BRH Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits? Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help? 11956[/snapback] It was July 1932. Hoover ordered the eviction of the protesting veterans from the Mall by federal troops led by none other than Douglas MacArthur. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits? Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help? 11956[/snapback] Hoover, just before his term was up (July of '32.) And Douggie MacArthur should have had his ass canned for that fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues. 11943[/snapback] I am a Republican who is extremely disappointed with the way that this administration squandered all the goodwill that existed throughout the world after 9/11 and that insisted on taking our eye off the ball to fight an optional war to accomplish goals of some people that were unrelated to 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues. 11943[/snapback] Funny, I've posted an nauseum on this very subject (Iraq, terror, middle east, etc-) and have never once had anyone want to engage on the subject. Where were you guys then? Yes, Iraq and "the War on Terror" are quite closely related. One has to look at things in something other than two dimensions. This is a multilayered four dimensional issue. Yes, how to go about handling it is very unpopular, but the best strategies should not and can not rely on their popularity. Yes, it involves protecting allies, yes, it involves protecting oil-as that is them lifeblood of most of the middle east-who controls it controls the show. I've written white papers on this. Hard to get into it all in one post, but I don't think very many people understand the fragility of many of the moderate middle eastern regimes. Without a strong interference from an outside source, fundamental islam can not be discounted to take over the area within the next five to ten years. Once that occurs, the fledgling pan-islamic state these people crave will control not only a majority of the world's oils supplies, but a strategic geographical cross roads disputed for most of history. The goal of the terrorists we are at issue with is not necessarily to "destroy our way of life". It is to remove western influence, especially American influence from the middle east-the intent being the creation of the pan-Islamic machine. At that point, they truly become a prime time world player-and the results will not be hugs and kisses. Couple this with nuclear tipped ICBMs and one can see the problem. The Soviet Union had been a stabilizing influence in the middle east for many years. The Soviet Union is gone. There has been a vacuum as far as an outside influence over this area since. It has been a problem brewing for years-9/11 brought it to a head as far as our interplay. Iraq may or may not have been hooked up with Al Queda, but if they weren't AQ was about the ONLY ones they weren't hooked up with. They were very involved with other organizations that are affiliated closely with many of the AQ branches. The animosity towards the US indeed has a lot to do with our support of israel, but it's roots are historic and are generally against the West at large. The wahabi influence is particularly disconcerting when you look up their mandates and beliefs. If nationalism is the issue, why are they blowing up their own infrastructure and their own people? Think about it. Yes, there are plenty who are shooting at us because they don't want us there. But there is a much more organized and evil influence at work trying to keep anything that would give anything other than a fundamentalist regime from gaining a foothold. As for the war on terror, do not confuse hunting down Bin Laden as success. That has become a nice to have to feel better more than an operational issue. Of course we would like to have him. the proper amount of resources are working that issue-along with strong allied support from some of the nations you swear we have none from. The actual war on terror, should you want to call it that is not a military intensive mission per se. Yes, there are substantial forces engaged in that venue-actually globally. Much of the WOT is much more like a criminal investigation and operation against organized crime, or drug smuggling. Actually, there are a lot of ties between the three and much success has been achieved by ourselves and our allies (including most of the middle east, France, Russia, Germany, etc.). In short-having a couple hundred thousand regular troops running willy nilly through the mountains is not the proper approach. In short, this is far from a simple issue. Everything is intertwined. We, unfortunately like to take things in small pieces and separate them from each other. Problem is you can't. I will say that becoming less aggressive, and pulling our forces out and going back to "diplomacy" is playing right into their hands. This is precisely why the "bad guys" look forward to and want a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly they believe that due to the public pressures, he would withdraw most of the forces from the theater and try his luck at the negotiating tables. Who do you negotiate with? What is diplomacy? Diplomacy is negotiating compromise. These people will not compromise. Might want you to think that-but-no. Right now, having a large US presence in Iraq, and in the waters nearby as well as the other countries we are based in is going a much longer way to keeping Iran and Syria under wraps than you might think. Sorry for the length, but this actually deserves several pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, 11939[/snapback] And THAT has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? Christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 And THAT has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? Christ... 