Could Bush be right?

[Broken Glass Can]

Could Bush be right? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0503060337mar06,1,4918463.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Who on Earth wants to be known as the last foe of freedom?

Not Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who Thursday joined a chorus of leaders telling Syrian President Bashar Assad to end his nation's three-decade occupation of Lebanon.

Not Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who abruptly announced plans to hold the first free, multiparty election in his country's history.

Not President Mahmoud Abbas, whose path to Palestinian independence is now blocked less by Israel than by peace-averse militant groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

And certainly not the brave peoples of Afghanistan, of Georgia, of Ukraine, of Iraq, who have raised loud their voices for freedom, often at peril to their lives.

Now it is Lebanon's turn, with citizens by the millions heralding a "cedar revolution." Is it possible that Iran, with its repressive and unpopular mullahs, could be next? And in sclerotic Syria, who today would buy Assad futures?

That, of course, is the dilemma dictators face in these moments of tumult: When history lurches, where will it next land?

The prophet pro tem of the world's spreading freedom movement is Walid Jumblatt, the influential patriarch of Druze Muslims in Lebanon.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.

On the same evening Jumblatt spoke, a hitherto unthinkable headline--it, too, continues to ripple around the world--erupted on the Web site of the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel: "Could George W. Bush be right?"

[QuadsOverQuads]

Hey, BGC: I notice you still haven't enlisted.

Why not?


q/q

[BCPVP]

Kinda like our own Domino Theory. Ignore the morons like q/q.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Are you trying to make a joke BCPVP? Or do you believe the USSR had a domino theory and we just stopped 'em in Vietnam?

[lastchance]

You know what, yeah he could. I'm results-oriented in Politics, but Iraq is looking a lot better every day. I still have my reservations, but because of Iraq, Bush could win the War in Terror in 5-6 years.

[BCPVP]

Not really. Yes, I believe the Soviets did have a domino theory of sorts. No we didn't stop them in Vietnam, but we did stop them in the 80's. I also believe that Iraq would have wound up looking like a Vietnam had Kerry won. Thank God he didn't!

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe that Iraq would have wound up looking like a Vietnam had Kerry won. Thank God he didn't!

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry would only have been in office for the last six weeks. He couldn't have done anyting to stop what's happening in the Middle East.

I think there's a very strong chance that what happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union from about 1989 to 1992 is basically being repeated in the Middle East. The world may be a lot different, and a lot better, in four years if democracy and individual freedom plants permanent roots in the Middle East.

If it does, George W. Bush is going to be remembered as one of the 10 best Presidents in history. He'll be pushing the top 5 if he gets a major social reform like Social Security passed.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
If it does, George W. Bush is going to be remembered as one of the 10 best Presidents in history. He'll be pushing the top 5 if he gets a major social reform like Social Security passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really believe this don't you? It's scary how many people do. In my mind, Bush is the worst president of all time(Reagan is a not-so-close second). He's a killer. He's a war criminal. He's an embarrassment to me and to my friends.

[Warchant88]

And you can't possibly believe what you just said, can you? Well, I know you do, which is a sad thing. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You really believe this don't you? It's scary how many people do. In my mind, Bush is the worst president of all time(Reagan is a not-so-close second). He's a killer. He's a war criminal. He's an embarrassment to me and to my friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, eloquence in this post just boggles my mind. How old are you?

I wouldn't mess with Dynasty btw. I've never seen him make a prediction that didn't come true.

[mmbt0ne]

Well there was the electoral college. Oh no, wait, he got all 50 states right.

[lastchance]

All Presidents are war criminals. It's part of their job.

[TransientR]

Bush isn't going to win the war on terror in 4-5 years, nor does he want to. That would end the excuse for massive military spending.

We weren't sold the war against Iraq to spread democracy. We were supposedly threatened with an imminent mushroom cloud.

Is democracy spreading throughout the middle east..I don't think so, but just call me a cynic who knows culture and history, and doesn't fall for media/government spin.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy, but I'm not persuaded that the Bush administration really believes in democracy in the U.S., no less abroad.

