GWB - Certifiable Idiot

[a_unique_person]

What else can you say about a President who, when 10 more of his troops are wounded, says "My answer is, bring them on" .

Where does he think he is, in an Arnie movie and the wounds his soldiers suffer are just fake blood. How many more does he want to have Iraq bring on, enough to kill a thousand troops?

[Crossbow]

Well of course the USA military is the best trained, best equipped, and most capable military force in the world, however I was quite distressed when I heard George W. throw down that challenge as well. Since there are some five divisions in Iraq as well as others in Afghanistan, South Korea, Europe, and numerous other places so at least some of the many people who are willing to kill and die for their hatred of the USA will look upon his statement as a challenge and all of these personnel as valid targets.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well of course the USA military is the best trained, best equipped, and most capable military force in the world,

*ahem*

I also think its funny (in a tragic kind of way), that yesterday he thre down this 'bring em on' thing and today, they obliged. Another 7 wounded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3041162.stm

I guess it fine if they 'bring it on' just so long as its not you getting your blollocks blown off.

[LillyThePink]

I think it was a plea for all these soldiers to throw down their weapons and dress as cheerleaders a la Eliza Dushku.

:)

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, it would be much better for the troops' morale if he said, "Please don't attack us anymore, please!".

"Bring them on!" is exactly what the soldiers would say. It's exactly what the commander should say.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well of course the USA military is the best trained, best equipped, and most capable military force in the world, however I was quite distressed when I heard George W. throw down that challenge as well. Since there are some five divisions in Iraq as well as others in Afghanistan, South Korea, Europe, and numerous other places so at least some of the many people who are willing to kill and die for their hatred of the USA will look upon his statement as a challenge and all of these personnel as valid targets.

Umm, I think people "willing to kill and die for their hatred of the USA" would already see those troops as valid targets.

Do you think GWB saying "bring it on!" is going to provoke armageddon (or have any effect at all)?

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Giz
Do you think GWB saying "bring it on!" is going to provoke armageddon (or have any effect at all)?

I think it will serve to confirm the opinions of those who see the American leader as an utter imbecile, and will not improve America's popularity rating world-wide :D Exercises in damage-limitation should be immediately put into effect.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Giz


Umm, I think people "willing to kill and die for their hatred of the USA" would already see those troops as valid targets.

Do you think GWB saying "bring it on!" is going to provoke armageddon (or have any effect at all)?

Well, I doubt that it could provoke Armageddon type of attack since they do not have the types of weapons that would be needed for such an attack.

However, yes, I do think that it will have a very real effect. The soldiers in the field already have their hands full by trying to deal with snipers, saboteurs, mines, grenade attacks, and so on while trying to get electricity fully restored, mass protests, stopping bandits without having the Big Cheese encouraging more attacks.

The fact is, when the President of the United States speaks, it makes news; not just in the USA, but throughout the world.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The fact is, when the President of the United States speaks, it makes news; not just in the USA, but throughout the world.

Yeah, no one can believe you actually elected a chimp (and trained it to make speeches!!)

:p

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LTC8K6

"Bring them on!" is exactly what the soldiers would say. It's exactly what the commander should say.

It might be what a commander might say. But they dont actually do any fighting now do they?

I dont think its exactly what a soldier would say. I think "Bring on the cold beer and hot naked women" is exactly what most soldiers would say.

[Yahweh]

Why cant we settle these disputes like men and have a beer drinking contest, I mean come on.

[LTC8K6]

"Bring on the cold beer and hot naked women"

Well, yeah, they would say that for sure. :)

However, in response to threatened attacks, they would in fact say, "Bring them on!".

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
However, in response to threatened attacks, they would in fact say, "Bring them on!".


:eek:
Have you ever been a soldier?

[Giz]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, I doubt that it could provoke Armageddon type of attack since they do not have the types of weapons that would be needed for such an attack.

However, yes, I do think that it will have a very effect. The soldiers in the field already have their hands full by trying to deal with snipers, saboteurs, mines, grenade attacks, and so on while trying to get electricity fully restored, mass protests, stopping bandits without having the Big Cheese encouraging more attacks.

The fact is, when the President of the United States speaks, it makes news; not just in the USA, but throughout the world.

So when Churchill said "we shall fight them on the beaches,...etc" he was encouraging Nazi's to invade, occupy our beaches and generally bring it on ? Or was he saying that we will not be swayed from doing what we (think) is right?

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Giz


So when Churchill said "we shall fight them on the beaches,...etc" he was encouraging Nazi's to invade, occupy our beaches and generally bring it on ? Or was he saying that we will not be swayed from doing what we (think) is right?

Surely you are not comparing the extremely eloquent Mr Churchill and his beautiful speeches with GWB's aggressive BS??

Please, tell me you're not.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Giz


So when Churchill said "we shall fight them on the beaches,...etc" he was encouraging Nazi's to invade, occupy our beaches and generally bring it on ? Or was he saying that we will not be swayed from doing what we (think) is right?

Churchill was saying basically, we do not wish a battle, as we are. But as we are we will not shun it.

George W is saying "bring it on".

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Giz


So when Churchill said "we shall fight them on the beaches,...etc" he was encouraging Nazi's to invade, occupy our beaches and generally bring it on ? Or was he saying that we will not be swayed from doing what we (think) is right?

Er, that speech was made at a time when it looked like Germany was about to invade England, that England may well have to deal with the German threat all by themselves, and that there were quite a few English citizens (some of whom were quite prominent) who wanted to make a deal with Germany in order to keep their country in tact and rid the world of the USSR at the same time.

Also, if you will actually read the whole speech, it refers to what he expected England to do in the event that Germany actually did try to invade England. At no time did Churchill, nor any American President (well, until yesterday anyway), invite and encourage the enemy to attack.

[American]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What else can you say about a President who, when 10 more of his troops are wounded, says "My answer is, bring them on" .

Where does he think he is, in an Arnie movie and the wounds his soldiers suffer are just fake blood. How many more does he want to have Iraq bring on, enough to kill a thousand troops?


Then you have no understanding of mission and spirit.

Course they're looking for a fight. They shouldn't be there if they're not. (Here's what bothers you most- we might even win!)

Like the Geto Boys once rapped, BRING IT ON!!!

[LTC8K6]

Have you ever been a soldier?

Yep.

[LTC8K6]

You encourage the enemy all the time in battle. Usually to get him to go where you want him to go, or do what you want him to do.

You often need to draw enemy forces out into open combat.

[LillyThePink]

Is the best way to accomplish this to have your monkey go on TV world wide and use a phrase very popular among high-schoolers?

[LTC8K6]

Why are you trying to start a flame war by calling Shrub a monkey? What kind of debate/discussion is that?

I don't care what you call him.

It's not relevant to the topic, anyway.

[LillyThePink]

Exactly. So ignore the monkey reference and answer the bit that you avoided.... is this high-school call-out behaviour (as per the cheerleading flick) really the best way for your COUNTRY'S LEADER to conduct himself.

Because personally, I think it makes him look like an immature ass.

[American]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Is the best way to accomplish this to have your monkey go on TV world wide and use a phrase very popular among high-schoolers?

What's your point? You don't have one except you hate Bush. You think he's an idiot with all the wrong values and no brains.

That's why he'll be re-elected, because you focus your energy on crap like one-liners that he spoke (or mis-spoke) rather than assert YOUR alternative policies, which you know you can't sell to the American people if you actaully stated them clearly.

"Bring them on? How can he say that?!" Yeah, I'm really inspired by your pissy attitude.

[Frank Newgent]

If not a monkey...

Remember his daddy's "1000 points of light"? He's the Dim Bulb.

[LillyThePink]

My point, American, is that your leader is behaving like a 10th grader instead of the political power that he is. With a moron like this representing your interests, you can have no real hopes of any kind of negotiations with the people you ultimately fear, like the North Koreans, like those in the Middle East who view Americans as arrogant jingoistic sh*theads. Because everytime he opens his mouth, he confirms and compounds those preconceptions that make the rest of the world despise you.

Is that a bit more pissy for you?

[American]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
is this high-school call-out behaviour (as per the cheerleading flick) really the best way for your COUNTRY'S LEADER to conduct himself.

Now it comes out... your contempt for high school (where maybe you weren't very popular at yours?). I happen to know some kids in high school, and they're plenty mature and very bright. Don't know what you have against them.

[LillyThePink]

What does your ad-hom attack have to do with the topic at hand?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Why cant we settle these disputes like men and have a beer drinking contest, I mean come on.

Wait a minute there skippy, you're talking about an unfare advantage. In many of these Muslim countries the men/fighters have never experienced alcohol. If the competition were beer drinking we'd only need 1 Airman, 1 Marine, 1 Sailor and 1 Soldier (and I'm not sure about needed the Airman, Marine and Soldier) in order to conquer most of the Muslim world.

