Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In
Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Do you think that Bush...........
January 30, 2007
5:44 pm
Avatar
truthBtold
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

....is just having a problem with his own personal PRIDE in all of this regarding the soon-to-be-turned-to Civil-War in Iraq?

I am starting to think so.

January 30, 2007
5:47 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Truth,

I would not doubt that this is the case.

He has been accused by many of being a "dry drunk"....and from what I've seen...I wouldn't disagree.

Lolli

January 30, 2007
6:06 pm
Avatar
truthBtold
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Lolli,

What's a "dry drunk?" I have not heard that expression before?

Is it someone who is just concerned about their own agenda and "Damn The Torpedos" sort of speak....only sober?

January 30, 2007
6:16 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Truth,

A dry drunk is the term used for an alcoholic that is now sober (dry) but has not found recovery so still exhibits the same types of behaviors as an active alcoholic.

Very common with those who stop drinking but never get help for the reasons behind the drinking.

false pride, manipulation, lies, arrogance, projection, not taking blame or responsibility, abusive, irresponsible, etc.etc.etc

January 30, 2007
6:29 pm
Avatar
truthBtold
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Lolli,

Yes. I understand now. Arrogance is most definently a position in which I feel Bush is now finding himself standing alone with.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

TBT

January 30, 2007
10:18 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think Bush wanted to build a democracy in Iraq with the hopes that this would have a domino effect on the Islamic ruled countries. This would be huge for America.

However, democracy and Islamic rule don't mix. The people don't know different, so they wouldn't even know what to fight for.

Like Vietnam- the whole "win the hearts and minds of the people"- well, ya can't do that when you're the invader and they know little if nothing about you.

I think Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. We couldn't let Saddam continue, but not letting him continue meant what we have now. I don't know which was/is worse.

free

January 31, 2007
12:22 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How could his pride not be hurt?

I agree with Free in that: The invasion of Iraq was a doomed mission from the get go. It could not have "succeeded" even in principle, no matter what we did.

If we had sent a million troops and spent a trillion dollars the first day it couldn't have worked.

We did tell em so, btw.

Actually, I think there are some things that could have been done to at least make the USA not be so hated there.

Like we should have actually done reconstruction.

And firing the half million man army at the outset was probably not a good idea. "You're fired. Take your guns and ammo and go home." Instant insurgency.

January 31, 2007
10:15 am
Avatar
soprano2
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I would have rather seen all of the money spent in a hopeless conflict spent on education. I think that it is useless to get that involved in a situation when we have so many problems here.

I am not saying turn our backs on the rest of the world, but we need to start looking at why we ourselves are falling apart.

If all of the money that was spent on this was was spent on education, there would be enough money in the schools for one computer to be purchased for every two students in a school.

Not to mention, many current educators could get a much needed raise (not only do most of them work very hard teaching children who consistently become differentand sometimes more difficult every year, but most teachers in this country on average, have gone three years without a raise.)

And Bush thinks he's gonna fix education when he keeps taking money away from "No Child Left Behind?" Sure, raise the standards, but don't give extra resources to schools to get those standards.

Imagine if we held him to the same standards for the war. Don't think that he would make it either.

January 31, 2007
10:17 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

I saw a very interesting and mind blowing documentary that exposed the whole foundations of this mess Bush et. al. has gotten the world into. Below is a quote showing the essence of the damming documentary. It starts with Prof Leo Strauss and his philosophy on successful government. It shows how this philosophy strongly influenced Bin Laden, the mirror image of the Bush, the diehard neo-conservatist.

"Neo-conservatism, the political movement to which most of the current administration belongs, is widely attributed to be the intellectual offspring of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a Jewish scholar who fled Hitler's Germany and taught political science at the University of Chicago. According to Shadia Drury in Leo Strauss and the American Right (Griffin, 1999), Strauss advocated an essentially Machiavellian approach to governance; he believed that

* a leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled;

* those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior;

* religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do);

* secularism in society is to be suppressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent;

* a political system can be stable only if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured.

Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill wanted to investigate the terrorists who were planning to blow up the trade towers on 9-11, but he was prevented from doing so by George W. Bush signing presidential directive W199i. Presidential directive W199i prohibited the FBI and Defense Department officials from stopping terrorists.

Disgusted and angry that the Bush administration was obstructing justice and abetting terrorists, John O'Neill resigned his career and washed his hands of the evil so pervasive within the U.S. Government. John O'Neill was MURDERED on 9-11-01 because the conspirators behind 9-11 were afraid he WOULD talk.

