Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Bush again?

Sure, without thinking, I'm sure countless millions simply vote party line.

Or, "vote Democratic" to get rid of the war-monger Bush.

How many thought the same thing, and ended up with Johnson. . . ?

Let me put some replies to this:


The Patriot Act generally expires in December 2005. Some restrictions have already been placed on it (HR2799). I'd not like to see another Patriot Act, particularly one without sunset provisions, but this is far less onerous than the WWII internment camps.
Britain, Spain, Poland, a number of the Eastern European countries, India and Kuwait do not seem to be too alienated.
Then what is?
The exit strategy existed, the planning to implement it was sketchy, flawed, and victim of some wishful thinking. It's getting fixed, in an overdue fashion.
And strong cultures with hope for all citizens beat the box cutter terrorists every time. We use tanks and similar assets to defend ourselves and our cultural allies by destroying those states who aid and abet the terrorists.

Failure to take the war to the enemy's heart is the real threat.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

Failure to take the war to the enemy's heart is the real threat.

Jeff IMHO you hit the nail on it's head. I hope it is just the warming of the political climate for the 2004 election, but my fear is Americans don't have the guts to endure and sacrifice (when and if it comes to that) to win the War on Terrorism. Will it take another attack like 9-11
or worse, to make us realize we cannot win the hearts and minds of those who hate us??? The only thing a terrorist understands and respects is strength. They will not stop until they dominate the world. We cannot afford to rest until we have rid the world of them.

I'm beginning to believe we are returning to our sleep, and dreaming those who believe in radical Islam are basically nice people who will embrace us if we can only sit down and talk and come to understand each other. Two kinds of people, brainwashed - but on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Regards,
Ron

First you have to find them, Jeff.

Or....dig your way into the center of them and lure them all to you. Oh wait..... that's what we're doing!

Well, there is something to be said for inserting the military of the most powerful nation in history right smack in the middle of one of the most volatile and important regions of the world without everyone around them raising a fuss. (I know, shhhh...don't tell...)

And we're also sustaining casualties!

Didn't vote for him the first time and certainly won't this time.

We saw what he did as Texas governor to the Texas economy, services, and quality of life. He's doing the same thing as president. This is the fox and the hen house story.

By the way, you may not know there is no state income tax in Texas. This alone, tells the story of the advantage to the Texas mega rich when fedral taxes for higher incomes are reduced.

In choosing the next president, I hope it will be someone who has been successful at something. No more oil baron failure, failed investor , or failed ball team owner who left his investors holding the bag when he took the profits and invested in other enterprizes.

Consider his background for foreign relations: the son of an American president who has had almost unlimited resources at his disposal at fifty something had been "abroad" twice in his life and both times were to Mexico! Remarkable world curiousity, don't you think?


If he couldn't make it as a business man with the family money and connections at his disposal, there was never any reason to believe he could run the world's largest business!

Hey Tony, I suggest you don't vote for GWB next time. Fair enough? :p

Great idea! Don't think I will, but then, who counts votes, anyway?

How do you see what we are doing as "luring them to us"?

I believe you WAY underestimate him. And I think that's dangerous.

Well, apparently San Francisco doesn't because ballot boxes keep turning up in the bay. And not Chicago, because...oh, wait, Chicago does count votes, even ones that don't exist. And not Madison, WI or Minneapolis, MN...

Well, it's been pretty widely discussed on the news, for one - as in this article:

Al Qaeda plans a front in Iraq

For another, I've talked to more than a few guys who have returned from there, and they all tell me the same thing. They are congregating in Iran, just over the border where they're safe, and coming down two highways that lead to Baghdad, sniping at the troops. That's where all the attacks on our troops are coming from, not from the Iraqis. And they are a mixed bunch too - Even Hammas are sending people.

Are you proposing then, a bombing run across this front?

Steve,

While I was thinking culturally, I see that others have well answered from the operational perspective.

We know precisely where the cultural problems lie. In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, in many parts of Pakistan, and still deep in parts of Afghanistan. Anywhere dictators for life wrap themselves in religious imagery and blame the American devil, to divert the masses with no jobs and no hope from focussing too closely on the fact that their warlord, or king, or president has stolen their country's wealth, destroyed the economy, ruined the social structure, made a puppet of the press, and made a career of lying about the future.

So when we water the flower of democracy in the center of the Baghdad Caliphate, we're acting right at the heart of the problem.

