First off, I never wanted this to turn into yet another debate or "flame war" I thought the article had some merit, I posted it.

Your views themselves are not extreme, Bush's views are not extreme, the way you present your views is.

I didn't see the article as a slam on Bush, you did. I guess others can decide for themselves.

It's not YOUR war, it affects the entire world, which believe it or not, doesn't revolve around Washington, D.C.

I have been objective, even stating so when I thought my bias might have come through. I didn't choose to support a "side" here, I presented an article on the intracies of US Foreign policy for people to read and interpret as they wished. You chose to come into it with your personal opinions on your sleeve.

Quote:

To everyone else considering reading the article: its crap, dont bother.

Well, that's one opinion.

Quote:

why should anyone think outside their party lines? god forbid. we are all sheep and cant think for ourselvs.

Party lines, conservative vs. liberal, they're based on group thought, they don't encourage individual thought.

Quote:

" get past the political overtones"? really? is that because they arent "pro-peace"? they(US foreign policy)

If that's what you got form the article, then one of us missed the point.

Perhaps it was me, I didn't see pro-peace, or don't invade Iraq, I saw an examination of foriegn policy choices and there repercussions, both now and historically, in a time of ever increasing pressures on the US. You saw an attack on Bush (party lines?).

Quote:

are about an America that was sucker-punched and now we're going after the suckers? its funny/sickening to me that the rest of the world thinks or says they wouldnt declare war on anyone that attacked them and we wouldnt help. if Calgary was hit waxy, would you say what you are now and would your goverment not ask us for help?

No one said a word when the US went into Afghanistan, you had virtually unanimous world support. Do you ever wonder why you don't have world support now? Don't say oil. BS. The connection with Iraq is your opinion, and the Bush Administration's opinion, it is not the opinion of the world, and despite their efforts, can't be proven as fact, and as such, 9/11 is NOT justification for this war. If this war was about terrorism and avenging 9/11, you'd be going into Saudi Arabia, where the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists and their money came from.

You got punched, as a result you went in and blew up Afghanistan and rounded up or killed most of those responsible for 9/11 (with the exception of Bin Laden), punish them any way you please, that's your right and your revenge. The world has never even suggested otherwise.

Iraq is not retaliation, punching the sucker's cousin does nothing to stop or retaliate against the sucker. Especially when the sucker and his cousin don't even talk.

Quote:

first, who is "we", you live in Canada. i thought this was an exclusively US problem?

Unfortunately, it is your problem, but how you handle it has a huge impact on me and the rest of the world, so I guess whether I like it not, it is my problem.

As I mentioned at the top, I didn't post this to dig up the Iraq debate, we've all been around the block and the lines are drawn. I thought it was an interesting essay on US foreign policy, regardless of your political affiliation. I was simply trying to get a meaningful debate going on foreign policy, perhaps post Iraq, how you chose to interpet that is up to you.

Read it, don't read it, I don't care. I'm tired of this loop de loop.

Waxy

 

The truth as I see it:

The events of 9/11, God let happen, because of our sins and all the filth that goes with them from the 60s forward. We are all to blame, either we particpated or we allowed it. God wants us and our country to return to him. Our counrty was founded by God fearing and God loving Christians.

From the article:

> it has the support of a majority of the people in
> only one country in the world, Israel.

As well it should. The Jews are God's chosen people and our fates are tied together. No country has survived or kept itself in power that has subjected or confronted Israel.. In the end, all that do fall either under Israel's hand or God's. This is history. If we do not protect Israel, God will use someone else and our country is doomed for sure.

I do not know how accurate this is:
> With 5 percent of the world’s population, this one
> country accounts for 43 percent of the world’s
> economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology
> production and 50 percent of its research and development.
> If you look at the indicators of future growth,
> all are favorable for America.

All our good fortune and success lies with God's province. Without God we have nothing. Washington understood it, Jefferson understood it, Lincoln understood it.

Just "some" of Lincoln's Declaration of Thanksgiving as a National Holiday, 1863:

> quote

"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgression in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognise the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is Lord."

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven, we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown."

"But we have forgotten God......intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us."

> end quote

Evil certainly does not want you to know it exists. It does and I have glimpsed it. This world is going to end one way. This is not a battle of material goods, it is a battle over souls. God wants us to return to him with a heavy heart so he can bless us with his mercy and his grace.

On the eve of war and destruction, on bended knee, we should be sobbing and seeking God's forgiveness for all our sins, protection for our soliders, and guidance for our leaders.

 

Waxy,

Thanks for drawing attention to the article. I think I saw it in Newsweek, and blew it off as more radical-lib drivel.

Now that I've read it, I think the article does go past the simple Democrat/Republican battles, and addresses the current position of the US in the world. Obviously the writer has some major concerns with the Bush administration's concept of foreign policy.

