On this national day of mourning, a.k.a. Inauguration Day, I am going to offer a radical idea on how to fix Social Security. Ready? Here it is.
We stop sending Americans to get killed.
Consider: At the end of “Schindler’s List,” it is stated that due to the 1100 Jews saved because of Schindler, the result was 6000 Jews who lived that would never have been born.
So over a period of ten years back in the 1960s, we lost 50,000 Americans. I’m not mathematician enough to calculate the number of Americans who were never born as a result: Americans added to the workforce, whose salaries would have contributed to social security, or who would have founded companies to hire people whose salaries, etc. But I would not hesitate to guess that would be a lot of warm bodies, all paying in to the program.
But they were killed or never existed. If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception, then certainly they must give a nod toward conception that won’t occur.
Apparently, though, not so much. Because there’s already 1300 names on Bush’s list. So that’s…what? Another 6500 Americans who won’t be born over the next thirty years? We can’t even begin to wrap ourselves around the immensity of the tragedy involved in the sheer waste of young life. We can barely comprehend the “Daily News” headline that reads “Iran Next! Secret US commando teams already inside to identify potential targets, report claims.” So instead we must dwell on the pragmatic aspects, because the human horror and waste of American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives ranging anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000) is just too ghastly to contemplate.
Fix Social Security. Stop Bush’s list from growing.
PAD
• 
I thought we were in Afghanistan? No?
See when did unborn babys become human lives? I thought they were just fetuses (or is it fetei?)
PAD wrote: “Lessee…low gas prices. Expansion of civil rights. Man landing on the moon. Rolling Stones, Woodstock and the Beatles. Downsides? Lousy presidents and young men dying in a pointless war. Lots of upsides, same downsides, so the latter is a wash. Good ol’ days indeed.”
I think your rose-colored glasses need a cleaning. In just one year alone, 1968, there was the Tet Offensive in Vietnam (which, by the way, killed nearly 550 U.S. soldiers in ONE WEEK, and wounded more than 2,500 more); the My Lai massacre; the Martin Luther King Jr assassination; the Robert Kennedy assassination; the bloody, savage riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago; a series of nation-wide bombings and murders by the Weather Underground and other assorted anarchist groups; the horrible race riots (and resulting fires and looting) in almost every major city in the country that destroyed thousands of homes and businesses; the election in November 1968 of Richard Nixon; and plenty of other unrest and mayhem that bubbled around the U.S. that “idyllic” year.
Nah. You can have the late 1960s — especially 1968.
When you look at an old copy of Time Or Newsweek from the 60s–and I recommend it to everyone, just for the exercise in perspective–it seems like a miracle that the country survived.
Let’s add to the list the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, thalidomide, toxic waste dumping that we are still finding out about, wretched TV shows and probably no better music than what we have now. (Sure, I love a good classic 60s station as much as anyone but let’s face it–they’ve culled out the crap. The number 2 most popular single of 1968 was…Honey by Bobby Goldsboro.)
Honey.
You remember that one, right?
“She wrecked the car
and she was sad
And so afraid that I’d be mad
But what the heck”
or
“She was always young at heart
Kinda dumb and kinda smart and I loved her so”
Say what you want about 2005, I can at least turn on the radio and be reasonably assured that I won’t be exposed to the golden voice of Mr. Goldsboro. The sixties. Feh. You can have ’em.
The 60s brought us Star Trek. That alone is reason to celebrate it.
The 60s brought… well… ME! And my brothers!
I LOVE the 60s!!!!
“The 60s brought us Star Trek.’
Yeah, but they also gave us My Mother The Car.
Although I still remember the lyrics to the theme song so…
Peter said Man landing on the moon.
Are you sure you don’t consider that a government conspiracy? I’m shocked you actually believe we landed on the moon.
Craig said Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.
That’s President Bush, get it right. If you’re going to attempt to slam him, at least show a modicum of respect.
kingbobb said Eric!, Spin? What spin? It’s fact…about 117 million voted. Bush got 60 million. That leaves over 60 million that didn’t vote. You stated that a majority of nation picked him. That’s just plain wrong. A majority would have to be 80-90 million, which Bush didn’t get. 40% abstaining is nearly half.
Now I see where the liberals get their logic from. You might as well say that the 40% who didn’t vote would have vote for Kerry if they got off their áršëš and actually cared about the election. So, in your eyes, Kerry’s probably President right now.
Bah!
Karen said Let’s make sure the wealthy get tax cuts and financial windfalls from social security privatization, but take from those of us who can least afford it. But keep sticking up for him. His PR machine (using government funds, by the way) thanks you for believing the doublespeak he keeps shovelling.
I don’t see you giving your tax cut back. Paltry as it may be, you still keep it don’t you? It never ceases to amaze me that people always seem to complain about things other people are getting and they can’t have. You either want the same as someone else or more. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.
Anthony said Republicans are not pro-life. They are pro birth. It’s “all” about the birth.Once your born, they could care less.
