|
|
Post by strat-0 on Apr 17, 2008 15:48:09 GMT -5
Indeed. I remember that well. Being taken to task by stratman after I attacked the US Government to tear up international relationships by ignoring the United Nations and its Security Council- speaking as a non-American citizen I was immediately deemed anti-American. Never forgotten that- that really was America at its worst. As if anyone else but Americans had the right to answer. Fortunately now all water under the bridge but a poignant memory of the stress in foreign relations eitherway. Please let me clarify what I was trying to express in my comments. I think anyone can and should criticize the US or especially its actions when they deem it proper, by all means they have the right and should if they want to. Ridiculing, insulting, belittling, etc. another country and its people is a different matter, however. One can do that as well, but it might not achieve the desired result (unless the desired result is simply to anger or insult and alienate the individuals). |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 17, 2008 18:36:18 GMT -5
Ken, I will have to disagree with you on the observation that America is still a superpower. I think we are now in 2nd place. China is the number one dude on the block now. They literally own us....... You're gonna piss off the resident exceptionalists... |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Apr 17, 2008 20:27:32 GMT -5
Today in the Rose Garden, President Bush summed up his outlook for Iraq and possibly even his entire presidency-
“So long as I’m the president, my measure of success is victory – and success,’’
We should all be embarrassed that we twice elected a man who would say something like this in public and honestly believe it means something.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Apr 18, 2008 7:33:17 GMT -5
Today in the Rose Garden, President Bush summed up his outlook for Iraq and possibly even his entire presidency- “So long as I’m the president, my measure of success is victory – and success,’’ We should all be embarrassed that we twice elected a man who would say something like this in public and honestly believe it means something. So true, so true. We will be much better off in the hands of a man who hopes for change, because change means hope. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 18, 2008 8:07:27 GMT -5
"I'm Chrisfan. I am wrong about everything."
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Apr 18, 2008 9:50:46 GMT -5
Today in the Rose Garden, President Bush summed up his outlook for Iraq and possibly even his entire presidency- “So long as I’m the president, my measure of success is victory – and success,’’ We should all be embarrassed that we twice elected a man who would say something like this in public and honestly believe it means something. No, we should all be embarrassed about living in a country where much of the population lacks any core values. A vast majority of Americans supporting the Iraq War and the moment times get rough (when the President DID, in fact, say it would be a long war) they back away. It's like wishing for snow but only if it's warm. The President believed/believes in his policies, and I don't really think it's all his fault we ended up where we are because it took the population's support to get him there. If he were to back away from his policy and not say that he wants victory it would be embarrassing. It's fucking war for christ's sake. America was too busy listening to generals on cable news service rather than the President himself who never said it would be easy nor fast. He did, in fact, say it would be the opposite. Criticize him for the mistakes made in the war, and criticize him for never agreeing with his policies. Find embarrassment in those Americans who go where the wind blows. They're looking for hope today, but if we get another terrorist attack then they'll be looking for blood. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 18, 2008 10:15:35 GMT -5
Also, Chrisfan, your 'American flag pin' question during the debate the other night was absolutely fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Apr 18, 2008 12:25:51 GMT -5
Change is the natural order of things.
