Bush nominated for the Nobel prize for peace?!

The place where serious discussions can take place.

Moderators: thunderchero, MrVulcan

User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

Post by wingsabre » Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:47 pm

Zered003 wrote:Bush is the better choice for the simple fact he has a plan of action. Unlike what Kerry is talking about and if he had his way we would only do something if the UN agreed that we could and He would be afraid to step on some toes in the UN. Well, we do not need a follower in the White house. We need a leader. The US seems to be the one putting in 90% of the support (troops and supplies)for the UN anyways.
The USA is the Big boy on the block and if it is going to back off and let people think they can strike it without us returning it 10 fold then the attacks will only increase. I think it is about time that the US accually uses it position in the world to affect the world in a way that it will be a peaceful place to live and sorry to say it but when you go against a stupid people that think the way to retake the world for thier rule is for them to kill themselves then the only choice you have is to fight them and remove them from the face of the Earth.
Wow Bush has a plan, and that is to go it alone... no wait we then decided to not go it alone. Well he defiantly decided that we didn't need the UN's support in the very beginning... no wait he changed his mind and chose to ask for UN support. Well he did want Iraq to have national elections right after we went in and they did... well they were suppose to but Bush realized that 60% of Iraq are Shia and chose to cancel the election because they feared that there would be a fascist government. At least he planned to prevent looting after we went into Iraq... maybe not... hey he did say that people would be celebrating, they just celebrated by looting... "Boys will be boys..." EXCEPT THAT THEY CHOSE TO KILL OUR TROOPS!!! Well the good thing was that he chose in the very beginning that no former members of Sadam's regime's will every be in charge or have anything to do with this new government... well we did choose to ask one of Sadam's former generals to take control of Fallujah, but remember it was his plan from the beginning to back step on everything he said. Well he did have one definite plan and that was to pay the war from the oil in Iraq, it was just too bad when he didn’t plan on the fact that terrorist will bomb the pipelines and prevent us from using the oil. Well at least he made a plan to stop the terrorist there, oh, wait we still have bombings because it's not that easy to stop terrorism. Well it was our pan to go into Iraq and then the whole world would be safer… wait after we invaded Iraq weren't there more terrorist attacks in the world? So invading Iraq mad us less safe? It was his plan? If you're not bright enough to notice, I was using some tongue and cheek. He has no corrosive plan and has flip-flopped more than Kerry. At least what comes out of Kerry's mouth are along the same themes, Bush just flip-flops and then claim that he wanted to do so. That's just the situations in Iraq, don't forget what happened with the 9/11 commission who he opposed, and then when he couldn't fight it anymore said it was a great idea. And don't forget that fact that he wouldn't let Rice testify until the head of the commission, a Republican faxed him a letter with examples of other members of former presidential cabinet who testified.

The president had no plan; it seems as if he is making it up as we go along, just as his plan for the mission to mars. Maybe that's how he got that idea to pay off the expenses for the mission to mars. If you think we need a leader, then maybe our leader should pick a path and lead, instead of flip-flopping. When he also steps back on a policy, maybe he should announce it instead of lying to us and telling us that he planed it all along. He even gets angry when his policies are questioned, I could stand leaders making mistakes, but to have leaders have the righteousness to get offended for us questioning them is just reckless and irresponsible. The founders of this country chose in incorporate checks and balance and we are the politicians' checks. Even TR said that patriotism is not to accept everything our leaders said but to question them.

If you must attack Clinton about not attacking Osama, don't forget that fact that Bush chose to ignore information having to do with 9/11. He even had briefings about this issue for a whopping 19 minutes in a month before 9/11. Even Richard Clark, a deep Republican said that he simply did not listen. Clinton was handed a bunch of memos saying Iraq was involved in many attacks. Even the FBI though that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma bombing, and was that the truth? The truth about these memos is that they were possible options, and just that the bomber was from the Middle East, the FBI jumped to conclusions. Clinton didn't even retaliate against Osama after the Colt bombing because the FBI and CIA did not officially confirm that it was Osama. Realize that we didn't even know who bombed the WTC officially for a while, even though everyone though that it was Osama.

I wouldn't be surprise if the terrorist attacks by the terrorist groups in Iraq are masterminded by members of the former Iraq intelligence committee, since we are being bombed by Iraqis. It would be an obvious fact.

There were two terrorist attacks of the WTC, so there can't be more than one attack in the last 4 or 5 years because if you look in the timeline the last 4 or give 5 is within 1999-2004, and well the WTC can't come back up, so you are seriously false when it comes to that fact. Unless you are talking about terrorist attacks around the world, and in that case, it would be obvious that the person planning the attacks were related because most of the big attacks around the world in the recent half decade are AlQuida. And who's in charge of AlQuida? Osama. So it is a no brainer for the connection of the people who planned these attacks, because they are bassically the same person.

Also, he is not afraid of stepping on some UN shoes. Was it not he who said we could go it alone? That was a major offensive move to the rest of the world and further secluded us from the rest of the world. Wasn't he also the one who said we don't need to go to the UN, and then was convinced by Powel to go to the UN? We are basically the only nation putting 90% of the troops and that is because he forced us to. If we build up our allies slowly like we did in the Persian Gulf War and slowly talked it through then maybe France and German troops would join us. If we spent more time debating the issue, maybe we could convince nations that has troops instead of small nations who don't have troops and don't want to piss us off. We just rushed into war.

If we are the "Big boy on the block" then maybe we shouldn't act like a bully. Realize that even if you're the big boy on the block the whole neighborhood could attack you and you would die from stupidity. We may be the only super power in the world now, but what if we pissed of every other nation, and they chose to not buy our goods, and buy Japan's goods or German's goods, they're already do it with cars and electronics. By acting chauvinistic and arrogant we are secluding ourselves and further isolating ourselves, and that is dangerous in this day in age. What if we are severally attacked and no nation comes to help?