Not that I'd want us to pull our B-52s, but I'd like a fight to at least be a challenge.

[American]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
My point, American, is that your leader is behaving like a 10th grader instead of the political power that he is. With a moron like this representing your interests, you can have no real hopes of any kind of negotiations with the people you ultimately fear, like the North Koreans, like those in the Middle East who view Americans as arrogant jingoistic sh*theads. Because everytime he opens his mouth, he confirms and compounds those preconceptions that make the rest of the world despise you.

Is that a bit more pissy for you?


Now you need to carry that message everywhere. We already know your views of the world and of Bush and our values, and we know that you're full of sht.

Behaving like a 10th grader? So, soooo sorry. My heart bleeds if you're offended or insulted by his words. Can't say I'm bothered by them, I only worry about things that matter.

[LTC8K6]

Is the best way to accomplish this to have your monkey go on TV world wide and use a phrase very popular among high-schoolers?

Lily, there is no need to draw the enemy out in this case. There is no way to encourage fanatical muslims to attack us. They have been rabid about it for a very long time. That was in response to the idea of never encouraging the enemy to fight you.

I think our monkey was trying to rally the country and the troops a bit in this case.

[Tricky]

It should be obvious by now that Dubya doesn't give a rat's patootie about his world image. That comment was made for the benefit of Americans. He's running for re-election, and these macho sound bites play well with the beer-drinking, "action movie"-loving, country music-listening, wrestlemania-cheering constituency that Bush will rely upon in the next election. It really shouldn't be taken as anything more than pandering to the hard-line conservatives in the country.

I doubt that this will lower his international respect. It couldn't.

[LTC8K6]

Would the Germans have been encouraged / made angrier by this message? :)


Dear SHAEF, I have just pissed into the Rhine River. For God's sake, send some gasoline.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by American



Now you need to carry that message everywhere. We already know your views of the world and of Bush and our values, and we know that you're full of sht.

Behaving like a 10th grader? So, soooo sorry. My heart bleeds if you're offended or insulted by his words. Can't say I'm bothered by them, I only worry about things that matter.

We who? You know very little of my world views, American; please don't presume so much from a few posts. As for your "values" I wonder whose values you are speaking of. Thankfully, not all Americans hold the same viewpoint as you, some of them are not so blinded by their jingoism that they can see some fault in their homeland, and the leader of it.

I'm not offended or insulted by him. I think he's laughable, quite frankly, and those who "elected" him moreso. I do however think he's dangerous, and that's largely because he's stupid.

And I'm glad you didn't try to deny that he's behaving like a 10th grader. I'm only sorry that you appear to condone it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't know if this is a tangent or not, but I once heard George Will say, "We have had troops camped on the Rhine longer than Rome."

Or something like that.

[Dancing David]

I understand the sentiment that Bush is presenting.

It does seem to perhaps be a little immature but in the context of the question it is rather typical bravado.

This is up there with LBJ placing his manhood on a table.

Thank you Lily for your view, just ignore the guy on the motorcycle,

I too wish that The President would show more decorum but hey, this is what Teddy R. would say and do as well.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

WOW !


yet ANOTHER "bush is dumb" thread !


FASCINATING !

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
WOW !

yet ANOTHER "bush is dumb" thread !

FASCINATING !
These threads wouldn't happen so often if the Prez could cure himself of the habit of saying dumb things. You can't really blame people who pay attention to politics for reacting to his gaffes.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tricky

These threads wouldn't happen so often if the Prez could cure himself of the habit of saying dumb things. You can't really blame people who pay attention to politics for reacting to his gaffes.

oh I see.

who said this :

"That depends on what the meaning of the word is, is"

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


oh I see.

who said this :

"That depends on what the meaning of the word is, is"

We're not saying that he's the only person who says stupid things. Sadly because of his position as President, he gets his stupid things publicised a lot.
And I think it's a bit scary to have someone that stupid in charge of the most militarily capable country on earth.
Even scarier that some people cannot admit that he says stupid things but blindly defend him by attacking others.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


oh I see.

who said this :

"That depends on what the meaning of the word is, is"

OK then, assuming that the Clinton statement is a gaffe on par with those from George W., then I would estimate the score is something like:

Bush: 400 Presidental Gaffe Points
Clinton: 1 Presidental Gaffe Points

By the way, Clinton was President for two terms and Bush has yet to finish his first.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow


OK then, assuming that the Clinton statement is a gaffe on par with those from George W., then I would estimate the score is something like:

Bush: 400 Presidental Gaffe Points
Clinton: 1 Presidental Gaffe Points

By the way, Clinton was President for two terms and Bush has yet to finish his first.

oh I see.

should I go on ?



"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" -- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia

[LillyThePink]

Oooh, can I join in?

"What would this country be without this great land of ours?"

Reagan

:) This is fun. All your presidents are idiots! ;)

[Nie Trink Wasser]

this thread has to be a shining beacon of intelligent discussion !

GREAT THREAD ! WOW !

"I can spend your money better than you can." Clinton Washington Times, January 21, 1999

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


oh I see.

should I go on ?



"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" -- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia



By all means, keep going on. If you really want to compare the intellect and speaking skills of Clinton and Bush, please do so.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow


By all means, keep going on. If you really want to compare the intellect and speaking skills of Clinton and Bush, please do so.


Clinton's intellect ? :roll:


"Just try to imagine what it would be like to be 300 million years old." -- President Clinton in Ashe County, N.C. He was speaking on the banks of the New River, which scientists say is the oldest river in the United States.


"You can't say you love your country and hate your government." - Bill Clinton, 1995 (After the OKC bombing)

"A lot of wonderful people love their country and hate the military." - Bill Clinton, 1969 (Letter to the National Guard)

"No one wants to get this (Lewinsky) matter behind us more than I do, except maybe all the rest of the American people," Bill Clinton, July 31, 1998

[LTC8K6]

If you weren't a great speaker to begin with, why would being elected president or pm make you one?

Why do people expect it to?

Our monkey is not a great speaker. So what?

Clinton was a good speaker. So what? So was Reagan.

[LillyThePink]

Reagan was senile. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. Although I'll admit the acting training helped him out a lot.

Todays gaff is not about being a good speaker. It's about having the intellect to think "hey, maybe that's not the most diplomatic way to phrase this" or "hmmm.. maybe this will annoy people who already hate Americans" which Bush clearly does not have.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says." Bill Clinton, campaigning October 17, 1996

"African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."
President Clinton on Black Entertainment Television, November 2, 1994

[Kodiak]

While all you "Bush bashers" waste your time and energy ridiculing the President and calling him names, Bush and Cheney are on the verge of an election victory comparable to that of 1972.

You going to blame chads this time too? :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Reagan was senile. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. Although I'll admit the acting training helped him out a lot.


Not while he was President. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I've read the published collection the Reagan's handwritten speeches (see below), and it is clear that Reagan was not only intelligent and thoughtful, but that he was a very organized thinker as evidenced by how clear, ordered, and precise his first drafts were.

http://www.newsmax.com/images/stories/reaganownhand1.jpg

[c0rbin]

While all you "Bush bashers" waste your time and energy ridiculing the President and calling him names, Bush and Cheney are on the verge of an election victory comparable to that of 1972.


That's Dick Nixon, right?

[LillyThePink]

Apologies. I was being glib. I was assuming that no person of sound mind would refer to army uniforms as "costumes"

:)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


oh I see.

who said this :

"That depends on what the meaning of the word is, is"
Gosh, Nie. According to my dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=be), there are quite a few definitions of "is" (or "be", the word that "is" is conjugated from).
1 a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : SYMBOLIZE <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10> b : to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother> c : to constitute the same class as d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green> e : to belong to the class of <the fish is a trout> -- used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality : LIVE <I think, therefore I am> <once upon a time there was a knight> b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position <the book is on the table> c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted -- used only in infinitive form <let him be> d : to take place : OCCUR <the concert was last night> e : to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus> f archaic : BELONG, BEFALL
verbal auxiliary
1 -- used with the past participle of transitive verbs as a passive-voice auxiliary <the money was found> <the house is being built>
2 -- used as the auxiliary of the present participle in progressive tenses expressing continuous action <he is reading> <I have been sleeping>
3 -- used with the past participle of some intransitive verbs as an auxiliary forming archaic perfect tenses <Christ is risen from the dead -- 1 Cor 15:20 (Douay Version)>
4 -- used with the infinitive with to to express futurity, arrangement in advance, or obligation <I am to interview him today> <she was to become famous>
That idiot Clinton asked for a clarification? What a dope!

[Cinorjer]

He's running for re-election, and these macho sound bites play well with the beer-drinking, "action movie"-loving, country music-listening, wrestlemania-cheering constituency that Bush will rely upon in the next election.

