthy and well connected. Its not as easy as electing real people because by the time real people are elected to these offices they're used to limos and private jets.

quote:

---

I support Bush not because he is the greatest thing ever, but because I believe that we cannot sit idly by while Islamic extremists destroy Western Civilization as we know it and he is the best man to carry out the task, all IMHO of course. We can argue all day about Iraq, but sooner or later we would have had to deal with it, just as sooner or later we will probably have to deal with N.Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... War is inevitable, and instituting a draft is not going to change that fact. Shit happens, learn it, live it, accept it.

---

Iraq was a secular country. If you're worried about the Islamic extremists looking to destroy the Western Civilization you missed your target. It sounds like you're more interested in knocking down countries that haven't completely Westernized. If thats the case, this sort of draft would protect exactly that.

In the past wars were avoidable because it was everyone - elite included - fighting in them. The only wars that were faught were ones that were a matter of protection. Look at the Revolutionary War, WWI, or WWII. Today, wars are faught to police the world and boost approval ratings. This draft helps guard against that in most people will be unnecessary to fight a war unless its to protect US soil. I don't see how you can claim the purpose of the war in Iraq was to protect US soil when we weren't even threatened.

quote:

---

You see it differently, but that is what democracy is about. We can, as a nation, both say we hate something and love something at the same time. You guys on the left show the world that America does care, and us on the right show the world that America has a backbone. It all balances out in the end. blah blah blah.

---

We're also better looking.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

I must admit Jester, that on this particular point I find myself in agreement with Ramasax o_O!!!

Irregardless of what it is intended to do (and under which intent the Bills have been created), it is a bad idea, one that could be abused.

Thankfully, they will never get passed.

But what if they did? Or, even worse, what if certain parts of the Bills were changed, then passed?

Though I do understand the points that you are making, the Bills leave enough manuevering room in them, for the wealthy to "protect" their children, by having them do National Service, instead of Military Service, thus by-passing the point nicely. And that is exactly what would happen - certain individuals would do National Guard service, with Reserve Forces far from the fighting...Oh wait! That has already happened!

A bad idea, is still a bad idea, irregardless of intent.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

Though I do understand the points that you are making, the Bills leave enough manuevering room in them, for the wealthy to "protect" their children, by having them do National Service, instead of Military Service, thus by-passing the point nicely. And that is exactly what would happen - certain individuals would do National Guard service, with Reserve Forces far from the fighting...Oh wait! That has already happened!

---

WS, I understand completely that the wealthy and well connected wouldn't be put on the frontlines. However, I do not think that would change the usefulness of this bill. Its purpose isn't to get the wealthy involved in war as it is detering war. As I've stated above its human nature not to really care too much about an event unless it effects your life. In a democracy, a leader can't take his country to war if most of his country opposes it. I believe if everyone had a family member or close friend who would be put into danger if we were to go to war people would really sit down and consider whether or not it is worth it.

I also understand most people wouldn't support this bill. I just happen to believe that it would be well worth the two years of my life taken away by the military if it meant we would only go to war when absolutely necessary. Of course I realize theres drawbacks to these bills. There is plenty of room for corruption in the implimentation if the bill were passed. Also, the shear financial burden of a military that large would be staggering.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Ditto what Ramasax and WS have said on this bill being a bad idea and not having a chance of passing.

Jestah said:

quote:

---

I'm sure he cares as much about the soldiers as anyone else does. Its just human nature not to really care too much unless it personally relates to you. How many times do you read in the newspaper of a terrible accident where six die and while you think its terrible you're not entirelly broken up about it. On the other hand if those six people happened to be friends of yours, your reaction would be completely different. Its the same thing really. Those politicians who decide our military's fate don't have family or friends who are personally involved. Its very easy to support war when its outcome has little effect on your life.

---

I am actually surprised to hear you say that Bush cares for the troops, even a little. If this bill were passed, the well connected would find ways of getting their kids protected if they wanted to do so.