There's also one thing I have to say, if Bush said we needed to go into Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear development program, ties to terrorist, a dictator, violations of human rights and past invasions of other nations, then why are we not invading more nations other than Iraq. Iraq is not alone in the world when you look at these policies. North Korea, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Libya are one of those nations. Shouldn’t we be invading those nations? Maybe we just chose no to invade those nations because they were stronger than Iraq.

Numbazix
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Numbazix » Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:13 am

The United States Marine Corps
has been informed of your desire to serve your country and extends an invitation to you to visit the recruiter nearest you.
:P
Zix
Master of all I survey--wheres my glasses?

User avatar
Zered003
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by Zered003 » Sun Jun 27, 2004 3:07 pm

Well, we all know by now that our government was not ready to do anything about the terrorist until after 9/11. So, you could probably go back and place blame on any past president. I'm not sure if Bush is the best man for the job but I think he is alot better then Kerry. In the last year we have not heard very much from Kerry. The last thing I remember hearing from him was complaining that he wasn't allowed to vote on something and saying the republicans did it on purpose. Ofcourse I think that is completely stupid for the simple fact that he hasn't done his job that he ran for and was elected for. And don't give me the Bull about running for the White House. If bush was to put his job aside to try to get us to vote for him and neglected his job the way Kerry has then we as his boss would remove him from office before the election. AND if anyone else in America told thier job that they would only be there 10% of the time but expect full pay while trying to get another job we would be laughed out the door and fired. and ofcourse the biggest thing I have heard Kerry say he would do is give the tax break to the middle and lower class. It is pretty obviose that it is a lie for the simple fact of who his wife is and who her family is. Kerry won't do anything to upset his wife and her family because they are the income that drives his race for the White House. He put a house his wife paid for up for a loan to fund his campagn. I guess what my point is, if you don't want Bush out of office then give America someone better to vote for. As always I am not going to put all my thoughts on here or put every little detail explaining for the simple fact I don't feel like righting a 5 page article and leave it more up to all of you to think for yourself and atleast give us something to discuss. All I can say is this, everyone voting for Bush accually wants him in office. Were as, most the people voting for Kerry just want Bush out of office and not voting for him because they think he is the best guy for the job. The Democrates could pull any bum off the street, dress him up nice and select him as their canidate and he would get just about as many votes as Kerry b/c of the push to remove Bush from office. I wish people would accually us thier brain instead of going with the "mob" mentality. Then more people would start demanding a good and qualified canidate. Someone who could get elected b/c they are a good leader instead of a puppet to remove someone else. Well, that should give you alittle bit to chew on till I get back in a couple days.

CaptSyf
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:00 am
Location: Leaving you to wonder...
Contact:

Post by CaptSyf » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:32 am

THe only problem with people using thier brain, is the fact that 99.999999~% of the human race use "less than" 10% of thier brain.
The only people I'v seen that use a full 10%(or more) is the people here at AFC. 8) :lol:
The end of one Era is near... Star Trek Armada II - All Good Things...

Numbazix
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Numbazix » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:15 pm

I certainly must agree that very little of the brain is used in current-day American politics. Look at the last election. I voted with the majority, but that's not what determines the Presidency. Would Gore have been better? Now that certainly is debatable.

From the stand point of "any bum off the street", we already have a bum in the White House. Bush was arrested for DUI, has admitted to use of cocain. What more do we need to know about the man? They say a person is known by the company they keep. What about Cheney and his underhanded dealings in Iraq on behalf of Halliburton?

I am a combat verteran. I would like to know if you have ever served your country in any way. Your opinions are blatantly devoid of fact and blatantly far right-wing. The main problem conservative extremists have is that they are out of the main stream of American thought and don't see the so-called "Big Picture". George Bush has taken this country down a dangerous path. The country is headed in the wrong direction. That is why business leaders like Lee Iacoca support Kerry. That is why former top officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps support Kerry. NOT AS REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS, but as AMERICANS. The unilateral approach used by the Bush Administration is dangerous and allienates our allies. Why not just take the opinions of those from the UK and elsewhere. Bush is not well liked for many reasons and I'm sure they would give a great number of them if you'd like to invite them into this.

You would be well advised to take a much closer look at who you are supporting. The Patriot Act is one of the biggest threats to freedom in recent history. Do you support the erosion of freedom in the US as well? Starting with the next posts on this subject I will let George speak for himself. I will use quotes he has made to illustrate that he is not the person Americans should support. Then you can argue with him about the matter if you'd really like to go to the problem. But then you'd get placed on a "list" and those of us who were harassed and shadowed by the FBI during the Nixon years will tell you--IT DOES CRAMP YOUR STYLE.

Oh, and be careful what you wish for because you might get it and that's the frightening thing about all of this. Can American afford four more years of deficit spending and wars? Do the math.
Zix
Master of all I survey--wheres my glasses?

User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

Post by wingsabre » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:27 pm

Zered003 wrote:Well, we all know by now that our government was not ready to do anything about the terrorist until after 9/11. So, you could probably go back and place blame on any past president.
OK, I'll start with Nixon and name every president since, and show how Bush is way worse than the damage they all did.
• Nixon himself did the spying on our citizens during Vietnam, and illegally diverted the CIA to spy on our citizens. It was a time where terrorism was ignored greatly, because we needed to focus on the Communism threat.
• Ford basically did the same thing as Nixon, except there was no CIA spying on us, and we got out of Vietnam. We still focused on Communism and didn’t really build a relationship with the Middle East. Again it was not a big threat at the time compared to Communism. Actually it was a very little threat.
• Carter was the presidential administration that had terrorism shows its wicked teeth. There were plain hijackings and the hostage crisis. They were basically over their heads because it was the first real time that a president was forced to deal with this problem.
• Regan: Simply there is one major issue, the Iran-Contra Scandal. Don’t tell me Iran is our best friend. We also gave Afghanistan weapons, and helped Sadam. This is because we were running on the belief that our enemies' enemy is our friend. Our enemy was communism.
• G.H.W. Bush: Did really well, on the Persian Gulf War, we just didn’t move into Iraq because the issue of nation building would be extremely costly. There was Panama, Columbia which was terrorist hot spots. There was also funding Afghanistan. This presidency was probably the first real presidency to actually fight terrorism.
• Clinton: Oklahoma, WTC's first attack, the Colt, Embassy bombings, and much more unreleased information, fearing we would loose our source; some of these prevented attacks are in his seriously heavy memoirs.