I resent that. I love beer, action movies, country music, and pro wraslin', and I think Bush Jr. is a draft dodging spoiled brat from a rich political family who wants to take our liberties away from us in the name of national security.

His remark about "bring it on" is stupid. Some of us "country folk" recognize that this is the real world, not a Rambo movie. Real soldiers are getting killed over there. We are now an occupying force in a Middle East country. All you have to do is look at Israel and Palestine to see what's going to happen if Bush Jr don't wise up.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by c0rbin


That's Dick Nixon, right?

Yeah, his opponent won one state + D.C. for a total of 17 electoral votes.


You "Bush-bashers" keep at it. It could happen again!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LillyThePink


We who? You know very little of my world views, American; please don't presume so much from a few posts. As for your "values" I wonder whose values you are speaking of. Thankfully, not all Americans hold the same viewpoint as you, some of them are not so blinded by their jingoism that they can see some fault in their homeland, and the leader of it.

I'm not offended or insulted by him. I think he's laughable, quite frankly, and those who "elected" him moreso. I do however think he's dangerous, and that's largely because he's stupid.

And I'm glad you didn't try to deny that he's behaving like a 10th grader. I'm only sorry that you appear to condone it.

Ahh Lilly,...the hits just keep on coming!

All this kettle calling the pot black stuff has already broken one irony meter!

Let's review what wisdom Lilly has imparted to us, shall we?

I think it will serve to confirm the opinions of those who see the American leader as an utter imbecile, and will not improve America's popularity rating world-wide exercises in damage-limitation should be immediately put into effect.
Yeah, no one can believe you actually elected a chimp (and trained it to make speeches!!)

Then she says
Surely you are not comparing the extremely eloquent Mr Churchill and his beautiful speeches with GWB's aggressive BS??

Please, tell me you're not.

Then she says
Is the best way to accomplish this to have your monkey go on TV world wide and use a phrase very popular among high-schoolers?

Here she is moderating her rhetoric...
Exactly. So ignore the monkey reference and answer the bit that you avoided.... is this high-school call-out behaviour (as per the cheerleading flick) really the best way for your COUNTRY'S LEADER to conduct himself.
But then can't handle the pressure of being mature herself and so ends her short time on the high ground by blurting out this:
Because personally, I think it makes him look like an immature ass.

Still, she doesn't know when to shut up
My point, American, is that your leader is behaving like a 10th grader instead of the political power that he is. With a moron like this representing your interests, you can have no real hopes of any kind of negotiations with the people you ultimately fear, like the North Koreans, like those in the Middle East who view Americans as arrogant jingoistic sh*theads. Because everytime he opens his mouth, he confirms and compounds those preconceptions that make the rest of the world despise you.

Is that a bit more pissy for you?
indeed...quite pissy :rolleyes:

Then she takes the cake, and breaks my irony meter with this one!
What does your ad-hom attack have to do with the topic at hand?


Well Lilly,...this whole thread is one big ad-hom started by AUP, and piled onto by your own esteemed self. You guys are reactionaries,...you have nothing constructive to say so you bust on GWB every chance you get. If GWB is now a moron, you have personally got a great deal of growing and maturing to do before you can pull yourself up to moron status.

-zilla

[Landis]

Originally posted by Tricky
It should be obvious by now that Dubya doesn't give a rat's patootie about his world image. That comment was made for the benefit of Americans. He's running for re-election, and these macho sound bites play well with the beer-drinking, "action movie"-loving, country music-listening, wrestlemania-cheering constituency that Bush will rely upon in the next election. It really shouldn't be taken as anything more than pandering to the hard-line conservatives in the country.

I doubt that this will lower his international respect. It couldn't.

I think Tricky is dead on right. It is almost unbelievable that a man who was a coward during the Vietnam War and was clearly derelict in his duties (AWOL) should be so respected and admired by the right wing. He talks tough while sending othe men's sons to their death. It is a little like while he was Governor of Texas he was sending young men to prison for snorting cocaine while conveniently forgetting he (allegedly) did the same.

As for Clinton's "definition of what is, is?" remark, of course it was dumb and it also contributed to the Congress impeaching him. Let's impeach Bush:roll:

[LillyThePink]

rik

Thanks for the recap.

My only comment is that some of the sections you have highlighted such as
UTTER IMBECILE

and

ARROGANT JINGOISTIC SH*THEADS

are not my attacks, but merely a representation of some people's world view, not necessarily my own.

The monkey remarks were entirely my own, as I think this is what George most resembles.

Sorry about your irony meter.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
rik

Thanks for the recap.

My only comment is that some of the sections you have highlighted such as
UTTER IMBECILE

and

ARROGANT JINGOISTIC SH*THEADS

are not my attacks, but merely a representation of some people's world view, not necessarily my own.

The monkey remarks were entirely my own, as I think this is what George most resembles.

Sorry about your irony meter.

:D

Da nada,

It was a heathkit from radio shack...I'll build another! :D

-zilla

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


Clinton's intellect ? :roll:

I just love when dogmatic people argue against their own point for it exposes just what is really motivating them.

While NTW has posted several Clinton quotes which look quite silly (and I am sure that there are quite a few others), and if one were take just a passing glance at them, then one could be quite put off by the impressive number of them.

But if one were to look just a bit closer and examine the date stamp on them, then it will be seen that these comments were made months, years, even decades apart. Golly, everyone should be entitled to flub a comment or two about every two or three months.

However, George W., does this sort of thing about every two or three days as opposed to every two or three months. In fact, there have already been two books written about it and the Slate web site keeps a log of 'Bushisms' which is kept up to date.

Happy reading!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cinorjer

I resent that. I love beer, action movies, country music, and pro wraslin',
Sorry, Cinorjer. No offense intended. I like some of those things myself (and I love stock car racin'). That's the problem with stereotypes; People just refuse to fit them.;)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Yeah, his opponent won one state + D.C. for a total of 17 electoral votes.


You "Bush-bashers" keep at it. It could happen again!

I take it you would like to see similar results but without the crooked election, yes?

[LTC8K6]

Todays gaff is not about being a good speaker. It's about having the intellect to think "hey, maybe that's not the most diplomatic way to phrase this" or "hmmm.. maybe this will annoy people who already hate Americans" which Bush clearly does not have.

That makes no sense to me, Lily. If he wanted to say "Bring them on!" about threats from enemy forces, why would he be worrying about diplomacy? Why would anyone care about being diplomatic to those who made the threats?

Have you forgotten the fanatical muslims recruited from outside Iraq to participate in this little soiree?

Many of the posts in this thread pertain to spoken gaffes by presidents. The topic of the thread was not a gaffe anyway, Lily.

Lily, you don't seem to realize that the fanatical muslims already hate us as much as they ever could. The idea that anyone could inflame them further is just silly. Why do you keep bringing that up? It makes no sense in light of the past history of blown up Americans.

Do you seriously think being nice will affect their attitude towards Americans? They hate Americans, and they have for a very long time. They like to say westerners(so does the media), but they mean people from the U.S. of A.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky

These threads wouldn't happen so often if the Prez could cure himself of the habit of saying dumb things. You can't really blame people who pay attention to politics for reacting to his gaffes.

Agreed, the world watches and listens to the most powerful nation in the world, the leader of that nation, and wants to know if the leader can act like a statesman instead of like "Macho Man Randy Savage"

"Ohhhhhh- yeeaaaaahhhh!"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I take it you would like to see similar results but without the crooked election, yes?

Ya, probably...

As a conservative/libertarian, a could vote for a right leaning Democrat if one won the primary (but it'll never happen).

Also, Bush isn't and wasn't my first choice for the Republican nomination (Kemp, Powell, Rice, Williams, etc...), but he is what I'm left with, and he is far superior (IMO) to any of the Democratic nominees, as well as any greens or independents that are likely to show up.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
He's running for re-election, and these macho sound bites play well with the beer-drinking, "action movie"-loving, country music-listening, wrestlemania-cheering constituency that Bush will rely upon in the next election.

I resent that. I love beer, action movies, country music, and pro wraslin', and I think Bush Jr. is a draft dodging spoiled brat from a rich political family who wants to take our liberties away from us in the name of national security.

His remark about "bring it on" is stupid. Some of us "country folk" recognize that this is the real world, not a Rambo movie. Real soldiers are getting killed over there. We are now an occupying force in a Middle East country. All you have to do is look at Israel and Palestine to see what's going to happen if Bush Jr don't wise up.

Correct, Cinorjer, it is real over there. The perceptions of those living in the Middle East of Americans is reinforced by the jingoism and irresponsible remarks of the World's Most Powerful leader.

There are no military forces in the Middle East that can stand up to the American Forces. This is a strenght that needs to be displayed, and the American forces have.

The Saddam Loyalists are fighting a war of attrition now, hoping that the loss of real American lives will shock the American public. The Iraqis attacking the Americans have strenghts too.