But let's assume that their decisions were more closely tied to the people doing the fighting, why would that be a good thing? You want someone making war decisions based on the merits of the situation and not on personal concerns. I'm not saying that the safety of our troops isn't a huge factor in the equation, I'm just saying that the war makers must remain as objective as possible to properly execute the war. You don't want an undue personal and emotional influence on those decisions.

Also, you all know that I don't hate Bush and I do basically support most of his policies. I also believe he is a good and decent fellow. I came across this story about him and I think it supports that view. Regardless of how much some of you may disagree with his policies, I think on a human level, he is a caring man.
Bush Pauses to Comfort Teen I'm actually pretty cynical on such things, but so is the father in the article and he said:

quote:

---

"I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life," Faulkner said of the moment with the president. "But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."

---

X, door #3 to me is the alternative to the Bin Laden (door #1) and Bush (door #2) in your pithy representation of our choices. What I'm asking is if you really believe there is no difference between the two, then what realistic alternative do you see or would you advocate? I am not interested in knowing what you would want "in a perfect or even nearly perfect world" but rather a much more realistic and possible world that could be achieved in say the next 20 years given different leadership presumably.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

Also, you all know that I don't hate Bush and I do basically support most of his policies. I also believe he is a good and decent fellow. I came across this story about him and I think it supports that view. Regardless of how much some of you may disagree with his policies, I think on a human level, he is a caring man.

---

This may be true Bugs...I don't really know, but it may be. That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Bush and his Administration is incompentent. I would rather have a sleazy, lying politician (like Clinton) that isn't incompetent, than an honest, good hearted one (as you describe Mr. Bush) that is incompetent.

The worst of things that have happened in mankinds history are laced with good intentions. Certainly, good intentions are a nice way to start things...but you need solid planning, and a solid will, to carry them out, and need to be aware of the possible consequences. Good intentions alone just isn't enough, and often leads to exactly the opposite result desired, in the end.

I would tend to say, that Mr. Bush does seem to suffer from Pride. That is a heady fault to have, as the man leading the most powerful country in the world.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

This may be true Bugs...I don't really know, but it may be. That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Bush and his Administration is incompentent. I would rather have a sleazy, lying politician (like Clinton) that isn't incompetent, than an honest, good hearted one (as you describe Mr. Bush) that is incompetent.

---

I think that was a very good point. Politicians in nature have to be pretty creepy people, I wouldn't trust your standard american male (or female) in office, which kinda seems like what bush is.... I agree with most everyone in this topic except for jestah hehehe. But no hard feelings. Didn't know this topic was gonna get that big.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

I would rather have a sleazy, lying politician (like Clinton) that isn't incompetent, than an honest, good hearted one (as you describe Mr. Bush) that is incompetent.

---

I have made this point (with different names) plenty of times before. I agree with it 100%. We will disagree on who is competent and who is not but the point is right on target. It is the policies that matter and not the personal morals of the leader making them. Of course, I think we would all prefer a good leader that supports good policies but that is not always possible.

WS, do you believe that Clinton was competent in foreign policy? I think he was "out to lunch" on it. When he was elected, he promised to focus on domestic affairs and that he did. He never claimed expertise in foreign policy matters and I think his 8 years were an unmitigated disaster especially as it relates to our current predicament with having to clean up a shoddy secret service. It's going to take at least 5 years to rebuild our intelligence to where it will actually being doing a decent job. And I'm not just blaming Clinton alone for letting that go to rot, it was also his predecessors on both sides of the aisle that share the blame.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

I am actually surprised to hear you say that Bush cares for the troops, even a little. If this bill were passed, the well connected would find ways of getting their kids protected if they wanted to do so.

---

As I said, I'm sure he cares for those dying in Iraq as much as anyone else, but as I've also said its human nature to not really care too much unless an event happens to you. I'm sure he doesn't like hearing US troops are dying in Iraq but I'm also sure he isn't losing sleep over it. I've stated my opinions on those avoiding the draft several times now. Theres no reason for me to post them again.

quote:

---

But let's assume that their decisions were more closely tied to the people doing the fighting, why would that be a good thing? You want someone making war decisions based on the merits of the situation and not on personal concerns. I'm not saying that the safety of our troops isn't a huge factor in the equation, I'm just saying that the war makers must remain as objective as possible to properly execute the war. You don't want an undue personal and emotional influence on those decisions.