All these presidents had incidents with terrorism but there were reasonable arguments for their failures. For Nixon there were very little threat when it comes to terrorism it was more focused on Communism. That mentality persisted until the first Bush. Carter was the first president to actually get involve in terrorism and it was their first time to and they made mistakes, and reasonable ones. The first Bush was reasonably great on fighting terrorism at his time, but he made what could be noted as mistakes, but they were in good intension. He didn't believe that Afghanistan would be our enemy. Clinton did a lot to fight terrorism, but through years of both democrats and republicans ignoring them and focusing on Communism, there needed to be a total change in the system. All of them had great excuses, but G.W. Bush has none for what has happened. Realize that none of this president had a memo released right before an attack titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the U.S." G.W. Bush just didn’t give enough thought into this threat until 9/11. Even after bitching that Clinton didn’t do anything about the Colt bombing, Bush did squat.
Zered003 wrote:I'm not sure if Bush is the best man for the job but I think he is alot better then Kerry. In the last year we have not heard very much from Kerry.
This is because Kerry chose not to interrupt the process of Bush going down in the polls. A rule of thumb is to never interfere in a process, because it could backfire, he just did a poor job of introducing himself. He should have spent more time introducing himself to the American people. Not interfering with the Bush issue, will help him, but not introducing himself will hurt him.
Zered003 wrote:The last thing I remember hearing from him was complaining that he wasn't allowed to vote on something and saying the republicans did it on purpose.
And he wasn't allowed to vote. Remember the Republicans control the Senate, they could easily delay every vote when he is out of town campaigning. They just ask for more debate, and if a majority of the quorum chose to debate more than they will do so. They don’t even need a majority the majority leader decides so. It was Bill Fritz who said he wouldn’t allow Kerry himself to pilot down and vote on the issues he wanted to. Bill Fritz openly said he did it on purpose.
Zered003 wrote:Ofcourse I think that is completely stupid for the simple fact that he hasn't done his job that he ran for and was elected for. And don't give me the Bull about running for the White House.
Bush did the same thing when he was running for President. Do you realize how little he spends his time in the Governor's mansion in Texas?
Zered003 wrote:If bush was to put his job aside to try to get us to vote for him and neglected his job the way Kerry has then we as his boss would remove him from office before the election.
No, we can not remove him from office for a reason as that. We could only remove him during the election. The only way a president could be removed from office is if they resign, or if he gets impeached. Working less is not a criminal offense. It's like impeaching someone just because you hate him, it would never happen. Also would you expect an impeachment in basically a 50:50 congress? No democrat in the right mind would try to remove him under the charge that he was not in the Whitehouse enough. Also realize that Bush has vacationed more than the average Americans. He has a Winter Break, a Spring Break and a summer break. He spent more time in his Texas ranch during the summer than I had for my summer vacation. That's more than three months during the summer. I guess he ignored the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the U.S." memo in order go get some time in his Texas ranch. The only question is, what the heck do you do in a ranch for 4 months, especially when it sometimes averages 100 degrees everyday?
Zered003 wrote:AND if anyone else in America told thier job that they would only be there 10% of the time but expect full pay while trying to get another job we would be laughed out the door and fired.

It's 20%. Even Bill Fritz would agree with that, and the statistical number shows 20%. If you are seriously going to try to prove your point then at least use read data, and don’t make stuff up. We are not playing Brinksmanship this is basically a semi-serious debate. You are showing very little respect for yourself and the people in this debate when you make data up. If you are not sure about a number say what you think, and say you are not sure but do not make things up.

Yes if any of us attempted to get a job and spend 10% of the time there, then we would be laughed out of the place, but then this is not congress. Congress convenes for about 60% of the year, I'm not sure about the real numbers though. Also the majority of the members in congress do not vote on every single bill and amendments. 20% for Kerry is acceptable if you look at his voting percentage prior to his campaign. You should check to see how much time Bush spent in Texas and how many times he was re-elected.
Zered003 wrote:and ofcourse the biggest thing I have heard Kerry say he would do is give the tax break to the middle and lower class. It is pretty obviose that it is a lie for the simple fact of who his wife is and who her family is. Kerry won't do anything to upset his wife and her family because they are the income that drives his race for the White House.
Have some common sense, they are worth probably billions. Think about the Bush tax cut and it is about 1,000 bucks for the top 1% of population. That is chump change to them. They can burn that off and it's not going to affect them. It's like giving you a penny; you can't even give your two cents with a penny. Realistically giving a middle class and lower class tax cut and a tax hike on the top 1% will help redistribute the cash flow. The rich may not like it but even a 1,000 from a month income wouldn't affect their spending habbits. If you compare the ratios would you care if you were taxed $0.50 a month? That tax cut wouldn’t be much but it's enough to help these people pay their bills. The middle class are the group who tends to spend, and spend on items that are super cheep. These aren’t people who buy $10,000 jewelry with a simple hand gesture, and if it's diamonds it comes from South Africa anyway, making it a non-American product. At least when you pay the bills your giving middle class workers from SBC and MCI a continual flow of cash, no rate hikes, and no layoffs.