That’s the biggest crock of %&^*. LMAO.
Make sure you catch the Bruce Springsteen/Hillary Clinton get out the Libs Bus Tour in ’08 instead of letting it pass you by.
Novafan: I don’t see you giving your tax cut back. Paltry as it may be, you still keep it don’t you? It never ceases to amaze me that people always seem to complain about things other people are getting and they can’t have. You either want the same as someone else or more. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.
How do you know what I’m doing with my “tax cut”? And yes it is paltry, but by giving it to charity I am using the money for a much better purpose than returning it so it can be used for more corporate welfare.
That’s President Bush, get it right. If you’re going to attempt to slam him, at least show a modicum of respect.
Nah, I think I have more respect for President Castro down in Cuba.
But then, I don’t recall the last time Bush referred to Hussein as president either, which he was, regardless.
Bush has earned about as much respect as Ðìçk (Nixon).
Shadow war, how is an episode guide to Babylon 5’s 3rd season gonna help us?
As a HUGE Babylon 5 fan, I actually would say there are some parallels of how a great leader who sees things others don’t want to see and acts when others are afraid to act, but I am sure JMS would be horrified at the comparison between Bush and Sheridan!
Here is the full title:
Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror, by Richard Miniter
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260522/qid=1106421304/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-0980088-3231339?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)
“Hmm… so let me get this right, PAD would have attacked Saudi Arabia because it was Saudis that brought down the twin towers? Even though the particular Saudis responsible were in Afghanistan? Okay, now I’m confused.”
No, you’re just acting like a twit, mostly for the purpose of avoiding the core points of my original post which remain unassailable.
I didn’t say I’d have attacked Saudi Arabia (although the Bush connections to the Saudis pretty much preclude it.) I said that even though it was Saudis on the plane, the lies of Bush and Co. convinced Americans that it was Iraqis, just gaining falsely based support for the war that has 1300+ names on Bush’s list with more to come.
I have never said a single word against the attack on Afghanistan, although you are naturally welcome to pretend I did for the purpose of further distorting the point.
PAD
Jim, I have to disagree with you on Bush falling into the hypocrit role. He professes to be man a faith, a devout christian. I understand the whole sword of justice being held by the government thing, but don’t you have to be found guilty of something before justice can be visited upon you? Any pre-emptive military action almost by definition cannot be consistant with a christian view of the world. This is where Bush is a hypocrit.
Your point is valid only if you ignore the last 20 years of history. It is a fact that Saddam did use WMD’s in the past. It is a fact that Saddam invaded a neighboring country. It is a fact that Saddam violated a lot of the ceasefire agreement that he signed to stop the first Gulf War. It is a fact that he shot at our planes almost daily — planes that were specifically flying to keep him from repeating his previous massacre of the Kurds. It is a fact that Saddam had very active ties with terrorists, including allowing (and possibly giving direct aid to) a key figure in the first attempt on the World Trade Towers. It is a fact that the world as a whole, not just the Bush CIA, believed there was at least a threat that Saddam still had or was developing more WMD’s.
Yes, Bush’s actions were pre-emptive, but they did not happen in a vacuum. He attacked a country that had actively supported terrorism in the past and a country that would have been an easy refuge for the terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. (Yes, many are still fleeing there now, but we are also able right now to fight them there and not wait until they attempt to strike here.)
So no, Bush is in no way a hypocrite. He says what he means and he does what he says more than most presidents. Which is why PAD and others are so opposed to him. They know that it is not just words for Bush.
On a side note, no one is 100% consistent in their beliefs. But that is not the same as true hypocrisy. The fact that I support the death penalty and am also pro-life may seem inconsistent to some, but I am not being hypocritical in holding both positions.
Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)
And I fully agree that if this gets botched up
It already IS botched up. What more do you want? Another 4 years again after this set to give Bush a third try to fix his little Vietnam?
Go back and read the press reports 2 years after we World War 2 and you will find the same doom and gloom about the prospect of Germany and Japan being stabilized. With hindsight, I do think there are some things that could have been done differently, but that is ALWAYS the case. The fact is, there IS evidence that things are NOT botched up, but that things are still in transition. I would not claim success is in any way certain, but it is a real possibility. I would claim that if the press continues to only report the negative without putting it into an honest perspective of the bigger picture, that the spin of the mass media could very much undermine what we are doing. For all of the complaints about Bush, he clearly has not taken over the media based on the bias we are getting in the media. (I have posted documentation for this earlier.)
Iowa Jim
Given the 8 year time span between the 1st attack against the U.S. on our soil and the 2nd, there really isn’t any evidence to suggest that we are any safer at all.
Once again, go read “Shadow War.” There has been a clear change in the capability of Al Quada in particular to attack us. Your comment ignores the attack on the USS Cole and other actions that happened during those 8 years. In addition, while Al Quada is patient, they do have something to prove right now by carrying off a successful attack here in the US. The fact that they have not done so since 9/11 does say something. Your analogy ignores the fact that we have engaged in a very active war on terror in the last 3 years, a war that has been carried out in over 80 countries around the world.