Frank

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
We weren't sold the war against Iraq to spread democracy. We were supposedly threatened with an imminent mushroom cloud.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you were sold on just that, but wmds were only 1/3 of the reasons given.

[sirio11]

Who would've thought?

Now my conservative friends are a bunch of optimistics.

Blue skies, flowers and nice songs in the future of Iraq.

Figures

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Now my conservative friends are a bunch of optimistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was always an optimist.

The radical islamic form of terrorism can be permanently beaten just like European fascisma and Soviet communism were. It won't be done simply by military means. But, that's the start.

Eventually, the muslim populations of the Middle East need to take control of their own governments through democratic elections. When that happens, and the governments are held accountable by the elctorate, government sponsored terrorism and terroist groups are going to quickly be crushed from within.

[wacki]

Dyansty, were you a history/poli sci major in college?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You really believe this don't you? It's scary how many people do. In my mind, Bush is the worst president of all time(Reagan is a not-so-close second). He's a killer. He's a war criminal. He's an embarrassment to me and to my friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, eloquence in this post just boggles my mind. How old are you?

I wouldn't mess with Dynasty btw. I've never seen him make a prediction that didn't come true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that Dynasty is a good political analyst. And it will be deeply disturbing if Bush is ever regarded as anything other than a terrible president. He may be right. I don't have much faith in the American people after the last election.

My comments to him were not about whether he was telling the truth in his predictions. not at all.

they were about whether or not he actually believes what he is saying about bush's noble aims in Iraq.

Let's get another disclaimer out here, Wacki:

You voted for Bush.

Just to let people know who read this post.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Who would've thought?

Now my conservative friends are a bunch of optimistics.

Blue skies, flowers and nice songs in the future of Iraq.

Figures

[/ QUOTE ]
A few of my liberal friends are a bunch of pessimists.
Nothing but people dying and things blowing up in Iraq.
Figures.

Seriously though, I think a little perspective needs to be taken into account. Check out the USAID website and see what we've fixed/built for the Iraqis since the war started.
Look at the fact that they had the closest thing to a real election in 30 some years. Look at the fact that a majority of the eligible population voted in their election. And then put all of this in the context of what the Iraqis lives used to consist of and what they've been put through. I see a far better picture of Iraq than what people like sirio and Dead would have us believe.

Is the country perfect? Of course not! Does Iraq still have a ways to go? Of course! But that doesn't mean that we should write off Iraq as a failure and refuse to acknowledge that any good has come from the war. It is stupid to do so.

[TransientR]

I wasn't "sold on that," I thought the threat of WMDs was BS from the start. As for WMD's being only a third of the reasons given for invading Iraq; watching Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and Condi's pounding the drumbeats for invasion, I remember nothing but scary talk about WMDs as a justification for "pre-emptive" war (i.e. unprovoked attack on another country).

Frank

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's get another disclaimer out here, Wacki:

You voted for Bush.

Just to let people know who read this post.

[/ QUOTE ]


What the hell does that mean? I voted for Bush because I couldn't figure out what Kerry stood for. Does that mean I think Bush is Mr. Perfect and he deserves a place as my avatar? [censored] no.

If you haven't noticed I happen to be a teensy weensy bit into the whole global warming thing. And Mr. Bush isn't exactly known to be an environmentalist.

There are some things I really like about Bush (like he has balls and seems to stand by his word), and there are some things that really makes me wonder about the man. But at least I knew who I was dealing with. I can't say that with Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]
And it will be deeply disturbing if Bush is ever regarded as anything other than a terrible president. He may be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dynasty is right and you know it. Dynasty's statement is based on a condition though, don't forget that.

[ QUOTE ]
they were about whether or not he actually believes what he is saying about bush's noble aims in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please inform me of your conspiracy theory.

Have you ever considered that Bush may think he is being noble and really is trying to be noble when he could simply be delusional? Have you ever considered that possibility? Or how about that he might actually be right and only time can tell. Have you ever considered that?