Zered003 wrote:He put a house his wife paid for up for a loan to fund his campagn. I guess what my point is, if you don't want Bush out of office then give America someone better to vote for. As always I am not going to put all my thoughts on here or put every little detail explaining for the simple fact I don't feel like righting a 5 page article and leave it more up to all of you to think for yourself and atleast give us something to discuss. All I can say is this, everyone voting for Bush accually wants him in office. Were as, most the people voting for Kerry just want Bush out of office and not voting for him because they think he is the best guy for the job. The Democrates could pull any bum off the street, dress him up nice and select him as their canidate and he would get just about as many votes as Kerry b/c of the push to remove Bush from office.

Well, that's because Bush is not that great. Anyone is probably better than Bush. I'm a democrat but I'll gladly vote for Colon Powel or John McCain. That's because these two would actually have a deeper knowledge in what they are doing. These people read, they don’t pride themselves by not reading. They don’t publicly go on the news interview and say they gladly don’t read the news papers, or books. And this is the president that supposedly greatly helped the Texas educational system. It was later when he left office in Texas that it was revieled that the educational system were simply teachers teaching the test. We are seeing people from Harvard and Yale who are newly admitted but do not thing as much as people who were admitted a decade ago. This is because they have been taught to test, to follow what is being taught by text books, and not question the standard norm, even though there are averages of 500 mistakes in a standard text book varying from grammatical errors to serious errors like the positions of the planets. There is no growth when you do that and that is why there is no growth in complexity and depth in this president. He is simply a person you would like to drink beer with.
Zered003 wrote:I wish people would accually us thier brain instead of going with the "mob" mentality.

What mob mentality? The nation is 50:50 on the issues; if you call it a mob then the other half is a mob also. And by quoting it you are saying that it is a mob but it really isn’t a mob. So what do you really mean? I could point out other mobs also. Are you calling the supper conservative republicans who chose to sign the Nader petition in support of his views? There are leagues of conservative foundations holding signing drive for Nader. They even get people to run to rallies to help Nader, even though they will vote for Bush. That could be looked at as a mob. What about the mob like mentality to have an amendment on gay marriage? The majority of the nation are opposed to gay marriages, but there will never be an amendment on that issue because you need a super majority to get an amendment passed; that's why you see politicians declaring that they will write an amendment. Remember the Constitution has been renewed 27 times, and really 25 if you ignore the prohibition amendments. 12 were written by the founding fathers, and ever since in the course of 200 years we have only amended it 8 times.
Zered003 wrote:Then more people would start demanding a good and qualified canidate. Someone who could get elected b/c they are a good leader instead of a puppet to remove someone else. Well, that should give you alittle bit to chew on till I get back in a couple days.
A puppet? Who controls Kerry? His Republican wife? Reasonable but no. Give me names. Bush on the other hand was primp and propered by Carl Rove. He's very simple, two dimensional. He only sees two views; it's either right or wrong, good vs. evil. That's probably why he sentenced all those criminals to the death penalty. Even though a majority of them deserve the death penalty, some of them simply required a pardon because of new evidence like DNA. Bush wouldn't even look at DNA, because those people did something wrong. Honestly anything could be reduced to something as simple as good vs. evil, but to be truly compassionate and respectable to the whole justice system, you'll have to be able to observe the gray areas in different issues. He couldn’t.

Remember these people are not just leaders they are stewards of society. They are here to make a better tomorrow, not just foreign but internal. By having runaway deficit, and a major lack of medical care, coupled with a poor educational system; 4th last in math and science, slightly above 4 third world nations we are seriously damaging our future and our youth's future. The concept of party now, and worry later is catching up to this society, and sooner or later, worrying will come. When compared to the 50 we are working more and getting less, and if we continue on this path, our children will work probably ten times as hard. It's time for change, and we can't have a president that persists on this path to destruction.

User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

Post by wingsabre » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:14 pm

Zered003 wrote:...Well, that should give you alittle bit to chew on till I get back in a couple days.
I also forgot to say one thing, enjoy your vacation. We may disagree on fundamental issues, but we're still decent people... hopefully all of us are.

Numbazix
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Numbazix » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:29 pm

Excellence in writing. Good analysis. I say this not because we happen to agree, but you obviously did alittle research which I always appreciate even when viewpoints may differ from my own. Basically what Zared003 needs to do is research to prove his points. Enough contrasting data is available to support any point of view.
Zix
Master of all I survey--wheres my glasses?

User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

Post by wingsabre » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:07 pm

If Bush really wants the Nobel peace prize then we should go into Sudan right now. I would give him all my support on that issue even if he is a Republican. They're having genocides right now, and like Rwanda we should go in. This is an issue that NATO and the UN will defiantly support. I'm betting that even China and Russia will back is if we go in. Even though I'll give him my support, I'm still voting for Kerry

User avatar
Elrond
Past Administrator
Past Administrator
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 2:00 am

