President Bush's speech

oddjob · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by Quietcat22: CJY, jimonica said "As to your question on when is evil evil enough for me? Real simple when that evil is a threat to my country. Not an imagined or contrived threat, but real." I believe that is where the OJ 9/11 contrived thing came from. It's not too hard of a leap to make . . .

Thank you Quietcat and 12. Sorry I didnt respond last night but I'm too busy at home to come here....and if I did I still wouldnt have been able to respond. BTW- The idea that GW planned and contrived 9/11 was spewd by the left before the ashes of the twin tower cooled. I'm not going to go a dig it up...pointless to argue over facts. I wont. But this is what I was commenting about....

Thats why I always thought all the talk about yellow cake and aluminum tubes was bs. If they were anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon Israel would have blown up the site. As to your question on when is evil evil enough for me? Real simple when that evil is a threat to my country. Not an imagined or contrived threat, but real.

See words imagined and contrived in webster...good day...

QC · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

You know I am with you on this OJ . . . jimonica is great at slipping in words and points and then claiming that it was nothing. Your original reaction was entirely appropriate. On the other hand CJY got this all wrapped around the axle as if I had suggested the administration was involved in 9/11, so that's why I clarified, I think, but I am really confused now

Finally, as always, no answers to simple questions from the left. My last point was that we ALL know why we went into Iraq. That has been agreed upon by a bipartisan committee, who also agreed that the intelligence was not "contrived" or manipulated So I'm not gonna talk about that anymore. Soooo, now we are there, bad guys continue to come out of the woodwork and we kill them. This tells me that a) we are doing the right thing and b) thank God we are there to take them out. jimonica tried the other silliness when asked about evil, which is to say "There is evil all over the world Quietcat. Where do suggest we go next to snuff out evil?". I submit this is a disingenuous question. Is it OK to snuff out any evil? Or only OK if you simultaneously snuff all of it out or have some sort of time-line for snuffing all of it out. Again, you can't have it both ways. Is it good to fight evil in Iraq? This question can be answered without suggesting that unless we are 100% consistent we should sit on our hands. I can't tell by his comments or lack of response to questions whether he supports identifying and fighting evil. I don't agree that the draft is a light switch that goes on with a yes answer.

oddjob · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Thx QC...you nailed me. I get a kick out of people who criticize anything and everything about how GW and our military has handled the war. Keyboard Generals. If they truly were they would know that nothing ever goes exactly as planned in life, war and chess. But we still plan. Some people would rather complain that succeed. I bet you wont find them on the battle field, for very long. Hate towards a political party is a lame uxcuse to undermine freedom. And I got a problem with that. Some folks succeed, and the others who cant or wont, spend their life trying to interfear with those that "can do". Who am I talking about now? Terrorists or Liberals...

QC · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by Skinnywater: Full international support AND full domestic support was a terrible thing to waste in that cause. If the administration can spin that our greatest enemys are in Iraq, I'll spin it that our greatest enemys are supplied, trained and financed by Iran. Your now suggesting a deal to go after them after we're done in Iraq? The mishandling of this entire "war on terrorism" has squandered international/domestic support, money, effort and lives for that cause.

First, I said "watch them (Iran) like a hawk". Yes, I support that we kick their (Theocratic Gov't) flipped-up, immoral, racist, evil arses if they flinch. I don't want coward partners. If they don't want to play, then so be it. Their (European)inability to recognize and deal with evil is legendary. Saddam was a terrorist, AKA bad guy, AKA evil. It's OK with me that he is in prison and that we are killing absolute Al Qaeda members in Iraq. Not sure what we can do to regain International support that the lack thereof is based on twisted logic, selective reporting, an inability to identify evil and unite in killing it, and corrupted European values. I don't usually do C & P, but please read this. It is a year old, still valid. Europe Thy Name is Cowardice Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. Hartmut Lau translated the article for us. Europe Thy Name is Cowardice Commentary by Mathias Döpfner A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe your family name is appeasement." Its a phrase you cant get out of your head because its so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddams torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany. What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last centurya conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness. Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal societys values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrarywe Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because were so moral? I fear its more because were so materialistic. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economybecause everything is at stake. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. Wed rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbors house. Europe, thy name is cowardice. Matthias Döpfner has done it before - criticizing the spineless reaction of the European political elites to the dangers of Islamic terror. He is by far the most powerful voice in the German media against the reappearance of the rotten European appeasement policies of the 20th century. http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html