Some proof that Bush is a man of true convictions (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1770240&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

I don't understand why so many liberals seem to fall for the silver tongue so easily and distrust anyone that doesn't have a silver tongue.

[TransientR]

"There are some things I really like about Bush (like he has balls and seems to stand by his word)."

This really made me laugh. When did Bush ever show real balls? Even if you believe half of the crap the Swift Boat Veterans for truth said about Kerry, he was in Vietnam, and he did put his ass on the line while Bush (a supporter of the war), did everything he and his powerful family could do to keep him from following the courage of his convictions.

At Yale, Bush shouted in a megaphone while others actually played in the game. After 9/11, he shouted brave words on top of the pile of wreckage risking absolutely nothing, the real danger was past.

The man is good at cheerleading while others take the real risks..IMO.

Frank

[Dead]

First off, I think jobs are more important than global warming. I don't agree with Kerry on everything. I think we should be drilling in ANWR for two reasons:

1) Polar bears suck
2) It would create jobs

So jobs come way ahead of the environment for me. Same with mileage standards. They're nice and all but I think that they probably cost jobs in the automotive industry.

I also think it's really cool when we have 70 degree days in February(global warming). /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I also disagree with Kerry on gun control.

But I disagree with Bush on many more issues, including the criminal war in Iraq.

As for Bush's "noble aims", I think that he is a liar, but no I don't have proof. How could I? It's just my opinion, but many Americans share this opinion.

I think that Bush knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we went in. Doesn't that bother you? That there were no weapons I mean. Doesn't it bother you that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died? How about the 1500+ dead American soldiers, and the 5000+ wounded?


Do I think that Bush is a man of true convictions? Not at all. I think he's scum. And it's not because he is a Republican. It's because he's a war criminal.

I voted for a Republican for state assembly last year, believe it or not. But Bush is an extremist.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are some things I really like about Bush (like he has balls and seems to stand by his word)."

This really made me laugh. When did Bush ever show real balls? Even if you believe half of the crap the Swift Boat Veterans for truth said about Kerry, he was in Vietnam, and he did put his ass on the line while Bush (a supporter of the war), did everything he and his powerful family could do to keep him from following the courage of his convictions.

At Yale, Bush shouted in a megaphone while others actually played in the game. After 9/11, he shouted brave words on top of the pile of wreckage risking absolutely nothing, the real danger was past.

The man is good at cheerleading while others take the real risks..IMO.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree friend.

It takes no balls to send others off to war. It takes no balls to say Bring em on. Bush can say that all he wants, but he's not the one putting his life on the line.

PROVE to me that Bush has balls, Wacki. He has hundreds of federal agents protecting him. He's not in any real risk at all.

You'll likely end up having to retract that statement about Bush having balls.

If he had balls he would have fought in Vietnam, a war he supported.

And Wacki please don't think that I'm attacking you personally. I often come across as very blunt and combative, but that's just my nature when discussing issues that I care passionately about.

No hard feelings.

Oh- I'm 20 years old(I think you asked my age in another thread), not that it matters.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
This really made me laugh. When did Bush ever show real balls? Even if you believe half of the crap the Swift Boat Veterans for truth said about Kerry, he was in Vietnam, and he did put his ass on the line while Bush (a supporter of the war), did everything he and his powerful family could do to keep him from following the courage of his convictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, like I said, bush isn't perfect. While Kerry may of been a badass in Vietnam, he really has turned into an opportunist. Seriously, have you ever seen the Kerry on Iraq video? Then he constantly says we need the UN. That's not showing backbone IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
At Yale, Bush shouted in a megaphone while others actually played in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush was a cheerleader??? That is really gay! Wow.....

[ QUOTE ]
The man is good at cheerleading while others take the real risks..IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true now, or it may only of been true in the past. He sure as hell took some major risks in Iraq. Ya Bush probably (I'm 99.999% confident) was a pussy in the past. But people change and they change fast. Who knows if he has changed or not, but I don't want a corrupt UN controlling the U.S.! And I want a president that will take risks with other peoples lives.