The loyalists have recent history to give them hope: Citizens in post Vietnam Democratic nations do not like long, drawn out, wars, nor seeing their sons and daughter come home in body bags. The loyalists' hope would be, damage them as much as we can, and the invaders will go home.

As strong as the US military is, they do not have invulnerable humans in their forces, and the American citizens are vulnerable in regards to personal, familial loses.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gosh, Nie. According to my dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=be), there are quite a few definitions of "is" (or "be", the word that "is" is conjugated from).

That idiot Clinton asked for a clarification? What a dope!


you've just confirmed my suspicions that you're an incredible dipsh*t.

:wink8:

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Landis
[B]

I think Tricky is dead on right. It is almost unbelievable that a man who was a coward during the Vietnam War and was clearly derelict in his duties (AWOL) should be so respected and admired by the right wing.



sort of like how Al Gore's daddy gave him a personal bodyguard on his short vacation in Vietnam ?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kodiak
While all you "Bush bashers" waste your time and energy ridiculing the President and calling him names, Bush and Cheney are on the verge of an election victory comparable to that of 1972.

You going to blame chads this time too? :D

Ooops does that mean Bush will resign in disgrace too?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by LTC8K6

Lily, you don't seem to realize that the fanatical muslims already hate us as much as they ever could. The idea that anyone could inflame them further is just silly. Why do you keep bringing that up? It makes no sense in light of the past history of blown up Americans.

Do you seriously think being nice will affect their attitude towards Americans? They hate Americans, and they have for a very long time. They like to say westerners(so does the media), but they mean people from the U.S. of A.

Has it ever occured to you that there is a reason most muslims say things like "I like Americans I don't like the government.".

It is not our freedom they depise it is our ham handed and short sighted foriegn policy.

[Landis]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



sort of like how Al Gore's daddy gave him a personal bodyguard on his short vacation in Vietnam ?

At least he went to Vietnam unlike pretty party boy George.

"Bring It On" was the title of a popular teen movie in which one group of cheerleaders challenged another group of cheerleaders. Wasn't GW a cheerleader at Yale? Hmmmm - :roll:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Ooops does that mean Bush will resign in disgrace too?

Dream on... :rolleyes:



:bricks:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



you've just confirmed my suspicions that you're an incredible dipsh*t.

:wink8:
LOL! Thanks! I'll keep that in the folder where I keep the insults I've gotten from Jedi Knight, Hammegk and Interesting Ian.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Dream on... :rolleyes:



:bricks:

Kodiak, I also agree with your statement that the democratic field is dismal. It looks like Joe Lieberman will get the nod from the party.
:v:

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Landis


At least he went to Vietnam unlike pretty party boy George.

"Bring It On" was the title of a popular teen movie in which one group of cheerleaders challenged another group of cheerleaders. Wasn't GW a cheerleader at Yale? Hmmmm - :roll:


oh yeah.

I forgot what a brave lad Clinton was in Vietnam.

[Landis]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


oh yeah.

I forgot what a brave lad Clinton was in Vietnam.

Clinton didn't go AWOL (that is illegal you know). But at least I'm glad to see you are finally bringing Bush down to Clinton's level. ;)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



oh yeah.

I forgot what...

Well, remember this:

"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecided could go one way or another.", said by a very smart Bush.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gosh, Nie. According to my dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=be), there are quite a few definitions of "is" (or "be", the word that "is" is conjugated from).

That idiot Clinton asked for a clarification? What a dope!

Oh come now Tricky,

I think Clinton was a very smart man, and I even voted for him twice.

But you can't pretend he was really confused about the question...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
However, in response to threatened attacks, they would in fact say, "Bring them on!".

I forgot that the US armed forces rely on machismo and firepower to compensate for thier lack of skill and courage.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Has it ever occured to you that there is a reason most muslims say things like "I like Americans I don't like the government.".

It is not our freedom they depise it is our ham handed and short sighted foriegn policy. Those that blew up the twin towers made it quite clear that they hated our freedom.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gosh, Nie. According to my dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=be), there are quite a few definitions of "is" (or "be", the word that "is" is conjugated from).

That idiot Clinton asked for a clarification? What a dope! Tricky,

I'd have to see the transcripts but I think Clinton was equivocating and not trying to get a clarification. I did a google but can only find commentary. Does anyone have a link to the transcripts?

Less talked about but even more embarrassing IMO was "It depends on how you define alone." "There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."

Maybe he was refering to the voices in his head --Lewis Black.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I forgot that the US armed forces rely on machismo and firepower to compensate for thier lack of skill and courage.

Bad form, Jon. Way bad. You don't like GW? Fine. You don't like our foreign policy? Fine, also. You don't like the U.S? That's fine, too. But, use a little discretion before accusing men and women who are laying their lives down every day, whether they want to or not, of being imbeciles and cowards. You haven't a single, f*ng clue what these men and women are made of and what they're facing. I believe you owe an apology for that statement!

Tell me something, Jon...you really think that only machismo and technology can win any conflict? You don't think it takes skill or courage to pull a trigger? Have you ever had to do it?? You think its easy to go to a foreign land and wonder if you'll ever come home? Give me your definition of courage.....

[michaellee]

I'd have to see the transcripts but I think Clinton was equivocating and not trying to get a clarification. I did a google but can only find commentary. Does anyone have a link to the transcripts?

Is the most unbelievable read of all time....

Clinton's grand jury testimony (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/docs092198.htm)

The "IS" definition is near the bottom of page 4.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



oh yeah.

I forgot what a brave lad Clinton was in Vietnam.

No he was the brave scholar , taking on unrefidgerated beer and the english lasses at someplace near Oxford.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Those that blew up the twin towers made it quite clear that they hated our freedom.

How do you figure? Just because GWB says so, it must be true? Such a statement makes absolutely no sense. Osama bin Laden is not what he is because he doesn't like the way Americans live. That's incredibly simplistic and arrogant, and willfully ignorant of the true causes of terrorism.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Nasarius
How do you figure? Just because GWB says so, it must be true? Such a statement makes absolutely no sense. Osama bin Laden is not what he is because he doesn't like the way Americans live. That's incredibly simplistic and arrogant, and willfully ignorant of the true causes of terrorism. We have hours and hours of interviews. He has said that he wants America to become a muslim state. He has stated plainly that our behavior including alcohol and pornography is wrong. He enjoys calling us infadels which he does so regurly. So I can say with all confidence that we are hated because of our freedoms becuase Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have said as much.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Those that blew up the twin towers made it quite clear that they hated our freedom.

The reason they blew up the towers is because we made a large and splashy media target. Most people like americans they depise our governments policies, they did not strike a blow at freedom, they made a splash in the media at the cost of three thousand lives.

I condem them for what they did, but they did not do it to strike at our liberty.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Nasarius
How do you figure? Just because GWB says so, it must be true? Such a statement makes absolutely no sense. Osama bin Laden is not what he is because he doesn't like the way Americans live. That's incredibly simplistic and arrogant, and willfully ignorant of the true causes of terrorism. You know I have to say, your calling me willfully ignorant, simplistic and arrogant is really disapointing.

I saw the footage of the women who were beaten because they dared show their face in Iraq, I read the articles by Mavis Leno about the treatment of women and the attitudes of Iraqis towards the west long before the war. I remember the Taliban shooting down the statues even after prominent peoples had offered large sums of money to them to not destroy such precious artworks. I remember how the west paid for a sports stadium that the taliban turned into a killing arena.

You call me willfuly ignorant. Did you ignore these stories? Do you remember the rhetoric coming from the Taliban before 911? Or do you only regurtitate left wing propoganda?

Do me a favor and look in the mirror. And read some thing other than left wing commentators and pundits. The Taliban had made it's contempt of western culture known long before 911. It was only after that time that revisionists ignored the facts that the Taliban intended on overthrowing western governments and installing fundamental muslim governments.

Or do you still belive that the statues were destroyed because of American unfairness?

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Dancing David


The reason they blew up the towers is because we made a large and splashy media target. Most people like americans they depise our governments policies, they did not strike a blow at freedom, they made a splash in the media at the cost of three thousand lives.

I condem them for what they did, but they did not do it to strike at our liberty. Please see my post above. They actually did do it in large part because of our freedom and because we represent the very worst of what they think is wrong with the world.

[Cinorjer]

Sorry, Cinorjer. No offense intended. I like some of those things myself (and I love stock car racin'). That's the problem with stereotypes; People just refuse to fit them. (Tricky)

No apology necessary. I wasn't really offended, and if I was, then it would be my own fault for being so thin skinned. One of the problems I see in our society is that people think they have a constitutional right not to be offended. Political correctness will be the death of free speech. If someone goes out of their way to personally insult me or my family, I might teach them a lesson in manners. I figure if someone deliberately pulls into a public forum, they should take it as well as be able to dish it out. Flamewars have always mystified me. All that anger, directed at words on a computer screen from some stranger.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Oooh, can I join in?

