President Bush's speech

[QC]

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by jimonica:<br /> When evil is a threat to the U.S. I say lets go in and kick some butt.

Perfect. We agree. Our only difference is that I believe evil is currently a threat to the US . . . I now honestly feel that the time I spent on this was officially worth it.<br /><br />Yes, I assumed you were more of a pacifist. I apologize for that. Seriously.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by mattttt25:<br /> ...he was confident in saying he didn't need to explain his plan but he had one and it was in motion. i don't think you'll get boos at USNA.

I have a plan, and I don't hav eto explain it to anyone else either.<br /><br />Wait a minute no I don't have a plan, I'm just praying to God that it all works out and I don't shoot myself in the foot. Sorta like gw.<br /><br />And you are right, baby bush wouldn't get any boos at the USNA. Is ther eany question why he held his news conference there? He always surrounds himself with supporters, better photo ops. Why else are the protestors sent blocks away from the motorcade route?<br /><br />But what I heard was not that the Iraqi military was completely capable and trained, instead what I heard was that a significant fraction of the military was trained and equipped and capable of independent operation. Uplifting to say the least, and information the nation craves. But still not the totally self-sufficient national military that Iraq needs. Now if we can only get a peek at that plan, unless it's locked up in that empty head of his. Knowing his competence level he'll have lost the key <br /><br />Hopefully baby bush will speed up the progress being made in Iraq so we can leave by the end of his incompetency, er a I mean presidency.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: President Bush's speech

I keep seeing the word evil. can someone describe evil to me?<br /> is it evil to arm iraq with chemical and conventional weapons while also arming Iran with about the same and observing the actions of the weapons?<br /> is it evil to arm a nicaraugean army that slaughtered thousands? is it evil to arm africans that slaughter millions? is it evil to arm columbians that slaughter thousands?<br /> is it evil to create and supply aqueda and the taliban in a fight that we had no intrests other than oil that now is a serious threat?<br />is it evil to arm syria and Isreal and palastine so they can whoop up on each other?<br /> exactly what is evil and from who's perspective of evil are we talking about? is it only evil when another country or leader does it?<br /><br /> if you can define evil it may help to get an answer.<br /> <br /> I dont mind kicking butt on evil, as long as the evil was actually a domestic threat.<br /> seems we attacked the wrong country and even that attack was poorly planned.<br /> but our military is not a world police force and should not be used as such.<br /> if ya use it use it to win. only way to win is total field domination.<br /> anything else is a loss.

 

[heycods]

Re: President Bush's speech

Boxing gloves? again!

 

[QC]

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> I dont mind kicking butt on evil, as long as the evil was actually a domestic threat.

I tend to agree, but the problem is defining what truly is a domestic threat. It could be argued that all really bad guys globally are a potential domestic threat.<br /><br />

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> but our military is not a world police force and should not be used as such.

This gets squishy too. A semantics issue for sure, but I think it is OK to use our military to make the world safer for all, and I think the argument can still be made that we are protecting ourselves from potential domestic threats. I like to make things simple, but that does not mean that everything is . . .<br /><br />

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> if ya use it use it to win. only way to win is total field domination.

Agree, except that I have no personal military experience and would not pretend to completely understand "total field domination" although those words seem pretty clear.<br /><br />rodbolt,<br /><br />I have a problem with labeling things that have turned out to be bad as evil if they weren't motivated by evil. We should not sit on our hands and do nothing simply because some failed policy of the past may have created the issue. That makes absolutely no sense to me. We have to evaluate the present, learn form the past, but react based on the present.<br /><br />Saddam is evil, Al Qaeda is evil, Murderers are evil, Stalin was evil, Hitler was evil, Jeffrey Dahmer is evil, True racists are evil, Child molesters are evil, Child abusers are evil, North Korea's Kim dude is very evil, Idi Amin was evil, Hugo Chavez is thinking about being evil, Kadafi was evil but may have changed his tune, the IRA was evil, Pol Pot was very evil, The communist Chinese have been evil and continue to do evil things, but pretty quietly . . . <br /><br />Ya know, rodbolt, I cringe when I use the word evil, because some will laugh at it as simplistic and religious based (maybe?), so it is silly. The fact is that it is the only word I know that should clearly define really bad stuff, and really bad people. You can use whatever word you want, but I choose that word as it means something. Evil is sinister, evil is purposely destructive, purposely maming innocents, purposelly using human shields. It is about intent and the result. Not one or the other. I don't care if you have evil thoughts unless you act on them. I don't care if there is an unintentional evil result, but frankly this is where this discussion gets really fuzzy. You could argue that Communism itself is evil, but I would suggest that the corruption and results of Communism are evil, again kinda gets weird there for me.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: President Bush's speech