Seriously if you want my opinion, Bush really did seem like a spoiled brat/pussy as a child, but there is a saying that "The greatest saints were the most prolific sinners". It's something of that tune. I also think Kerry is a lot different now then he was when he was in Vietnam.

Like the economist said, both men are very flawed.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Bush's "noble aims", I think that he is a liar, but no I don't have proof. How could I? It's just my opinion, but many Americans share this opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently not enough /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Bush knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we went in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assume that you are right. Why would Bush risk re-election in 04 by going to war knowing that one of the reasons he pushed for the war was false? Bush probably could have been re-elected easily after Afghanistan if he all he did was focus on domestic issues and a token foreign policy issue. Why risk losing face in the world? That theory doesn't make sense, IMO. Too much to risk by intentionally lying.

[Dead]

Your arguments don't make much sense either, imo.

Bush will not be able to get much done this term either. Second term presidents are notorious lame ducks. He accomplished all the damage in his first term. He honestly didn't care much about being re-elected, in my opinion. If Kerry won it wouldn't really hurt Republicans, because Kerry would still have the Iraq mess to deal with.

[Dead]

Wacki: what risks did Bush take in Iraq, besides political risks? Like I said, he has tons of bodyguards. He's not in the military. It's insulting to our troops to say that Bush put himself at risk by going to war in Iraq. They're the ones at risk, not him.

And reaching out to our allies should not be seen as a sign of weakness. I think Kerry said that, and he's right. We need all the help we can get in this crazy world. The UN serves a useful purpose.

Fox News has been the network trumpeting this anti-UN garbage.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it bother you that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to Saddam killing a million of his own??? Not one bit.

[ QUOTE ]
How about the 1500+ dead American soldiers, and the 5000+ wounded?

[/ QUOTE ]

My brother and about a dozen of my friends (who are also poker players) and a girl I had very very deep feeling for in highschool are all overseas right now. I think I will leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
They're nice and all but I think that they probably cost jobs in the automotive industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes it obvious to me that you haven't read any of my global warming posts or watched the smalley video.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's really cool when we have 70 degree days in February(global warming).

[/ QUOTE ]

And this, if it isn't a joke, shows fundamental ignorance about what global warming does.

[Dead]

Lol.

Saddam hadn't killed any mass numbers of Iraqis since the early 90s. Bad justification for war, but expected, due to the lack of promised WMDs.

And the costing jobs comment had nothing to do with global warming. I think you misread. It was in respect to mileage standards. If you make them too stringent too fast, it will cost jobs. There is intense competition in the automobile industry.

And yes I know what global warming is. I had to take biology in high school. It's an increase in atmospheric temp.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki: what risks did Bush take in Iraq, besides political risks? Like I said, he has tons of bodyguards. He's not in the military. It's insulting to our troops to say that Bush put himself at risk by going to war in Iraq. They're the ones at risk, not him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know exactly what I meant. Don't play that game with me.

[ QUOTE ]
And reaching out to our allies should not be seen as a sign of weakness. I think Kerry said that, and he's right. We need all the help we can get in this crazy world. The UN serves a useful purpose.

Fox News has been the network trumpeting this anti-UN garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Garbage???? We've got french diplomats selling roland missiles in Baghdad 2 weeks before invasion and you call this anti UN crap garbage? As for Fox, maybe the washington times will help your memory.

French Connection
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm

Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. .... A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.

Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.

Do you want more??? Well if you do you are going to have to wait a few days because I have work to do. Fox didn't make up the French/UN/Russia conspiracy theories. [censored] france and [censored] the UN. The UN is a corrupt sack of [censored] that we don't need. We don't need the UN to get multiple countries to make a deal or sign a group contract. And we don't need the UN legitimizing a multi-billion dollar black market.

Disclaimer:Atleast Russia has come around and redeemed some honor with Putins admissions.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If you make them too stringent too fast, it will cost jobs. There is intense competition in the automobile industry.

