Does Bush remind you of the Iraqi Information Minister?

[MaxPower]

Remember that guy?

They use very similar tactics.

[Abednego]

No .... I think Bush is smarter and most importantly - morally upright. Don't you agree?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
No .... I think Bush is smarter and most importantly - morally upright. Don't you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not know. I would hope Bush is more moral than someone who works for Saddam Hussein.


I don't consider Bush to be particularly moral even for a politician. Perhaps my notion of what is moral is different from yours.

[MMMMMM]

^

[cowboyzfan]

is your definition of moral the same as your definition of PU*sy? This country is not the greatest on earth and the champion of the Civil War and World War 2 because we had a bunch of liberal "Moralists" that admited the war was chaos and we could not win.

btw, Bush leads in New Jersey.....................yes, New Jersey, i believe it's over.

[MMMMMM]

"This country is not the greatest on earth and the champion of the Civil War and World War 2 because we had a bunch of liberal "Moralists" that admited the war was chaos and we could not win."

That's right, if we were a country of Cyruses back in those days we never would have made it through any of those "quagmires".

Really what we need to do is evacuate the women and children from the insurgent cities like Fallujah and then go in and CLEAN OUT the hornet's nests. The women and children had actually left Fallujah earlier this year and we didn't follow through with the situation properly. "Negotiating" with insurgents when we have them on the ropes is just an invitation to future attacks.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
the champion of the Civil War

[/ QUOTE ]

But didn't we also lose that War?

I think you could pick a lot of better wars to claim we are 'champions' of. I'd take Bill Murray's line from Stripes... "We're eleven and one!"

If the OP means that both Bush and the Iraqi Info Minister confidently state as facts things that are clearly not true, yes, they are similar. However most politicians do this. And Bush and the Iraqi guy speak different languages, and I think one of them had a mustache.

I don't really like either one of them.

NT

[cowboyzfan]

"I think you could pick a lot of better wars to claim we are 'champions' of. I'd take Bill Murray's line from Stripes... "We're eleven and one!" "

well i do believe "we" won the civil War, we being citizens to the United States. The United States was threatened with disolution and that was stopped. I believe the historian Bill Murray was referring to Vietnam as the one loss, not the Civil War.

[ACPlayer]

... the Iraqi fellow spoke his lies withou the aid of a teleprompter.

[nothumb]

Yes, I know he was talking about Vietnam. I was not implying that he was supporting my point; I just like that movie and it was on TV the other day.

Again, yes, we won the Civil War. We also lost it. 'Cause it was against ourselves. I'd be much more inclined to trumpet the Revolutionary War, World War I and the sequel (which was even better for so many reasons)... probably 1812 as well.

NT

[cowboyzfan]

nothumb,

i hear what you are saying, yet i dont' totally agree. If you are saying, we suffered greatly from the civil war and it was nothing to be "proud" about, i guess i would agree. It was the worst thing that ever happened to us. Some say it was the white mans pennance for slavery. A hell of a lot of men died for it, more than all other US wars combined.

However, i was refering to the Civil War as a great test for our country's leaders. It certainly was the greatest test, closely followed by WW2. that was the context. I was saying, that many wanted to give up in the civil war, on the North side. I was implying that if we had the type of mealy mouthed Democrats we have now at the national level, that war might have been lost.

Many people in the north told Lincoln that the chaos and death was not worth it. They said that the war would never end and would be a quagmire. Lincoln stood firm and won. that is why i mentioned it. I considered it appropriate, you might not agree, which is quite fine with me.

[nothumb]

Actually, the history you mention is part of why I think the Civil War reflects a rather dark time in our history.

You are correct that it was a huge test for Lincoln and he showed great resolve.

The way the war is usually played in history classes (up through high school, anyway) is that the North was against slavery and good, and the South was for slavery and bad. Of course we both know it was far more complicated than that; many people in the North were still in favor of slavery, the just weren't so dependent on it. And the reasons for the South's secession were economic and political, beyond the slavery issue (although it played a major part). The Civil War was perhaps the clearest example of industrial capitalism being forcibly imposed on a nation, in a sense - in that the flow of interstate commerce and wealth dictated that the industrializing North was taking what the South believed was more than its fair share.

Now, despite being from the South originally, and despite my feelings about how murky the true reasons for the war were, of course I don't wish the South had won (although there is a mildly amusing Hank Jr. song that fantasizes on this notion).

So I guess what I was really saying is that, while the Civil War was a major test, the way it's usually played in our history books glosses over some of the extremely ugly racial dynamics of our country, and sometimes helps the younger among us forget how bad things were for blacks even when our parents were kids. But it's semantics at this point anyway, I see what you meant.