Iowa Jim
Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.
The fact that you can not only post such a comment, but make a documentary based on that idea for everyone who wants to go see (as Moore did with F911) proves your assertion is invalid.
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim! Your new nom de internet now has the picture of you as a gunslinger firmly entrenched in my mind. Hee!
ANd while I find myself disagreeing with practically everything you say with regards to politics and religion (and the conjunction of the two) I do have to say that I respect you for the way that you say them and for the attitude you seem to have where you don’t appear to beleive that people who disagree with you are either stupid or evil.
A sadly disappearing view in todays divided America, and one certainly lacking in the drive-by trolls who seem to delight in poping up here soley because they know their views are in the minority on this forum (hence insuring they will get attention, all they really want anyway…).
YOu, on the other hand, I feel are truly trying to talk to people beyond just those who agree with you, something that is going to be vital if this country is to not split in two.
Alright, now that I’ve given you a swelled head, I’m gonna go pop more cold medicine before returning to tell you why I think you’re wrong in almost everything you said, with a hopefully clearer head…. *g*
Jim in Iowa:
>Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.
Not necessarily. It could simply mean that he is a very ineffective dictator. :p
On a serious not though, doesn’t the fact that he is demanding that other governments run their countries with the same system that we do simply because we feel it works for us seem a bit like dictating? Egocentric at the very least.
Even if one successfully argues that toppling Hussein was the right thing to do, for the right reasons, at the right time…… it is a bit presumptuous to tell that nation and its people that they must follow our model. Given their inability to seperate church and state, it appears to be an unlikely task, if not downright contradictory.
Fred
Fred Chamberlain wrote…
it is a bit presumptuous to tell that nation and its people that they must follow our model.
Especially given the track record of your model over the last few years. Not terrible, but far from perfect.
Other comments could be made about America’s (in)ability to separate church and state…
It is a fact
that Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded Iraq.
So, apparently, a decade of isolation, embargos and more DID work.
But don’t expect Bush to notice.
What’s your point? Doom & gloom were predicted here too, and guess what, they were right.
You’d have to be a dámņ moron to be able to compare Germany & Japan post-WW2 to Iraq today. Why? Because our soldiers weren’t killed on a daily basis post-WW2.
Mission accomplished my ášš.
The fact that you can not only post such a comment, but make a documentary based on that idea for everyone who wants to go see (as Moore did with F911) proves your assertion is invalid.
Umm, you didn’t prove a dámņ thing.
Given their inability to seperate church and state, it appears to be an unlikely task, if not downright contradictory.
Oh, but of course. Now we’ll just tell them they need to be a Christian democracy (or is it theocracy?) instead of a Muslim dictatorship.
As you can see, that hasn’t gone over well.
Imo, it’s pretty dámņ simple: you can’t force Democracy upon these people. They MUST want it for themselves.
If they don’t want it, then we have no business telling them otherwise, because democracy isn’t for everybody, no matter how pathetically the Bush Administration tells us otherwise.
Craig.
It is a fact that fighting continued well into 1946 in Germany.
It is a fact that Saddam KICKED out the UN inspectors from 97-2002. WHY???
It is a fact that Saddam contributed to Palestinian terror.
It is a fact that Syrian and Iranian and Al Quada fighters are currently involved in the TERROR! Why?
So let me ask you. Why not let the elections happen, when the Yanks leave take over? Right???
WRONG!
Elections in Afghanistan happened. (with litle fan fare) because of Bush. And now in the deepest darkest parts of the middle east, they are happening.
Syrians and the Iranians and the saudis and every other ugly dictator are scared that it is going to work.
“you can’t force Democracy upon these people”
These people??? Ah todays tolerant and loving left.
Imo, it’s pretty dámņ simple: you can’t force Democracy upon these people. They MUST want it for themselves.
If they don’t want it, then we have no business telling them otherwise, because democracy isn’t for everybody, no matter how pathetically the Bush Administration tells us otherwise.
I don’t know what war you’re watching, but the one I see the people in Iraq DO want a democracy. The problem is that you have a bunch of gun crazy , throat-slitting murderers and thugs going around killing and intimidating people. In some places, mostly Sunni controlled areas, the people are in league with the thugs.
We’ve seen this before, as recently as the 1960s and early 70s here in the US. We’ve called them White Supremists, Night Riders, Ku Klux Klan, and the Nazis. Frankly to hear you so cavalierly dismiss these people as not wanting democracy or not wanting it bad enough is appalling. Is that what you would have said at the time about Auschwitz or the deep south in the late 1800s and 1900 all the way up to the 70s? Because you’re mouthing the very words they used at the time to justify their hatred and bigotry of not only blacks but Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Indians.