And yes I know what global warming is. I had to take biology in high school. It's an increase in atmospheric temp.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seriously need to read up on it. I have little doubt that you have many misconceptions about global warming.


Can't do this..... wacki is signing off.

[Dead]

I'm too tired to really get into the UN stuff right now(oil for food scandal, etc.), but I'll just summarize it in a sentence The UN has problems, but it can still do good.

As for Bush having balls, you still haven't answered it to my satisfaction, and I suspect not to TransientR's satisfaction either.

You said not to play this game with you. What game?

Are you honestly equating political risks with the risks of losing limbs and lives? If Bush gets defeated he goes back to Texas and gets on some corporate boards, then retires. If a soldier gets killed, they're dead. No more life.

Please elaborate. It's a very fair question.

You said that Bush has balls. I'm telling you that it takes no balls to say bring it on when you have nothing really at stake.

He dodged Vietnam. I know Clinton did too, but Clinton was against the war. Bush was for it. Big difference. Do you see why?

So I'm not convinced that Bush has balls. Not at all.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush will not be able to get much done this term either. Second term presidents are notorious lame ducks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into the deeper issues of this thread, but I just want to point out that this statement is silly. Look back at the last 5 or so 2-term presidents (Nixon excepted) and tell me if they were able to accomplish anything in their second terms.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate. It's a very fair question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you sincerely don't know what I mean, maybe I will try to explain at a later date. I don't have time (or the will) to do this right now and I have my suspisions that this may be trap to get me into a debate circling solely around word trickery and emotional responses. I don't have time for that.

[BCPVP]

Dead, you do realize that you risking your life does not necessarily mean you have balls and that you can show some real balls without risking your life?

[Dead]

True, but how has Bush shown balls? Knowingly risking your life is usually ballsy.

[BCPVP]

Is driving drunk ballsy? Bush has done that, so by your standards he's shown balls. See how context matters in such a topic?

Running for president shows balls. The media will anal probe your life and the other side, will usually use the tiniest thing against you or just misconstrue what you've said and done (both sides do this).

Flying a single-engine fighter jet shows balls. I believe I was reading a story about the TANG and I think I saw that one of the pilots in Bush's squad died when his engine flamed out over the Gulf.

I think accepting Christ and trying to live up to the Bible takes balls, but that's just me.

Staking his political future on Iraq took balls. If, like you said, Bush knew there were no WMDs, then he knew that we wouldn't find any and that that would hurt his re-election run.

Flying back to sleep in the White House on September 11th took balls. Against the wishes of the USSS, Bush refused to sleep anywhere but his own bed that night because he says he didn't want them to scare him from his house.

That's just a few examples. I'm sure there are more, but it's getting late and I have class today.

[wacki]

thankyou.

And you just changed my mind about bush as well.

Wacki goes back to work...

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Dyansty, were you a history/poli sci major in college?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I was an accounting major.

I just get very interested in politics during Presidential elections. I also have a reasonably good kowleged about big historical events (WWII, Cold War, etc.). But, it's just a hobby.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Running for president shows balls. The media will anal probe your life and the other side, will usually use the tiniest thing against you or just misconstrue what you've said and done (both sides do this).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are different kinds of courage. You don't have to risk your life in war to demonstrate courage.

To simply get in front of a small group of people and speak terrifies many people. Running for President and putting your whole self on display is sort of the ultmate form of that.

Also, the George W. Bush of three decades ago is a much different person than the George W. Bush of today. Lots of events have transformed the man and the President including quitting drinking (the man), becoming an evangelical (the man), and being faced with the post 9/11 world (the President).

I'd say anybody who runs for political office, even as small as some town clerk position, demonstrates a kind of courage which most people don't have.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I think accepting Christ and trying to live up to the Bible takes balls, but that's just me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my God

Notice please that the key work here is "trying"

Now Bush and the majority of hypocrites who call themselves Christians are people with balls.
They sure think JesusChrist would have approved the Iraq war.

Apology in advance to the real Christians everywhere, I know there are a few.