“The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.” - John Bryant"

And:

"By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration."

See URL:

http://www.informationclearing.....le5010.htm

January 31, 2007
11:20 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't actually think Bush thinks he is going to fix anything.

I don't think he has the slightest interest in education or healthcare or social security....or an interest in anything that normal people care about.

When you are wealthy, life is comfy. That's all he needs to know.

What he is concerned about is that the lives and bodies of non-wealthy people continue to be melted down, as they have been, to provide comfort for him and his friends.

He wishes he could look good in the process, too, I suppose.

Really, I think he is just a puppet president anyway--a really stupid person and only moderately evil person chosen to be the point man and fall guy for and by the truly brilliant and supremely, diabolically evil people who are is handlers.

February 1, 2007
12:32 am
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My gosh Soprano!!

"I am not saying turn our backs on the rest of the world, but we need to start looking at why we ourselves are falling apart."

This sounds codependent.

February 1, 2007
10:01 am
Avatar
soprano2
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Okay bevdee, I will admit that I am codependent. And I am working on those things that make me that way.

I am not sure if you meant it as a compliment or complaint, or an observation for that matter.

What I do know is that I am teacher that sees the future of our country in the eyes and minds of the students that I teach. Now, every school system is not like mine--thank God, but there are definitely days that I fear for our future.

We are not being successful at teaching the young kids today. We are more likely to build a jail to house people who do bad things that educate someone on how to make good choices in life.

To me, building a jail is kind of codependent in itself. Instead of dealing with the problems at hand, we shove them into a jail and pay for their housing. I have even had friends in jail that have received a college education at the taxpayer's expense. Just because we put these people away does not mean that they don't exist. And most do not "change their ways" because they are in jail.

If we educate people on making good choices, and start when they are young, we won't need as many jails.
We will be dealing with many people--showing them how to make themselves better.

And this is just one example where education can make a difference in the lives of the people in this country. There are several more.

Imagine if everyone was truly educated on politics, and how they can help to make change with their vote? I am sure that Bush would not be our president right now if we did three years ago. People think that they know politics, but most people, statistically, vote a candidate in based on how he feels about one or two issues instead of the total package. Voters that do this are hyrocritical in my opinion. Education can fix this problem as well.

Anyway, I am done rambling for now. 🙂 Hope that you are having a good day. It is fun to chat politics with people. Haven't done it in a long time.

February 1, 2007
10:04 am
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Soprano

Oh I'm sorry- I wasn't directing that comment AT you. I meant the country - looking to help everyone else and not worrying about its own decay. It sounds like our country has these codep qualities.

February 1, 2007
10:07 am
Avatar
soprano2
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Okay. Thanks for the clarity. I wasn't offended in the least. And, yes, I agree, our country is very codependent.

I keep telling the teachers at my school that we need to keep enabling these kids towards failure. And they look at me like I am from another planet.

Not like I am an expert, but I am on the journey, and if I don't share my goals and my new knowledge, then I feel I am becoming complacent with the situation. That's not good.

The country needs to get off of their butt and start doing something. Otherwise we are going to end up with nothing left.

February 1, 2007
3:41 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gee, I start a thread about cynical observations about liberals and I get virtually ignored. Yet look at how many responses this thread has gotten. I suppose I'm about the only conservative on this site.

Does anybody even remember that Saddam Hussein was supposed to give up his WMDs as a surrender condition of the first Gulf War? And that he kicked out the UN inspectors who were supposed to verify compliance to that treaty? And that he defied a number of UN resolutions against him? Does anybody remember that every intelligence agency in the world believed he was seeking to develop WMDs? And that we found some evidence of WMDs in Iraq after we invaded and evidence that WMDs had been ferried out of the country to Syria?

You can either believe that Bush had some sinister motives for invading Iraq, or you could believe it was a logical action to take in light of the facts. Your choice.

February 1, 2007
5:17 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Seekerw.

You wrote:

"I suppose I'm about the only conservative on this site." - your words!

And you 'spruked' the deceitful party line as follows:

"Does anybody even remember that Saddam Hussein was supposed to give up his WMDs as a surrender condition of the first Gulf War? And that he kicked out the UN inspectors who were supposed to verify compliance to that treaty? And that he defied a number of UN resolutions against him? Does anybody remember that every intelligence agency in the world believed he was seeking to develop WMDs? And that we found some evidence of WMDs in Iraq after we invaded and evidence that WMDs had been ferried out of the country to Syria?"