I agree<br /> evil really defies a definition, its kinda like a war on drugs, war on poverty and war on terror. its like trying to out shadowbox yourself.<br /> shadow wont tire out. <br /> only way to win a showdow boxing match is to turn off the lights.<br /> in this case lights means financing.<br /> the intent really does not natter if the intent was motivated by profits, our only intrest in that region is oil, our only intrest in the nicaraugran thing was lumber and mining. <br /> if africa had oil or timber we would be all over it, the dutch locked up the diamonds years ago .<br /> My point is those that to not remember the history,what worked and what did not, are doomed to repeat it again and again.<br /> seems the F's in history are biting us.<br /> do a bit of research on how long the terror threat has been elevated and then honestly look around and tell me if your actually safer now or in 1990?<br />fact is as the world population grows it must expand, we do it, they do it and as it expands it will give rise to more and more groups of various religious and political motivations to use terror against the other groups.<br /> there are some very good books on the subject.<br /> the tactics have been around for years, the US pretty much perfected the tactics. the draw back is ,while we never activly used them on a large scale, we trained a lot of others in the use of terror tactics. we still do. there is a terror training camp in moyock NC about 40 miles from the house. the school of the americas is another black eye that should have been eliminated years ago. the problem with training others in hostile actions is its difficult or impossible to control the knowledge once the students leave.

 

[tommays]

Re: President Bush's speech

well i know a Colonel who was sent over to fix up the Abu Ghurayb mess and was there when the insurgents breached the wall in the spring<br /><br />went over to run things ended up in hand to hand with his men<br /><br />i no a medic in the family who just got home and had thanksgiveing dinner with him <br /><br />the biggest thing they have in common is they wont say anything bad to the general public out of respect for there friends who are still there<br /><br />but neither thinks its going great<br /><br />

<br /><br />and everybody is liveing like this and knowing that staying alive is a lottery ticket because stuff goes over the wall and blows up eveyday <br /><br /><br />tommays

 

[CJY]

Re: President Bush's speech

I would like to get back into this, but so much has been said. I would be typing for days.<br /><br />However, QC, I was not wrapped around anything, nor did I accuse you of anything. OJ was putting words into other posts. <br /><br />He claimed that Jimonica somehow said: <br /><br />Words of OJ:<br />"Interesting, so the 9/11 was plot was contrived by Bush."<br /><br />OJ often states one-liners that he pulls from his butt and I simply wanted him to defend this statement. He makes simple minded statements and then laughs(he he), or claims he fishes in a barrel then leaves. A few posts ago he accused jimonica of avoiding a question. He still has not answered mine. You don't have to either, the statement cannot be defended or answered without claiming some huge assumptions. He "***"umed a great deal on that one. <br /><br />I'm not looking to argue these points, this is simply where I stand on them.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: President Bush's speech

to think the current administration was behind 9/11 is rather farfetched to say the least.<br /> its beyond what I can believe.<br /> the belief that the intellegence was in place that we knew or the admin should have known something was going to happen is well documented.<br /> how do you think we had all the biographical info on the known terror cells that included photos?<br /> while I think the current and the previous administrations have not handled certain things correctly history will judge the current mess just as it has all the other mess's in history.

 

[oddjob]

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by CJY:<br /> I would like to get back into this, but so much has been said. I would be typing for days.<br /><br />However, QC, I was not wrapped around anything, nor did I accuse you of anything. OJ was putting words into other posts. <br /><br />He claimed that Jimonica somehow said: <br /><br />Words of OJ:<br />"Interesting, so the 9/11 was plot was contrived by Bush."<br /><br />OJ often states one-liners that he pulls from his butt and I simply wanted him to defend this statement. He makes simple minded statements and then laughs(he he), or claims he fishes in a barrel then leaves. A few posts ago he accused jimonica of avoiding a question. He still has not answered mine. You don't have to either, the statement cannot be defended or answered without claiming some huge assumptions. He "***"umed a great deal on that one. <br /><br />I'm not looking to argue these points, this is simply where I stand on them.

I will personally address this C/P to you and highlight my assumption...<br /><br />quote:<br />But this is what I was commenting about.... <br /><br /><br />quote:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Thats why I always thought all the talk about yellow cake and aluminum tubes was bs. (I assume this means "NO WMD's....not correct) If they were anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon Israel would have blown up the site. meaning no nuke plans...incorrect. <br /><br />As to your question on when is evil evil enough for me? Real simple when that evil is a threat to my country. meaning al queda is not a threat to the US...incorrect Not an imagined ( again the threat is not real) or contrived threat (Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, al queda. the word contrived is a deliberate vague attempt at saying Bush fabricated the threat and that it is not real...and if it is not real then one can only assume that Bush was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks ) , but real. <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />ME:<br /><br />See words imagined and contrived in webster...good day... <br /><br />end quote.<br /><br /><br />I take your comment about pulling one liners out of my butt as a compliment. At least they are usually original unlike the remarks by jimonica's which are basically reworded cliches spewed by the left and their supporters. As I said in an above post, MAny kooks on the left claimed that Bush was behind 9/11 to facilitate his war with the talaban and Iraq. Contrived fits the catagory in my perception. You may not agree with my assumption and you may say I still havn't answered your question. And...I cant defend may statements as I dont feel threatened to do so. Oh, this may not make much difference to you but I did leave out a question mark in the statement<br />"Interesting, so the 9/11 was plot was contrived by Bush."[?] my mistake to you, jimonica and all.<br /> <br />I didnt mean to say but ask Jimonica that as a question. My mistake. Sorry about the one liners, I think yours are very funny sometimes. <br /><br />Finally,I didnt leave...I was just scared to face you cause I sense your the new ibout sheriff in town...he,he