12030[/snapback] Not really. At least not against us. And certainly not compared to OBL. Iraq never was the threat that this administration made it out to be and according to Powell (before September 11th) Iraq was powerless and all boxed in at a cost of less than $3 billion per year. Compare that to the cost today. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 -- not the Baath Party. I was all for the war in Afghanistan. Instead of using 9/11 to sell this optional war, the administration should have been up front with the American people about the reasons for the war and gone about in a way that did not destroy the goodwill that we had around the world. I know that there are a lot of unilateralists on this board. Yet, if we really are going to be successful in a war on world wide terrorism, we need as many of our allies around the world as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I am a Republican who is extremely disappointed with the way that this administration squandered all the goodwill that existed throughout the world after 9/11 and that insisted on taking our eye off the ball to fight an optional war to accomplish goals of some people that were unrelated to 9/11. 12005[/snapback] You know, I thought that way for a while too, but I don't really buy the "squandered goodwill" line anymore. Goodwill eventually gets amortized off the books no matter what. Fact is, the shock of 9-11 wore off. I walk by Ground Zero every day and it is still very palpable at that spot, but nothing compared to the first year after the attack. Outside of NYC and DC, I think much of the country has put it further back in memory, and outside of the US further still. I don't believe that any sympathy from our adversaries around the globe was going to last more than a few weeks or month no matter who was President or what he did. Ditto for our pseudo-allies in continental Europe. Time goes by, other tragedies happen, people forget, other people/countries have their own agendas to get back to. BTW, this is not to say that Bush has done everything right since 9-11....far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Instead of using 9/11 to sell this optional war, th administration should have been up front with the American people and gone about in a way that did not destroy the goodwill that we had around the world. The irony of the statement I'm about to make is that I suspect it will not be the popular thing to say, but...who the fug cares anymore what goodwill there is in this world? To my mind, the goodwill and asssucking to which we have had to subject ourselves is, to some extent, the reason we got hit on 9/11. It's the reason Saddam had all the time in the world to bury all the bodies he gassed, raped, and murdered. As a country we take a politically correct stance, and we end up with planes flying into our buildings. Again, not a popular stance, but the rest of the world needs the US more than the US needs the rest of the world. When the crap hits the fan somewhere else, who is there to fix it? We are. When the crap hit our fan, who was there to fix it? We were. To suggest that one of our country's problems is that we are not popular is just wrong. I personally don't care if we're popular, and if the rest of the world wants to turn their back on us, then our country's goal should be one of self-sufficiency so a time will come when we turn our back on the rest of the world and tell them to figure out their problems on their own. It won't happen. I know that. But once again the world would be a different place if I were king of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 -- not the Baath Party. I was all for the war in Afghanistan. 12051[/snapback] Read my original "The war on terrorism is larger than just 9/11" post, please. "Responsibility for 9/11" has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Read my original "The war on terrorism is larger than just 9/11" post, please. "Responsibility for 9/11" has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. 12070[/snapback] I trying to reference back to all your quotes and I can't find that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 I do not agree that the war on terrorism has been successful. We still have numerous terrorist attacks still happening, Osama Bin Laden is still out there, airport security has marginally improved, we are handing out terror alerts on aged information, and in Afghanistan, threats still abound. We cannot possibly WIN the war on terror until the Iraqi incursion reaches its conclusion. THEN we can focus on what is REALLY important to preserving the freedom and security of the United States. John Kerry is better qualified because he will not isolate us from world allies that we NEED to have on board to guarantee the hunt for terrorists is MUCH more successful. Bush merely alienates many prospective allies... we can't afford four more years of a reckless foreign policy, which is what we have had. Beyond that, they aren't much different. If Bush is re-elected, we are in much more danger, IMO. 11720[/snapback] OK time to go back to school. Here are some facts about the current war on terror: 1) There has been no attacks on US soil since 9-11 2) OBL is still out there(maybe) but he is under a rock. Better there then making attack plans in Kabul. 