"What would this country be without this great land of ours?"

Reagan

:) This is fun. All your presidents are idiots! ;)

I like to chuckle along to the inane babblings of those supposedly chosen to lead because they have the qualities one would expect of a leader of a country of 250 million people.

However, this is not amusing, it is worrying. A matter as serious as war is not for Arnie type attitudes. Someone mentioned Winston when the Nazi's were ready to invade. He was also a right winger, but one with brains and some moral content. He was dealing with the possible, imminent demise of his country.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well Lilly,...this whole thread is one big ad-hom started by AUP, and piled onto by your own esteemed self. You guys are reactionaries,...you have nothing constructive to say so you bust on GWB every chance you get. If GWB is now a moron, you have personally got a great deal of growing and maturing to do before you can pull yourself up to moron status.

-zilla

No, I am genuinley worried by this sort of attitude and mentality. It really does reduce the war in Iraq to the level of an action movie. hardly the basis for Foreign Policy from the worlds most powerful country.

And it is not an ad hom, that is attacking the man rather than the arugment. I am, in fact, attacking the man as the argument.

[Mike B.]

Isn't there a pattern here?

It seems the favorite way the right attacks leaders on the left is that they are weak or cowards.

The favorite way of the left to attack leaders on the right is that they are "stupid."

;)

Been going on before Bush...will be going on long after

[LillyThePink]

RandFan Jnr - you should bear in mind that it was the very confused?? US government agencies that supplied the arms needed to get the Taliban into power in the first place. It was your very own CIA that trained Mr Bin Laden in his guerrilla warfare tactics, so before you complain about the Taliban regime, you should accept that their reign was partly due to American interference without which they would never have defeated the Soviets.

Secondly, you may feel that Bin Laden and his cronies are the ones attacking your liberty. I suggest you look closer to home; GWB and his new "policies" are slowly eroding your civil liberties in the name of National Security - and you stand by and support him? What for?? He appears unable to string a coherent sentence together, let alone run a country. This stuff is all a distraction whilst your economy gets swept down the toilet.

Lastly - someone asked me earlier in this thread whether I seriously thought that the people who flew planes into the WTC could possibly hate Americans any more than they do. They don't hate you. They hate your foreign policy and your habit of trying to "mommy" the world. And they hate that your leaders appear on TV to be as arrogant and jingoistic as their previous propoganda reported....

Say what you will about Clinton and his stupid shagging about - at least the man was a decent statesman. He didn't manage to piss off entire continents simply by opening his mouth.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LillyThePink:
Lastly - someone asked me earlier in this thread whether I seriously thought that the people who flew planes into the WTC could possibly hate Americans any more than they do. They don't hate you. They hate your foreign policy and your habit of trying to "mommy" the world. And they hate that your leaders appear on TV to be as arrogant and jingoistic as their previous propoganda reported....

I thought they hated anyone who didn't abide by the last word and letter of the holy Koran? Wouldn't that explain why they killed people in Bali and Morocco?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
RandFan Jnr - you should bear in mind that it was the very confused?? US government agencies that supplied the arms needed to get the Taliban into power in the first place. It was your very own CIA that trained Mr Bin Laden in his guerrilla warfare tactics, so before you complain about the Taliban regime, you should accept that their reign was partly due to American interference without which they would never have defeated the Soviets. I am always amazed when someone cites this as though we should have known that the Taliban was going to turn on us after we helped them. This fact very much makes my argument. Thank you for bringing it up.

I am quite familiar with the history of the Taliban and how we assisted them when they were fighting the Soviet Union. That we did assist them hardly excuses their actions. On the contrary it should have created a bond between us. The problem is that the hatred that the Taliban had for "infidels" was so great that our help was looked on with contempt.

Secondly, you may feel that Bin Laden and his cronies are the ones attacking your liberty. I suggest you look closer to home; GWB and his new "policies" are slowly eroding your civil liberties in the name of National Security - and you stand by and support him? What for?? He appears unable to string a coherent sentence together, let alone run a country. This stuff is all a distraction whilst your economy gets swept down the toilet. It fits you world view to see things in this light. It however shows a lack of critical thought and objectivity.

Lily, I would like to ask you to open your mind and consider other points of view. Anyone can tow a political line but it takes effort and honesty to find the truth.

911 like the sinking of the Lusitania and the Main and the bombing of Pearl Harbor endeared a significant amount of nationalism. This event left Americans feeling very vulnerable. Since security is vital to the cohesiveness of a society a good leader will take action to make the citizenry feel more secure.

Our freedoms make us vulnerable. There is no argument about that fact. It is a philosophical conundrum as to how to balance our freedom and our safety. Any action taken by any president that would increase security was bound to threaten freedom and civil liberties. George Bush has acted to increase our security and therefore has opened himself up to the criticism of those who do not share his ideology.

Please see my discussion about checks and balances (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22177&perpage=40&highlight=SCOTUS&pagenumber=2) to understand why the recent changes are not the slippery slope that many make them out to be. Intellectual honesty would require one to seriously consider all off the facts. I find few people who are politically motivated to do that. It is simple to dismiss George W. Bush as stupid and hate him because he does not share your ideology. You look for evidence that supports your view and ignore those facts that do not. That is fine but it is not honest.

People fancy themselves skeptics. You are not being a skeptic if you are only skeptical of views that you do not share.

I have been and am skeptical of Conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, George Bush, and anyone who I identify with ideologically.

Lastly - someone asked me earlier in this thread whether I seriously thought that the people who flew planes into the WTC could possibly hate Americans any more than they do. They don't hate you. They hate your foreign policy and your habit of trying to "mommy" the world. And they hate that your leaders appear on TV to be as arrogant and jingoistic as their previous propaganda reported.... The evidence in the case of the Taliban does not support this. I laid out the case why in a previous post.

The rhetoric of the Taliban had little to do with our trying to "mommy" the world. Their rhetoric was about our religion and our way of life. You can ignore these facts if you like but you can't change them. The truth is the truth and rhetoric and blind faith to ideology will not make you right.

I have on a number of occasions admitted that our foreign policy has caused us problems in the world. Unfortunately there is no simple solution. Just this last week the UN asked us to intervene in Liberia.

Lily, what should we do? Tell them "no" because we are not the mommys of the world? Sorry but foreign policy is a bit more complex than you make it out to be.

Say what you will about Clinton and his stupid shagging about - at least the man was a decent statesman. He didn't manage to piss off entire continents simply by opening his mouth. First let me say that though I never voted for the man I spent much of his presidency defending him. Not because I wanted to but because I had made a commitment to objectivity and that commitment forced me to.

This is an excellent example of selectively looking at events that only fit with your view.

Clinton dropped an awful lot of bombs and pissed off allot of people when he blew up a milk factory. It is arguable that Clinton's mistakes in diplomacy contributed to the vulnerability of the United States that led to the 911 attacks. It should be noted that these attack were in the planning stages WHEN Clinton was president. So you can't lay the blame of 911 on Bush and you most certainly can look to the Clinton administration. It is these types of facts that are so often over looked by those who want to lay all of the blame on the opposition.

Further, it is arguable that Clinton's intervention in the Mid-East was both poorly timed and poorly executed. His efforts though not necessarily causal were a precursor to the most dramatic increase in violence between the Israelis and Palestinians in recent history.

As to his stellar effort as statesman I offer the following critique. Please note that this was written before Bush had taken office.

Clinton-Gore Foreign Policy Record: Sheer Disaster (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/31/153802)

Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2000
In 1992 when the Clinton-Gore administration took office, the U.S. had won the Cold War and had made friends with its former enemy Russia – and we had just won the Gulf War. The U.S. was the world’s sole superpower and was respected all across the globe by friends and enemies alike.

Today, after eight years of bumbling and near-treasonous activities by the Clinton-Gore administration, America’s foreign policy is in shambles, neither friends nor enemies respect us, and our armed forces are in a state of disarray.

Illustrating the decline of America on the world stage, Insight magazine’s *J. Michael Waller recalls, "It was a sure sign that U.S. power and prestige have diminished when, at the Kosovo peace talks, the Albanian delegation mistook the U.S. secretary of state for a cleaning lady."

"The incident is a metaphor for what critics call the squandering of U.S. superpower status since Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected eight years ago," Waller writes.

In one of the most cogent analyses of the Clinton-Gore handling of foreign policy, Waller paints a frightening picture of the world’s most powerful nation being slowly drained of its prestige, its strength and its ability to play a leading role on the world stage.

"To all but the most partisan observers, the Clinton administration has wasted most of the historic opportunities bequeathed to it at the end of the Cold War," writes Waller.

"Gone are the days when the U.S. president can stride confidently to any podium anywhere in the world and command the respect of ally and adversary alike."