And you’re attitude about people wanting democracy is the same attitude that led Prince Harry to make a “poor choice in costume” recently.
Most white southerners thought their slaves were happy to be slaves, and used the fact that they fought alongside plantation owners to protect the plantation from the northen soldiers.
We’re not the bad guys here. We’re trying to give these people a choice. The bad guys are the ones trying to stop them from making it.
Craig wrote: “Oh, but of course. Now we’ll just tell them they need to be a Christian democracy (or is it theocracy?) instead of a Muslim dictatorship.”
What the heck is “Christian democracy”? Indonesia is a Democracy, and it’s a Muslim nation. The ancient Greeks were Pagans, and they lived in a Democratic society. And exactly what political party did Jesus belong to?
The fact of the matter is, Democracy is the government of choice (pun intended) around the world these days, and has little to do with your dislike for all things Bush.
“Why are we in Iraq? The answer is simple: Bush believed that Saddam was capable of staging the next 9/11.”
No. Bush wanted the oil; he wanted to stage another war because voters are historically reluctant to switch presidents during wartime; he wanted to distract from the fact that he had not brought in bin Laden dead or alive; he wanted to accomplish what his father had not. In order to accomplish this remarkable exercise in misdirection, he ruthlessly played upon American credulity and the sense of shock that stemmed from 9/11.
Beware simple answers. Occam’s razor is a guideline, not a rule.
PAD
Peter said No. Bush wanted the oil;
You forgot to mention the Afghanistan pipeline that we attacked Afghanistan to secure also.
It makes me sick when people who are famous say something and the liberals automatically believe it’s true. How many people have you brainwashed with that rhetoric?
Why don’t you say: “In my opinion, Bush wanted the oil….”
Sheesh!!!!
Peter said (although the Bush connections to the Saudis pretty much preclude it.)
So now you’re accusing the President of having interests in another country and betraying out country to protect his interests. Do you sit up late at night thinking of this stuff?
OMG, I’ve seen it all now. A freedom countdown applet. LMAO!!!!!!!!!
What are you going to do in 2008 when you lose again, reset the timer?
LMAO!!!!!!!!
Oh sure, they WANT you to think that freedom will be here in just 1458 days 10 hours 12 minutes and 11 seconds, therby lulling you into not paying attention when Bush and Rove set into motion their “President for Life” amendment. Where did this applet come from–the National Review? Fox News? Boy, if you guys can’t see an obvious conspiracy when it’s staring you right in the face…
eclark: I don’t know what war you’re watching, but the one I see the people in Iraq DO want a democracy.
If that was the case, then why didn’t they (the Iraqi people) overthrow Saddam? Why aren’t they out on the front lines fighting the insurgents?
And before you start, lack of training has nothing to do with it. Most of the soldiers who fought in the revolutionary war weren’t formally trained, they just picked up a gun, were taught the basics, and had to learn the rest on the fly. Slaves weren’t given a 6-week course called “Underground Railroad 101”, they were just given a few tips and tricks, and figured the rest out on their own. Those groups of people wanted freedom, and training be dámņëd, they took it.
Hëll, even invading Afghanistan (which was one of the few things that Bush did that I agree with) we had more help from the inside with The Northern Alliance than what is happening in Iraq.
If the Iraqi people want freedom so bad, why is the US doing all the heavy lifting? Why aren’t the Iraqi people confronting the insurgents?
Bottom line, if I were convinced that teh Iraqi people would sacrifice all they had in the name of a democratic Iraq, and the US agreed to help them, I wouldn’t have much of a problem. But as it stands, the US went into Iraq, overthrew Saddam, put a democratic government in place, then told the Iraqi people “You’re gonna be a democracy and you’re going to like it!”, which, in my opinion, is the wrong way to go about doing this.
Or maybe I’m just watching the wrong war on tv, since the only I see is the one where US troops fight for freedom, while the only Iraqi’s fighting for anything at all are the insurgents (though rumor has that there are more who are in training, but apparently don’t yet feel up to the task of fighting for freedom). Anyone know what channel this other war, the one in which these freedom-hungy Iraqi’s, themselves, fight for a democracy, is on?
eclark: I don’t know what war you’re watching, but the one I see the people in Iraq DO want a democracy.
If that was the case, then why didn’t they (the Iraqi people) overthrow Saddam? Why aren’t they out on the front lines fighting the insurgents?
You’re kidding right? They DID try to overthrow him right after the first Gulf war. Both the Shiites to the South and the Kurds to the north rebelled in 1991. In fact the first Bush Administration urged the Shiite and Kurd populations to overthrow Saddam. They did, thinking the US would come in and help. The US didn’t, and the Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered.