---

How can someone be completely objective in a decision when the single biggest drawback to the action doesn't apply to them? This immunity from personal tragedy during war for the elites is new to this country. During Revolutionary times farmes fought along side wealthy politicians for the sake of protecting themselves. Now, the wealthy create wars for the poor to fight in for personal gain. This bill would effectively end this.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

quote:

---

I think that was a very good point. Politicians in nature have to be pretty creepy people, I wouldn't trust your standard american male (or female) in office, which kinda seems like what bush is.... I agree with most everyone in this topic except for jestah hehehe. But no hard feelings. Didn't know this topic was gonna get that big.

---

I don't think politicians are creepy people at all. I've met many politicians from various parties and I think they all have been nice, carying individuals. I think the problem is the reality that big business pays their bills and gets them re-elected. They're forced to compromise time and time again.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

quote:

---

I think that was a very good point. Politicians in nature have to be pretty creepy people, I wouldn't trust your standard american male (or female) in office, which kinda seems like what bush is.... I agree with most everyone in this topic except for jestah hehehe. But no hard feelings. Didn't know this topic was gonna get that big.

---

I don't think politicians are creepy people at all. I've met many politicians from various parties and I think they all have been nice, carying individuals. I think the problem is the reality that big business pays their bills and gets them re-elected. They're forced to compromise time and time again.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

quote:

---

This immunity from personal tragedy during war for the elites is new to this country. During Revolutionary times farmes fought along side wealthy politicians for the sake of protecting themselves. Now, the wealthy create wars for the poor to fight in for personal gain.

---

Just how new is it? Can you tell me when after the Revolutionary War this became the norm?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

Ramasax said:
Twitch, I do not agree that he is a homophobe, he simply wants to protect marriage, in a traditional sense, is all. Does he or anyone in the government have the right to do so, no, but that hasn't stopped any politician in the past either. This is not fear, but a clinging to moral values which some people still hold very high. It is not hate either. I understand your position, and it is only a matter of time anyhow, no matter who is elected.

---

Again, I hate to be off-topic (actually, no, I don't hate to do this, but I feel the need to say something anyway--if only to fill up the void), but yes, he hates gay people. Hates or is terrified of them. This isn't about protecting marriage (frankly, if letting me marry who I want is going to destroy civilization, civilization needed some destroyin'). This is about treating me and all those like me as second-class citizens. In addition to his marrital-protection hatred, legislation he has supported (always defeated long before anyone can make a NYTimes article about it) has supported the following, bigoted ideas (Note: though I list only Colorado-centric legislation, there is evidence showing his support for these ideas):

- Outlawing the discussion of gay issues in public schooling, save for comments about sexually transmitted diseases (which, of course, we homos have a MONOPOLY on, no doubt) (See Colorado HR 1375)
- Removal of employment protection for openly gay men and women (See Colorado Amendment 2), even though, in an "At-Will" state employees here lack employment protection anyway.
- Elimination of openly gay teachers in public schools.
- Support of the Boy Scout initiative to remove openly gay members from adult leadership.

The list no doubt is longer if one takes into account Texas legislation during his regime there. But I've kept this brief, because I don't want to be too far off-topic.

Twitch, obviously your choice is clear for November then, I won't argue with you there.

I don't know enough of many of the topics you bring up to comment, but I will comment here:

quote:

---

- Support of the Boy Scout initiative to remove openly gay members from adult leadership.

---

Just as the government has no right to tell you whether you can marry or not, they also do not have the right to tell a private organization such as the Boy Scouts what they can do either. You want your freedoms and that is fine, you are entitled to them, but you must keep in mind the freedoms of others as well, however harshly you disagree. I disagree with your lifestyle, but I do not hate you personally. Neither do I fear you. In fact, I hold you in the same regard as any other human being in the fact that we all do things that other people do not like. However you choose to live your life, there will always be people there to criticize and bring you down. I say live and let live, so long as no harm is done. I do not want to interfere with your lifestyle, and don't think the government has a right to do so either.