 

[rodbolt]

Re: President Bush's speech

yep<br /> isreal has been known to squash a perfectly good nuke site before and would have most likly done it again if the threat had been real.<br /> odds are they would have notified the US about the time the plant was being vaporized.<br /> seems they did that once before.<br />odds are high that if the Irainians actually get close to a nuke weapon their facility will share a similar fate.<br /> the mossad seems light years ahead of the CIA sometimes in gathering and dissemenating intel and advising their leaders on what intel is good and what is meaningless.<br /> its how they have survived since about 1948.<br /> instead we got Chabli (sp)?

 

[jimonica]

Re: President Bush's speech

Oddjob,<br /><br />Thanks for finally giving me some meat and potatoes that I can sink my teeth into.<br /><br />Just so everyone knows this my first stab at C&P. So I hope I don't butcher this too bad. I can see I'm going to have to bone up on this C&P thing with the way people on this board try to change the meaning of my words.<br /><br />Below are my quotes and in the parenthesis is Oddjobs interpretation of my quotes.<br />-------------------------------------------------- <br />-----------------------------<br />Thats why I always thought all the talk about yellow cake and aluminum tubes was bs. (I assume this means "NO WMD's....not correct) <br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br />My reference to yellow cake and aluminum tubes is only in relations to nuclear weapons. Going from nuclear to WMD is a slight of hand that the right has been doing for a while. Chemical weapons fall under the category of WMD and we all know Iraq and chemical WMD. We have the receipts. Plus any third rate country can produce chemical weapons. If I wanted to do a little surfing I could get the information needed to make mustard gas with the chemicals under my sink.<br />Its the nuclear weapons and 45 minutes from a launch and mushroom cloud talk that pushed a lot of our politicians over to Bush's side.<br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />If they were anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon Israel would have blown up the site. meaning no nuke plans...incorrect. <br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Again Oddjob is making a leap. I think everybody knew Saddam would have love to get his hands on some nukes. In fact he had some kind of program that was in its extreme infancy. A very very long way away from becoming a reality.<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br />As to your question on when is evil evil enough for me? Real simple when that evil is a threat to my country. meaning al queda is not a threat to the US...incorrect Not an imagined ( again the threat is not real)<br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />Here again Oddjob makes a very large assumption.<br />I was answering a question posed to me by Quitcat.<br />The question was about a generic evil. Then Oddjob trys to say that I was referring to Al Qaeda not being a threat. Everyone knows Al Qaeda was a threat. Thats why we went to Afghanistan, with almost full support from both houses of congress.<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------<br /> or contrived threat (Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, al queda. the word contrived is a deliberate vague attempt at saying Bush fabricated the threat and that it is not real...and if it is not real then one can only assume that Bush was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks ) , but real. <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------<br />I'm not sure what Oddjob is trying to say here, but I don't think Bush is smart enough to fabricate anything. I do think that he probably had enough information to know that he was lying when he hyped up Iraqi threat. I do think Cheney, Wolfowitz and a few other neocon advisers were the brainchild behind the whole Iraq threat.<br /><br />I'll admit I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but no, I don't think Bush or anyone in his administration was behind 9/11.<br /><br />BTW Oddjob. I do have a question for you. You say that "many kooks on the left claimed that Bush was behind 9/11 to facilitate his war with the talaban and Iraq". Can you name anymore than one of these kooks or direct us to more than one website to back up your claim? This shouldn't be too difficult sense there are "many" like you say.<br /><br />You don't see anyone on this board claiming that many kooks on the right believe that the 9/11 attacks were because of all of the homosexuals, pornographers, and drug users in New York city, like Jerry Falwell said? Just because one wacko on the right said these things I wouldn't try to pin that statement on to you.

 

[CJY]

Re: President Bush's speech

Stay with the one-liners. Less exposure that way. <br /><br />We are on to ya OJ. (he he)

 

[oddjob]

Re: President Bush's speech

To anwser your question Jimonica..yes I'm could. Rightys here at this forum do it over and over. Its not worth my time. I'm lazy and its easier to argue upsurdity with upsurdity. <br /><br />Yeah CJY I must concede, you and girlfriend made short work of me...(sniff!)<br /><br />he,he..

 

[12Footer]

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by oddjob:<br /> To anwser your question Jimonica..yes I'm could. Rightys here at this forum do it over and over. Its not worth my time. I'm lazy and its easier to argue upsurdity with upsurdity. <br /><br />Yeah CJY I must concede, you and girlfriend made short work of me...(sniff!)<br /><br />he,he..

Me too. ('cept for the girfriend thing).

 

[12Footer]

Re: President Bush's speech

So anyway, Bush's speech was a good one. It was overdue. I hope far more follow.