[thatpfunk]

Agree with everything except the silly religious comment. Not necessary.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think accepting Christ and trying to live up to the Bible takes balls, but that's just me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my God

[/ QUOTE ]

An appeal to god hmm ... Do you believe in God? I would have thought you were a died in the wool atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice please that the key work here is "trying"

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to live up the ideals of Christianity is what he was referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Now Bush and the majority of hypocrites who call themselves Christians are people with balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're in a position to comment about other people's Christian faith?

[ QUOTE ]
They sure think JesusChrist would have approved the Iraq war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah you do hold yourself out as an expert on Jesus Christ. Not all Christians are pacifists so what is it about the Iraq war in particular that Jesus Christ would have opposed. Or is it just that Christians who are non pacifists have it wrong. Do tell.

[ QUOTE ]
Apology in advance to the real Christians everywhere, I know there are a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're in a position to judge who a "real Christian" is? You're some piece of work.

[Voltorb]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah you do hold yourself out as an expert on Jesus Christ. Not all Christians are pacifists so what is it about the Iraq war in particular that Jesus Christ would have opposed. Or is it just that Christians who are non pacifists have it wrong. Do tell.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert on Jesus Christ, but am I wrong in believing that Jesus was a pacifist? Wasn't He the one who advocated giving the other cheek? Didn't He allow himself to be arrested when His disciples would've fought to the death?

I could be wrong, maybe Christ loved a good war.

Matthew 10:34

[ QUOTE ]
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only verse of this nature I've been able to find in all the Gospels. In many other verses regarding matters of peace versus violence, Jesus advocates peace. See for yourself:

Matthew 5:7-9; Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:38-42; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14; Matthew 7:1; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 10:39; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 11:29; Matthew 12:19; Matthew 18:6-9; Matthew 18:22; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 22:39; Matthew 23:23; Matthew 26:52-54; Mark 3:4; Mark 7:21-22; Mark 10:44; Mark 12:9; Luke 1:79; Luke 6:27; Luke 9:54-55; Luke 10:27; Luke 12:45; Luke 19:27; Luke 19:38; Luke 20:16; Luke 22:36; Luke 24:36; John 2:15-16; John 8:1-11; John 14:27; John 16:33; John 18:36; John 20:19,21,26.

[jaxmike]

wow.

[Dead]

Please elaborate.

[jaxmike]

just your saying "hes a killer" and "hes a war criminal". truely frightening things to say, and totally inaccurate imo. even to consider regean as being a bad president doesn't really shock me coming from you, but its still, well, we have differnt criteria i guess. i am not sure exactly what makes regean a bad president, but whatever, to each his own.

[Dead]

A few reasons why Reagan sucked:

Iran Contra
Tripled the national debt
First president to double the deficit.
Had over 100 members of his administration charged with crimes
#1 for number of troops killed during peacetime
20th century historians rated him below every other president of this century except for Nixon.

As for Bush, I stand by everything I said. You know me Jax. You know that I don't back down from my opinions. I think that Bush is an evil war criminal. And thank god I live in this country and can speak my mind about him.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice please that the key work here is "trying"

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone who calls themselves a Christian is trying to live up to the ideals of Christianity. But because we're human, we sin.

[ QUOTE ]
Now Bush and the majority of hypocrites who call themselves Christians are people with balls.

[/ QUOTE ]
If sinning is equal to hypocrisy, then I'm a hypocrite too.
I also think the accusation of hypocrisy is overused in today's culture. If humans were perfectly consistent in everything they did, we'd all be no better than robots. That's part of the reason I play poker; because humans are unpredictable and inconsistent.

[ QUOTE ]
They sure think JesusChrist would have approved the Iraq war

[/ QUOTE ]
I consider myself humble enough not to conclude what the Lord may or may not think about the Iraq war. Nor do I try to use him against people when discussing politcs.