You must keep things in perspective and realize that homosexuality has been demonized for centuries. It takes a long time to break down a barrier that strong. My views have changed over time, in fact I was strongly opposed to gay marriage, now frankly, I just don't give a damn. Ideally I would like the government out of all aspects of our personal lives. Although I am a Christian conservative, I still do have a Libertarian streak in there which always outweighs my personal beliefs when it comes to government.

My choosing Bush in November has nothing to do with the marriage act, but everything to do with the war on terror and who I think is a suitable proponent of that war. This to me is THE issue of the election. If I was in your shoes and the topic of gay marriage affected me personally, I am sure that choice would be different. To each his own.

It is good to hear things from your perspective. Thanks. I still say Bush does not hate gays. I will agree though that he is misguided in mandating whether or not marriage should be legal for gays, that is overstepping the bounds of government's role, but again, nothing new.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Just how new is it? Can you tell me when after the Revolutionary War this became the norm?

---

Well, it wasn't uncommon for priviledged men to serve in WWII. I guess I would say during the Vietnam and Korean Wars this became the norm. Do you disagree?

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Bugs, I do not think Mr. Clinton was particularly good at Foriegn Affairs - something I think that he understood, and left to those in his Administration with far more experience and expertise handle, mostly, with just a light, guiding hand in most affairs of foreign nature. naturally, his "face" would be attached to any real decisions, but I think most of the ideas and information came from others within his cabinet and Administration.

However, he did sponser a much better kind of relationship with the international community, and the UN, than Mr. Bush now has. In fact, at no time during Clinton's 8 years, was America so viewed as it is now by the international community and the UN.

I would describe Mr. Clinton's Foriegn Relations and Ploicies pretty much as incompetence - but not nowhere in the league of Mr. Bush and his Administration!

Mr. Bush and his Administration is more like Mr. Clinton in Foreign Affairs (and relations), combined with a totally incompetent Domestic Policy. End result - the most incompetent Regime, that the US has ever had, IMHO.

Personally, he may be a nice guy, hell, I don't know. But professionally, he has no business, IMHO, in the position of the Presidency. His track record is horrible!

Can you please demonstrate, or show me, one solid, good thing that he has brought about, that he promised to deliver, in Domestic Affairs? How about internationally?

Why do you think that I do not support Mr. Bush? Why do you think I have come to the conclusion, that Mr. Bush and his Administration is incompetent? You will recall, that I waited a long time, before weighing the evidence, and coming to this conclusion.

He has no plan, for anything. He keeps saying the same, general things - no specifics, timelines, or goals, specifically planned out, or acheivable through careful planning. It's a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" type thing...and quite frankly, it scares the living shit right out of me, to see the most powerfual man on the planet, with the best minds at his disposal in the US, doing this!

He has vision, and grit, but no plan. It is the best formula, for disaster, that Mankind knows.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I agree with Webshaman.

Clinton may have been crap for foreign affairs. But he's no where near as bad as Bush - even though their incompetancies are polar opposites; at least Clinton's domestic policy was superb, and we had a surplus.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Jestah said:

quote:

---

Well, it wasn't uncommon for priviledged men to serve in WWII. I guess I would say during the Vietnam and Korean Wars this became the norm. Do you disagree?

---

When you said it my mind immediately recalled privileged sons serving in WWII. I am not aware of how many served in Korea or Vietnam quite frankly.

WS,

quote:

---

Can you please demonstrate, or show me, one solid, good thing that he has brought about, that he promised to deliver, in Domestic Affairs? How about internationally?

---

Tax relief. Sure it was small, but at least he got it past the Dems as promised. All major indicators show that the economy is back on track. There exists a lag between when the economy actually revives to when the people say they feel it. The same lag existed during the Clinton administration so it is nothing new.

He has appointed a number of conservative justices to our judicial system. This is a very good thing and was sorely needed after the Dems had eight years to stock the courts up with theirs.

I don't agree with his "faith based" programs but many do and he did deliver on getting that going. FWIW.