3) Airport security has improved greatly. Evidence: No hi-jackings in the USA since 9-11. Until we have another one your arguement is nothing more then opinion. 4) Terror reports contain old, new, and secert informtion. By the way, how many of the actual reports have you read? Hmm just curious. 5) Umm excuse me, the war on terroria=sm will never be won regardless of what happens or does not happen in Iraq. There will always be wacky Islamic nuts who want us dead, and then when we are dead, they will want to kill us again in order to please ala. These are insane people who are trying to liv in our world..unfortunately we will never run out of targets. 6) The USA seems to be pretty safe and secure right now. Reference item #1 7) On what record do you base your belief that JK will be any better abe to get countries who hate the USA (not just GWB) then the current or any other president? You are engaging in wishful thinking at best. The only way we make the countries who are not with us happy...is to appease them. I say we pass on that strategy please. Pay attention closely...there will be a quiz later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I trying to reference back to all your quotes and I can't find that one 12101[/snapback] Unsurprising. We pretty well established your lack of reading comprehension yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 You ASSUME I am talking about France and Germany and Russia! YOU WOULD BE wrong. I am talking about the various states in the Middle East. Right now, we are pariahs in that region. Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace has been replaced by a cowboy, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. If Kerry is elected, we shall have new states in our corner, ready to point out and remove terrorists from their borders. People don't respect us right now... they are angry, and they have a right to be. 11740[/snapback] he he he , you have rally made my day. I have not even needed to turn on my XM comedy channel today...just read a few of your posts. Come on, you said "Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace" are you talking about in the middle east? Please...you must be joking. There will never be peace in the middle east until every jew on earth is dead, and everyone who talks to them, supports them, and even thinks that they have a right to walk the earth will meet the same fate that the wacked out islamic fundamentalists has in store for the jews. Do you understand this simple and basic point. These people are insane, and they are not based in anything that you, me or any other normal air breathing human being would consider normal. One more time .....All jews dead= peace in the middle east. This is the only way that the fundamentalists will ever stop the terrorism that they have exported to every corner of the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Unsurprising. We pretty well established your lack of reading comprehension yesterday. 12107[/snapback] and your intelligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 and your intelligence 12119[/snapback] Ooooooh. The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. I remember when I was six, and found that uproariously creative, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Read my original "The war on terrorism is larger than just 9/11" post, please. "Responsibility for 9/11" has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. 12070[/snapback] You have not been reading my posts. My point is that this administration should not have used 9/11 and WMD to sell an optional war. As for whether the war in Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror, we can debate that. As I said, it had more to do with accomplishing pre-9/11 goals. These goals were legitimate (but not prompted by any imminent threat). Indeed, the goals were similar to the reasons for the first Gulf war (which I supported), but Iraq had not invaded another country this time. These goals were largely unstated by the administration. The administration should have sold the war on its own merits and let the American people decide whether the timing and manner of this war was appropriate - rather than engage in false advertising. These goals did not require the urgency that this administration placed on them. There was no imminent threat. Moreover, this war did not require that we alienate nearly every ally we have in the world. Indeed, I dare say that all but one other country in the world (if you go by the views of the population) was against this war. That is the difference between a war of necessity and one of choice. We have every right to eliminate an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. That is why the war in Afghanistan was and is correct and had universal support throughout the country and world. The war in Iraq was another story. This administration allowed people to believe that we (and the guys that died) were avenging 9/11. Instead, 9/11 was used as a pretext to accomplish a goal that had nothing to do with the 3,000 Americans that died on 9/11. It is pretty simple stuff. If you have any questions about whether the architects of this war wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, read the attached and look at who some of the authors were. "A Clean Break" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 the topic: "compare war time service" but your trying to compare what bush is doing now, to what Kerry did 30 years ago. diffrent times, and diffrent wars. to say ALL kerry did was drive a little boat in vietnam is just crazy. then to say.."but bush was in the national