I'm registered Republican, and I voted for Bush, but I've got to tell you that from day two or three, I've also been concerned with this administration's blunt, heavy-handed approach to dealing with allies & potential allies. There's definitely a time for it, but sometimes you gotta wrap that 2x4 in red velvet, so as not to leave bruises. I thought we were not only richer & stronger than the rest of the world, but smarter, and operating on a higher moral level. (Else why God Bless America, In God We Trust, etc.)

My hope is that after Bush gets this Iraq thing out of his system (after all Saddam did try to kill his Daddy), Powell and some of our until recent allies will prevail on him to reconsider this my-way-or-the-highway approach. We don't need France, Germany, and Russia (all of whom I'm sure recall their recent periods of dominance) leading up an anti-American Europe, not with China lurking in the east.

I don't expect the whole world will love us, for the same reasons Oregonians & Washingtonians hate Commiefornian, this is gettin' rediculous.

I think it's time for a beer.




P.S. Vietnam Vet, '68-'69, so spare the "un-patriotic" ****.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Waxy
[B]First off, I never wanted this to turn into yet another debate or "flame war" I thought the article had some merit, I posted it.



Your views themselves are not extreme, Bush's views are not extreme, the way you present your views is.

I didn't see the article as a slam on Bush, you did. I guess others can decide for themselves.

It's not YOUR war, it affects the entire world, which believe it or not, doesn't revolve around Washington, D.C.

I have been objective, even stating so when I thought my bias might have come through. I didn't choose to support a "side" here, I presented an article on the intracies of US Foreign policy for people to read and interpret as they wished. You chose to come into it with your personal opinions on your sleeve.

first we should establish that you DO have a bias weather you let it "come through" or not. also, it exactly that bias that made you "present " that article "on the intracices of US foreign policy"

"Party lines, conservative vs. liberal, they're based on group thought, they don't encourage individual thought. "

i COMPLEATLY AGREE, which is why im an Independant. i dont subscribe to party lines.

"If that's what you got form the article, then one of us missed the point.
Perhaps it was me, I didn't see pro-peace, or don't invade Iraq, I saw an examination of foriegn policy choices and there repercussions, both now and historically, in a time of ever increasing pressures on the US. You saw an attack on Bush (party lines?)."

no, not party lines ( im an independant, remember?) i think it was you, you saw what you wanted to see and i saw it for what it was. personaly i dont see how you can title a paragraph " where Bush Went Wrong" and say that paragraph didnt slam Bush. READ IT AGAIN.

"No one said a word when the US went into Afghanistan, you had virtually unanimous world support"

we also had unanimous support for 1441. EVERY country in the UN voted FOR it. funny that most are backing out now that its down to the 11th hour.

"You got punched, as a result you went in and blew up Afghanistan and rounded up or killed most of those responsible for 9/11 (with the exception of Bin Laden), punish them any way you please, that's your right and your revenge. The world has never even suggested otherwise.

your bias shows......revenge was never an objective. 17 of those that carried out the attacks were saudi and we havent leveled their country. we may in due time but not at this moment we wont. everybody knows the saudi'ds arent ur friends.

"Iraq is not retaliation, punching the sucker's cousin does nothing to stop or retaliate against the sucker. Especially when the sucker and his cousin don't even talk. "

it certainly does do something to anyone in the family. " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" if anyone in that family structure is destroyed....the rest will get the message.

"Unfortunately, it is your problem, but how you handle it has a huge impact on me and the rest of the world, so I guess whether I like it not, it is my problem."

yeah, id feel MUCH better if Canada was in control of this situation. really! wouldnt THAT be Great!


"As I mentioned at the top, I didn't post this to dig up the Iraq debate, we've all been around the block and the lines are drawn. I thought it was an interesting essay on US foreign policy, regardless of your political affiliation. I was simply trying to get a meaningful debate going on foreign policy, perhaps post Iraq, how you chose to interpet that is up to you.

Read it, don't read it, I don't care. I'm tired of this loop de loop."

you want a "meaningful" debate on foreigen policy, dont ask a mostly American audiance. your "meaningful" debate(in my opinion) consists of folks that half-*** side with you. i know, i know, you arent bias.

 

I support the war, but I absolutely cannot stand Bush and his cronies. They are taking all the diplomatic ties we have nurtured for 50-100 years and stomping on them, like we can do without them. I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't matter what the outcome of this war is, Bush is going to get SLAUGHTERED in the next election. Many republicans will not vote for him; he's trying to be TOO conservative, TOO Republican, like it's an attitude or a style or something. Did somebody forget to tell him that it's a political party, not a suit?
And then there's Donny Rumsfeld. Who does he think people think he is? John Wayne? What a fool. He makes Americans look bad on a daily basis...
I just hope that the next administration has the strength and fortitude to fix the problems Bush is creating.
How many months until W(acko) is out of office? 21 months until he gets beat up in the 2004 election, 23 until the inauguration? Hopefully he'll try to cheat again and go to prison for it this time! His brother, too!
BDV

 