Internationally? Well, since 9/11 was not expected during the campaign there is little to talk about as far as acting on campaign promises. But if you expect me to believe for one nanosecond that Al Gore could have accomplished what Bush has since 9/11 then you have got to be insane. President Bush with all his faults has removed Al Qaeda's base of operations in Afghanistan by deposing the Taliban from power. 60% plus of the original leadership of Al Qaeda has been either killed or captured. We have taken the fight to the source of their operations as opposed to waiting for another attack on our soil.

It is virtually impossible to prevent terrorist attacks here in the US when the attackers are free to operate in safe havens. We have disrupted their abilities to attack us. I am shocked quite frankly that we have not been attacked since 9/11 and I believe we are way overdue for some more deaths here in the US. When it happens, I am going to be very sad but I am going to remember that we began to strike back at a growing problem that we ignored as a people for 30 years because it wasn't our problem. Islamic terror was something that just happenen "over there" so why get too worked up over that? We, the American people, will have to remember that our wishful thinking over several past administrations did nothing to stop 9/11.

Anyway, Afghanistan was the first step and a successful one as far as its stated goals. But now we have removed Sadam Hussein from his seat of power and have begun rebuilding Iraq in such a way that will create the first truly free and democratic Arab nation ever.

For 15 some odd centuries there has always been the caliph. After the European imperialism waned in the last century what took its place? Not the high culture of the former rulers of the Arab world but rather the likes of Nasser in Egypt and Hussein of Iraq who cared NOT ONE IOTA for the people but rather for themselves. They reinstituted what once was but in a new and brutal form of simple despotism.

The only exception to this mode was Turkey where Ataturk imposed secularism with very strong arm tactics on that country. He forced a separation of church and state. But it should be pointed out that Turks are not Arabs so there really has never been a democratic Arab country so far.

If we stay this course in Iraq we will see a model society in the Middle East that should bring the despots of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to their knees. Even Jestah said that if democracy truly does take hold there, it will be the envy of the ME. Already we are seeing the economy in Baghdad picking up. Businessmen from Syria are coming to Bahgdad to do business. What does that tell you? The Iraqis know what freedom is and I have no doubt they will make full use of it provided we don't give up on them.

We *can* succeed there and I can't for the life of me see why anyone wants to see this fail. I can certainly see why people are upset about how it was conducted and mistakes have absolutely been made... absolutely. I fully admit that. But I favor the overall goal of what we are doing and I know for a fact that something of this scale cannot be done without making mistakes... lots of them. But at the end of the day, if we see the goal realized after several years of effort there will be generations of Arabs living in freedom and prosperity. Their society will not look like ours nor should it, but the basics of separation of church and state, individual freedom, and the rule of law will be in place.

I want this outcome. I want it more than I care about what France, Germany, Russia and China think about us. After all, that is what you mean when you say the world hates us, right? With the combined track record of those countries, I'm not sure I care to have their approval of anything quite frankly. It sickens me to think that is the measure of whether our actions are ok.

quote:

---

Why do you think that I do not support Mr. Bush? Why do you think I have come to the conclusion, that Mr. Bush and his Administration is incompetent?

---

Honestly, I am at a loss for why you hate him so much. I think you are so off base for thinking that way that I just don't know where to begin to try to explain why we see things so very differently.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Tax Relief??!! In a time, where the Budget is...catastrophal, you call Tax Relief a boon and a blessing??!! I'm at a complete loss of words here. I can't even continue this avenue of thought, without stretching the bounds of credibility. Oh, there will be hell to pay for this, it's right around the corner...I solidly disagree with you on this point. Financial Experts disagree with you on this - all indicators show this as being very negative...not good.

Assigning conservative Judges to the Supreme court is good??!! Well, that is a subjective call, at best...I asked for solid, good reasons, not subjective ones, Bugs!