jimonica · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Quietcat and Oddjob, I too was a little busy last night, now its time to break up this little love fest you two got going. Oddjob, as a ardent supporter of this administration you are the last person I would think would talk about "Keyboard Generals". This whole administration is made up of nothing but. Along with most in the conservative movement. CJY, thanks for holding down the fort while I was away. I've been LMAO reading how OJ and QC twist themselves into intellectual pretzels trying to defend their positions and put words into my mouth. Not the first time this has been tried. OJ, your question on the 9/11 conspiracy almost left me speechless, I have no idea where you are coming from. Quietcat, same with your question on WW11. Both of your questions were so far out in la la land I don't think any fair minded person would take them seriously and they really don't deserve a response. I suspect you both know your positions are weak, so your throwing out red herrings. Quietcat, I didn't know the United States was the evil police. I thought we went to Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11. Not! Then I thought we went to Iraq because of WMD. Not! Then I thought we went to Iraq to enforce the UN sanctions. Not! Then I thought we went to Iraq because they gassed their own people. Not! Then I thought we went to Iraq to promote democracy. Not! We went to snuff out evil, that's it evil! Now I know, we are now the evil police! Quietcat, I'm glad your on board here to keep us all straight on the reasons we went to war.

RubberFrog · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by oddjob: Who am I talking about now? Terrorists or Liberals...

Is there a difference?

QC · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

jimonica, Jeez, I have been calm, cool and collected. I'll try again. You said that we should not go into war unless we are threatened. Right? That is where the specific, European, World War 2 reference was made. I stand by it, and believe it is analogous. Please answer: Should we have entered into the European theater in World War 2? Why did we got to war with Iraq? I did not bring up why we went to Iraq. You did. That was not my point at all. I will restate my point on Iraq. We are currently in Iraq. Right? I think that it is good, because I believe the guy that is in Prison was evil and I believe the people we continue to fight are evil. You can smirk at that word as much as you like. I believe it has meaning. So as always our discussions go like this, I ask simple questions, you won't answer. I answer yours, clearly and concisely and even note when I have not been direct as with the answer to your question regarding what other evil we should be fighting. So in the interest of keeping our game going no matter how frustrating it is, I will respond to some of your silly assertions above (no matter how disingenuous they are) and I will re-ask my simple questions. I continue this circle jerk only because I want to understand what you are trying to say. When I ask for clarification you change the subject.

Yes, I think we are sadly the evil police. Nobody else is willing to label evil and then actually do something about it. I am thankful that John Howard from Oz and Tony Blair try to assist and do contribute, but the fact is that the size of our military and our willingness to take the political heat, move us to the front of that responsibility. If I am wrong, please correct me with facts. As far as why we went to war, which you seem to think I have defended and danced around, I am pasting a direct quote from me that is above for your perusal of the rest of that post: "Finally, as always, no answers to simple questions from the left. My last point was that we ALL know why we went into Iraq. That has been agreed upon by a bipartisan committee, who also agreed that the intelligence was not "contrived" or manipulated So I'm not gonna talk about that anymore." jimonica, if you want to talk about that, I suggest you start a new thread. I will respond; unemotionally and with requests for clarification if required. I reserve the right to become emotional if you compare our sitting Gov't to murderous regimes, no matter how thickly veiled . . . Other than that I will be calm. So, time for my latest simple questions again: 1) Are the people we are fighting in Iraq evil? 2) Is it required that we fight all evil to fight any evil? You may ask me any questions and I will answer directly despite your assertion that: " . . . OJ and QC twist themselves into intellectual pretzels trying to defend their positions and put words into my mouth. Not the first time this has been tried." Rock on . . .

jimonica · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Quietcat, As much I'm trying not to let you get me sidetracked, I guess I'll have to take your bait. I see your trying to put me in a position to defend the terrorist that are killing our soldiers. But first I don't see any correlation between WW11 and what is going on in Iraq. Hitler had already taken over almost all of Europe and was looking to expand. We got caught off guard in Pearl Harbor and lost most of our Pacific fleet. Seeing that we were weak Hitler declared war on the United States. Prior to WW11 the United States was consider an isolationist Nation. We felt that because of the oceans on each of our coasts we were safe from attack. The people didn't have the will to enter into the war until Pearl Harbor. In fact the Japanese Pacific Commander made the famous quote after the Pearl Harbor attack, that "I think we just awakened a sleeping giant". Again there is nothing similar between Iraq and WW11. Now here I go I'm going set this up on a tee for you to hit it out of the park. But being the politically incorrect guy that I am, here I go. The Iraqi people are not evil. Saddam Hussan and his followers are evil. Almost all of the so called insurgents are Iraqi, very few are from other countries. The way I see it is I have great dislike for Bush, his administration and the direction of our Country under this group of Republicans. But if a foreign power were to over throw this administration I would be the first to fight to keep Bush in power. I would not allow the United States to be occupied by a foreign country. I believe we have Iraqis fighting to get a foreign power out of their country. That doesn't make them evil. Saddam? Yes. The Iraqis fighting to get us out? No. Something like eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out. Something like 45 percent feel its okay to kill Americans. There is going to be a civil war in Iraq and there is nothing we can do about it. You have about a half dozen factions that all want to be in power. One mans evil is another mans patriot. It all depends what side of the fence our sitting on. I think the Murtha plan is the best I've heard so far. Lets pull out of Iraq and establish a elite group of quick strike forces in a nearby country, like Kuwait, to go in and cool things down if things get too out of control. There you go Quietcat. You can go into a phony outrage about me supporting the enemy and not supporting our troops. Have fun.

Haut Medoc · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

I think civil war would be a good thing, if we let them kill enough of each other off, then they wiil be that much easier to manage down the road when the U.N. is forced to get involved...

....JK

QC · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

jimonica, I am not baiting you. Jeez, would you stop that. I agree World War 2 and Iraq are entirely different. I just wanted to know when you believe use of force was justified. You said only when someone or something is a threat. I was attempting to get you to define a threat. I believe that Iraq was clearly identified as a threat when we went in, and I believe that there are evil people there now and that they need to be killed and/or contained. I don't care where they come from. We are there now, I have used these same words in a discussion with you once before: There is no rewind button!! You see, what you believe is me trying to back you into a corner is actually me trying to reach a point where our positions are clear. I think that I have been clear AND consistent. I don't want you to look stupid and I don't want to ridicule your positions. I want to understand your positions. You have finally given me your view: follow the Murtha plan. Fine. I simply don't agree. I would like you to clarify something else though please. Can you site sources for this?: Something like eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out. Something like 45 percent feel its okay to kill Americans. I believe the former is untrue and the latter supports my position, although I believe that it is also untrue. I absolutely agree the Iraqi people are not evil. I do believe there are evil people still in Iraq, both Saddam guys and Alqaeda guys. You see evil as blurry, I see evil as black and white. Our relative positions are finally becoming more clear. That's OK. There is no requirement that we agree . . .

oddjob · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Jimonica, The only way there will be a civil war is if we pull out like Murtha stated. Then commission a quick strike team from the distance of another county?....pleeeeease dont make me laugh....That would be ideal for the left and murtha. Civil war would break out and never end. Hey! instead of the quick strike thingy(thingy for keyboard generals). Why not just lauch a Clintonesque high altitude air strike everytime things get out of hand?....I'm sorry but that is the most ridiculous idea ever heard. LOLOL I'm laughing myself silly that Murtha said it and anyone with a fraction of military experience or knowledge would support it. Sorry to disappoint. But that definately wont happen during the next 3 years. GW said it, so it will be done. Thats bugs you I know, that he has the guts to stay the course, (approved by Clinton and co. of 1996 as well as GW and co. of 2001or2) as he plannned from the beginning. Why does the thought of a political figure doing what he said he would put the left in a tizzy. Oh yeah black and white vrs. fuzzy or gray, my bad.. You avoided a direct question agian. Quote: So, time for my latest simple questions again: 1) Are the people we are fighting in Iraq evil? 2) Is it required that we fight all evil to fight any evil? and do post data to support acertions....talk is so cheap these days....

Your turn and no more mulligans

jimonica · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Quietcat, Google eighty percent want U.S. out. And you will get enough info to support both my figures. In reference to when I believed it was proper for U.S. to use force. You said my response was only when something or someone is a threat. This is not what I said and that wasn't your question. You were asking what level of evil I'm willing to accept before committing troops. And my answer was when they are threat to the United States. I'm sorry to parse words, but we all know how you like to twist and put different meaning to words of others. You see QC we live in a complicated world and its not as black and white as you would like to think. I'm not willing to box myself into corner and say this or that is the only way we should go to war and neither should our leaders. You know the Regan administration claimed to run the USSR into bankruptcy by outspending them militarily. If we don't be careful we are going to do that to ourselves. We can't afford to take on these kind of operation single handily Our military is currently spending as much as the next 20 largest militaries in the world. I've heard that in next 10 to 20 years we will be spending as much as every country in the world put together. How long do you think it will take for our economy to collapse with that kind of spending. There is only one reason to have the kind of military spending that the U.S. has. Thats because we have our noses in every corner of the earth trying to tell other people how to live. We could cut our military spending in half and still protect our Country just fine. We don't need to be everywhere in the world. I'm not an isolationist by any means but we need to pick our battles more carefully. We can't be the worlds police. And if I remember right GWB in an attempt to take a shot at the previous administration, made a statement about not being engaged in nation building. Now he is doing exactly what he said he wouldn't.

jimonica · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Oddjob, Apparently you know more than our military leaders. John Murtha is as about as tuned in with the military leaders as anyone in the House. I will guarantee you that what Murtha said is based on information from our military leaders. You need to go back and read my post and you'll see I answered you question and your buddy QC agreed with me. As far as posting data to support my assertion? Is that what you do OJ? Give me a break. I don't see much data to support your assertions. If you want to call me on something tell what you feel is wrong and what you feel is the right answer. But if you think I'm going give you a website to every piece of data I put out there your smoking something. I can understand your hostility OJ. CJY had you looking the fool when made that magnificent leap that somehow I thought Bush was behind 9/11. Keep trying though.

oddjob · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

He,he I read your post again....you awnsered the question as well as you say CPj made a fool of me in my absence trying to to just that to 12..LOL No, I dont provide much data anymore. I find it a waste of time with types like you who cant answer a direct question and think everything in life is soooo complex and fuzzy and that its bests not to box yourself in with a plan. You should be the one to re-read you post. ITs very simple...focus and Reaaaad: 2) Is it required that we fight all evil to fight any evil? I admit, I had poor reading comprehension as a child. So could you post the answer in bold like I did the question? Hold my hand....

Sorry you find me hostle. I think your your just lovely

QC · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by jimonica: Google eighty percent want U.S. out. And you will get enough info to support both my figures.

Thank you, I will. QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: In reference to when I believed it was proper for U.S. to use force. You said my response was only when something or someone is a threat. This is not what I said and that wasn't your question.[/quote] My questions and your responses are in clear view above. QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: I'm sorry to parse words, but we all know how you like to twist and put different meaning to words of others.[/quote] And you accuse me of trying to bait you . . . Wow. QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: You see QC we live in a complicated world and its not as black and white as you would like to think.[/quote] I see this as simply an excuse used by many. It makes them feel smarter while allowing a complete dodge of any questions. I simply do not agree. QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: I'm not willing to box myself into corner and say this or that is the only way we should go to war and neither should our leaders. [/quote] How can we have healthy debate if you won't say where you stand on an issue? All I asked from the beginning was what level of evil would lead you to support intervention. For me the level of evil that Saddam represented was enough without the WMD stuff. Add that in (which was believed by all) and most support going in, it is that simple. I am not looking to hang you. I have a strong suspicion that you wouldn't support any armed violence, but I have not been able to get a straight answer, so I cannot make that assertion. These things are about degrees (yes, I know black and white is not a degree thing, but once the degree threshold is reached, then black and white for me). Some pacifists believe that there never is a rationalization for violence. To them I would ask if they were in a Schoolyard and there was a sniper taking shots at children, would you support shooting that gunman to stop him? This is not to twist their words it is to understand them. If they say no, I simply regard them as morally and logically void and not worth having any further discussion with. If they say yes, then I say "see, you will support the use of violence" This is not to CATCH them, it is to help establish the fact that violence is sometimes required. When someone says that we should not be in Iraq, I start by asking them if the guys we are fighting are evil. If they say no, then I know where they stand. If they say yes, then I move to the next question which is something like "then why shouldn't we be involved in stopping them". I am not trying to twist your words. I am trying to get you to actually use some words so I can understand. QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: we have our noses in every corner of the earth trying to tell other people how to live. [/quote] I know of nowhere that the US tells people how to live. We often suggest to people how not to live, like North Korea, who's people are starving and murdered by their government regularly. Our little buddy in Venezuela needs a stern lecture, but he won't listen, and calls Bush a murderer and genocidal. Both are lies, so I am not sure what you do. If you think that we try and tell everyone how to live why would we support democracies? Democracies are told by the people how to live . . .