NT

[ACPlayer]

Your rhetoric is strong on emotion and short on clear reasoning (like most of those beating the Iraqi war drums).

We CAN and WILL win those wars we fight to protect our selves. We are unfortunately fighting a war in Iraq to "save the poor, miserable Iraqi from Saddam" That battle I suppose we have won - a hollow victory for the iraqi (so far at least) and for us.

However, the present war is where the local Iraqi populace is fighting an occupier. Being that we are morally wrong to be in that position, we cannot win that war. The real irony is that the Iraqi would not rise up and fight against Saddam but is quite happy to be taking the battle to us.

The Iraqi war has won us nothing, cost us lives, money and friendships.

[cowboyzfan]

"Now, despite being from the South originally, and despite my feelings about how murky the true reasons for the war were, of course I don't wish the South had won (although there is a mildly amusing Hank Jr. song that fantasizes on this notion"

well i certainly know the song you refer to and used to sing it with relish. Certainly something was lost when the south surrendered, but a hell of a lot was gained. personally, i believe the greatest man of that era, the man who allowed the reconciliation to occur, was General Robert E. Lee. He could have continued a guerilla war for years, and possibly won the war, but he realized it was just not worth it.

"many people in the North were still in favor of slavery, the just weren't so dependent on it. And the reasons for the South's secession were economic and political, beyond the slavery issue (although it played a major part). The Civil War was perhaps the clearest example of industrial capitalism being forcibly imposed on a nation, in a sense - in that the flow of interstate commerce and wealth dictated that the industrializing North was taking what the South believed was more than its fair share."

I have been doing a lot of reading recently on the Revolutionary war and the early USA. It is amazing how poor the south was even then because they relied only on agriculture and the farmers let the English and later, Northern bankers get a hold of them. The south needed a more diversified economy, just like the US did before the revolution.

there is no question the North abandoned slavery (but not several states such as maryland and Deleware) for economic, and even more clearly, geographic reasons. That is why West Virginia split from Virginia, the mountain geography did not make plantation slavery economical.

That is the only reason, forget morality. Also, even the central northern General, McClellan, supported preserving the union and slavery. It was Lincoln who decided slavery was the the issue, and that was two years after the war started.


"The way the war is usually played in history classes (up through high school, anyway) is that the North was against slavery and good, and the South was for slavery and bad."

that is very true. I have often said that history as tought in public school is one continuous slow release of the truth. its starts as all lies (nice ones) and slowly they let out more truths, they don't want to cloud the black and white picture. The real truth certainly does not come out until college. How many high school students are taught that many free blacks owned slaves? Or that Washington DC had slavery? I would say almost none.

[The once and future king]

The question you should be asking yourself is:

Was the mighty USA champion (ROFL at use of that word) of Vietnam.

It is that war that has most in common with your present circumstances as a nation.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the champion of the Civil War

[/ QUOTE ]

But didn't we also lose that War?



[/ QUOTE ]

The Civil War was not a war in the legal sense, it was an internal uprising. The CSA was never recognized by the USA.

Since there was no war, the USA neither won nor lost it.

If you insist that there was a war, then the USA won it. Since the CSA is not the USA, the USA did not lose.

[Blarg]

That's hilarious and I agree. Very funny comparison.

I guess you could add in he's also playing a violin while the Titanic is sinking, but your simile is funnier.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
... the Iraqi fellow spoke his lies withou the aid of a teleprompter.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably speaks English better than Bush too.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the present war is where the local Iraqi populace is fighting an occupier.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL you are talking like there is some sort of rising up of the general population. If that were the case, things would be a lot bloodier in Iraq right now. We are fighting a combination of former members of Saddams regime and jihadists led by Zarqawi. They both have the goal of destabilizing the country and running out the US leaving it ripe for the picking by their groups.

[ACPlayer]

Poppy cock.

We have been fought by Shia, Sunnis, Foreign Arabs, Local populations (who support the above). THe only major group that has not actively fought us yet are the Kurds.

Niether Allawi not the US appears to enjoy widespread support in Iraq. Ofcourse the goal of any gtoup fighting an occupier is to run them out of the coutry and take over the pickings - you make that sound so bad. That is what we did in the eighteenth century too.

I suppose to you the VC were also insurgents trying to destabilize the Sai Gon puppet govertment.

[Jimbo]

AC you left the liberals off your list who are fighting our presence in Iraq. This group is potentially more dangerous than all the others put together.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

Hey Jimbo,

How is exercising one's constitutional rights to voice an opinion about American foreign policy dangerous?

Andy

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Jimbo,

How is exercising one's constitutional rights to voice an opinion about American foreign policy dangerous?