Are you one of these fudgy, dodgy neo-conservatives? Or are you just plain naive?

Since I doubt that your Christ would have approved of Strauss or neo-conservatism or for what it stands, I must opt for the latter.

The whole world knows that Bush and his cohorts are a liars - hence the democrats rise to power. The US voters are wising up fast.

February 1, 2007
5:18 pm
Avatar
lollipop3
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Okay Seeker....fair enough.

I will only ask this.....If there was all this evidence of WMD, where are they then?

Please Seek....don't be so naive to think that your government wouldn't lie to you.

February 1, 2007
6:27 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

{Are you one of these fudgy, dodgy neo-conservatives? Or are you just plain naive?}

Sure, go ahead and sink to the level of name calling and shaming. I notice that liberals tend to do that.

{Since I doubt that your Christ would have approved of Strauss or neo-conservatism or for what it stands, I must opt for the latter.}

What makes you think he'd approve of liberalism, either? But since you don't believe in Christ, I think this is a moot point.

{The whole world knows that Bush and his cohorts are a liars - hence the democrats rise to power. The US voters are wising up fast. }

The trouble is, the same lies have been repeated often enough by the president's critics that many people have come to believe them. That, and the facts that Bush hasn't used all the capabilities we have in the war in Iraq, has tried to fight a "politically correct" war, and the Iraqis have been slow for whatever reason to own their own part in the war, is what caused the Repubs to lose, IMO.

The whole world also knows that many lies have been told by the other side, too, in issues such as Bush "stealing" the 2000 election, what Kerry said about his Vietnam experience, that Dan Rather promulgated a forged letter that Bush had avoided the draft in Vietnam, etc. Why we should give them any credibility at all in what they say about Bush is beyond me.

Seeker

February 1, 2007
6:29 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

lolli,

I'll answer your question about WMDs later. I want to quote from some literature I have, and I don't have that with me now.

Hi, by the way. I don't believe we've written each other since I came back.

February 1, 2007
6:41 pm
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think if there were WMDs, we'd have found them after 4 years. ANd they'd a told us. That is not the kind of info the US gov't keeps sealed up.

February 1, 2007
8:23 pm
Avatar
truthBtold
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I wonder what Norm Chomsky (spelling) would have to say about all of this?

He is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time - in my opinion.

Anyone have any info on that?

February 1, 2007
8:50 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Iraqis had three months. The WMD's were moved to Syria, who refused any inspections (gee, I wonder why). Chemical warfare was used by Hussein on the Kurds- thousands of them.

They were people too.

free

February 1, 2007
8:58 pm
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I wonder if Dubya will invade Syria next, then.

February 2, 2007
1:37 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Lolli,

{I will only ask this.....If there was all this evidence of WMD, where are they then?}

Senator Santorum and Congressman Hoekstra reported in June 2006 that documents developed by our intelligence services revealed the discovery of around 500 degraded WMDs in Iraq. Though they were believed to be pre-Gulf War, they proved that Saddam had lied about his WMDs and violated his agreement to dispose of all of them.

A French arms maker was offering to refurbish surface-to-air missiles for Iraq shortly before we attacked, as reported by the U.S. Survey Group.

A former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, reported that Iraqi engineers had become proficient at manufacturing chemical WMDs for various delivery systems and ordnance, and they kept on producing these until Saddam realized he'd have to get rid of the evidence, upon which he moved them out of the country. He also said that everybody in the international arms community knew Saddam had built or was trying to build biological, chemical, and nuclear WMDs and that he was spending like a sailor to build more.

The general who oversaw Pentagon spy satellites confirmed that large truck convoys were seen traveling from Iraq to Syria shortly before we invaded Iraq.

There's more, a lot more, than this. If you want to read more about it, I can point you to a good book, the same book I got the above from and which has all its sources cited.

{Please Seek....don't be so naive to think that your government wouldn't lie to you. }

Well, the government also includes the Senate and Congress. Why are you convinced that Bush is lying but that the senators and congressmen who oppose him are telling the truth? Don't you suppose they might have their own agendas for lying about the war -- namely, political power?

Seeker

February 2, 2007
1:49 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

free,

Thanks for what you said. I'm glad you feel similar to how I do on this matter.

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
27
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111137
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38716
Posts: 714574
Newest Members:
alpino12, Warnisses, degastro, kojuyu, NathanielClark, avoid_up
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information