It Appears to me

Well, he mentioned the "50 tons'o'mustard gas" several times during the speech, which was in itself false.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Is George Bush perfect? Of course not. Has he made mistakes? Several that I know of and no doubt others that I don't know of.

Congratulations, Foxfyre, you've managed to answer a question that even George W. couldn't answer.

Actually joe, I think his answer way just as informative.

0 Replies

ebrown writes

Quote:

What qualifies as "unconscionable and dispicable things" is subjective isn't it. Bush's policies qualify in my book.

If you equate George Bush's policies with al Qaida, the Taliban, or Saddam's regime, ebrown, you make my point.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ebrown writes

Quote:
What qualifies as "unconscionable and dispicable things" is subjective isn't it. Bush's policies qualify in my book.

If you equate George Bush's policies with al Qaida, the Taliban, or Saddam's regime, ebrown, you make my point.

This is all too silly for words. According to your formula, absolutely anyone (who might be) holding the presidency (thief, idiot, exotic dancer) ought not to be derogated (under any circumstances) because...al Qaeda exist.

0 Replies

I am a bit more precise in my langauge than that blatham. Please re-read my post in context.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It seems to me that directing hatred toward GWB and not toward the terrorists is very skewed. And I think it is bad for the country.

Actually directing hate towards Bush in the form of helping him towards the unemployment line is a simultaneous strike against the terrorists.
The invasion of Iraq has stressed our country financially and militarily, taken valuable resources from Afghanistan, and weakened relations with our traditional allies.

Two pages of posts and the only one to contribute anything regarding issues was ebrown_p. I think they were worth repeating.

ebrown_p wrote:

I have never been so opposed to any leader as I am to Bush. He stands against all of the things that I think make America great.

The main reason I dislike him is because I feel he has a very dangerous view on the world that leads to dangerous harmful policies. Specific examples of this are...

- The war in Iraq. It has produced an international outcry and the deaths of Iraqi's and Americans alike.

- The resources that could really make a difference in stopping terrorism that are being spent in Iraq. (I include local preparation, add FBI resources and international projects to help the situation.

- Comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that inflame the situation and contradict US policy of moderation.

- Tax cuts while we have record deficits.

- The fact he uses 9/11 to justify everyting from the war in Iraq, to tax cuts, to unemployment, to jailing citizens without due process.

- The Patriot act. In my opinions the rights it takes away are not at all worth the increase in security.

- His insistance on keeping actions of his administration secret that other administrations would make open.

- His stands on issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage.

- His education policy which takes control out of the hands of the people who can help the most-- teachers and communities.

Of course these are my opinions -- but I think that that is what you asked for. Other people may think that some or all of these things are good for the country.

But in my opinion, Bush is most horrible president we have had in my lifetime. This is my opinions, but there are plenty of reasons I feel this way.

That is a list that I can find little fault with. I would be interested in anything the conservatives have ot say regarding these issues, especially the announcement of the shift in policy towards west bank settlements. Great timing there. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It seems to me that directing hatred toward GWB and not toward the terrorists is very skewed. And I think it is bad for the country.

Actually directing hate towards Bush in the form of helping him towards the unemployment line is a simultaneous strike against the terrorists.

Maybe a better quote would be "Directing MORE hatred toward GWB than the terrorists is skewed." Where is the outrage against terrorism? Where are the demonstrators who should be standing outside the Saudi Arabian embassy with signs reading "NO MORE TERRORISM" and "STOP THE ATTACKS NOW." All of the hatred that should have been directed at terrorism after 9/11 has been MISdirected toward our President. And that's just wrong.

mesquite wrote:

The invasion of Iraq has stressed our country financially and militarily, taken valuable resources from Afghanistan, and weakened relations with our traditional allies.

I would like to see some statistics about the resources that were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and the failures that occurred in Afghanistan as a result. You are aware, are you not, that there is a coalition of many different partners in both countries? As for weakening relations with our allies, I believe that is false as well. The nations of the world have never been more united against terrorism than they are now. There are some who would like to give the illusion that radical dissent is related to national policy. Only in Spain has that been proven to be true.