Irregardless of 9/11 (or more to the point, directly because of it), the US had all the Ace cards up it's sleeve. Afghanistan was a good indication of this, and it seemed at the time, that Mr. Bush understood this - yes, the Taliban got routed (but NOT Al Qaida - you are sorely mistaken on that - they are still there, Bugs!). Al Qaida still exits - I don't care how "many" have been snapped up - it is still there!. The mismangement of Iraq is providing a breeding ground for Al Qaida, and is actually helping Al Qaida accomplish their goals. I'm at a loss of words, on how you can consider this a good policy.

However, then Mr. Bush stupidly misplayed these Aces, in Iraq. He went further, and stupidly attempted to "con" the UN, and the Security Council - guess what? They were not buying! They had learned from Bush Senior (a very shrewd Foreign Policy President, I might add). You know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

I don't want Iraq to "fail", I don't think most of the world does - Al Qaida certainly does (and is succeeding in its main goal - driving a wedge between the West and Islam - Iraq has done more to accomplish that, then anything prior). I am, however, aware of the reality there, which somehow I don't think you are. It is not going in the direction it needs to to succeed along the lines that you have suggested. It is going in the other direction, IMHO. The US needs to get out, and give it up to someone who has a clue as to what they are doing, as obviously, there is no US plan to accomplish what you have suggested. A nice idealistic dream, one that many (me included) would like to see happen. It won't happen, under the current management, however.

I don't hate Mr. Bush, what ever gave you that idea? Did I once say this? I am strongly opposed to his track record so far. It is abysmal, by any standard. Incompetence lines the way...for precisely the reasons I have given - he has no plan. Instead, there are many, little plans, all competing with one another, among his cabinet members and Administration (and the different Agencies of government, so it would seem). As I said, Mr. Bush has vision, and grit - just no plan. If he had all three, I would be solidly behind him, as would everyone else, for then things would be dramatically different - but this is not the case.

What does Al Gore have to do with anything? We could go into the realm of "what if...", but what exactly would that bring? I'm interested in now, and the future, not what might have been. I voted for Nader, anyway...I won't be making that mistake this time around.

How you can continue to support such, is really beyond me. A man, that gets American soldiers unnecessarily killed, because he doesn't have a plan, is good? You support this? You know this is true...everyone does. Mr. Rumsfeld's "little plan" didn't work, got our soldiers killed, and stalled the offensive, until the original plan, from the Pentagon, was re-established! Mr. Bush had no clue as to which plan was better...and he is Commander in Chief! So, he decided against the real experts at the Pentagon (and Colin Powel), for his "pal" Rumsfeld!!! Who also doesn't have a fucking clue about military matters! (where colin Powel does). And he is Secretary of Defense! Colin Powel even warned Mr. Bush...to no avail. There is a difference, between making a mistake (mistakes can be made), and creating a disaster because of incompetence. There was no reason not to use the tactic and plan of Overwhelming Force in Iraq. None, except for the decision by Rumsfeld, that it could be done with a "small force"...any military tactician will tell you, that is just plain stupid. Anyone who has played Chess, or played Risk, knows of the benefits of Overwhelming Force, and the dangers and problems of "small force"...the margin for error is far greater with "small force" - and when lives are on the line, you want the smallest margin of error possible, TO SAVE LIVES!!!!! You can attempt to turn a blind eye to this, or whateve it is that you do, to deny this, but it is a hard, cold fact.

It is one thing, to make an honest mistake, where men and women lose their lives (that is still a heavy burden to carry, believe me), but it is quite another, to know that you fucked up because of incompetence, and it costed lives. I never, ever wish to be burdened by that. How Mr. Bush can look at himself in the mirror, is beyond me. If he is such a nice guy at heart, as you suggest, then he must be a complete wreck inside, because of this.

And this is just but one incident, in a long list of "incidents", both military and not.

Is that all, Bugs? Is that really everything positive, that you can lay at Mr. Bush's feet? How then, when weighted against that which I have posted, can one support this man? As I mentioned before (and as you have vaguely hinted at, or basically described in your post), Mr. Bush has vision. Of that, I think only a minority would disagree. He has a vision of the ME that is one that a lot would like to see come true. I would like to see it come true. He has grit, of that, I think all would agree on (or at least a majority). He sticks to his guns, and is decisive in that sense. Both are admirable traits, in and of themselves. Both are desirable qualities of Leadership. However, he lacks the ability to plan. He has no idea, how to use his vision and grit, to actually accomplish his vision. His past shows us this, in every way, shape and form. And that is what forms a man, really, are the events and experiences of the past, combined with the challenges of the present, and future. In areas not really requiring a plan, where vision and grit alone are enough, he has excelled (such as those conservative Judges on the Supreme Court, for instance).