Waller lays the blame for this sorry pageant at the feet of the world’s most self-indulgent leader, bent on using America’s power to protect himself from the consequences of his shocking personal immorality and public corruption.

"The administration’s approach to world affairs has been a patchwork of narrow policy initiatives watered down by stopgap measures and media stunts to obtain personal domestic gains for the man, not the country," he charges. "It has cast suspicions that U.S. foreign and military policy has served as often to cover up the president’s personal and political troubles as to advance any vital U.S. national interests."

Waller cites the attack on the USS Cole as the most recent example of the state of the nation’s defenses, saying that the bombing raises such questions as whether the Cole was visiting the port of Aden as part of a well-considered strategy, or did intelligence, policy and planning failures unnecessarily put the ship and its crew in danger?

Thank you for the response. I don't expect or need for you to agree with me. I do hope that you will be willing to remove the blinders of ideology and consider facts that don't always fit your world view.

RandFan

*J. Michael Waller is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC, and is executive editor of Demokratizatisiya. He holds a Ph.D. in international security affairs from Boston University and is author of Secret Empire: The KGB in Russia Today (Westview, 1994).

[Troll]

Bring it on? Let's see. Thinking back a little. Yeah. Most U.S. military would have the same attitude if getting hit by suicide attackers. Sorry but we get trained to deal with the enemy and deal with them hard and fast. So yeah, we'd see a few of our buds get whacked and want to call all the weasels out at once for a big and final throwdown. Yep. we'd even resort to taunting and teasing if need be to get the wusses to face us up front and end all the crap in one big fight. That way we can get home to american women without inhibitions and laws preventing them from having sex with us and american or imported booze to help expedite the former. ;) The statement wasn't anything people planning on spending more than one tour in the military wouldn't have said or thought themselves, so if anything, it's a morale booster.

*edited to fix some typos, at least the ones I noticed*

[corplinx]

My guess is the "bring it on" phrase was carefully conconted. Some of you people just refuse to study special operations and psych ops.

You have an arab/islamic machismo weakness in most Iraqi men. This has been exploited in the past to draw them out into open confrontation. Messages such as "you are impotent" played over loudspeakers drew fanatic Saddam loyalists out in several areas.

What we do not want is backstabbings and ambushes. We want to meet our enemy head on. The Bush admin rightfully taunted these yahoos. The sooner they run head-on to their death, the better for Iraq.

[Cain]

It fits you world view to see things in this light. It however shows a lack of critical thought and objectivity.

...

People fancy themselves skeptics. You are not being a skeptic if you are only skeptical of views that you do not share.

I have been and am skeptical of Conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, George Bush, and anyone who I identify with ideologically.

I categorize empty statements like these under the "I'm-more-objective-than-you" file. They're almost utterly meaningless, accusations sprinkled over nonsense talk: "Oh, another person surrenders her skepticism at the gates of political theory!" Any sort of dispute between implies this and explicitly stating it to claim the banner of Reason for your side hints at weakness.




911 like the sinking of the Lusitania and the Main and the bombing of Pearl Harbor endeared a significant amount of nationalism. This event left Americans feeling very vulnerable. Since security is vital to the cohesiveness of a society a good leader will take action to make the citizenry feel more secure.

So you must not have a very high opinion of Bush then. He said we needed to unleash an army on Baghdad before we're forced to deploy an "army of fire fighters, policemen, and doctors" on a major American city because, after all, the Land of the Free is in imminent danger from Saddam. What, was it eight of ten Americans that at one point believed Saddam posed an immediate danger to the US? Nearly 50% believed Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Cheney said Iraq was actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Rice claimed that we'll always be uncertain about Iraq's capabilities, but it's better to invade now and allow the smoking gun to be a "mushroom cloud." Bush has also said we're in "grave danger" and "urgent danger," this coming from Saddam, remember; he went quite a few months without even publicly acknowledging Osama Bin Laden (maybe Corplinx attributes this to yet another brilliant, though unexplained, psychological move by the president. Oh please.).

I am quite familiar with the history of the Taliban and how we assisted them when they were fighting the Soviet Union. That we did assist them hardly excuses their actions. On the contrary it should have created a bond between us. The problem is that the hatred that the Taliban had for "infidels" was so great that our help was looked on with contempt.

The second sentence is thrown in as a reply to what by whom? We were using the Taliban and they were using us. We found it in our interest to support Islamic fundementalists with a penchant for terrorism. This earned them our respect. Even Ronald Reagan compared them to the Founding Fathers. I consistently hear arguments slung at the political left that we support terrorism or we're terrorist sympathizers. In fact, if anything, the logical extensions of realpolitick woudl say that don't support terrorists and dictators often enough.

The U.S. intelligence establishment has used our actions as Afghanistan as the model example for quite sometime. Wasn't it Carter's national security adviser who bragged about giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam in Afghanistan? US officials knew the people we supported were crazed fanatics, even describing the Moujahdeen's penchant for torture as an "indescribable horror" (Source: p. 5 William Blum's _Rogue State. The author quotes an interview in Le Monde and article in the Washington Post).

Anyway, the comittment to fairness and objectivity oozes through in every sentence of every paragraph. That's an interesting article from Newsmax! The author makes similarly qualified and nunanced statements. For example, instead of calling the Clinton-Gore administration "treasonous" they're described as "near-treasonous." That's solid journalism.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
I categorize empty statements like these under the "I'm-more-objective-than-you" file. They're almost utterly meaningless, accusations sprinkled over nonsense talk: "Oh, another person surrenders her skepticism at the gates of political theory!" Any sort of dispute between implies this and explicitly stating it to claim the banner of Reason for your side hints at weakness. Misses the mark and the point. Dismiss it all you want but Lilly's remarks clearly show a lack of critical thought.

Your point my have some value if I did not have a history on this forum of doing exactly as I have said. It is demonstrable that I have been critical of all of the aforementioned.

In addition it is also demonstrable that I don't make the kind of sweeping indictments of individuals that Lily made and that are so characteristic of blind ideological specious reasoning.

So you must not have a very high opinion of Bush then. Straw man and it puts words in mouth. How about addressing my points?

Anyway, the comittment to fairness and objectivity oozes through in every sentence of every paragraph. That's an interesting article from Newsmax! The author makes similarly qualified and nunanced statements. For example, instead of calling the Clinton-Gore administration "treasonous" they're described as "near-treasonous." That's solid journalism. Believing that Clinton is a great Statesman and Bush pisses people off with every statement is demonstrably untrue.

It's amazing that in the entire article that that is all you can come up with. "near-treasonous" vs. "treasonous". I'll take that as a ringing endorsement. It's like saying Pamela Lee has a mole on her face and therefore is unattractive. Again, thanks.

Edited to tone down.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by corplinx
. We want to meet our enemy head on. The Bush admin rightfully taunted these yahoos. The sooner they run head-on to their death, the better for Iraq.

I hope that our soldiers are dying for our cause in Iraq, I can't believe that we are there for the benefit of the Iraqis, that may be a sidebar but I hope we are there for Americans.
Corplix, this is the best explanation I have heard yet, I do fera however that it will provoke more of the secret war stuff, and lead to more American dead.

Lily: Please feel free to state your impressions and feelings. Most people here want you to defend your personal beliefs, but that is what they are just like evry one. They are much less honest than you in stating that thiers are beliefs.

[RandFan]

I would like to clarify my position. This issue is complex and there is no single reason that we were attacked. There are 4 distinct groups with different and shared reasons for attacking America.

Osama Bin Laden, The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the followers of these 3 groups.

I think the evidence is quite clear that Osama Bin Laden was either directly responsible or closely associated with those who bombed the Twin Towers.

Bin Laden hated American because of our involvement in Saudi Arabia. He felt that the ruling family had sold out to the Americans by allowing them to put bases on what he believed was holy ground. The rhetoric of Bin Laden is clear that he sees us as infidels but his prime motivation is/was the actions of the US in the Middle East. In interviews prior to the attack Bin Laden did not mention that he hated America's culture or our freedom.

The Taliban were mostly concerned with running their country. Of all of the Muslim Sects they were perhaps the most intolerant of non-Muslims and they did hate us for our beliefs, the fact that we allowed women freedom and that we practiced perversions. (see articles from Mavis Leno)

That being said, the Taliban's number one motivation was that we had been pressuring them to stop the terrorist camps and disassociate themselves from Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Al Qaeda's motivations were similar to Bin Laden's. They were angry because of our involvement in the mid east but they also desired to over throw western culture.

The stated desires to defeat the infidels and the rhetoric coming from the Mullahs and the leaders of those like the Taliban and Al Qaeda cannot be ignored. Many clearly do hate us for our culture and our freedom. We are an offense to them.

[Mike B.]

Thanks Rand Fan and Shane Costello,

I am always amazed when people say they know the "real" reason for 9/11.