Andy

[/ QUOTE ]

You are gonna be sorry you asked this question Andy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just look at John Kerry and his opposition to our troops in Nam. Now he is close to becoming President of the United States. How much more dangerous does it get? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jimbo

[Blarg]

Boy was that a walloping nothing of an answer.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Jimbo,

How is exercising one's constitutional rights to voice an opinion about American foreign policy dangerous?

Andy

[/ QUOTE ]

You are gonna be sorry you asked this question Andy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just look at John Kerry and his opposition to our troops in Nam. Now he is close to becoming President of the United States. How much more dangerous does it get? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what did THAT accomplish, except possibly ending our involvment sonner in Vietnam.

Instead we have Keg-Tapper #1 in charge.

Where EXACTLY is Osama in Iraq, Mr bush?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Really what we need to do is evacuate the women and children from the insurgent cities like Fallujah and then go in and CLEAN OUT the hornet's nests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unlike Saddam, who "gassed his own people," we'll just exterminate all of the men of Faluja and "cities like" Faluja because these aren't really "cities" with "people" but merely "hornet's nests," filled with bugs who fail to grasp that democracy means following Washington's orders.

[MMMMMM]

No, we don't have to exterminate ALL the insurgents. We could accept their surrenders as well.

But to let them keep attacking us, AND the ordinary Iraqis, is unconscionable. These bloody bastards think nothing of targeting and blowing up ordinary Iraqi civilians who are merely applying for jobs as policemen or firemen.

I guess you think that since terrorists have rights too, allowing them to continue blowing up innocents is part of those rights.

[The once and future king]

The problem is that every bungled attempt to kill insurgents just creates more anger and resentment amongst the genral population leading to more insurgents.

The way the war is being waged at the moment can only lead to a perpetual cycle of violence with the eventual total collapse of any kind of rule of law in Iraq.

The rule of law is at present absent in large swathes of Iraq and is fragile and tenuos at best in major urban centres.

Iraq is staring into the abyss and when sooner than you might think the inevitable happens and it falls in, it will drag the USA with it.

[MMMMMM]

To some extent I agree wih you, but I also feel that it is possible to wipe out or capture most of the insurgents. I think we could wipe them out faster than new ones are created if we set about it properly.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Poppy cock.

We have been fought by Shia, Sunnis, Foreign Arabs, Local populations (who support the above). THe only major group that has not actively fought us yet are the Kurds.


[/ QUOTE ]

That still doesnt equate to a widespread uprising of the general population. And I have to laugh when you include foreign Arabs in the equation. Like I said it is mostly small groups such as members of the previous regime, jihadist groups , and al-Sadrs band of terrorists for a while. You really think the US would have any traction at all if the general populace was part of the insurgency?

[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse the goal of any gtoup fighting an occupier is to run them out of the coutry and take over the pickings - you make that sound so bad. That is what we did in the eighteenth century too.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is bad when the group that wants to take power is a group of religious extremists or a group that wants to resurrect the old dictatorship. I love how people throw around the term occupier. Yeah we are there. But guess what, we are leaving too. And comparing this to the American Revolution is just ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose to you the VC were also insurgents trying to destabilize the Sai Gon puppet govertment.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they were good Communists just trying to create that ultimate fantasy, the Communist Utopia. Howd that work out for Vietnam after the US left?

[ACPlayer]

If you have followed my arguments you will know that I believe in letting the countries find out and figure out for themselves the joys and pitfalls of capitalist democracies. Until they themselves work through the issues, we have no chance of success. What we can and should do is promote relationships with them so that they get into the biz of trading with us. So, MFN with the communists China is a good thing and helping them move towards capitalism. I advocate trading relationships with Iran and, would had prefered that we had that with Saddam when he was in power.

When the population fights and takes back the country from dictators or external powers people have lasting govts (see US for a good example). If we go around handing out democracy then we have insurgents, infighting, and the mess of Iraq, Vietnam, Iran etc.

[pokerjo22]

And they've never been seen in the same room together...

[wacki]

If your going to compare the Informatin Minister to Bush, I'm going to compare the Penguin in Batman Returns(which runs for governor) to Kerry.


1) Both of them claim the incumbent is standing in the way of progress.

But someone's
got to supplant our standing-in-
the-way-of-progress Mayor and
don't deny it, Mr. Cobblepot, you've
got the magic!


2) Both of them claim to be more likeable.

CATWOMAN
Down, Oswald. We have to talk. You
see we've got something in common.

PENGUIN
Wait don't tell me ... Naked
sexual charisma?



3) Both of them claim that the incumbent is depending on the wrong people to make us safe. Therefore actually making us less safe.

PENGUIN
(booming squawk)
When it came time to ensure the
safety of our city, did the Mayor
have a plan? No, he relied on a
man. A "bat" man.