Stagnation equals death.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Apr 18, 2008 15:53:25 GMT -5
Today in the Rose Garden, President Bush summed up his outlook for Iraq and possibly even his entire presidency- “So long as I’m the president, my measure of success is victory – and success,’’ We should all be embarrassed that we twice elected a man who would say something like this in public and honestly believe it means something. No, we should all be embarrassed about living in a country where much of the population lacks any core values. A vast majority of Americans supporting the Iraq War and the moment times get rough (when the President DID, in fact, say it would be a long war) they back away. It's like wishing for snow but only if it's warm. The President believed/believes in his policies, and I don't really think it's all his fault we ended up where we are because it took the population's support to get him there. If he were to back away from his policy and not say that he wants victory it would be embarrassing. It's fucking war for christ's sake. America was too busy listening to generals on cable news service rather than the President himself who never said it would be easy nor fast. He did, in fact, say it would be the opposite. Criticize him for the mistakes made in the war, and criticize him for never agreeing with his policies. Find embarrassment in those Americans who go where the wind blows. They're looking for hope today, but if we get another terrorist attack then they'll be looking for blood. all is forgiven. i love you man. whoa, i hope you weren't pulling off some sorta ironic ha-ha stance because this is me saying 'hell yeah' to a very worthy post. my only 'however' here is that belief by bush in something he only seems to ½ understand (because so much was orchestrated (and not very well at all) by people sort of beyond his mental grasp) is more a belief in an ideal that he's reaching for in a bit of an idiot savant-way. i believe he's sincere...he wants something 'good' and believes in something 'good'. something that there's no realistic way to achieve. the bottom line, pointedly excluding 'oil': the middle east needs to be tightened up, so to speak. israel needs to be protected, on principle alone. so, howtf do you do it? i don't know. fwiw, this was an attempt...and the execution this time has sucked thoroughly. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Apr 18, 2008 20:41:42 GMT -5
I believe he's sincere. Really I do. I believe that he believes in what he's doing. I also believe much of that is because he doesn't know what else to do. The truth is they tried to cover all the bases, they said it would be long and hard but they also said it would be easy, it shouldn't take too long, we'll be greeted as liberators. They've continually tried to have their cake and eat it too. They can't possibly be wrong because while Dick Cheney says one thing - insisting a connection between 9/11 and Iraq for instance, the White House simultaneously releases a statement saying their isn't one. The continually sliding goal posts and framing all discussions as a matter of patriotism. The problem it's his job to know there's no realistic way to achieve it, it's his job to say "well, this isn't working very well. Let's try something else" instead he's insisting as long as we have positive attitudes don't ask too many questions it will work, eventually. Not sure when but eventually it has to...right?
Now let me also say that just because I think he believes in the mission doesn't mean I don't think there are other motives and justifiers. I think it's in large part an issue of legacy for him, one that he fully believes will pay off in time. They did a bad job of selling the war because it was a bad idea. They figured the best way to sell it was tell us it wouldn't be a big deal to us. We should go on about our lives, spend money and let him do the heavy lifting. This wasn't presented as "our war" until the tide started to turn and then it was too late. It was like they didn't really want to bother us with it...or more likely they just didn't want to have to explain them selves. The Bush administration doesn't like explaining itself too much. Like the quote says the war was predicated from the beginning that we had to win and we'll figure out precisely what winning looks like a later. I guarantee we'll know it when we see it. That simply isn't good enough. Success isn't defined by simply repeating the word again or substituting victory in it's place. The American people aren't tiring of the war because we weren't paying attention, it's because we were never asked to tighten our belts and now five years later more and more Americans aren't seeing any reasons of substance to keep going. By the time we realized we were really sacrificing for this it was in full swing, an attempted usurping of our civil rights and the wack job on our economy and all we have to show for it is vague platitudes of progress.
You're damn right execution sucked. People didn't turn when thing got rough, that's bullshit. They turned when they realized "eventually they'll get tired getting killed" was the core of our strategy, when they realized we didn't know that much about the differences between Sunni and Shia, when they realized Iraq really didn't have any connection to 9/11, when they realized if a South Korea or Iran really decided to get uppity we can't do much about it and that doesn't really equal "safer", in short when they realized the execution sucked. Then they found out we had no plan to fix it. We're just going to tweak the plan but it's basically the same plan. Eventually they'll get tired of getting killed. As it turns out they actually volunteer to kill themselves. If we all put on our flag pins, close our eye real tight and sing the national anthem isn't cutting it. The American people turned when they asked for results in return for our sacrifice and none was given, only then were we asked to be a country at war. The people didn't turn when the going got rough, the administration did, they finally turned to us. They realized they couldn't fight this war while we were out shopping and the occasional "everything's going quite swimmingly" wouldn't be enough. They didn't ask us to invest in this war until many were ready for it to be over and that is really the biggest failing of the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Apr 18, 2008 21:22:55 GMT -5
Well said, ded. (Although a paragraph break or two would have been nice.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Apr 18, 2008 22:26:31 GMT -5
Sorry, maybe that's a little easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Apr 19, 2008 0:00:05 GMT -5
Yes, helpful!  |
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Apr 19, 2008 1:42:54 GMT -5
Good piece ded.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 20, 2008 7:11:49 GMT -5
New York Times April 20, 2008 Message Machine Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand By DAVID BARSTOW In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure. The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo. To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world. Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. [/u] Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized. Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. (long)Article continues ... www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1208693026-r/dQfBF0mfN7LTmYTwmbVQ |
|