Post by Elrond » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:18 pm

The best thing that a nation needs is intelligence (intelligence in war and intelligence - intelligence!). Our government's knowledge of the situation and the (cough, cough) thinking of our president does not yield the best body of intelligence that we can have - actually, politically and militarily, our intelligence gathering and processing techniques are barely acceptable. Somehow our leaders (generals, president perhaps) still seem to think like they are fighting a centralized force, except we are doing it in a very decentralized way - that works against itself! With our forces spread thin like butter on Elvish Lambas bread, we are actually working against our best hopes.
Maybe it would be better the other way around - keep our forces tighter (but not tight to the point where a big attack could kill a lot) and focus on an enemy that is decentralized. We are fighting cells that are for the most part invisible to our intelligence.
We may actually do well in gathering intelligence, but as happened before 9/11, our defense agencies aren't processing the information at the rate it is gathered. That means for a lot of information that is meaningless (like a website that contains crazy-looking code and spelling errors) - information processing must be better improved. We have perfected the gathering part, but not the processing part!
Bombs and weapons and the sheer number of our troops will help, but they will not solve the situation of sub-par intelligence information processing. Also, our agencies were supposed to be sharing some vital knowledge between each other so that we could have a contingency plan in the case of an upcoming attack. In the Civil War and World War I days, this kind of stuff could be acceptable by the level of technology in those days. Here, in the future, our intelligence gathering acts to save lives - but intelligence processing and respondant action would save a whole lot more lives.
Bush understands the fact clearly that we are fighting terrorist cells, not larger regiments, brigades or units. However, he just can't seem to apply this understanding. It's obviously not just him - one man can't usually make all the difference. Every man and woman must do his/her part to ensure that their jobs are done - sometimes these jobs aren't completed efficiently. If these jobs involve intelligence gathering, processing, and networking, then we end up with a bit of a problem (like unexpected attacks on our troops, unexpected capturing of our troops, and attacks planned even within our own borders).
Everything in this war is being compared to 9/11, as it should be. There were pieces of evidence that should have been clear to the FBI, CIA, ATF, local law enforcement agents, that when these terrorists entered our nation, it is a widely rumored statement that these fellows did not choose to train themselves to land a plane (that should have sort of rung a red bell right there)! It's like, "yeah, I want to learn to fly a plane, but I'm not sure about learning to land it (since I won't need to anyway :twisted: !" I'm sure that this rumor may be false, but I'm convinced that other signs even clearer than that appeared that our intelligence agencies ignored (or they didn't process this information or provide a primary action to this). Part of it may have been that this nation had the collective feeling that from day to day, this nation would be invulnerable. Our agencies and our government, and our president, must not make any of these mistakes because just one wrong move and kaboom - we end up with another rocket-propelled grenade attack on a helicopter (or worse)!
I've researched a little myself into how intelligence works and it's just like programming - you have input and output. What happens in between is processing. If you have input and no output, however, what use is the program?! It's the same with intelligence. You have gatherers, programmers, converters and processors (people who either convert raw data into useful facts or people who organize that raw data so that the converters can easily edit the data to fact), and networkers (people that are necessary in 'getting the word out' to the necessary executors of action plans (tacticians, strategists, etc). Doubtless to say, this process becomes more complicated every day that newer and advanced technology is introduced to either make life easier, more miserable, or more interesting. The most important result of intelligence is to make life easier for the next person who carries forth the next plan of action.
If Bush wants the Nobel Prize, then he should attempt to either oversee or act towards the functioning of the agencies that we depend on every day. If the functioning of this war on terror depends on Bush's polcies, then it may be in our best interest to have Bush for four more years - it sounds bad to me as well, but we may have to put up with this as long as there is some way to defeat these terrorists. The fact that al-Queda operatives are in Iraq trying to take us down indicates at least some link between Iraq and al-Queda. The war in Afghanistan has now been brought to Iraq as well. If I am not completely knowledgable in everything else, I do know that one option we absolutely do not have is to give up this war against terror. I have known two people who went to the war. One was injured badly and the other didn't survive his wounds (both were just 21). As much as it stabs me to see the pain and death caused to our own people, I know that we have actually in some way prevented the deaths of more people. It's hard to accept morally, but it's something that we who are to survive must survive and accept. For the time this war goes on, those of us not in it will have to weather the grief and despair that are likely to grow in intensity as long as the war claims more victims on our side.
Personally, it's too bad we can't just blast those terrorists away in one clean sweep - but it's never that easy. The fact that they operate in small cells is the one weapon they have against us that is effective (that and their bombs and rocket-propelled grenades). I think that you all have had interesting and plausible ideas, opinions, and feelings on this matter about Bush and the war.
My feelings about Bush as the president are that his domestic policies have more room to improve than his foreign policy. No Child Left Behind and his feelings against stem cell research are policies I just can't find myself getting comfortable with. The first is too unrealistic and just a pain in the neck, and the second would prevent the saving of lives. Stem cell research is something he should be for and No Child Left Behind is a nice idea when put on paper, but really is not that practical in this nation's stage of development in education policies. Stem cells repair cells that are dying, which in turn can save many people from dying. When science can save lives, science should be given a chance - religion and moral politics are secondary to the continuation of life - that's logic. Survival is always the most important aspect of existence, followed by safety and defense, personal prosperity, social prosperity, and contributing to the bettering of oneself. This hierarchy must define our nation's policy, along with our policies on freedom and intelligence. The hierarchy that we see in this war is all about survival. We look to our own survival, but more than that, we look to the survival of friends and family, our own community, our own nation, and the world in which we live. If these terrorists appreciated life in this way, they may not be terrorists in the first place. If survival depends on defense, and defense depends on eliminating the enemy, and eliminating the enemy means destroying them, then that means our survival depends on the destruction of these terrorists in the best way that we can. Destroying the enemy while preserving our people requires the intelligence agencies to function better - as I have continuously pointed out.
That intelligence depends on people who are motivated to do their jobs - the ability for someone to do their job well depends on good morale. If our nation remains so angry at our president instead of proud of our country, then the morale will inherently decrease - it's as simple as that. I've seen it happen too often. Most people are fickle - one week they will feel great when we eliminate Suddam's regime - the next week they forget their pride for their country and focus on the president's personal demons and malfunctioning logic. I don't criticize anyone here at all - I just wish for a prouder America.
This is somewhat unrelated, but in a way, has completely everything to do with American mentality - from the president to the working man. The reason we don't take as many holidays off from work these days is because we don't get done as much work as we used to (when our morale was higher and our pride for our people was greater). Now that most of us work 50-hour plus a week, it's obvious to see that eventually we will vent our stress at a new target - like our family, friends, or our government or president. Eventually, our morale will take a beating and the nation gets more and more depressed. I don't see that in anything any of you have said, but I've seen it myself from friends, family, practically anyone I see who walks around with their heads constantly facing the ground as if hope is a commodity that is running out. This level of depression is something that is contagious and infects many people who encounter it - that I have seen as well. Now many people in our nation are turned against other Americans in an effort to say "I told ya so." For many, that has become the main motivation of living - to see personal prophecies become truth. Everything down to our psychological state reflects how the people around us and our nation function. I know I may sound like I'm going too deep into this, but I know that where there's pride, there's effectiveness. The bottom line to my point is that a president functioning in office must have pride in his country - if not, then how the hell will the rest of us have pride? How hard will people work to make their dreams come true if they have no hope? Some of us, like myself, maintain a steady stream of pride for my country and this world, but many need a leader who has pride. If not, those people tend to follow the actions of their leaders (pride breeds pride, hopelessness breeds more hopelessness). In a way, it is like how a 6-year-old will start crying when a mother or father starts crying. We maintain this mentality in some way deep into our later years and that's what breeds either care or distrust.
I see the world deteriorate to levels I haven't previously seen sometimes. There are some days I have (as all of us do) where my life and hope feels like it is bound to the outcome of the next thing I do (days when things just go terribly). We've all seen hopelessness approach - some of us think the country will not survive this century. I even sometimes believe that the human race will not survive the next century. Usually, I envision a future not much unlike Star Trek.
Surely, our president will not play much of a part in the big picture of things. It is a combination of the activities of everyone in the government, even ourselves, that collectively plays a part in the future. If any one of us makes a wrong move or even a right move, the future is altered to some extent. Even if Bush does something that seems wrong, it may not mean that we have a bad future ahead. The same could be said about Bush if he did a lot of things right - the future may be worse off because of it (in some way). Almost none of us have government clearance, so we can't just go and read all the facts about the war and Bush. If we could, I'm sure a lot of what was said here may be accurate to a level. Since we don't have that information, we can't really make any judgement that is immune to uncertainty or debate! :?
Well, my judgement is that I have written for long enough and my brain is tired and my fingers are tired from typing. Good night and Happy July the First! Three days 'til the fireworks light up the sky! I'm sure the terrorists are planning their own fireworks as well - this shall be a good test of our agencies' intelligence protocols! I'm 95% certain that things will go good on the 4th! 8)