gaurd they both served their country". yes they both served their country, and the national gaurd is important, but i think being in a forien nation and getting shot at, and earning 3 purple hearts and a silver star, while Bush takes a few months RR, kinda tip the scales a little. ok, that said... i DO like how we invaded iraq, we thaught they had nukes (or going to get them), and i dont think you want to wait untill the missles are in the air to mobalize your forces. he acted on intel he had. we should be looking in to how we got that intel and where it came from, not the actions as a result of it. our military is over extended and more troops are needed in afganistan and Iraq. if those "piece first" countries wont send troops, than what good are they as allies??? our policies over there are not strict enouph for the job. any man standing on a US truck with a gun cheering cus he just killed an american should be shot on site. i dont see why we just take pictures and pull back??? we are trying to be "the nice little country who is there to help" that we wont do what is needed. drill some wells, build some schools, but negotiating with rebels is unacceptable, even if you say "the iraqi police made the negotiations", we were the ones there, we just didnt want to see a bunch of dead people on CNN. I DO NOT think that by electing Kerry, france and all those "piece first countries" (which i really really HATE!!!!) will not just jump up and say there our friends. i say to hell with them anyways. what was i talking about agian.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallow Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 It's more a question of judgement, leadership and integrity. While frat-boy Bush was snorting coke and dodging the draft, Kerry was volunteering for Nam. 30 years later, Bush uses my patriotism and fear against me. He lies to me about WMDs and a link between Osama and Iraq so he can start an unwanted war and finish one for Daddy. In the mean time, he's slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqies and almost 1000 American men and women. Those brave soldiers lost their lives for nothing. Osama is still out there. And we are now less safe. That makes me sick. Don't feed me the bs line about "well isn't Iraq better off?" because that's not the point. Bush ran on not wanting the US to be the police of the world. If he really cared about people, he'd get rid of the leaders of Iran (the country who actually had ties to Osama), N. Korea and many others. But, that would be unpopular. Bottom line, leadership isn't always about experience. There are probably thousands of people who would be better Presidents than W based on their judgement and integrity. John McCain is one of them. Oh wait, Bush slanderd him too on his way to the white house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 It's more a question of judgement, leadership and integrity. While frat-boy Bush was snorting coke and dodging the draft, Kerry was volunteering for Nam. 30 years later, Bush uses my patriotism and fear against me. He lies to me about WMDs and a link between Osama and Iraq so he can start an unwanted war and finish one for Daddy. In the mean time, he's slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqies and almost 1000 American men and women. Those brave soldiers lost their lives for nothing. Osama is still out there. And we are now less safe. That makes me sick. Don't feed me the bs line about "well isn't Iraq better off?" because that's not the point. Bush ran on not wanting the US to be the police of the world. If he really cared about people, he'd get rid of the leaders of Iran (the country who actually had ties to Osama), N. Korea and many others. But, that would be unpopular. Bottom line, leadership isn't always about experience. There are probably thousands of people who would be better Presidents than W based on their judgement and integrity. John McCain is one of them. Oh wait, Bush slanderd him too on his way to the white house. 12346[/snapback] Someday you guys are going to realize that Bush didn't lie to start the war. Unless you think Kerry lied too given that he agreed to the war based on the same information our President had. I keep seeing the people in NYC with signs that say "Bush Lied" and think to myself; there may just come a day when people can objectively think for themselves without taking for granted the first thing they hear from someone less intelligent than them. And people wonder why we call them Pollys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCow Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Look at the facts. Have we had another terrorist attack on our country? You and I can't say for sure how many attacks have been prevented, but the fact that there has been zero since 9/11 indicates a continued success on the war on terror. Obviously it would be nice to get OBL, but the facts show that his network has been severely damaged and that dozens of his top aides have been captured. Why is that a joke to you? 11817[/snapback] By this logic Clinton had a better record than Bush. Fewer casualties. It's not about where we are, it's about where were going. Just because the dam hasn't burst doesn't mean the town should rely on the kid indefinately plugging holes with his fingers. It's much more difficult to stop the flow of water in the reservior but everyone will be better off in the long run. Many people believe that Bush's flawed policies ("strategy" is too strong a word) will reach it's tipping point very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts