|
Author
|
Topic: Is it time to throw Isreal to the wolves?
|
Brad Rules
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 01:18 PM
 
I think it is pretty obvious that if we sacrifice our support for Isreal, we will win many friends in the Middle East. In fact, a sacrifice of Isreal might guarantee that we are no longer a target of islamic terrorism.Should we dump Isreal? Why or why not? IP: Logged |
Angel Fish
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 01:25 PM
Where's 'Isreal'? I couldn't find it on the map.I found Israel though. IP: Logged |
Kyree
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 01:36 PM
Wolves don't want Isreal. Or Israel, for that matter.IP: Logged |
farwell3d
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 02:17 PM
I don't see how foresaking Israel would make so big of a difference as trying to be serious about creating peace between Israel and Palestine...I'll leave the religous aspects out of this, for fear of hearing to many people tell me that we're ruled by a goverment, not God. ------------------
"You won't find me gone
Raised Hands Surrond Us
3 Nails to Protect Us
I'll find my way back home
Raised Hands Surround Us
3 Nails to Protect Us"
-Project 86 "Open Hand" IP: Logged |
Darth Billy Bob
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 02:31 PM
I'd just like to point out that not only is Israel a nuclear power in its own right, but being surrounded by so many factions that want them destroyed has caused them to develope some of the finest armed forces on the planet, including one of the most ruthless intelligence agencies ever known.Throwing them to the wolves would be like kicking a pit bull out of the blue. Not a good idea on any scale. I don't know about Isreal though. So fuck 'em. To the wolves they go. IP: Logged |
DominusGladiorum
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 02:33 PM
I would just like to say that callign Arabs and Muslims "wolves" is undenialby racist.
Also, I think that much of waht Israel has done is objectionable, and the USA's best moral choice is to use the thret of cuting off funding to force Israel to let the Palestinians have the independence they want and deserve.------------------
[/rant] IP: Logged |
asd109
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 05:33 PM
DG--are you serious? "throwing to the wolves" is an expression. I really don't think there was any racist intent there.And guys, when did we start being that picky about people's spelling? IP: Logged |
DominusGladiorum
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 06:31 PM
Yeah, it was a weak joke. I think. IP: Logged |
Rockwell
Self-Made User
|
posted September 18, 2001 10:34 PM
Israel has just as much right to exist as any other nation on the planet (Including Palistine (sp?) or a semblance therefor) and so withdrawing all US support would not help the situation in the long-term at all (Some nations still regard Israel as illegal). In fact it may well create a disaster that would involve much of the worlds nations, and I agree with you DBB, Israel may well be able to hold-its-own, but without going atomic?That said, I believe that the US should modify its stance on Israeli-Arab relations. At the moment there is almost unilateral US support for any action the Israeli defence (?) forces choose to make and this is helping to generate distrust and eventual hatred by the ‘wronged’ party. Europe as a whole seems top have modified its stance on this issue over the years (especially since the old PLO made moves to create peace) and this is generating a sense of ‘fairness’ that the average Paleistians (sp?) and the average Israeli see as benefiting the peace process as opposed to ‘Just our side’ in the debate. This seems the better option. That’s my take on it though, and I admit its fairly limited in its basis, others I’m sure will be more knowledgable.
IP: Logged |
Deep Pain
Scrappy Doo
|
posted September 19, 2001 02:26 AM
NEWS EMBARGO AFTER ISRAELI LINK LEAK!
Stern-Intel (Canada). A US military intelligence source revealed details of an internal intelligence memo that points to the Israeli Mossad intelligence service having links to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The intelligence source, who requested his name be withheld, confirmed the internal US intelligence memo circulated four weeks ago described information that pointed to the threat of a covert Israeli operation on US soil to turn mass public opinion against Palestinian Arabs via an apparent terrorist attack on US interests that would give Israel the green light to implement a large scale military onslaught against the Palestinian Arab population. The 11 September attack has been described experts as being too sophisticated for a lone terrorist group to execute. "This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both air force one flight operations, civil airline flight paths and aerial assault tactics on sensitive US cities like Washington, Stated David Stern an expert on Israeli intelligence operations. The attacks targeted the Pentagon, World Trade Center towers, with the White House and Air Force One also being targets according to the FBI. "The attacks have certainly turned US public opinion firmly back in Israel's favor after 11 months of Palestinian uprising, heavy criticism of Israel over war crimes allegations and racism a UN conference in Durban. The attacks serve no Arab group or nation's interests but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel for its policy of death squad assassination of Palestinian political and police figures", added Stern. If verified, the news of Israel's involvement in the US attack will come as no surprise to intelligence experts. The state of Israel has a long history of covert operations against Western targets with attacks on the King David Hotel, USS Liberty, murder of a Scandinavian UN envoy as well as espionage against the US during the Jonathan Pollard case. On Wednesday the US defense department issued a warning to its officials to halt the leak of information on the investigation which it says is happening on a daily basis since the attacks occurred. Do you belive that???? for me ... it sounds logical
------------------
I am deeply hurted because of my loss of 2 darling relatives IP: Logged |
Dutch Philosopher
Scrappy Doo
|
posted September 19, 2001 04:26 AM
Is it time to stop starting threads with Rhetorical Questions as subject?edited for rhetoric.
[This message has been edited by Dutch Philosopher (edited September 19, 2001).] IP: Logged |
Darth Billy Bob
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 05:49 AM
From what source is that story?Does it sound logical? Yeah. But then, so do the plots of most sci-fi movies. Did it come from a website, or an e-mail? IP: Logged |
Cropherb
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 07:14 AM
The problematic "wolves" expression aside, Brad's post and Deep Pain's each represent different but all-too-common ways that xenophobic backlash typically gets shifted from Arab states (and Muslim persons generally) to Israel (and Jewish persons generally) in the wake of violence of Middle Eastern origin against US targets. It's nothing new, unfortunately. Anger seeks a straightforward object; basically a lot of people want someone to blame for this tragedy. Having been told by all decent people, including our only President, that it's wrong to blame our Islamic friends, they turn their wrath towards the next scapegoat in line.The article that Deep Pain pasted appears to be by one David Stern, a self-styled "expert on Israeli intelligence operations" who has no verifiable credentials that I can find, and - most tellingly - seems to quote himself within the body of the article. I was going to dismiss this as the flimsiest speculation, but that's not strong enough. What it is, is ugly innuendo. Far from being logical, its deception and misdirection are immediately apparent upon any close reading. The man who wrote it ought to be ashamed of himself, as should anyone who disseminates it. Meanwhile, a lot of my sometime friends want to point a finger at the oil companies. That's shameful, too. [This message has been edited by Cropherb (edited September 19, 2001).] IP: Logged |
Maverick
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 07:55 AM
Well, a quick search turned up another article by David Stern, about a plot to assasinate Bill Clinton in 1992 by the CIA, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Republican Party and Mossad.I'm personally not going to put much faith in anything David Stern says. IP: Logged |
Darth Billy Bob
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 08:06 AM
Hmmm ... paranormalnews.com .. yeah, I'm sure this Stern guy is right on the ball if paranormalnews.com is carrying his stories.*shakes head* IP: Logged |
Morat
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 10:05 AM
Ah, yes. That reminds me of Iran's cheerful addition to this stew. A few days after the attack, the leaders of Iran stated that we had their deepest sympathies, but that Bin Laden wasn't responsible. Only Israel benefits, therefore it was a "Zionist plot". There will always be those who seek to blame all events on their enemies. You see it in everything from international affairs to local politics. Scapegoating is a time honored tradition. It's nice to see the old ways kept up, eh? ------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson IP: Logged |
Earl Junior
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 12:42 PM
No, Morat, you are wrong. But I blame it on a dilapidated school system, not you. IP: Logged |
USA Dave
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 03:24 PM
We Are All Israelis Now
By Robert Tracinski
The day after last Tuesday's bombings, the headline of the French newspaper Le Monde declared: "We are all Americans now." It was an extraordinary gesture, especially from the French and especially from Le Monde.
But the more appropriate headline, both in Europe and in America, would be: "We are all Israelis now."
Israel has never been the victim of a terrorist attack of the same size as the bombings in New York and Washington. But in the past year—since Yasser Arafat initiated his new war against Israel—terrorists have killed or wounded more than 1,000 Israeli civilians. Compared to Israel's population—less than 6 million people—that's the equivalent of 44,000 civilians casualties in the United States.
The terror we experienced last week is what Israelis have lived with for decades, and the motive of the terrorists is the same. Their motive is not solely a hatred for Jews, though that is an important component. Their motive is a wider hatred for the West—for the free, secular society that allows us to flout Islamic law—for the industry, technology, and economic freedom that makes us wealthy—for the military might that makes us invulnerable to conventional attack. The terrorists grasp this commonality, and they hate America, not only because we support Israel, but because Israel shares and represents our values. As a Palestinian cleric declared last year in a sermon at a Gaza mosque—a sermon broadcast on Arafat-controlled television—"Wherever you are, kill the Jews, [and] the Americans, who are like them." This is the enemy against whom we have urged the Israelis to exercise restraint.
It is conceivable that, for many people, the plight of the Israelis was not fully real until we faced the same kind of attack here in America. Now they have no excuse.
The most contemptible cowards, however, are those university leftists who are now urging Americans, not to sympathize with the Israelis, but to sacrifice them. These are the people who tell us we should respond to terrorism, not by liquidating the terrorist organizations and their backers, but by "looking at the reasons why we are hated in the Islamic world." The reason they usually single out is our support for Israel. So, to mollify the friends of Osama bin Laden, we are supposed to abandon 5 million Jews to a new holocaust.
The accomplices of these intellectuals are the myopic pragmatists at the State Department who are trying to force further concessions on Israel. By supporting the Palestinian cause, they hope to convince more Arab nations to sign on to our anti-terrorist coalition. The nation's compromiser-in-chief, Colin Powell, is even entertaining overtures from Syria and Iran. The idea, apparently, is to launch a war against terrorism by cozying up to terrorists.
This is just a continuation of the real cause of the terrorist threat against the United States. That cause is not our support for Israel, but the principles behind the disastrous "peace process" we have foisted on Israel.
If we were to follow the advice we have given Israel for the past decade, we would respond to last week's terror attacks by opening up negotiations with Osama bin Laden. We would invite him to Camp David for peace talks, where we would agree to install him as dictator of his own quasi-government, supported with American foreign aid. After every new bombing and every new slaughter of American citizens, we would have to declare our renewed dedication to this "peace process" and invite bin Laden back for more negotiations. We would have to smile and believe his lies every time he tells us that he just can't control the suicide bombers who keep laying waste to our cities.
If this sounds utterly repugnant—if it sounds like a prescription for suicide—remember that this has been our officially sanctioned Middle East policy for the past eight years. What America owes Israel now is a long, abject apology—and carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to fight Palestinian terrorism. That includes arresting Arafat, shutting down his Palestinian Authority, and then going after the primary state sponsor of Palestinian terrorism: the dictatorship of Syria.
It is being said that this crisis will show us who are friends are. But we need no crisis to know who our best friend is, and always has been, in the Middle East. Our best friend is Israel, and we should begin by vowing to support that friend as loyally as she has supported us.
------------------
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/actofwar.html IP: Logged |
DramaShrink
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 05:53 PM
I agree with everything Dave said. I just want to add this. The US and Israel are allies (or so I thought). An attack on the US (or any ally) doesn't benefit Israel all that much. Also, how would Israel benefit from the murder of Jews (among the many killed in the attacks)? Although, if the US finally realizes what Israel has had to take these past months, that could be a benefit, because then the US will come to its senses and stop telling Israel to negotiate with people who only seek to murder them. IP: Logged |
McDuff
Self-Made User
|
posted September 19, 2001 07:27 PM
quote:
Also, how would Israel benefit from the murder of Jews?
I do believe you will find Muslims killed in the attacks as well. If we're looking for people who won't have killed members of their own race or nationality in the attacks, well... anyone heard anything from the Inuit recently?I'm not saying Israel did it. I'm not saying I think it's likely that they did it. I'm just saying that muslims were hurt last Tuesday as well. IP: Logged |
Toon
Shuttlecock
|
posted September 19, 2001 07:51 PM
What I'm wondering right now is whether the US is going to start taking any pointers from Israel (where they've had plenty of practice) on How To Run Security In A State Beset By Terrorists....or whether they think that in order for America to make alliances among other Middle Eastern countries, it would be more prudent for Israel to remain a background player, as during the Gulf War.
------------------
-=> Toon "Toon, it's okay -- just think of the config.sys file as bizarre post-modern poetry."
-Rob Wynne on #filkhaven IP: Logged |
Deep Pain
Scrappy Doo
|
posted September 20, 2001 04:21 AM
well as far as I know Israel was the only country that didn't announce any losses in the lines of its subjects after that attack ...Any way Guys do you think that America is gonna strike ... well what I think is that Bush is just playing some games just to get the real people behind the attack move freely and then they will catch them ... thats why we are seeing every day a lot of confused reports in all the international media... well if he is gonna do that then I think he is pretty cliver ... ------------------
I am deeply hurted because of my loss of 2 darling relatives [This message has been edited by Deep Pain (edited September 20, 2001).] IP: Logged |
megalita
Cereal Subunit
|
posted September 20, 2001 07:17 AM
With the number of lives that were lost and the fact that it was in New York, where there is a HUGE cross-section of races, creeds, colors, height, weight, sexual orientation, and just about every other "type" of person, I find it hard to very hard believe that Israel lost none of her "subjects". To put it another way, just like there was a huge cross-section of people who lived their lives there, there was a huge cross-section of people who lost their lives there. To intimate that one "group" or another didn't suffer the same losses as any other is laughable.[This message has been edited by megalita (edited September 20, 2001).] IP: Logged |
Rockwell
Self-Made User
|
posted September 20, 2001 10:35 PM
megalita, True, a cross-section of the world population died (or at the very least was 'life-changinly' effected) in NY, to say otherwise is limiting and misses the point entirely.Christian's don't just live in America
Jew's don't just live in Israel
Muslim's don't just live in Pakistan
Australian's don't just live in Australia
Etc... Obvious point I know, but just to reiterate. IP: Logged |
farwell3d
Self-Made User
|
posted September 21, 2001 10:31 AM
As much as I hate to say this, being a pacifist that very much opposes a counter strike, Bush would be an idiot not to.The country on a whole wants him too. The economy is slumping, and war fare virtually always brings at least a brief spike in the economy. Bush's job, in reality, is to do what the American people want. Right now, he has a very good chance to win over a lot of the people that didn't vote for him but also aren't straight line Democrats. IP: Logged |
Morat
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 11:56 AM
I'd like to point out, for the record, that most of the true acts of greatness of the last century have been acts which bucked popular opinion. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that one of the biggest gripes of conservatives during Clinton's term was his use of "trial balloons" to gauge public response to his issues before formally airing them. In essence, it is not Bush's job to do what the majority wants. It is Bush's job to make the correct choice based on the information he has, information the public often does not have. John Q. Public does not have to care how a given act he endorses will affect America in the long run. He is free to wallow in short-sightedness and ignorance of long-term reprocussions. The President does not have this luxury. His job is to make the right call, not the popular one. ------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson IP: Logged |
Brad Rules
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 07:32 PM
Morat,It should also be noted that the most revered presidents Washington and Lincolon both engaged our country in massive wars with catastrophic casulties. Given the fact that the terrorists had an active plot which involved crop dusting planes and biological agents, I think the safety of american public is best served through military intervention. I have a hell of a lot more respect for the heroic men and women who are going to willingly put their lives on the line for our country than I will ever have for intellectual elitists who sit in ivory towers and throw stones. IP: Logged |
McDuff
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 07:55 PM
Rockwell: apostrophes, man, apostrophes.Morat: I was thinking about the ability of presidents to make long term decisions the other day. I was led to a troubling conclusion: the only leader with such a luxury is a dictator who does not stand to be voted out of office in four years time. And if Bush didn't want the presidency, he wouldn't have run for it. Face it, people who run for president do not do so because of love for their country - they do it for the power. People who do it for a genuine desire to do good never get elected, because they aren't ruthless bastards, and therefore can't afford the spin doctors and campaign managers. Since he wants the presidency and the power, he will want to retain this at re-election time. This means he has to keep his finger on the pulse so that John Q Public doesn't decide he doesn't like Bush any more, thus removing him from power. Much as I appreciate that any political leader really should consider things aside from public opinion, that option isn't realistic. Besides, in the long term, it's not his problem anyway. Let that other schmuck carry the can in eight years if it all goes horribly wrong... ------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC Barbies are melting TODAY. - Jesse Dangerously IP: Logged |
Brad Rules
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 08:06 PM
McDuff quote:
Let that other schmuck carry the can in eight years if it all goes horribly wrong...
Um.... things have already gone horribly wrong. Our country has never been hit this hard. Our economy has been slapped into recession, tens of thousands of airline employees are jobless, thousands of people are dead, retirement funds are being evaporated in the plunging stock market... America is facing an enormous crisis. People are frightened and skiddish. If our economy plummets, just about every other western country will follow us into the abyss. IP: Logged |
Rockwell
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 08:39 PM
Damn, My love for apostrophes is out. I generally approach punctuation like a drunk approaches a 'quite drink' in front of the telly watching the Bill.Point taken McDuff, although I can't guarantee my tentative hold on the English language will improve. I personally blame excess milk consumption. Evil evil diary board.
IP: Logged |
Brad Rules
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 08:46 PM
McDuff,Bush's leadership through this crisis has been damn near flawless. 1. He has hammered down the point that this war is on terrorists NOT on ISLAM or on ARABS. He hits this point in just about every speech he gives. I think he has shown great leadership in this regard and his outspokeness on this issue has probably saved many Arab americans from harm. This message of tolerance sends a strong message to the Middle East about how Americans view Islam and Arabs. Compare Bushs approach to FDRs... FDR put japaneese americans into camps. 2. He has used the carrot and the stick to perfection. He has gotten Pakistan and India (mortal enemies) to fall in line. He has gotten the UAE to break off all ties with the Taliban. He has gotten all countries around Afghanistan to close their borders, giving Osama no escape route. His success in getting Middle Eastern countries to toe the line has been a wonder to behold. He has built the broadest coalition of nations I have ever seen. He has completely isolated the enemy. He has held back on military action to give the Taliban time to stew in their own juices. I still feel that there may be a chance that the Taliban caves in. They aren't suicidal maniacs. Their desire for self-preservation could kick in at any moment. It would be truly wonderful if they give in to all of Bush's demands with no bloodshed whatsoever. I get the feeling that Bush would prefer to leave the Taliban in power and avoid bloodshed. 3. He has taken bold steps aimed at bolstering our security at home. He created a new cabinet level postion which will coordinate the efforts of all the intelligence agencies in our country... CIA, NSA, FBI, etc... 4. He has prodded countries around the world to round up terrorists and freeze bank accounts around the world.... and those countries have done just that. Several ongoing plots were discovered through these operations. 5. He has garnered world-wide condemnation for terrorism. He has built a powerful coalition of countries opposed to terrorism. This may be the worlds best chance to do serious damage to the terrorist networks. 6. He has done a damn fine job of qualming the fears of average Americans and projecting an attitude of strength and conviction. The American people has responded with a 90% approval rating, the highest for any president in our history. 7. He has not jumped into military retaliation immediately. It appears that he is being very deliberate and taking diplomatic and intelligence gathering actions before putting American soldiers at risk. His restraint is a mark of a good leader.
IP: Logged |
Brad Rules
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 09:07 PM
By the way, it has done my heart good to see Sadam move from statements like the american cowboy has got a black eye to statements which say that Iraq had no involvement. He must have seen the western medias concentration on him and the fact that he may be the number 2 target. He must know that if the US comes for him, there will be no negotiations this time. quote:
Top White House officials Sunday would not rule out the possibility that Iraq might also be subject to U.S. military action in the campaign against terrorism.
IP: Logged |
Dark Jester
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 09:25 PM
*Isreally Israeli (I know it was a bad and tasteless pun but I couldn't resist) and therefore can't be very objective on the issue.*So, I'll just agree with Toon. While the U.S have the resources, Israel has the know-how. So, active participant or not, Israel does have a lot to contribute in this situation. Also, to those of you expressing those "let's carpet bomb the bastards" sentiments, I found this to be an interesting read. ------------------
Don't hate me 'cuz I'm smart! Hate me cuz I'm slapping you with a fish! - Nevah Altavaris Entitar Don't drink the water...
IP: Logged |
Morat
Self-Made User
|
posted September 23, 2001 09:35 PM
*looks at Bush's performance*
*reads "damn near flawless" from Brad Rules.*collapses in laughter*.
Yes. Flawless. "Dead or alive" and "Crusade" are two particular boners that his handlers had to spin immediatly after he'd made an unrehearsed remark.
And of course, exactly why he fled to Louisiana instead of to New York or Washington is still a question. Even the White House admitted the "Air Force One was a target" story was far more spin than fact. To those that believed that for even a few moments, I'd like to ask how you felt a terrorist could manage to take it down. Midair collision? Amatuer pilots outflying the best pilots in the military, not to mention it's usual fighter escort? No. Bush screwed up from the beginning. He's doing okay now, but to call his performance "flawless" or even close is to savagely ignore reality.