I hold both Bush, Sr. and the United Nations responsible for that. But apparently Bush Sr. reckoned that he could never get UN approval to help out the uprising anyway, and Now I understand why. Turkey, to the north of Iraq is extremely fearful of a Kurdish nation splitting off from Iraq. It’s one of the reasons why we had such trouble getting them to help us at the beginning of this war. The other Muslim nations in the area with the exceptions of Kuwait and Iran are mostly Sunni Muslims, and they don’t particularly like the Shiite Muslims and have little incentive to help them. Plus Iraq itself was a predominately Shiite Muslim country, but Saddam and his power circle was Sunni Muslim. So with Saddam gone, the Shiites would have majority control of the country in a democratically held election. Who opposes this? Why the Sunni Muslims, of course. And where were the terroists trouble spots? Why in Fallujah and Najaf, Tikrit, etc. all Sunni controlled areas of Iraq.
If the Iraqi people want freedom so bad, why is the US doing all the heavy lifting? Why aren’t the Iraqi people confronting the insurgents?
You ever wonder why the people in the inner city won’t tell the police who the bad guys are, won’t point out where the crack houses are, and the gangs hangouts? Well, mostly it’s a deeply held mistrust of the police for past wrongs, but also when it’s all said and done, when the police leave, those people still have to stay there in that neighborhood.
This isn’t that much of a different scenario. The police is the US trying to organize citizens groups watch patrols. and to clean up the neighborhoods. The terrorists are the thugs and drug dealers occasionallly doing drive-bys and bombing buisnesses and families. Killing anybody who gets in there way and intimidating everyone else. If the police come in take down one drug lord and leave another drug lord will just take his place. The people know this, and so do the Iraqis.
PAD wrote: “Lessee…low gas prices. Expansion of civil rights. Man landing on the moon. Rolling Stones, Woodstock and the Beatles. Downsides? Lousy presidents and young men dying in a pointless war. Lots of upsides, same downsides, so the latter is a wash. Good ol’ days indeed.”
Let’s see, overt racism, seperate water fountains, water hoses and mean dogs. Being arrested for just looking at a white woman, having your daddy or brother dragged out of your house at night and being lynched for talking back or getting “uppity”, crosses buring in your front yard, Churches being burned or bombed. having seperate swimming pools for blacks and whites. Advocates for civil rights being outright mudered in there own front yards, or shot and killed. **Sigh** Yeah, those were the good ol’ days. Miss ’em much, do ya?
YOu, on the other hand, I feel are truly trying to talk to people beyond just those who agree with you, something that is going to be vital if this country is to not split in two.
Thanks. I don’t think either side (including myself) is right even 90% of the time. So while I do get frustrated at times, it is helpful to hear what others are thinking.
Iowa Jim
On a serious not though, doesn’t the fact that he is demanding that other governments run their countries with the same system that we do simply because we feel it works for us seem a bit like dictating? Egocentric at the very least.
No offense, but somethimes I wonder if some of you actually listen to what Bush is actually saying. In his speech, Bush very cearly and explicitly emphasized the word “freedom” and not democracy. He also clearly and explicitly said that each country needed to find a system that worked for them, so long as it allowed freedom to its citizens.
Based on the comments of 99% of you on this site, I would think that you would agree that freedom is important. PAD’s “Freedom Clock” virtually proves my point. If you could, for 5 minutes, put aside your anger or hatred or disgust or whatever it is against Bush and consider what he actually said, you would not disagree.
The thing that was NOT in his speech, at least with any clarity, was HOW to bring freedom to others. And on that issue, I can see many of you disagreeing with Bush. Even I do at times. I think Bush actually is willing to be patient in most cases, as we were with the Soviet Union. In a few cases, military action might be necessary (or have all of you forgotten Bosnia?).
Bush is NOT trying to force an American style democracy on anyone. That is a gross misrepresentation of what he has said and even what he is currently doing in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Iowa Jim
So, apparently, a decade of isolation, embargos and more DID work.
You are kidding, right? You really don’t care about the fact that Saddam was NOT isolated, that while thousands of children died from disease and malnutrition, he built his palaces, bought weapons, and put plans in place for when the embargo was lifted? Yes, it is clear now that Saddam did not regain the WMD’s he had before the first Gulf War. But it is a farce to say the embargo did work in the way it was intended when you look at the bigger picture.
That is what I don’t get with some of you. You make such a big deal about the innocents who have been killed during the last 3 years as we liberate the country while ignoring the far greater number who suffered and died under Saddam. We did not attack the “Garden of Eden.” It was not paradise under Saddam. Far from it.
Iowa Jim
No. Bush wanted the oil; he wanted to stage another war because voters are historically reluctant to switch presidents during wartime; he wanted to distract from the fact that he had not brought in bin Laden dead or alive; he wanted to accomplish what his father had not. In order to accomplish this remarkable exercise in misdirection, he ruthlessly played upon American credulity and the sense of shock that stemmed from 9/11.
PAD, I know you believe what you wrote. But there is absolutely no proof for anything you say. You are assigning motives based on your assumptions, not on any evidence. Bush is not perfect, and I many not agree with all that he does, but he is not the ruthless, evil thug you portray him to be.