[ QUOTE ]
Apology in advance to the real Christians everywhere, I know there are a few.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apology accepted, but in the future, please do not attack people who consider themselve Christians for trying to live up to the Bible.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
If it does, George W. Bush is going to be remembered as one of the 10 best Presidents in history. He'll be pushing the top 5 if he gets a major social reform like Social Security passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big "if". I still think the Middle East situation could go a variety of ways.

Worst case: We end up in a world war agaist the Islamic countries. I think we would eventually win that war, but at a huge cost in money and lives (both ours and islamic).

Best case: Democracy takes hold and Israel and Palestine settle their difference.

Most likely case: Iraq becomes a Vietnam-like quagmire and we withdraw after several years without things being much different than they are now.

Second most likely case: We leave after a somewhat-stable democratic government is established. After a few years, a dicatator is installed by a military coup, or Iraq breaks up into 3 or 4 countries after a civil war. Israel and Palestinians continue to fight, and the Middle East remains controlled by dictators and kings.

One thing working in our favor is that the radical Islamists are stupid and brutal. Some of the people in the Middle East seem to be beginning to realize that. A lot of the efforts of the Iraqi insurgency had been directed against Iraqi's who are coperating with the U.S. That tactic seems to be backfiring, which may allow us to win the "hearts and minds" battle, in spite of screw-ups like Abu Grahib.

If the world war or Vietnam scenarios take place, Bush will be seen as a failure. If the best case scenario happens, he will be seen as a visionary.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If the world war or Vietnam scenarios take place, Bush will be seen as a failure. If the best case scenario happens, he will be seen as a visionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

While many may not recall, I am sure Cyrus will recall that many moons ago I posted that I consider Bush to be a visionary who has a good chance of going down in history as one of our greatest Presidents of all time/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BCPVP]

While I agree with some of this, I disagree that the most likely scenario is that Iraq becomes a Vietnam-like quagmire. There is little if anything similiar between Iraq and Vietnam in either the mission or the manner the mission was carried out.

I think the most likely scenario is that Iraq will continue to run its democratic course and the U.S. will leave within 4 years, and more likely 2 years. IF enough pressure is applied against the various terrorist groups by the world and more importantly the citizens of Islamic countries, I think peace between Israel and its Arabic neighbors can become a reality. I think the ball is already starting to roll. Elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, the Ukraine (important, although less so to the ME imo), and the beginnings of elections in Saudi Arabia (which of course has a long way to go), rumbings for democracy in Lebanon, I see the light at the end getting closer, not farther. Time will tell.

[TransientR]

Driving drunk doesn't take much balls, neither does anything you have said.

The jet may catch fire? LOL! My car could catch fire or I could be run over by an SUV everytime I drive.

Accepting Christ takes balls? I think being an atheist and not taking false comfort in dubious promises is braver.

So Bush loses an election, or risks political capital, that is no where near risking your life or your limbs.

Sleeping in the White House, as the most protected individual in the world, when it was undoubtedly near certain the "invasion" was past, that is balls?

Bush supported the war in Vietnam, and going there, and having men firing at you with bad intentions, that would have shown balls. The kind of courage Bush never showed, and Kerry did.

Frank

[Dead]

Good post. I agree 100% with everything you said.

Kerry pwns.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Driving drunk doesn't take much balls

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry the sarcasm was lost on you. As was the larger point, obviously, which I guess I need to spell out. Risking your life does not mean you have balls. A drunk driver risks his life, as well as the lives of others, but that doesn't mean they've got balls.

[ QUOTE ]
The jet may catch fire? LOL! My car could catch fire or I could be run over by an SUV everytime I drive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it was the fire not staying lit that was the danger. Think about it. If your single-engine fighter plane flames out over the Gulf, you're shark food. And I think I mentioned that I read somewhere that one of Bush's fellow pilots died this way.

[ QUOTE ]
Accepting Christ takes balls? I think being an atheist and not taking false comfort in dubious promises is braver.

[/ QUOTE ]
A difference of opinion that no amount of arguing is going to change.

[ QUOTE ]
So Bush loses an election, or risks political capital, that is no where near risking your life or your limbs.