0 Replies

Quote:

I cannot relate to the hate and venom directed toward George W. Bush while there seems little or no anger, let alone rage, directed toward the terrorists and thugs who have attacked us and/or killed and maimed thousands here and in their own countries.

There may be dozens of valid reasons for folks to criticize, despise, and even hate the president (any president) regarless of what any terrorists have done. The failing isn't in your words, it is in attempting to suggest a rather obviously illogical connection between these two things.

Clearly, what we are discussing here is how well or how poorly this president and his administration are functioning in their positions. That a muslim extremist somewhere might be cruel and murderous goes no distance at all to excusing or forgiving presidential policies and actions. Speak badly of the terrorists OR speak badly of Bush, but not both. It's a false dilemma.

0 Replies

Tarantulas,

I anxiously await the pictures of your frequent and strident protests "outside the Saudi Arabian embassy". ;-)

I am confident that you did not create a criteria of acceptable indignation toward the terrorists that you yourself do not meet.

I am confident that you feel differently than those who think protests against terrorists are futile and that because they do not operate within a democratic structure their decisions are not swayed using the same tactics that one would use within a deocratic society.

Please don't let me down, I can't have nukes but maybe, just maybe, I can have a hero. ;-)

0 Replies

Which completely missed or avoided my point. Smile

0 Replies

Well, then you ought to make your point more clearly, and you ought not to arrive at it via faulty reasoning.

Your point is?
option a) folks ought not to criticize this president right now
option b) folks ought to criticize terrorists more often

Re option a)...that's what we've just been talking about. Either you are suggesting that negative comments on the adminstration are somehow wrong - which lets him or anyone in his position totally off the hook, so you don't get that.

Re option b)...to what end? How many do you know are on this board whose minds might be changed.

0 Replies

I don't think there's a Saudi embassy in Phoenix or I might paint up a sign and head on over.

Sometimes I don't make my point very well, apparently. What I was trying to say in my too-subtle way is that the demonstrations against the liberation of Iraq might have been better directed at a more worthy problem. For example, many people may not be aware that there is extreme repression going on in Iran. The mullahs are increasingly hated by students and lovers of freedom in that country, and it would do those people a tremendous service if there were worldwide demonstrations in support of Iranian reform. But instead of that, the demonstrators send a message to the people of Iraq that US citizens oppose their liberation from the clutches of Saddam.

In other words, righteous indignation has been misdirected toward the wrong target.

0 Replies

Tarantulas,

I think no matter how you articulate it you will run into the same problem.

Let's examine it on the most basic level:

Is your criticism herein misdirected because there is a more worthwhile target (terrorism) to criticize?

At it's essense is a logical axiom that would suggest that any favorable comparison de-tooths an argument.

Incidentally, if you want to avoid the trip to D.C. (embassy) try Los Angeles (consulate). I don't remember any other locations. If you do go, do share pictures. If I can't have nukes I at least want to have singularly wrought a protest, albeit of humble magnitude.

0 Replies

Quote:

the demonstrators send a message to the people of Iraq that US citizens oppose their liberation from the clutches of Saddam.

Hog poop. You have no way of knowing that even one Iraqi interpreted such demonstrations in this manner.

Freedom, which you keep lauding, is complicated and messy. Folks have different ideas and values, and if free, they'll be able to speak of them without constraint. Consensus is always rare, but least rare in states where there is little freedom.

So there is NO problem in speaking out against your government's policies and acts.

Here's the link to the Saudi embassy. Feel free to write or picket.
http://www.saudiembassy.net/

0 Replies

Um, don't let this put you off a possible pilgrimage (named after me, of course) but here are some phone numbers for the Saudi Embassy:

Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia
601 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20037
Tel: (202) 342-3800

Commercial Office - Tel: (202) 337-4088
Information Office - Tel: (202) 337-4134
Medical Office - Tel: (202) 342-7393
Visa Section - Tel: (202) 342-3800

I included the address in case they want to discuss it over pizza. Mr. Green

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Is your criticism herein misdirected because there is a more worthwhile target (terrorism) to criticize?