Numbazix
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Numbazix » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:03 pm

This nation has survived many crisis in war and peace. If we could survive Nixon, Carter, Regan-Bush, I'm positive we will survive Dubya even if he is re-elected. I've been a voter since the Nixon-Humphrey 1968 election and have seen many things built and deteriorate throughout the world. The main thing to remember is not who is running the show, but what direction the show is moving. Many really bad errors have been made and then overcome. On the whole our politicians, public servants, desire a good outcome. On the whole they are good people, Republicans and Democrats, who have strong beliefs and are patriotic. This includes the current President. I may not agree with him on many issues--so what? Be assured he is doing the best he and his advisors can do under the circumstances. It is not a GOOD or BAD thing. It is a matter of agreement or disagreement. Basically this election is a referendum of the Bush policies.
Zix
Master of all I survey--wheres my glasses?

User avatar
Elrond
Past Administrator
Past Administrator
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 2:00 am

Post by Elrond » Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:31 pm

I certainly believe also that W is trying his best and has the best wishes of his nation. I am a Republican myself, so I voted for him :P . I figured he was better than Gore (who some call the 'Bore' or the "man-like object'). If our government needed anything, it would just be more pride in these tougher times. World War II was tough and we still remained ever-proud of what we were doing and how things were going (even when they were going bad). In the thread about "will humanity ever be united", it was mentioned that war will most likely be around as long as we're around, though unity on a somewhat large scale is still possible. Though some people don't have the pride others do, I would not call them bad because of that. Really, there's no right or wrong decision because nothing is ever completely wrong or right (except terrorism which is just insanely wrong). I'd say that the terrorists will not be a match for us as long as hope prevails! :)

Wok
Cadet 2nd Year
Cadet 2nd Year
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:00 am
Contact:

Post by Wok » Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:49 am

The main thing to remember is not who is running the show, but what direction the show is moving.
Yeah. At least its generally gotten better for the USA since it was created. But now the USA's current government is a real show-stopper. (edit: sorry, bad pun)
In fact, they haven't just stopped it, but turned it right back around! (edit: oops, another one)

I can hear Colin Powell right now- "Stop this Administration! I want get off."
(edt: maybe I should delete them?)


Um, ahem.
But like you say, it won't be forever. Though at least the other govs did something good... the present one has gotten rid of Saddam once and for all, and... um, thats it.




EDIT:
man-like object'
HAHAHA thats so true, lolol. About as much of a personality as a grey bucket of paint.

User avatar
wingsabre
Cadet 3rd Year
Cadet 3rd Year
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:00 am

Post by wingsabre » Sat Jul 03, 2004 5:34 am

Elrond, that was very deep, and I do agree with you on many fundamental issues, but I also disagree. People must have pride in their work, and the President must have pride also. It doesn’t seem that Bush does though. He spends his time out of the beltway. He ignores important memos, and devises easy schemes to fix issues such as intelligence or education, but seriously was a quick fix. We need to change that and with one change in administration I like many voters is taking a leap of faith that Kerry will do better than Bush. Like Tennant we see failures upon failures in the Bush administration. It is not a one man show, but it originates from that, and the people making the mistakes are the people he chose to hire or elect. Any boss in the right mind would fire the ones making the mistake.