Iowa Jim
>>On a serious not though, doesn’t the fact that he is demanding that other governments run their countries with the same system that we do simply because we feel it works for us seem a bit like dictating? Egocentric at the very least.
>No offense, but somethimes I wonder if some of you actually listen to what Bush is actually saying. In his speech, Bush very cearly and explicitly emphasized the word “freedom” and not democracy. He also clearly and explicitly said that each country needed to find a system that worked for them, so long as it allowed freedom to its citizens.
No offense taken. I listen very carefully to what he says. While he has used the word “freedom” innumerable times, he has repeated multiple times over the past few months that he wants to spread democracy to the middle east.
Intersting side note, this past week he informed Congress that he was not going to push for an ammendment for a banning of gay marriage. Wasn’t this the samy guy who stated that there was nothing more sacred than protecting the institution of marriage and played the gay marriage card repeatedly throughout the campaign?
While there are some who don’t listen to what he is actually saying, there appear to be more who forget what he has actually said.
Fred
Jim in Iowa:
>>So, apparently, a decade of isolation, embargos and more DID work.
>You are kidding, right? You really don’t care about the fact that Saddam was NOT isolated, that while thousands of children died from disease and malnutrition, he built his palaces, bought weapons, and put plans in place for when the embargo was lifted?
While Hussein was dispicable, the malnutrition rate for children under 5 years of age has doubled since the invasion of that country.
2 comments that must be dealt with.
From SLICK:
” Or maybe I’m just watching the wrong war on tv, since the only I see is the one where US troops fight for freedom, while the only Iraqi’s fighting for anything at all are the insurgents (though rumor has that there are more who are in training, but apparently don’t yet feel up to the task of fighting for freedom). Anyone know what channel this other war, the one in which these freedom-hungy Iraqi’s, themselves, fight for a democracy, is on?”
ME: WHAT LEFT WING MEDIA? OH THAT LEFT WING MEDIA????
And From the Man himself.
PAD: No. Bush wanted the oil; he wanted to stage another war because voters are historically reluctant to switch presidents during wartime; he wanted to distract from the fact that he had not brought in bin Laden dead or alive; he wanted to accomplish what his father had not. In order to accomplish this remarkable exercise in misdirection, he ruthlessly played upon American credulity and the sense of shock that stemmed from 9/11.
ME: PARTLY TRUE. IF YOU WANT THE BÃSTÃRÐS IN SAUDI ARABIA OUT OF POWER, YOU NEED ANOTHER OIL RESOURCE. YOU ALSO NEED TO FIGHT ONE WAR IN IRAQ, SO YOU CAN MIX THINGS UP IN 4 COUNTRIES. ITS A STRATEGY THING. IF YOU LOOK AT A MAP. IRAN IS SURROUNDED. THE SAUDIS ARE NERVOUS AND THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES ARE WONDERING WHY WE DON’T GET ELECTIONS.
SECONDLY, IF THE AWFUL TERRIBLE OIL HUNGRY NEO-CONS REALLY WANTED CHEAP OIL, THEY JUST HAVE TO CHANGE ONE SOLE SOLITARY POLICY.
DUMP SUPPORT TO ISREAL.
WE IN THE WEST WOULD BE BATHING IN THE BLACK STUFF, IF ONLY WE DO THAT.
BUT WE DON;T. BECASUE THE ISRAELI CASUSE IS JUST AND RIGHT.
AND IF ALL OF YOU SELF-HATING WESTERNERS WOULD OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU WOULD SEE THE TRUTH. SOMETIMES WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS.
Anthony X:
>AND IF ALL OF YOU SELF-HATING WESTERNERS WOULD OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU WOULD SEE THE TRUTH. SOMETIMES WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS.
Don’t mistake disagreement of governmental policy and critical evaluation of it with self hatred. I love this country, its freedoms and the potential that it has. This love does not mean a free pass when I disagree with its current administration or policies. In fact, that love is the reason that I speak out about it when I am deeply troubled.
I suspect that there is a similar love from most of the U.S. posters that respond here, regardless of their political leanings.
Fred
No offense taken. I listen very carefully to what he says. While he has used the word “freedom” innumerable times, he has repeated multiple times over the past few months that he wants to spread democracy to the middle east.
One criticism of Bush that is true is that he is not as “nuanced” in how he says things. That is not the same as saying in practice he is incapable of practicing it in making actual policy. This is one example. Bush has never said that an American form of democracy must be in place, but he has used the words “freedom” and “democracy” somewhat interchangeably. Since the inagaural speech is obviously meant to be heard around the world, I do think his choice to use the word “freedom” is important and indicates what he believes and means.
(Overall I liked the speech, but even I wanted a little more nuance than he gave. He was not advocating that we imposed freedom militarily, but it would have helped if he had used the fall of the Soviet Union more clearly as an example that our push for freedom was a long term goal.