In areas requiring a plan, he has failed miserably. And the cost of that failure is high, indeed.

Ok, I get the picture that it is not possible to change your view on this. I will politely agree to disagree here.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Can I change your view on this? Why are you so entrenched in your position?

This is all subjective, WS. Your opinion is every bit as subjective as mine is on this matter. Don't ask for solid things when you know they don't really exist. This is about what you and I *believe* to be the correct policies for this country.

We can argue endlessly on the details of how these things have been executed. I think you are missing an extremely vital point in this debate. What is the alternative? The point is that you will either get Bush or you will get Kerry. Do you see the reality of this?

If you think John Kerry and the Democrat party can do a better job at foreign policy in times of war then we simply disagree. You would have to convince me that Kerry could do a better job than Bush on the war for me to even consider voting for him. Can you do that?

If you can do that, then perhaps we should revive the Kerry or Bush thread and discuss why you think Kerry could do a better job. As I recall, you did post a positive bit about him over there and I will review that and get into some specifics.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Ummm...I did??!! I do not remember that...I do remember, saying that I will vote for him, to get Mr. Bush out of office.

Yes, Mr. Kerry is a distinguished War Veteran. For that, I do have some respect, being one myself.

My opinion is subjective, but based on some very real facts. Now, I don't think Kerry would have given Rumsfeld (theoretically, of course) the go-ahead, and I don't think he would have ignored the war advice from the Pentagon (nor that from the CIA and Intelligence Agency, either). He knows war, and he knows that it involves dying. However, I don't know, for sure. I do know for sure with Mr. Bush...

The biggest point being, Mr. Bush has proven himself, beyond the shadow of a doubt, as incompetent as President! Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, has not. He may very well be so, as President, but I don't know that as fact, as I do with Mr. Bush. When faced with incompetence on one hand, and the unknown on the other, I chose the unknown. Because there is a chance that Mr. Kerry will not be as incompetent, whereas with Mr. Bush, that is not so.

I'm not going to try to convince you to vote for Kerry. You seem to be happy with Mr. Bush. Though I can't understand why that is, it seems to be the case.

You vote your conscience, and I will vote mine.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I just remembered another "solid" outcome. Do you believe Khadafi when he says he's coming clean on his weapons programs as a direct result of the US invading Iraq?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

hmmm... lets see here join the army...Shit in my helmet then cook in it later how bout NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL!

IF the monkey's want me over there then the monkey's will pay me. No money equals no fighting unless they arm me and everybody else with swords none of this impersonal gun shit. If war wasn't as dumb, impersonal or pansyish as it is now then I might have gone but it is.

War is no longer won by the general who put in more work figuring out a good effective battle field strategy, or who is the more skilled warrior, or right or wrong. It is won by the person with better technology and who can bring it to some third world country that can't attack back and pull the lynch pin first. FUCK THAT! It's DISHONORABLE!!

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

And as far as presidents are concerned every monkey running is imcompetent as far as I'm concerned.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I guess since the Bugimus trusted the Bush administration when they trusted Chalabi theres no reason for him not to trust the Bush administration when they trust Khadafi. After all, both have about the same credibility ... none.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Khadafi is doing what Hussein refused to and that is to voluntarily dismantle the weapons program such that it can be verified. It's not about trusting him at all, it's about him allowing the world community to see for themselves. It's not a hard concept once both parties agree to do it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I think Khadafi is trying to pull an Arrafat thing...going from illegitimate to legitamate...and doing what is necessary to accomplish this. I believe he has seen the futility of Terroristic activities against the West.