------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson IP: Logged |
Brad Rules
Self-Made User
|
posted September 24, 2001 10:22 AM
Morat,Your criticisms are so trivial that they don't even merit response. I am sure you can recognize that. Given your intense hatred of Bush (every bit of strong as my intense hatred of Clinton), your statement: quote:
He's doing okay now,
is actually quite high praise. By the way, I think the reason Bush is doing so well is largely due to Colin Powell. I believe Colin Powell to be a military, political and diplomatic genuis unparalleled in the world. [This message has been edited by Brad Rules (edited September 24, 2001).] IP: Logged |
Morat
Self-Made User
|
posted September 24, 2001 11:00 AM
Engaging Brad to English translation function:
quote:
Your criticisms are so trivial that they don't even merit response. I am sure you can recognize
that.
"You are correct, Morat. Bush did make a major blunder with his "dead or alive" comments as well as his reference to a "crusade". Both statements weakened support among other nations as well as giving the US reactions the appearance of a personal vendetta, as opposed to a internationally supported "law and order" response. Further, Bush's reactions during the first 24 hours were telling, as he was in no way seen as having any sort of grasp on the situation. As for the rest of your post, say what you want about Clinton. But I can promise you that ol' Bill would have flown straight to Washington, or even New York instead of detouring across the country first. ------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson IP: Logged |
Bombadil
Self-Made User
|
posted September 24, 2001 12:19 PM
Would it be pedantic to note that Bush is taking cues from an excellent administration and an excellent cabinet, and probably from his father (let's not forget Ole Grampa Bush) who has had years of international know-how?Which is meant as neither a criticism nor a lauding of Dubya. He put together a good administration and he knows to listen to them. I commend him for that. The office of the President is run by an organization of which George Dubya is the CEO. So criticisms or praise all go to the organization as much as to the figurehead. IP: Logged |
Morat
Self-Made User
|
posted September 24, 2001 01:12 PM
Of course. Hence my use of the words "okay". When handled my his Cabinet, the White House response has been fairly on target. When Bush is allowed to speak on his own, unrehearsed, you get comments that end up having to be retracted or spun by the White House later. Crusade and "Dead of Alive" being the two that come to mind first. However, I think the White House blundered heavily with Bush's speech. If you want to avoid war, but still get what you want, you have to allow your opponent a way out. The Taliban doesn't have one anymore. Bush left them no choices, no way of making a handover look like anything but unilateral submission to US dictates, which they can't really do. A smarter move would have been to give them another option, a way of turning him over and still saving face. Even something sneaky like "You tell us, on the sly, where he is, and we'll go get him and you can bitch about border violations after, okay?" ------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson IP: Logged |
farwell3d
Self-Made User
|
posted September 24, 2001 01:37 PM
All though some else already said this, I just want to clarify what I said.Ideally, Bush's job is to make the right choice, but in reality he is controlled by his ratings. Trust me, if a larage majority of older Americans (say, 35+) spoke out against a war effort, there probably wouldn't be. "Politicians Hide Themselves Away
They Only Started the war
Why Should they go out to fight
They leave that role to the poor Time will play on thier empowered minds
Making wars just for fun
Treating People just like Pawns in Chess
Wait 'til their Judgement Day Comes Yeah"
-Black Sabbath War Pigs
------------------
"You won't find me gone
Raised Hands Surrond Us
3 Nails to Protect Us
I'll find my way back home
Raised Hands Surround Us
3 Nails to Protect Us"
-Project 86 "Open Hand" IP: Logged |
bellaboops
Self-Made User
|
posted September 24, 2001 02:25 PM
quote:
Face it, people who run for president do not do so because of love for their country - they do it for the power.
This is a ridiculous statement, and I won't face it because I don't believe it. If anyone has watched, with an open mind, Bush speak lately, he would see the sincerity in his eyes, and the true love he has for his country and its people. Call me naive (it won't be the first time, and what's more I would heartily agree), but I really do have more than a modicum of faith in our government officials on the whole, and I believe in the true presence of patriotism in them. quote:
And of course, exactly why he fled to Louisiana instead of to New York or Washington is still a question.
It's not a question in my mind. It seems like it would have been foolish to make the president a sitting duck in the White House while there were still aircraft flying around, no telling if there were hijackers on any of them. But putting the sheer foolishness of that aside, it would also have been highly irresponsible to put more innocent lives at risk. And I don't see how anyone could speculate that Clinton would've done otherwise. IP: Logged | |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Brunching UBB