I have said this before here on the boards and I'll repeat it again. We ran out of the house and didn't close the door. We have somewhat left ourselves as a nation with our guard down. Or at least a long way from home. I really don't want this war but I stand behind what our leaders do. Some of what is being missed here and I don't see how it could be overlooked. N. Korea has been monitored by weapons inspectors for the past 5+? years and now has kicked out the inspectors. Do you really believe if they (N. Koreans) where building/fortifing their arsenal while the inspectors were there, don't you think the same is happening in Iraq? At this point there really isn't any viable options. War is bad I know but fighting for what is right and the good of all seems the only right action to take. To turn tail and let whatever bad is happening in Iraq continue with or without UN inspectors just isn't going to get results satisfying the world as we know it. It might just be the war to end all wars and if it is we as humans have to accept the idea that some higher power is just cleaning house for a better people in it's future. Nostradamus (sp), hopefully we all have heard about him might just have predicted what is about to take place. (Not sure on the spelling of his name.)

 

I'll drink to that BDV!

 

Let's all hope the war is over ASAP. First W's term in office is subject to the same law that affects everything named after that Irishman Mr. Murphy. Second , this war is going to invoke(invite) the Mother of All Universal laws , i.e. ..the law of Unintended Consequences and none of us is prepared for all the possible outcomes we will be confronted with as we get further into the year. Third , the deficit is going to vacuum up hugh amounts of capital for use by the government that would have otherwise been available for investment purposes and will (1) raise the cost of capital(interest rates) and (2) dissuade the public from putting money back into the stock market as they will invest in cd's when the interest rates start to rise. All the above will work to defeat Mr.Bush in his bid for a second term in office. No matter how much residual goodwill he creates because of his pursuit of "The war on Terror".....he wil not beable to overcome the effects of a weakened economy and all the pain and suffering it will have caused to the public at large. fd

 

Umm....this sounds dangerous to me.

Wern't we given a list of comandments a while ago that said...

"Thou shall..." and "Thou shall not..."

 

Daily Driver, I really don't see what that had to do with my statement. The commandments can be applied regardless of the approach you take, perhaps more easily in one way than the other.

The article was posted on the basis of foreign policy, get beyond Saddam's Iraq for a minute, and think about how the US is going to accomplish Bush's vision of bringing democracy to the middle east.

In post Saddam Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East:

Do you think installing governments and ordering them to vote and act like a democratic society is going to work? Under the threat of a US military presence?

OR

Should the US (preferably a coalition) present them with what they could attain and achieve by democratic means, give them some ground work, and ASK them to organize the form of government they want. Offerring help, not orders.

Heavy iron fist, or fist in a velvet glove, that's what the article was about IMHO, and that was my point.

People will strive for a goal if its their goal. They won't strive for something they don't want or isn't of their own making.

It's not about end result, it's about the road you take to get there.

I'm open to ALL opinons on this subject, even radical Independent ones.

Waxy

P.S. BDV, I agree on Rumsfeld, he fancies himself a "cowboy" and he's done far more to hurt US interests than he could ever hope to improve them.

 

Personal attack deleted by administration


Be Courteous and Respectful
=========================================
Do not post vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, racial epithets,
harassing, abusive, hateful, libelous, expletives, derogatory or
defamatory words or phases, in any variation.
This includes regular personal attacks.

The goal of FordTruck Enthusiasts, Inc. is to be a family friendly service and such content undermines that goal.

 

2000 Epxy....I'm going too assume that you will reconsider your attitude...You are completely Wrong headed about Waxy. We all have our prejudices and cannot totally divorace our responses from them ...even when we thiMk that we have. Waxy made it quite clear that the article is more than a liberal diatribe on "W". And , even more to the point, he said that he Doesn't subscribe too any particular postulations that the author made in the article. So, my friend , there is no reason to beat him about the Head and shoulders with your conserative Baseball Bat. You are very correct about the French as they have always been a bunch of Spineless *****s as we will all readily agree. You can Disagree...without Being Disagreeable...my friend....fd

 

a quick notion....

all this talk about bush getting reelected and hurting himself in a reelection bid... don't you guys see that he's actually taking a stand on something no matter the personal consquences? he's been loosing ground for the past year and he knows it. tony blair will probably never get reelected now, and both have made many enemies. still, im damn proud that there are two politicians in this world that actually care about issues at hand and don't change their minds on the whim of the masses in order to get reelected.

LOVE THIS COUNTRY OR LEAVE IT!!!!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fatdaddy
2000 Epxy....I'm going too assume that you will reconsider your attitude...You are completely Wrong headed about Waxy.



Actually the deleted post was an attack on Big Daddy Velvet, but I appreciate your post.

Thanks fatdaddy.

Waxy

 

cek181,

Another quick note, politicians are elected to represent the views of their constituents, not their personal views. Neither leader campaigned, or was elected, on a platform of going to war in Iraq.

I'm not saying that the majority of Americans don't support Bush's actions.

Waxy