Intersting side note, this past week he informed Congress that he was not going to push for an ammendment for a banning of gay marriage. Wasn’t this the samy guy who stated that there was nothing more sacred than protecting the institution of marriage and played the gay marriage card repeatedly throughout the campaign?
Actually, Bush was very late to come out (no pun intended) on this issue. He has never been the staunch defender of marriage that many conservatives have wanted him to be. He has not flip flopped on his beliefs on this issue, he has simply said he is not going to spend his time making the passage of the ammendment a priority. If it did get passed in congress, he would support it. He is still against gay marriage. But near the end of the campaign, he definitely opened the door to the possibility of civil unions. So his comment does not surprise me in the least. It is consistent with the last 4 years. (And once again, on the domestic side, Bush is much more moderate than many of his critics want to admit, and than some of his supporters want to see.)
Iowa Jim
While Hussein was dispicable, the malnutrition rate for children under 5 years of age has doubled since the invasion of that country.
That is the first I have heard that statistic. Can you post your source? It would also help to know the statistics for various areas of the country. For example, in the places where insurgents are blowing up trucks, I can believe this is true. And that is a crucial difference. Saddam was making a deliberate choice to withhold food from the children. We are not. There are many relief organizations that worked hard to bring food and medicine to those in need after the war, but the insurgents deliberately targeted them and so most have left the country. It is wrong to in any way imply we are choosing to withhold food from those in need as Saddam did, because that is not the case.
Iowa Jim
Follow up to my comments about Bush: His father is now having to do the nuancing (clarification) of GW’s speech:
“People want to read a lot into it – that this means new aggression or newly assertive military forces,” former President Bush told reporters during an informal visit to the White House briefing room. “That’s not what that speech is about. It’s about freedom”
“It doesn’t mean instant change in every country – that’s not what he intended,” Bush said about his son’s second inaugural address.
Guess it depends on your “bias” for or against Bush. I took his words in the way Father Bush portrays them, but clearly some of you did not. As I said above, I do think Bush was not as clear on this as I would have liked, so he did leave the door open to misinterpretation.
Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050123/D87PPBDG4.html
Iowa Jim
Jim:
>>While Hussein was dispicable, the malnutrition rate for children under 5 years of age has doubled since the invasion of that country.
>That is the first I have heard that statistic. Can you post your source?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html
I originally read it in other sources, but don’t have them immediately handy.
>It would also help to know the statistics for various areas of the country.
This particular article wasn’t clear on regions, though I’m not sure that it really matters as hungry children are hungry children. Of particular note is the following info from that article, which puts things in perspective *Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world*
“The surveys suggest the silent human cost being paid across a country convulsed by instability and mismanagement. While attacks by insurgents have grown more violent and more frequent, deteriorating basic services take lives that many Iraqis said they had expected to improve under American stewardship.
Iraq’s child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti.”
>For example, in the places where insurgents are blowing up trucks, I can believe this is true. And that is a crucial difference. Saddam was making a deliberate choice to withhold food from the children.
Saddam is a scumbag.
>We are not.
Though the consequences of the invasion seem pretty clear. There is an indication that the malnutrition rate had been falling up until the invasion. It has doubled since.
>There are many relief organizations that worked hard to bring food and medicine to those in need after the war, but the insurgents deliberately targeted them and so most have left the country.
These agencies do not answer to, are not directed by nor are they directly influenced by the U.S. government.
>It is wrong to in any way imply we are choosing to withhold food from those in need as Saddam did, because that is not the case.
That is why I made absolutely no implication towards that point. Deliberatly withholding food is a blatant crime against humanity. These kids are starving as a consequence of, at least in part, of this country’s actions. We do bear some responsibility for this situation.
Fred
Just as an aside to the whole 60s thing from earlier, say what you want about the 60s, but IMO, they had ALOT better music we have these days. In fact, most of the “music” these days I wouldn’t even call music. Gah! The 60s had the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and tons of other great artists (mainly the British bands, imo, but their were a few really good amaerican bands, like the Beach Boys). Just for that alone, I’d rather be living in the 60s (but then, just like PAD said, there was also the moon landing, civil rights movement, and many other events. The 60s was a powerful era. The 2000s, so far, imo, are pretty much a wastelandl. Heck I might even like the 90s better then this. *shivers* At least we had Clinton and he was a pretty good president, imo, compared to Bush).
Anyway, to the main topic: I agree with PAD. The war should be stopped.
I find that the war is pretty pointless. We should have gone after Bin Laden & his people after 9/11 and got THEM instead of going after Saddam and his people!! And I think there are any number of ways we could have gone after Bin Laden & co. without a war being needed (I mean, come on, why do we have the CIA anyway?! Of course, if the CIA had been doing their job…9/11 would have never happened. lol. Nevermind. I still think we could have found a way though).
