Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 1:32 AM
17 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1130 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 211 of 220 (283602)
02-03-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-02-2006 7:50 PM


Re: If you give up Liberty you are a Coward
Amen, Br'er Chalmers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-02-2006 7:50 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 212 of 220 (283628)
02-03-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Silent H
02-03-2006 5:07 AM


Re: We are not at War
sadly, holmes, you raise a very good point.

perhaps, "getting head in the oval office" is one of war powers extended to bush by congress, as is lying under oath... well, i guess we can never catch him.

nice try though, schraf. :D


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 5:07 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 11:56 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 213 of 220 (283642)
02-03-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Modulous
02-03-2006 6:32 AM


Re: We are not at War
I must have missed all of this. Got a link? Sounds interesting.

I'm not sure how much you missed. I assume you know about the materials which have fallen into enemy (terrorist) hands because of our invasion.

There was regular military hardware as well as wmd capable material under UN watch. They warned us to protect it, anti war advocates warned it would likely be lost during an invasion. Still we didn't protect it and material was lost... well except the stuff showing up in IEDs. If you want links to that find Tal threads where he claims WMDs have been found. The links are usually to articles addressing that (though he still doesn't get it).

As far as the incitement part goes, here's a link. From the article...

President Bush said Wednesday that American troops under fire in Iraq aren't about to pull out, and he challenged those tempted to attack U.S. forces, "Bring them on."

Note, at the time he said this only 65 troops had died so far. Attacks escalated and we now stand at over 2200 dead.

In context...

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

And as it turns out we didn't... which he now admits to. So what does this make his actions back then? Hmmmmm. Ari tried to cover the rather treasonous activity as follows...

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush's combative tone was not meant to invite attacks on Americans. "I think what the president was expressing there is his confidence in the men and women of the military to handle the military mission they still remain in the middle of," Fleischer said.

Uh-huh. How about "Watch out", "Think again", "Don't make that mistake"? "Bring 'em on" means they should attack our troops. That they are still in the middle of a military mission is exactly when you don't incite the enemy into increasing attacks.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2006 6:32 AM Modulous has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 214 of 220 (283644)
02-03-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by arachnophilia
02-03-2006 11:00 AM


Re: We are not at War
perhaps, "getting head in the oval office" is one of war powers extended to bush

After 5 years of the "war" president, I'm definitely getting nostalgic for the "love" president. I'd be willing to grant him the power of commanding bjs of interns, if I thought it would help him mellow out and do something right for a change.

Hell turn guantanamo bay into a sex dungeon for him and his cabinet to play around in. Maybe they could all use it.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2006 11:00 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2006 12:00 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 215 of 220 (283647)
02-03-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Silent H
02-03-2006 11:56 AM


Re: We are not at War
After 5 years of the "war" president, I'm definitely getting nostalgic for the "love" president. I'd be willing to grant him the power of commanding bjs of interns, if I thought it would help him mellow out and do something right for a change.

Hell turn guantanamo bay into a sex dungeon for him and his cabinet to play around in. Maybe they could all use it.

are you volunteering? hey, head from a man would certainly make him loose credibility with the neo-cons. what? a gay president? IMPEACH!


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 11:56 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 220 (283692)
02-03-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Silent H
02-03-2006 4:56 AM


Re: We are not at War
Heheheh... you forgot. First he handed them the explosives and then he said "bring it on" (specifically meaning "attack our troops"). I don't see how a dem would have ever survived that mistake and the resulting carnage. That was not just aiding and abetting, it was incitement to kill our troops.

Yeah... in all honesty, I thought that was a sloppy and careless remark, and displayed a complete lack of thought for the soldiers who his actions put in harm's way, but I guess I didn't find it "treasonous." The implicit assumption is that terrorists were sitting around saying "Hey, Fahid, should we attack America today?"

"Well, Abdul, I was gonna just sit back and play some Xbox, but that American swine Bush just told us to 'bring it on!' So you know what? I'm gonna!"

Like, I don't see it. Bush echoed a sentiment that I imagine the majority of his troops actually share; that those who wish to pit themselves against our soldiers should step out and do so sooner, rather than later, and in the open and fair field of combat (as though it could ever be fair, fighting the best army in the world.)

It was a stupid thing to say, but it was also ballsy, and it's exactly the sort of thing our guys say on their way into theater.

Delivering tons of high explosive into the hands of the enemy, though? Absolutely outrageous, and I pin the death of one of my oldest friends square on the shoulders of the President.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 4:56 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 5:54 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 217 of 220 (283695)
02-03-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
02-03-2006 5:34 PM


Re: We are not at War
but I guess I didn't find it "treasonous."

If a dem had said it, it would have been labelled as such. I think that much is obvious.

I see what your are saying and agree that the negligence regarding actual weaponry was worse. However, I do believe that his statement did act to incite the enemy to action, and so put troops in harm's way.

Acting "ballsy" is a double-edged sword when you are talking about the media. When one is directly on a battlefield or in some closed compound, that is one thing. Talking to the media is another. A soldier yelling "bring 'em on" is different than a president at a press conference. His words were likely to result in positive reactions from the enemy, including recruitment.

Note that the enemy did exactly what he said, and given that he was wrong in his assumptions regarding our control of security this resulted in losses the enemy has used for press advantage.

He's the guy that's supposed to be winning the war through making good decisions, including proper rhetoric that gets our people back in one piece and our nation some sort of credence.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2006 5:34 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2006 7:20 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 220 (283714)
02-03-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Silent H
02-03-2006 5:54 PM


Re: We are not at War
If a dem had said it, it would have been labelled as such. I think that much is obvious.

Oh, for sure.

Note that the enemy did exactly what he said, and given that he was wrong in his assumptions regarding our control of security this resulted in losses the enemy has used for press advantage.

Well, there is that. Again, I'm not so confident about the incitement effect, but saying it - and then, not being able to match the bravado with bold deeds - certainly did cost us significant credibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 5:54 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Silent H, posted 02-04-2006 6:42 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 219 of 220 (283830)
02-04-2006 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
02-03-2006 7:20 PM


Re: We are not at War
I'm not so confident about the incitement effect, but saying it - and then, not being able to match the bravado with bold deeds - certainly did cost us significant credibility.

I don't want to get into this too much more, since we are pretty much in agreement on what was more important. But let me pitch it to you the way I see it. You had an interesting idea of what didn't happen (the two terrorists sitting around), and you are likely right. Here is where I think something could have happened...

A nation invades your country and is currently occupying it. They have destroyed your business and killed some friends and/or family of yours. The soldiers act in a gloating and demeaning fashion toward you, and may have even searched your home, wrecking things with no compensation.

Then the leader of that nation says that anyone who thinks they can take on the might of that army should "bring 'em on".

I don't know about you, but that would be a final straw for me. I would want to strike back and show that asshole some pain.

We created a very volatile situation and provocative statements of bravado were more likely to make people angry with us to join those against us... or at least not help us. I mean how many simply gave up trying to defend us from others after that? Would you want to join a fledgling security force where the leader of it is egging on attacks?

(Whatever happened to "never a boast or brag" anyway?)

This message has been edited by holmes, 02-04-2006 12:44 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2006 7:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12404
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 220 of 220 (283849)
02-04-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
02-02-2006 6:32 PM


Re: We are not at War
Has anyone ever seen this film: Why We Fight

My friend told me about it....I have not yet seen it. It explains a lot, however. (At least the website does) :)

Click on the link pics around the page and watch the Macromedia presentations...this film seems like quite a statement!

This message has been edited by Phat, 02-04-2006 07:57 AM


Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2006 6:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019