Ghaddafi may have been scared back on to the civilized path. Saudi Arabia is making sounds and motions, too soon by far to know for sure. In Egypt the matter of presidential succession will be telling. Afghanistan and Pakistan will have something, I don't know what, but something major happen in the next five years.

We need someone in the office of the President capable of dealing with it.

Jeff

Jeff

We obviously have a right to defend ourselves.

But what right do we have to tell others the type of government they should have -- even if it is dictatorship wrapped in the mantle of theocracy?

Since the beginning of this country, we have been able to deal with countries and peoples who do not like us, indeed hate us. Since WWII, we have been able to coexist with them, even while keeping our guard up and adequately defending ourselves. Yes, since 9/11 we need to rethink how we do that, but we can continue to coexist with those who hate us while ensuring our defense.

If we are going to spend $100's of Billions over and above our normal defense needs, I think we would be much more secure spending it here in the US to secure our borders, our ports, etc, rather than taking over other countries.

If the people of Afganistan want/allow the Taliban to take over again,that is their decision. We have no right to impose a governmental structure on them. Our job is to find a way to deal with whatever threat they may pose for us.

If the people of Iraq want an Iran style Shiite government, it is not up to us to say no. We have no right to. Our responsibility is to ourselves, to ensure our security from any threat they may be for us.

There have been in the past, there is now and there always will be countries which are run in ways we disapprove of -- perhaps disdain. We have no right to keep them from doing this.

All we have a right to do is to defend ourselves. The $200 Billion we are now spending in Iraq -- and it will go up significantly -- would be far better spent here in the US directly related to our owjn security, not spent taking over countries we have no right to take over.

I agree. We should beef up our defense instead of waisting money and lives on these imbeciles, all the while blowing the living daylights out of muslim nations who harbor terrorists. The world is ingrate and often uses America as a skapegoat for their own ills. I shudder to think what this world be like without a country like America who has the balls and witts to at least try and do whats right.

John Andrews wrote: If the people of Afganistan want/allow the Taliban to take over again,that is their decision. We have no right to impose a governmental structure on them. Our job is to find a way to deal with whatever threat they may pose for us.


My God, man, do you think the people in Afghanistan *wanted* that? Do you think the Taliban put it up for a vote, and the people made a decision?

Your thinking is too shallow, John. We are not "imposing" a governmental structure on them any more than we are imposing one on Iraq. In both cases, we have helped them set up a broad based group made up of their own people, and let them take charge of what kind of form their government will take. The only thing we've "imposed" on either country is to keep one group from taking control of everyone else, so they won't end up with a small faction dictating the rest. Afghanistan now has an Afghan government. We don't control it, we didn't create it, and we don't tell them what to do. The same is happening in Iraq. But in both cases, the governments the people are creating are friendly to the US. You see, the majority of the people in both countries are thankful to us for liberating them. The only ones who aren't are the terrorists, the dislocated benefactors of the former regimes, and folks like yourself.

No.

Bush and his handlers need to be given the boot.

While far from confident, I am quite hopeful that this will happen. I find some measure of hope in the small but growing number of old-school Eisenhower republicans, like my parents, who are fed-up with Bush and his recreant witlings. They are for the most part older Americans who've at length become disgusted with the fiscal trashing of the country, worried by the unfolding chaos in Iraq, and completely repulsed by the lying neo-conservatives who've hijacked American policy.

Unable or unwilling to vote dem, my parents plan to sit-out the next election.

To bad. Perhaps this an answer for them: Republicans for Dean

I am undecided about Dean, I was interested in his candidacy long before it began to develop any traction. In part, I've been waiting to see what happens with Clark . It's prolly going to be between these two candidates for me. I am uttery uninterested in the rest of the field. Plus the sheer entertainment of value of watching Bush or Cheney in debates with Clark will be well-worth the price of admission, though it'll no doubt be a long and ugly fight. All the same, I don't think anyone (repub or dem) can repair all damage the Bush weevils have wrought.

Paul Krugman , writing for the NY Times, has perhaps telescoped the coming election fight best:

"The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels. Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that's not how they operate. Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals -involving energy policy, environmental policy,Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence -that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost. The result, clearly, will be an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history. Four months ago it seemed that the 2004 campaign would be all slow-mo films of Mr. Bush in his flight suit. But at this point, it's likely to be pictures of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark that morph into Saddam Hussein. And Donald Rumsfeld has already rolled out the stab-in-the-back argument: if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy. This political ugliness will take its toll on policy, too. The administration's infallibility complex -its inability to admit ever making a mistake -will get even worse. And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed. In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse."

-N