[/ QUOTE ]
And now we're back to the argument I've made that you can show balls without risking your life. If that's the only standard to which you will concede, then we're done here.

[ QUOTE ]
Sleeping in the White House, as the most protected individual in the world, when it was undoubtedly near certain the "invasion" was past, that is balls?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have the hindsight of knowing how that day would end. Nobody knew that for certain that day, and the USSS was not very happy with the President's demand that he stay at the White House that night. Now I realize that you won't concede that Bush has shown balls simply because of your partisanship. If Bush led the charge in Afghanistan, you still wouldn't concede it. But no matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush supported the war in Vietnam, and going there, and having men firing at you with bad intentions, that would have shown balls. The kind of courage Bush never showed, and Kerry did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush did a brave thing. Kerry did a braver thing. Bush has admitted as such and nobody here is arguing any different. So why the strawman?

[MMMMMM]

Bush is obviously right.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the world war or Vietnam scenarios take place, Bush will be seen as a failure. If the best case scenario happens, he will be seen as a visionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

While many may not recall, I am sure Cyrus will recall that many moons ago I posted that I consider Bush to be a visionary who has a good chance of going down in history as one of our greatest Presidents of all time/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you say you thought that on balance Kerry was a better choice for the presidency than Bush?

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say exactly that, Nicky; I said I was seriously considering that Kerry might work to better effect and that therefore I was considering voting for him.

What I mean is: that the war was already a done deal, and what mattered after election time was how well we would do various things such as post-war security in Iraq and security at home. I think Kerry would have probably been about as good as Bush at those things. Kerry also might likely have done better at garnering international cooperation after the fact (for whatever that's worth).

I think Bush was visionary in seeing the real prospect of bringing democracy to the Middle East, and I think the Iraq war and Afghanistan were fine places to start this process. I think Bush (like Reagan in some ways), has been visionary in puting into practice the idea of truly confronting bad entrenched large systems/regimes. Most others Presidents have simply gone along with the flow, whereas these guys took a principled and active stance against major evil regimes--and successfully too, it would seem (even Iraq is now moving in the right direction).

So I consider Bush a visionary, and my serious consideration of Kerry was based on matters more mundane and on his potential to perhaps better tie up the loose ends. That said, I ended up voting for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate;-)

[wacki]

You don't make a whole lot of sense to me. As strongly as you defend the Iraq war, I would of thought you would of voted for Bush.

[jaxmike]

my mother voted republican for president for the second time in her life this past election. she just couldnt bring herself to vote for kerry during a war, she thought that would be a terrible message to send to the troops.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't make a whole lot of sense to me. As strongly as you defend the Iraq war, I would of thought you would of voted for Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The war was already a done deal. I don't think my vote should have automatically gone to Bush even though I strongly view the Iraq war as a step in the right direction.

Also, I don't live in a "swing" state. Kerry was a virtual lock to win the state in which I live. Therefore I thought it best to vote for the party which I feel most deserves support, and which I hope will one day become one of the two major parties in the USA (assuming we always have a two-party system).

I agree with most planks of the Libertarian platform. The areas in which my views diverge from the stated Libertarian platform generally regard international policy and security. I think Kurn, another Libertarian, shares similar reservations.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't live in a "swing" state. Kerry was a virtual lock to win the state in which I live. Therefore I thought it best to vote for the party which I feel most deserves support, and which I hope will one day become one of the two major parties in the USA (assuming we always have a two-party system).

[/ QUOTE ]

I did pretty much the same thing. Last election I voted 1 republican and 1 democrat and the rest went to libertarians.


[ QUOTE ]
I agree with most planks of the Libertarian platform. The areas in which my views diverge from the stated Libertarian platform generally regard international policy and security. I think Kurn, another Libertarian, shares similar reservations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, it's hard to find a valid reason to disagree with Kurn in politics. As far as I can remember, there is only one time I disagreed with Kurn and that was during the "would you sacrifice your leg to save 100,000 people that you never met" debate. That wasn't a pretty debate.