| To: michael97123 who wrote (150648) | 11/2/2004 4:17:02 PM | | From: Dr. Id | | | | Nixon gets credit for China, and for much of his social policies. His foreign policy was a disaster (cost the lives of many Americans and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians) and his sociopathy and paranoia brought him down. Human? Yes. But Clinton's "indiscretion" shouldn't even be spoken about in the same sentence.
Clinton didn't do anything that many other Presidents (and men in congress) have done. He was just stupid about it, and subject to a rabid Republican party that was out to get him. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (150645) | 11/2/2004 4:31:22 PM | | From: GST | | | | | I am not sure -- but then who is as good as they used to be? Look how much "news" there is today, and yet look at how poorly informed Americans are -- it is bewildering. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Michael Watkins who wrote (150651) | 11/2/2004 4:34:10 PM | | From: Nadine Carroll | | | | That's a pretty big "funnel" (using sales-speak here) from which to recruit new terrorists, most of whom will have at least some anger towards the US regardless of how they felt about Saddam. Even if only one quarter to one half of these people feel real anger or hate, its more than enough.
Enough for what? Enough to lay bombs in the marketplace to kill 20 Iraqis in the hope of killing one American? or enough to commit suicide in a frontal assault on the US Marines?
Arabs aren't robots with one result for any input. Consequences also matter. It is very hard, I admit, to deal with a people who seem to be running mainly on wounded pride and humiliation. For example, do you have the least idea how many French civilians the Allies killed in 1944? Yet for some reason, the anger was not funnelled towards the Allies in that case. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Elsewhere who wrote (150654) | 11/2/2004 4:34:23 PM | | From: Dr. Id | | | | [E]verywhere in the Middle East the terrorists are praying for a Bush loss.
I guess they have a lot in common with most of the rest of the world, as well as over half of the United States.
We're ALL praying for a Bush loss...
Glad to see that I have SOMETHING in common with those terrorists! It's good to find some commonality among other humans...gives us hope! :) |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (150649) | 11/2/2004 4:53:10 PM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | Worse still, Bush has the chutzpah to think that the MSM are not representatives of the American people, and that the thinking of the elite universities and think tanks doesn't produce ideas he should have reverence for, either
What are you talking about...
Bush's entire foreign policy is the work of others, the same people who if not employed by this deceptive government would be working for a defense department sponsored think tank. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: carranza2 who wrote (150658) | 11/2/2004 4:56:31 PM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | | So let me see, if they talk against Bush, that's because Bush is the Man. But if they support him, it is a sneaky way to influence voter to the contrary...hmmmm...now where have I seen logic like that before...wait, it was with UN inspectors in Iraq! If they found something it was evidence of non-compliance. But if they didn't, it was because the were just too incompetent to find Saddam's stash. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (150656) | 11/2/2004 4:59:42 PM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | An apples to oranges comparison. The Allies were not occupiers of France. The Allies and France shared similar basic cultures, had a history of cooperation dating back centuries, and even shared common religions. The Allies had not been working against France for decades leading into the War. The Allies had not been bombing France into the stone age for an entire decade.
The Allies didn't invade France with a primary goal of establishing long term strategic bases on their homeland, nor did the Allies invade to secure significant quantities of natural resources from now until eternity.
Clearly apples to oranges.
In Iraq all this is ass over teakettle.
- invasion for "strategic" purposes which serve the US first and foremost.
- invasion with the goal of secure access to oil, in perpetuity
- invasion because, well, they knew they could beat Saddam. Easily.
In Iraq? Find me a poll of the people that suggests "coalition" forces are anything but an occupying force.
Better yet: when, honestly, do you believe the US will be out of Iraq?
1 year?
5 years?
Never? |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