What is amazing is the terrorists themselves were quite explicit in their letters and statements about why they did it. They did not want infidels and especially Kafir women in the "land where the prophet recieved his revelations."

Is that justified? Is that the horendous policy put out by America?

It always seems like projection. (i.e. I don't like this about American policy, so the terrorists must think the same way.)

And Shane thanks for bringing up the Morocco and Bali bomings. All of the people who say it was horrendous American foreign policy that caused 9/11 need to explain what horrendous things Morocco and other places Al Queda has attacked did that caused them to be attacked.

I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the left for this.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Thanks Rand Fan and Shane Costello,

I am always amazed when people say they know the "real" reason for 9/11.

----
I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the left for this.

Yeah they were kooks and did it for kook reasons.

Our foriegn policy is still ham handed and short sighted but not the cause of the attack.

There are some on the right who feel our foriegn policy is bogus.

I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the *right* for *anything*.

[Cain]

Originally posted by RandFan
Your point my have some value if I did not have a history on this forum of doing exactly as I have said. It is demonstrable that I have been critical of all of the aforementioned.

There's no point discussing this at great length. Instead of claiming objectivity, critical thought, skepticism, and all the other good values nearly everyone here claims to abide, you might take a moment to demonstrate them. I do not follow the board or any single participant's posting history closely, but experience tells me anyone who claims to be objective is often fooling only herself (but maybe a few others).


Straw man and it puts words in mouth. How about addressing my points?

As I have doggedly warned on umpteen occasions, the term "straw man" should set off red flags when used on this board. I challenge you to prove either claim. *How* is it a straw man? What words did I put in your mouth? It stands to reason that you would not have a very high opinion of Bush because you said good leaders will make citizens more secure. The final question is similarly vague, and therefore absurd.

Believing that Clinton is a great Statesman and Bush pisses people off with every statement is demonstrably untrue.

I think you need a fact checker. She called Clinton a "decent Statesman" (but hey, what do I know, I'm the one prone to straw man exaggerations and putting words in the mouths of others).

The person who you say "lacks critical thought" is, remember, from a foreign country. The President as a Statesman is judged by his conduct of international affairs. Simply compare the world opinion of Clinton versus Bush. Hell, most of our fellow humans felt Bush was more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.

It's amazing that in the entire article that that is all you can come up with. "near-treasonous" vs. "treasonous". I'll take that as a ringing endorsement. It's like saying Pamela Lee has a mole on her face and therefore is unattractive. Again, thanks.

There you go making unwarranted assumptions again. I did not read the entire article. The word "treasonous" captured my eye. Of course I also scanned the bizarrely bolded paragraph, which defies reasoned reply. What then follows, if you really want me to go through it, are unsupported assertions, many of them rich with irony, and building up to a morally and intellectually bankrupt conclusion: Clinton didn't whip enough ass.

I guess I should conclude by flashing required credentials of "objectivity": Clinton was a war criminal and should be awaiting trial at The Hague.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
There's no point discussing this at great length. Instead of claiming objectivity, critical thought, skepticism, and all the other good values nearly everyone here claims to abide, you might take a moment to demonstrate them. I have, my record speaks for itself. And it is obvious that I don't make the same sweeping generalizations that Lily did.

As I have doggedly warned on umpteen occasions, the term "straw man" should set off red flags when used on this board. I challenge you to prove either claim. *How* is it a straw man? It was late when I responded. The fact is that I never claimed what you surmised.

It stands to reason that you would not have a very high opinion of Bush because you said good leaders will make citizens more secure. Oh really? Is that what I said? This is a clear example of putting words in my mouth.

Let's look at that again.

RandFan
Since security is vital to the cohesiveness of a society a good leader will Take Action to make the citizenry feel more secure.

Do you see the difference? Do you see how the words that you attribute to me are wrong? Do you see how you have set up a situation where you create a "straw man"? Something you can easily knock down?

What I said was "a good leader will take action". A huge difference. And since Bush has done precisely that there is no reason for me not to think highly of President Bush.

Please note the words "take action". Those words are absent from the statement that you attribute to me.

The final question is similarly vague, and therefore absurd. It is not vague at all. There is an argument and I have made a point concerning that argument. You have failed to address that point.

I think you need a fact checker. She called Clinton a "decent Statesman" (but hey, what do I know, I'm the one prone to straw man exaggerations and putting words in the mouths of others). I would think that in the least a "statesman" would be capable of succesfuly executing foreign policy.

The person who you say "lacks critical thought" is, remember, from a foreign country. The President as a Statesman is judged by his conduct of international affairs. Oh boy, here we go again. I did not say that. I said her actions "show a lack of crtical thought"

Someone may be capable of crtical thought but act in a way that shows a lack of critical thought. Do you understand? Do you see the difference?

And how is the evidence that I offered not proof that Clinton has done a lousy job of conducting international affairs?

Simply compare the world opinion of Clinton versus Bush. Hell, most of our fellow humans felt Bush was more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. Specious.

If this were true it would hardly follow that this past week the leaders of most of our fellow humans would ask Bush to intervene in Liberia.

There you go making unwarranted assumptions again. I did not read the entire article. Christ, do you lack the ability to comprehend the written word? Where did I say that you read the entire article?

Please, I want to know, show me where I had said that you had read the entire article? I said (here we go, déjà vu all over again) "It's amazing that in the entire article that that is all you can come up with."

If you HAD taken the time to read the entire article perhaps you would have come up with something more substantive.

I guess I should conclude by flashing required credentials of "objectivity": Clinton was a war criminal and should be awaiting trial at The Hague. I don't believe that. It would make a good straw man though wouldn't it? Care to take a chance.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Yeah they were kooks and did it for kook reasons.

Our foriegn policy is still ham handed and short sighted but not the cause of the attack.

There are some on the right who feel our foriegn policy is bogus.

I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the *right* for *anything*.

Does anyone find this coherent?:p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dancing David


Yeah they were kooks and did it for kook reasons.

Our foriegn policy is still ham handed and short sighted but not the cause of the attack.

There are some on the right who feel our foriegn policy is bogus.

I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the *right* for *anything*.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone find this coherent?:p

1. The 9/11 attacks were not necessarily very rational, although there would be rational reasons in there as well, such as lack of respect for a US ham-handed foreigh policy.
2. The us does not necessarily have rational reasons for many of it's foreign policy actions. (Ref: Irrational reasons for 9/11 attack).
3. There are right wingers out there who question the rationality of the current US foreign policy. E.g. Launching a war in Iraq, with no clear idea of what to do after the war was won.
4. He just questions right wing politics in general.

[Cain]

Wow Randfan, your replies are more hysterical and misguided than usual.

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh really? Is that what I said? This is a clear example of putting words in my mouth.

Let's look at that again.

Since security is vital to the cohesiveness of a society a good leader will Take Action to make the citizenry feel more secure.

I only wonder if you could possibly be serious here. Now the doublespeak means this: putting words in your mouth is really failing to account for two words; these words, left in or out, make no difference to my original reply.

So allow me to rephrase accordingly: Randfan, you probably shouldn't hold a very high opinion of the Bush administration since it has consciously tried to scare the population under the protective wing of the nanny state. And that's evident in the scare-mongering noted above.

Do you see the difference? Do you see how the words that you attribute to me are wrong? Do you see how you have set up a situation where you create a "straw man"? Something you can easily knock down?

No. I don't see the straw man. But hey, I want what you're smoking.

What I said was "a good leader will take action". A huge difference. And since Bush has done precisely that there is no reason for me not to think highly of President Bush.

Please note the words "take action". Those words are absent from the statement that you attribute to me.

And the Bush administration has taken action to deliberately frighten the American people. A percentage of Americans feared Saddam than populations in either Kuwait -- a country he invaded -- or Iran -- a country where he fought a bloody war resulting in over 1 million deaths.

It is not vague at all. There is an argument and I have made a point concerning that argument. You have failed to address that point.

Uh-huh. Where are these points? Here I'll quote the text previously omitted:

Our freedoms make us vulnerable. There is no argument about that fact. It is a philosophical conundrum as to how to balance our freedom and our safety. Any action taken by any president that would increase security was bound to threaten freedom and civil liberties. George Bush has acted to increase our security and therefore has opened himself up to the criticism of those who do not share his ideology.

Please see my discussion about checks and balances to understand why the recent changes are not the slippery slope that many make them out to be. Intellectual honesty would require one to seriously consider all off the facts. I find few people who are politically motivated to do that. It is simple to dismiss George W. Bush as stupid and hate him because he does not share your ideology. You look for evidence that supports your view and ignore those facts that do not. That is fine but it is not honest.

People fancy themselves skeptics. You are not being a skeptic if you are only skeptical of views that you do not share.
I have been and am skeptical of Conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, George Bush, and anyone who I identify with ideologically.