There is no doubt AlQueda is in Iraq now, but then we did not see signs of them before. It could simply be what the Bush administration argued for Iraq previously which was that the invasion of Iraq created a space where terrorist could go and would distract them from attacking us. I believe that once we invaded Iraq, legions of terrorist entered Iraq. Like Afghanistan their powers are growing there now. If we bomb one area where there are no terrorist, but we only kill civilians we are creating terrorist from the victims. Even Donny Rumsfelt put in a memo saying he doesn't even know if we are creating more terrorist than we are getting rid of. Even now not much of the information processing and flow are efficient. Some could easily argue that that it is humiliatingly in the same condition as it was before 9/11. Remember John Ashcroft stepping out to a press briefing warning Americans that there could be an imminent attack, while a few hours later was refuted by Tom Ridge. Even if the president helped orchestrate these "improvements" he didn't do a very passionate job. That mistake alone confused the nation into fearing and then worrying if they should fear or not.

Elrond I totally side with you on the issue when it comes to law enforcement agencies not seeing the evidence surrounding the 9/11 attack. It is true that the attackers did not learn to land. It is also evident that the attackers did not buy a two way ticket, but a one way trip. It's even put as one of the highly suspicious signs of a hijacking if the passenger chooses to not buy a two way ticket, but a one way. The president is also part of our law enforcement agencies, since he is the one who is suppose to have the laws enforced, and he ignored the extremely vague memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." And yes I did get that line from Fahrenheit 9/11, but I disagree with some aspects of it and agree with some others. It is also very stupid for flight security to body search Al Gore. It just makes you wonder how competent these people are.

We could all honestly say that we do not know the whole truth; unless one of us is from the general staff that had access to these vital information. Rather I would like to say that we all are committing a leap of faith based upon what we know.


When it comes to trying, Bush does try; he tries a lot. We have seen him try with every initiative but when I see him try I see a village idiot's attempt to add one and one when the village idiot doesn’t even know the concept of the number 1. He is just not qualified for the position. Everything to him is very easy. When it comes to Iraq, he sees that once we invade everyone would just accept us and celebrate. That didn't happen. When it comes to election, he though just giving a national election would make everything better, but he had to cancel it because there was a high chance that Iraq would turn Fascist. His other simple thought was to just create a central government in Iraq, and though creating a central government is vital, he didn’t realize that the foundation to a central government like many others and ours is local governments. He should have set a standard for all Iraqis where if a region is at peace for three months or some amount like that, then they will be able to draw their own local constitution and elect their own leaders. If that is the deal then there would be fewer attacks because the terrorist would instead work for peace so they could later influence each and every local constitution. We would then put moderates and push for liberal ideas in the constitution drawing process. They would then elect former Sadam members into power, and though that would be horrible, it would bring stability. The process would be long, but because it is long, and the radicals are given a medium to peacefully give their views then the attacks would reduce and progress would continue. This would also eventually build a parliament and solidify the parliament before the handover. Iraq would be more democratic than they are now. The counsel would be like their senate and the representatives would be like their House. Our appointees would be liberals, while their choice would be very radical and favorable to Sadam's people, who are believed to be the one initiating the attacks because they don’t see a position in the new Iraqi government. You'll see very little progress in legislation because things would be held up by divisions but there would be stability. Bush didn’t even approach that because the process would be too long. Imagine if California were to only be governed by Sacramento, there would be chaos. Right now under the Interim government there is hope, but there is no stability, and I fear that chaos could come.

Bush tries, but when he couldn’t get people to follow him, he arrogantly goes it alone. Instead of having patients, while trying, he hastily goes in head first. When it comes to Iraq we didn't try to have more international support, especially nations that have troops.

If you argue that we didn’t go into Iraq because of oil because Sadam was a horrible man, then why are we not at North Korea, Iran, Syria, and now Sudan. If you check out the satellite photos here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... teirab.pdf you will see the problems of Sudan right now. Instead of fuzzy made up pictures of what we believe to be WMD in Iraq, why don’t we look at this satellite photo of Sudan. In the photo every black dots are burnt houses in a village, and they are having genocide right now. Also, that is just one village, there are more. Why are we not talking about this issue? If the Bush administration is truly trying to help the world become a better place and a place that everyone could have a better life then why are we not helping these people who are dieing from genocide. We have photo evidence, we have journalistic evidence form journalist who snuck in and took images of killing lines, and we have accounts from refugees. Maybe it's because Sudan does not have oil, or maybe because the ones being killed are black.

Bush tries a lot when it comes to no child left behind, but he does not realize the complexity of the issue involved in funding it. It's so easy to pass a law but it is hard to enforce it. I say if he wants to pass something he should enforce it, it is stated in the Constitution that a president must enforce the law. I think the most boring guy for the job would realize the complexity for the law.

Bush tried a lot for his tax cut also; he tried so hard that he talked down the economy so it continued to go down. Right before his presidency consumer confidentiality was pretty high, even though the economy was slowing down. Once he started talking down the economy it went down, because the American people had "pride" in what their president says. When he tries, bad things happen, and when he doesn’t try bad things happen. We need someone that doesn’t have this streak of bad things happening, after all every one of his business failed. When he owned oil companies, after companies, each and everyone failed, and when he owned the Rangers... they sucked a lot.

His argument against gay marriage and stem cells are because they are against god's book, or it's because it's playing god. Realize that the same people who we are fighting us are using god's words to declare war. I have very little respect for people who uses god's words to argue for war, or to prevent someone from living. In a sense you could easily argue that stem cells are god's will because it is an opportunity for us humans to evolve. Didn't god tell Noah that he didn’t create a world of angels because they would just be perfect and there would be no depth in the world? He created this world so humans could work to become angels. Realize that if he must argue for god then he must go on the street every day and kill at least one person for touching the skins of a pig.