I know you see these responses as trite. I don't. I think they are honest and reasonably well thought out. For the life of me I cannot figure out why I spend so much time with you. There was a time I thought more like you do. It took understanding that we fight evil (the US always has) for me, then the fog lifted . . .

I can think of nothing more noble to say about this country. QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: We could cut our military spending in half and still protect our Country just fine. We don't need to be everywhere in the world. [/quote] I told you very clearly that I do not believe that we can or should be everywhere simultaneously. This comment does not change the Iraq discussion. Again, no rewind button . . . QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: GWB in an attempt to take a shot at the previous administration, made a statement about not being engaged in nation building. Now he is doing exactly what he said he wouldn't. [/quote] Please define nation building. If you define it as removing a brutal dictatorship and replacing it with free elections, then you win; Bush supports nation building.

jimonica · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Oddjob, I've got a question for you. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it fall, did the tree fall? Two can play that game. You see this is what our conversation has come to. But you seem to be right at home with it. We've come a long way from the original topic. If you don't have anything to add about the topic at hand I'm done. I'm not about to get into a pi$$ing match with you.

QC · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

QUOTE]Originally posted by jimonica: Google eighty percent want U.S. out. And you will get enough info to support both my figures.[/quote] Oh it is a direct quote of Murtha's. Got it. Thanks. I dispute it. I heard somebody just two days ago that I respect a lot say that he would bet all that he owned that if we could get a "fair" poll of the Iraqi citizenry that the majority would want us to stay. Why would that assertion have any less weight than a Murtha quote? Neither is backed by any data, neither is backed by a source? Edit: I just founbd the source from another Murtha quote "A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in the Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified." I still dispute it.

jimonica · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Quietcat, On the statistics that's fine you don't need to believe them or not. So long as you know I didn't pull them out of my arse. Back to the previous post. I'll repeat my answer again. When evil is a threat to the U.S. I say lets go in and kick some butt. You must have a lot of time on your hands to sit hear and get into a big philosophical debate and belabor this evil issue. You did that with me before on another subject. Apparently you have much more time than I. And I don't know where you got the idea I was a pacifist. If someone was to come up to any of my five brothers, friends or schoolmates and tell them that I'm a pacifist, I think they would burst out laughing in your face. But I know us lefties are just a bunch of limp wristed latte drinking pacifist. lol

RubberFrog · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by jimonica: But I know us lefties are just a bunch of limp wristed latte drinking pacifist. lol

Geez, at least you guys all

agree on something!

oddjob · Dec 2, 2005

Re: President Bush's speech

Originally posted by jimonica: Oddjob, I've got a question for you. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it fall, did the tree fall? Yes, according to nobody... Two can play that game. ...politics is a bi#ch when both parties do.. You see this is what our conversation has come to. But you seem to be right at home with it. yes, I can talk around circles with the best if I want to...except PW...hes tough and to his point ....one day you might measure up We've come a long way from the original topic. You mean the tree story?..oh yeah.. If you don't have anything to add about the topic at hand I'm done. See above ...straight answer to your new topic BTW.. I'm not about to get into a pi$$ing match with you. I wouldnt if I were you...I can do it standing up..lol

President Bush's speech

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Petty Officer 1st Class

Rear Admiral

Supreme Mariner

Petty Officer 1st Class

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Petty Officer 1st Class

Petty Officer 1st Class

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Petty Officer 1st Class

Supreme Mariner

Petty Officer 1st Class

Rear Admiral

Commander