I don't really see anything worth replying to in there. Where these hidden points are relevant to my criticism. It's just the whole "I'm-more-objective-than-you" mantra repeated half a dozen times.

[qutoe] I would think that in the least a "statesman" would be capable of succesfuly executing foreign policy.[/quote]

It's a good thing you don't make sweeping indictments :rolleyes:

And yet, in your Solomon like fairness you failed to concede that you, rather blatantly, mischaracterized Lily's description.

Oh boy, here we go again. I did not say that. I said her actions "show a lack of crtical thought"

Someone may be capable of crtical thought but act in a way that shows a lack of critical thought. Do you understand? Do you see the difference?

And how is the evidence that I offered not proof that Clinton has done a lousy job of conducting international affairs?

Calm down. Okay, I agree her "actions" -- whatever that means -- "shows a lack of critical thought." Sure. Okay. It doesn't matter because I'd argue she's not lacking in the critical thought department on this subject any more than you (although that might unfair to Lily).

The so-called evidence you presented of Clinton performing poorly in International Affairs is laughable. I addressed the article, or so I thought.

Specious.

If this were true it would hardly follow that this past week the leaders of most of our fellow humans would ask Bush to intervene in Liberia.

I think I'm going to now add "specious" to the column of warning words that includes "straw man." First, world opinion in this regard was polled and replicated a half dozen times. People felt Bush was more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. Maybe that opinion is just plain wrong, but it's public opinion and goes to your international credibility line of argument. The world-wide opposition to Bush was unprecedented. Even majorities, sometimes overwhelming majorities, in member countries that were apart of the "coalition of the willing," opposed the war (think England, Spain).

Christ, do you lack the ability to comprehend the written word? Where did I say that you read the entire article?

Heh, you make me laugh. "It's amazing that in the entire article that that is all you can come up with. 'near-treasonous' vs. 'treasonous'." I could have come up with a lot more, if I bothered to read that trash.

Then your analogy, a silly one, but the implications are sort of obvious:

"I'll take that as a ringing endorsement. It's like saying Pamela Lee has a mole on her face and therefore is unattractive. Again, thanks."

Oh, but you didn't use that exact word "read"!! A lawyerly interpretation worthy of a chuckle.

The last three sentences are bizarre. If you care to clarify, I might just "care to take a chance."

Until then...

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Cain
Wow Randfan, your replies are more hysterical and misguided than usual. Oh really. It's demonstrable that you misquote me.

Cain
you said good leaders will make citizens more secure. That is not what I said. What I said was "a good leader will TAKE ACTION to make the citizenry feel more secure."

Those two sentences are very different. You did this 3 times.

Why all the BS Cain? Why not just do the stand up thing and admit that you were wrong?

[Cain]

That is not what I said. What I said was "a good leader will TAKE ACTION to make the citizenry feel more secure."

*sigh* And this plainly contradicts the facts. The administration's actions have been to frighten the populace, as indicated by polls and comments made from Bush, Cheney and Rice (all quoted above).

I almost amazed you can be this dense. Leave in "take action" or remove it.

Perhaps some day you'll realize how redundant the sentence sounds. Of course a good leader will attempt to make the citizenry feel more secure by TAK[ing] ACTION. How else is she supposed to do it?

The Bush administration has done the opposite by attempting to instill fear in Americans, and, sadly, this propaganda has been largely successful.

*Notice I never quoted you. I summarized the argument. Leave "TAKE ACTION" in there or remove it altogether, it's still wrong.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
*sigh* And this plainly contradicts the facts. The administration's actions have been to frighten the populace, as indicated by polls and comments made from Bush, Cheney and Rice (all quoted above). Bull S**t. We were attcked on 911. The people of the United States felt very vulnerable. The administration has done an outstanding job of reducing that vulverabilty considering our freedom it has been a very difficult job. And the polls show that you are very wrong. Bush has gotten high marks for reducing the fears of the American people.

Your words betray you. You offer no other possibilities to the events you reference. You could be right, and Bush might be trying to scare the American people but there is scant evidence to that. I will accept it as a posibility.

Look, the difference between you and I is that I accept the possiblity that I might be wrong. You are quite unequivacable in your assertion that Bush is trying to scare the American people. But what of the evidence to the contrary? Would you even consider such evidence? Do you know for a fact what is in George Bush's mind and know of his intent?

According to Steven Brill (not a conservative, not a republican, not right leaning), the administration has done an outstanding job.

Brill explains: "I’ve had a kind of cultural revelation, and it centers on Tom Ridge, whom all my friends think is a bumpkin because he doesn't look and sound like them. Janitor’s son wins scholarship to Harvard, gets elected governor. Yet my friends think he’s a dummy. The reason: because he’s utterly without guile. To me he is emblematic of what’s great about the country – a guy who leaves his cushy governorship and therefore his wife has to go get a job to pay the bills because they have new rent to pay, and goes to Washington to help. And his staff is the same way.

"Sure they don’t do everything right, but they work their asses off and take all kinds of s**t from the press and the pundits and just keep their heads down and do the job they said they would do. The book is full of poignant scenes of these decent people just plain working hard and making sacrifices. No politics. No bulls**t. No glory. No scouring the papers for news clips about themselves." Might I add all kinds of s**t from people with little minds who are so blinded by ideology they refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it is right in front of them in black and white. You have twisted the truth to the breaking point so you can pretend that you are right. Whatever, if you can live with that then fine.

I almost amazed you can be this dense. Leave in "take action" or remove it. Again Bull S**t. My meaning was clear and you misrepresented what I said, 3 times!

If you can't admit that there is a difference between "taking" action to make someone secure and "making" someone secure then you are very stupid or intellectualy dishonest. You don't strike me as all that stupid.

Perhaps some day you'll realize how redundant the sentence sounds. Of course a good leader will attempt to make the citizenry feel more secure by TAK[ing] ACTION. How else is she supposed to do it? 1. Take action to make the American people secure.

2. Make the American people secure.

Look closely, do you see the difference yet?

George W. Bush said that it would take a long time to do this. We had to go to Afghanastan and defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We had to get rid of Saddam. We would have to make changes domestically, including beefing up security at the Airports. It would not be easy and it wouldn't happen overnight.

These are the Actions that George Bush said that needed to be done. Guess what Cain, he has done much of what he has set out to do. Now you can argue that Saddam wasn't a real threat You can argue that the Administrtion was wrong. Assuming that the were (they weren't but that is arguable) then they did what the believed was correct and they achieved victory.

There is a HUGE difference between taking action to make someone feel secure and making them secure. I think Bush has made us more secure. But I can't prove that. I can prove that he has taken action to make us secure. The record shows that he made a plan and he followed it without wavering. Even when the pundits were using words like quagmire in Afghanastan. Even when the pundits were saying we would lose to Iraq. George Bush did not give up. He did not listen t the little minds. And now the polls clearly show that the people believe that he is making us more secure.

But you know this.

*Notice I never quoted you. I summarized the argument. Leave "TAKE ACTION" in there or remove it altogether, it's still wrong. It is not wrong at all. My point was that a great leader should take action. A poor leader will not. There are many examples of leaders who failed to take action.

In any event there is no argument. Just a person who lacks the honesty to stand up and say "yeah, I was wrong". "You did not say what I attributed to you."

I have better things to do than argue with someone who can't even acknowledge the obvious. You hate bush and none of the evidence thus far will even cause you to consdier that you could be wrong.

I have said on many ocassions that I could be wrong. I could be wrong on this one. I might be passionate but I am not disshonest. I have little use for individuals who can't bring themselves to tell the truth. I'll read your response to this post and then let's put each other on our ignore lists ok.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
I am always amazed when someone cites this as though we should have known that the Taliban was going to turn on us after we helped them. This fact very much makes my argument. Thank you for bringing it up.

I am quite familiar with the history of the Taliban and how we assisted them when they were fighting the Soviet Union. That we did assist them hardly excuses their actions. On the contrary it should have created a bond between us. The problem is that the hatred that the Taliban had for "infidels" was so great that our help was looked on with contempt.


The Taliban didn't fight the Soviet Union.

http://www.afghan-info.com/TALIBAN.HTM
"The Taliban movement was formed in Kandahar in 1994 by Islamic students who take a radical approach to interpreting Islam."

Not only had the Soviet occupation ended by that time, but the Soviet Union itself had ceased to exist.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


The Taliban didn't fight the Soviet Union.

http://www.afghan-info.com/TALIBAN.HTM
"The Taliban movement was formed in Kandahar in 1994 by Islamic students who take a radical approach to interpreting Islam."

Not only had the Soviet occupation ended by that time, but the Soviet Union itself had ceased to exist. You are correct. My mistake.

I had meant the mujahedeen and of course Osama Bin Laden.

[peptoabysmal]

Personally, I think it's refreshing to have American spirit returning.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George S. Patton, Jr