On another note Gore is boring when he is in front of the media but from evidence from the heads of state and all his friends he is not. If you've seen photos of him during Halloween, he is remarkably hilarious in choice of costume. He just goes all out, and came as Underdog in one year, and Frankenstein in another. The speeches that he writes are also so wonderfully eloquent. His concession speech was probably one of his best, and it was said to be written by him, unlike many of his campaign speeches. Personally I would prefer one person who is boring and know what they are doing to become president, rather than a person that is incompetent in what their doing, but is someone that is just a decent guy and fun loving guy. It's time for our nation to choose qualification rather than image. If we just elect someone on image purely then why don't we just elect everyone from Hollywood to the House and Senate, better yet let's pick the guy from the Dell commercial to become president. I frankly don’t care if our heads of states are as dull as dead wood, as long as they do a fine job. Bush hasn't. The American people are stupid enough to elect people who look like they'll be their friends but this is not the point of electing officials. We elect officials to make our lives better. That was why Gray Davis was recalled, but people did it for a wrong reason, because they did it based on tax and the governor's inability to connect to the public. The Recall's purpose was to remove a governor who has committed criminal acts.

I pride myself in doing what I am doing because I believe that it gives me a voice to help our nation. Everyone should do it no matter what their views are. To that I salute you for your deep and thought provoking contribution. But remember everyone should have the right to criticize the president when ever they feel like; it's probably our most important patriotic duty to do so. Even one of my most favorite President Theodore Roosevelt said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public" (1918). I believe that if we continue on this path giving Bush a free ride on issues that are devastatingly harmful. Remember we may be in a time of war, and the general rule is to not change horse midstream but our presidents are not horses, they're the rider; I have a new thought, we could change the rider.

User avatar
Elrond
Past Administrator
Past Administrator
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 2:00 am

Post by Elrond » Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:46 pm

Yep - that's pretty much what I was saying - Bush has the try but doesn't have all the pride. It's up to every single person to have pride in their work, or else it ends up giving the US bad intelligence! I could not agree more that our government really didn't know everything about what we were doing or what was being done to us. One thing that I have seen in the last two months is that most of us believe that we cannot withdraw our men now that we are drawn into the plunge! The only way we talk to the terrorists is the only way they know how to talk - with defiance and violence - it's that or we're gonna have many more years of attacks enforced by radical Muslims who wish only to destroy us because they think we have it so great! It's like the nerds at Columbine who targetted random people in order to release their pain. That's just vengeance against people who did nothing to them.
In a way, some may say that we are policing the world - and they would be right - why not police a world where radical Muslims wish to destroy those who base their lives on creating their own destinies through the philosophy of dedication and hard work. It's like on Lord of the Rings, the Elves pretty much took the biggest burden of responsibility in finding a way to destroy the forces of evil that the humans just couldn't do without a leader. The fact that we were attacked says that we're in for shitty times if we don't do anything.
Wingsaber, I completely agree with the part you said about No Child Left Behind. As I've said before, I don't personally think much of it because Bush didn't take in to mind the complexity of not just the funding, but the times we're in. American education is in its adolescent stage where it will take a lot of time and effort and resources to enforce a policy like NCLB.
Why we got into the war now is not the biggest part of the problem now - it is that we are there and al-Queda is also there now. To me, and to many in the CIA, that indicates a clear link between the former Iraqi government and al-Queda. Perhaps it is true that we moved and acted on somewhat inaccurate intelligence, but now there's some evidence to conclude that perhaps there was some accuracy to that intelligence. Of course, with our intelligence agencies in an "information overload mode," our agencies don't have enough time to look at every detail as they should. Like you said, wingsaber, Bush ignored a lot of info that could have perhaps saved some effort. Only by dividing and conquering the tasks of raw data conversion and giving the true facts to the people will our intelligence agencies improve themselves and the actions taken by our government.
I see your reasoning in this and completely agree with you on much of what you are saying. The only thing I didn't is what I mentioned above about al-Queda in Iraq. But, hey, that's how good Americans like us can agree and disagree with these subjects. To have opposing views is what makes some weak points stronger - and that's great. Of course, the terrorists unfortunately want to destroy that freedom where ever they go!
Whatever is done, it will be done for a reason. During this war, much of the people who support and perform terror attacks will be eliminated. Never will there be a complete end to terrorism since pretty much anyone in any walk of life can become a terrorist if they feel they can justify their own suffering by taking the lives of the innocent! That means that there will always be terrorism, but it won't be as organized as it is these days. I have no idea how many terrorists and terrorist sympathizers we have killed - but far more of them have been killed than how many have been taken from us. Like I said earlier in this thread, I knew two people who went to the war - one was injured and the other was killed. A few other people I knew as well who are still fighting in Iraq, one of them participated in a fight with insurgents. He was fortunately victorious and has not been wounded. I hope that doesn't happen. To me, one of our troops is worth an indefinite amount more than a million terrorists! I can't put a price on innocent life, as no one can. I can only say that we can only have victory through loss and that loss can be minimized through better intelligence (both militarily and by using ones' brains).
That's pretty much what some people in the world lack - the ability to act by using their brains instead of just emotion. Our nation along with our allies who are innocent succeeded because they were able to better themselves. These terrorists cannot better themselves nor do they know how they can go about bettering themselves because if they were given advice on how to be better people, they would not want to hear it! Basically, the best way to better one self is by not being a traitor and a murderer - but that's just the beginning. These terrorirsts all need to ask themselves "would I rather have a good life or a crappy life filled with war, grief and despair?" But they won't do that - in place of wisdom and desire to better life, they will instead use their time to plot revenge and their own beliefs that they wish to force on everyone.
Well, that's about it for now. Have a great weekend everyone. By the way, I will be releasing a mod within the next day (I know this is off-subject) that will add a ship to the game that can build special weapons pods that have their own weapons and special energy (this will make it so that a ship with these pods will have these pods fire a limited number of photons, since the pods have 300 special energy and no special energy rate, they will be able to fire 300 torpeodoes that require one point of energy each).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users