At it's essense is a logical axiom that would suggest that any favorable comparison de-tooths an argument.

I read these statements three or four times and I still can't make sense of them. Maybe it would help to state them more clearly. I don't think my criticism was misdirected at all. I believe the demonstrations are misdirected. Instead of being directed toward the problem itself (countries who harbor and support terrorists), they are instead misdirected at the people who are trying to fix the problem (Coalition countries involved in the war on terrorism).

blatham wrote:

Quote:
the demonstrators send a message to the people of Iraq that US citizens oppose their liberation from the clutches of Saddam.
Hog poop. You have no way of knowing that even one Iraqi interpreted such demonstrations in this manner.

I said the message was sent. It may not have been received. To find out, it would take some searching of Iraqi blogs several months back, and I don't really have time to do that. Here's one that is supposedly very balanced:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

blatham wrote:

Freedom, which you keep lauding, is complicated and messy. Folks have different ideas and values, and if free, they'll be able to speak of them without constraint. Consensus is always rare, but least rare in states where there is little freedom.

So there is NO problem in speaking out against your government's policies and acts.

Freedom is laudable, something to be appreciated and cherished. And it should be exercised. By all means, speak out against the government if it's necessary.

I think what happened after 9/11 was that people felt helpless. We were attacked in our own country, and there wasn't anyone to fight back against, since all the attackers were dead. The country formed a Coalition and went to war in Afghanistan, and that provided some satisfaction, but there still was nothing a regular citizen could do to help the country fight terrorism. I think the administration really missed a good opportunity here. The country could have been united behind a common goal. They formed something called the Citizen Corps, but it wasn't well publicized (and it still isn't). So here are over 200 million people who are eager to get involved in some kind of a cause, but nothing presents itself. Then came Iraq. A certain political group (who shall remain nameless Wink

) came out in opposition to the Coalition and the Operation Iraqi Freedom, and suddenly the people who were waiting for something to do found it. Whether they thought it was right or wrong, whether they felt strongly about it or not, or whether they even wanted to demonstrate against the war or wanted to use the opportunity to get some different protest sign in front of a camera, they turned out in the thousands. I don't think any of those demonstrations did anything to oppose terrorism. And because of that, I believe they were mostly a wasted effort, not because they shouldn't have been conducted, but because they should have been directed against the enemy rather than the people who were trying to take down the enemy.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Is your criticism herein misdirected because there is a more worthwhile target (terrorism) to criticize?

At it's essense is a logical axiom that would suggest that any favorable comparison de-tooths an argument.

I read these statements three or four times and I still can't make sense of them. Maybe it would help to state them more clearly. I don't think my criticism was misdirected at all.

Ok, I'll try to make it clearer though I do not think it will make a difference.

You criticized a position using as the basis of your criticism the existence of a more deserving target. You call it misguided because of the existence of a more deserving target.

The existence of a more deserving target is a situation that your criticism shares. So if the criticism of the US administration is misguided due to the existence of a more deserving target then likewise your criticism of said criticism is also misguided because of the same more deserving target.

Surely you do not think that people who criticize the US administration are more deserving of criticism than are the terrorists. Surely you acknowledge the terrorists as the problem.

Surely your axiom applies as much to yourself as it does to others?

0 Replies

Thanks for the clarification. My point was that the protestors should have protested against the bad guys instead of the good guys. Since I am not a protestor, I don't include myself in that argument. The argument was against protestors and did not apply to posters at A2K.

0 Replies

But the reason you gave was a more deserving object of criticism no?

Can there not be valid criticism of multiple targets (each deserving to varying degrees)?

0 Replies

ok, I'm completely lost here. But I'll keep reading... Confused

0 Replies

It Appears to me

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know