Do I trust him? No. I don't think his hatred of the West has diminished. I just think that he is changing tactics...why fight as a terrorist, when one can go ligit, and support other terroristic groups secretly? Also, I think he has come to the conclusion, that actually building Nuclear Weapons is a really, really expensive proceedure.

But we don't really know, do we?

Bugs, I think you are being a bit to idealistic here. I think he has decided to change plans - go from terrorist to legitamite statesman (in the global eye). I don't think that he will stop funding terrorist groups secretly, or stop letting terrorist groups train in Libya.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Idealistic?!? How so? Please specify.

We shall see about what he actually does. But the point is that our invading Iraq had a direct effect on his actions. He stated this specifically in a speech which was a huge deal if you consider the Arab sensitivity to admitting he was afraid of what might happen to his regime. The difference for Khadafi hopefully will be that he will keep the doors flung open so that enough oversight will be possible into his activities.

Anyways, Iraq would have never been invaded had Hussein cooperated with the UN. He shut out any scrutiny of what he was doing and kept the world in the dark. UN resolution after resolution was passed demanding that he *voluntarily* demonstrate compliance to the Gulf War agreements and he refused.

Idealistic? A wise man once said, "trust but verify". If that is idealistic then, yes, I am quite so

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I SPECIFICALLY stated "a bit idealistic", in response to your post above

quote:

---

Do you believe Khadafi when he says he's coming clean on his weapons programs as a direct result of the US invading Iraq?

---

.

Yes, I do think he probably reacted out of fear - we have tried to kill him before (and killed some of his family in the process). I think that tends to scare people. But I don't think he has "changed" as a person. In fact, he has more reason to hate us now, than before. I do NOT think he has been "persuaded" though...I think he is a shrewd man, actually. I think he saw, that obtaining Nuclear Weapons through a program were outrageously expensive - and more than the country Libya could bring to bear, and combined with a number of reasons, publically stated to the global community that Libya was "outing" itself, and allowing inspections. I also think he believes he can "outwait" this attitude in the West, until things simmer down, and the West turns its attention elswhere.

You say "trust but verify" - well, we can verify stuff that we find, or see - but can we see all, and find all?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

When you said I was being "a bit idealistic", was that because you thought I think "he has changed as a person"? Please don't do that to me if you did think that. I doubt he has changed and I agree 100% with you that he is shrewd and will do anything he needs to maintain power.

My point is that since he only respects those who are stronger, he has yielded to some degree to UN oversight. This is a very good thing. This is exactly the kind of thing you want to happen when dealing with despots.

quote:

---

but can we see all, and find all?

---

Of course we can't. But I repeat my point, as long as he is willing to cooperate, then we will have an ongoing process by which we can keep his actions in check. Now if your point is that he is going to completely circumvent a UN oversight and do just as much harm as he otherwise might, then that is a very serious problem just as we have with several other police states like his.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Good to see you are not as idealistic, as your post sounded. Good. You had me a bit worried there...

quote:

---

Of course we can't. But I repeat my point, as long as he is willing to cooperate, then we will have an ongoing process by which we can keep his actions in check. Now if your point is that he is going to completely circumvent a UN oversight and do just as much harm as he otherwise might, then that is a very serious problem just as we have with several other police states like his.

---

Yes, I agree with this wholeheartedly.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

thats fucked up, they'll draft me

And considering this Soldiers ready to get out must stay in
, it is not a long stretch of imagination to think that the Military may end up asking for a Draft...after all, history is full of turning what is/was considered impossible/outrages/unthinkable into reality...

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I see the Great Emps has struck again... hmm.. Ok I have a nice game for you if you like playing..

QUOTATION: I hate people who take drugs... Customs men for example...

quote:

---

Xpirex said:

I see the Great Emps has struck again... hmm.. Ok I have a nice game for you if you like playing..

---

I've got a better game - giving me some idea of what you are talking about? If I'm going to be accussed of having done something I'd quite like to know what it is?

Did I make your milk go sour? Have I stopped your car from starting first time?

My near omnipresent wrongdoing does make it difficult keeping track of what I've done.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

Shame on you Emperor. Nearly omnipresent? You've got to do something about that...