I also agree with PAD’s views on why Bush is at war with Iraq. Its not to stop another 9/11 from happening! Come on! If we wanted to do THAT, we would have gotten Bin Laden & his people. But THEY are still out there. THEY could prob find a way to attack us whenever they wanted. In fact, it might be easier now then it was around 9/11, since we’re distracted with a war with Iraq..who never did a thing to us for the most part, expect rise Gas prices on us.
Bush just mainly, I think, wanted to finish his dad’s war. His dad went after Iraq and couldn’t get it, so now Bush Jr. has to get ’em. Bet Bush Jr. even talks to his dad every night about this war!
Call me what you want. I don’t believe in this whole Liberal or conservative stuff. I believe in thinking for yourself. Looking at the world around you and coming to your own opinions on whats going on.
And I believe in free speech. I think people have every right to come out and say what they want about Bush. Good or bad. ANYBODY can say what they think about him. And we don’t have to ‘deal with it’ and ‘get over it’. Its a free country!! We can whine all we want about Bush!!!
DF2506
” In fact, I wish I’d hear a little bit more whining. I’m tired of how the media protrays Bush and the war.”
It is a fact that fighting continued well into 1946 in Germany.
First I’ve heard of it.
It is a fact that Saddam KICKED out the UN inspectors from 97-2002. WHY???
And? There are still no WMD, even with no inspectors around.
It is a fact that Saddam contributed to Palestinian terror.
Are the Palestinians attacking the US? Was Saddam?
No.
It is a fact that Syrian and Iranian and Al Quada fighters are currently involved in the TERROR! Why?
I don’t think that anybody is doubting their involvement. The FACT however is it that these groups were not in Iraq (or not openly fighting) until we took Saddam out of power.
We’ve created more terrorists, something that conservatives apparently are blissfully ignorant of.
So let me ask you. Why not let the elections happen, when the Yanks leave take over? Right???
Umm, come again?
For one, could you imagine elections here in the US if, say, we said that the state of Ohio couldn’t vote for whatever reason.
Do you think that comes across then as a valid election?
If you want the truth about Bush, take what he says and you’ll get the exact opposite.
I know that your trying in your own style to state strong protest against Bush’s soc. sec. plan and the war in Iraq. And I think you’ve gotten your point across, but to me it seems heartless to use deaths as satistics to prove your point. The same logic could be used to “calculate” how much money soc. sec. lost because of 911, but somehow that thought never entered my mind when thinking about the horror of that event.
eclark: You’re kidding right? They DID try to overthrow him right after the first Gulf war. Both the Shiites to the South and the Kurds to the north rebelled in 1991. In fact the first Bush Administration urged the Shiite and Kurd populations to overthrow Saddam. They did, thinking the US would come in and help. The US didn’t, and the Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered.
I hold both Bush, Sr. and the United Nations responsible for that. But apparently Bush Sr. reckoned that he could never get UN approval to help out the uprising anyway, and Now I understand why. Turkey, to the north of Iraq is extremely fearful of a Kurdish nation splitting off from Iraq. It’s one of the reasons why we had such trouble getting them to help us at the beginning of this war. The other Muslim nations in the area with the exceptions of Kuwait and Iran are mostly Sunni Muslims, and they don’t particularly like the Shiite Muslims and have little incentive to help them. Plus Iraq itself was a predominately Shiite Muslim country, but Saddam and his power circle was Sunni Muslim. So with Saddam gone, the Shiites would have majority control of the country in a democratically held election. Who opposes this? Why the Sunni Muslims, of course. And where were the terroists trouble spots? Why in Fallujah and Najaf, Tikrit, etc. all Sunni controlled areas of Iraq.
Ok… nice history lesson, but how does any of that excuse the Sunni’s who do want “freedom” doing not much, and the Shìŧŧë’s who want freedom doing nothing? I’m only asking because of Bushes rearview justification of this war, which amounts to “Everyone wants to be free, God says so”, and if they want a free Iraq so badly, why aren’t they behaving like it? That bothers me.
You ever wonder why the people in the inner city won’t tell the police who the bad guys are, won’t point out where the crack houses are, and the gangs hangouts? Well, mostly it’s a deeply held mistrust of the police for past wrongs, but also when it’s all said and done, when the police leave, those people still have to stay there in that neighborhood.
This isn’t that much of a different scenario. The police is the US trying to organize citizens groups watch patrols. and to clean up the neighborhoods. The terrorists are the thugs and drug dealers occasionallly doing drive-bys and bombing buisnesses and families. Killing anybody who gets in there way and intimidating everyone else. If the police come in take down one drug lord and leave another drug lord will just take his place. The people know this, and so do the Iraqis.
This is different than that, much different… first of all, police won’t “leave”, suddenly leaving any neighborhood to fend for itself. And secondly, I’m asking why don’t Iraqi’s clean up their own backyard, with the US in a supporting role? …as opposed to the situation now, in which the US cleans up after them (well, after ourselves, for causing this mess in the first place), and the Iraqi people kinda shrug and go “if you want to”?