4) Both of them are worried about global warming.

A platform? Lemme see ... Stop
global warming. Start global
cooling. Make the world a colder
place.

5) Both of them have a lair on an Island. Kerry at Martha's vineyard, and the Penguin has one on a glacier. In Batman Returns he has an underground lair that was also surrounded by water.

6) Both of them aren't the greatest thing to look at.
CATWOMAN
(sneers)
I wouldn't touch you to scratch you.

7) Both of them have the hots for a woman who is a total B!tch.

PENGUIN
Let's consummate our fiendish union!

CATWOMAN
(sneers)
I wouldn't touch you to scratch you.

PENGUIN
I oughta have you spayed! You
sent out all the signals!

CATWOMAN
(moment of doubt)
Did I? Only 'cause my mom trained
me to, with a man... any man, all
men --
(slaps her forehead)
Corn dog!

8) Both of them criticize the incumbent for not having a plan.

PENGUIN
(booming squawk)
When it came time to ensure the
safety of our city, did the Mayor
have a plan? No, he relied on a
man. A "bat" man.


9) Both of them claim to have great goals but don't tell us how they are going to accomplish them.

PENGUIN
How can this be accomplished? I
know you're all concerned.
PENGUIN'S VOICE
Ya gotta admit ... I've played this
stinking city like a harp from
hell!



10) Kerry is in favor if big government that has control of everything. The penguin wants to have a big government and control everything via his henchmen.

PENGUIN'S VOICE
Hey, just relax and I'll take
care of the squealing, wretched,
pinhead puppets of Gotham.


11) Both of them are fighting a man that they think is Evil.

12) Kerry had a bad experience in Vietnam during his younger years, Penguin also had a bad childhood.
PENGUIN
All I want in return ... is the
chance to ... to find my folks.
Find out who they are ... and,
thusly, who I am ... and then,
with my parents, just ... try to
understand why ... why they did
what I guess they felt they had
to do, to a child who was born
looking a little ... different.
A child who spent his first
Christmas, and many since, in a
sewer.


13) Both of them contradict themselves.

14) Both of them make outlandish claims. Kerry about vietnam, Penguin... well watch the movie.


See how ridiculous that is? Neither candidate is evil, they just have different opinions.


ps. sorry about the repost, but couldn't help myself

[MaxPower]

Very funny post even though I haven't seen Batman Returns.

I don't think that Bush is evil, just that his statements on Iraq to the public and the international community have as much credibility as those of the Iraqi Information Minister.

From him you will get the idea that everything is going splendidly and there are handfull of troublemakers who we need to deal with.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Very funny post even though I haven't seen Batman Returns.

I don't think that Bush is evil, just that his statements on Iraq to the public and the international community have as much credibility as those of the Iraqi Information Minister.

From him you will get the idea that everything is going splendidly and there are handfull of troublemakers who we need to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

We must not be watching the same interviews. Everytime I see bush he talks about staying the course and not abandoning something as soon as it gets difficult.

He'll be on O'reilly this comming week, can't wait to see what he says then.


Even CNN says he talks about difficult days.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq/

I'm at work and I only googled for a headline so I hope the article doesn't embarrass me :-)

[MaxPower]

That's fine. He is entitled to that message and perhaps he is right. It is the things he is not talking about which are relevant. You will not hear him mention the CIA intellgence briefings or the dozens of cities that we have turned over to the insurgents.

Coincidentally I was in the Barber shop this afternoon and picked up a copy of TIME magazine. In it is was a column by Joe Klein making the same observation about Scott McClellan.

Time Column (http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,699348,00.html)

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Boy was that a walloping nothing of an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank-you for your useful and detailed critique of my post. I strive to improve, any and all help is much appreciated.

Jimbo

[wacki]

Here is my favorite author at the NY times


DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF WORDS - There's been some good political news out of Iraq in recent days. The newly installed -- and now U.N.-blessed -- Iraqi government is made up of some really decent people. There is hope. But it will not be realized if the sort of incident that happened last weekend keeps being...

Article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E13F93C540C738DDDAF0894DC4044 82&n=Top%252fOpinion%252fEditorials%2520and%2520Op %252dEd%252fOp%252dEd%252fColumnists%252fThomas%25 20L%2520Friedman)

Old article. But still relevant. Elections are comming up soon in Iraq. That will give them a taste of something they might like. Still something more needs to be done, and I still think we can come out on top of this situation. It might require something drastic and unpopular such as a callup, but tbere are lots of people that say it is still possible if we change our gameplan.

There are very important people who say we cannot afford to mess Iraq up, we have to stabalize the country. I can't help but agree with them. Hopefully, after the election, the Iraqi people will realize that America will not abandon them and become more motivated in taking back their country.