|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Mar 20, 2005 9:46:59 GMT -8
Obviously its way too early to determine what the final verdict on President Bush's foreign policy will be, but many people are already throwing around words like "Nobel Peace Prize" and/or "the new Ronald Reagan".
In many ways I agree with these people. As much as I bash President Bush, I have always supported his neo-conservative foreign policy stance. It's the main reason that I voted for him in November. Although the neo-cons aren't a political party, I definitely consider myself closer to them than anyone else. What gets me is that liberals can't connect the dots with what is going on in the Middle East right now. I supported Operation IRAQI FREEDOM for a lot of reasons - one of the main ones being to establish a democractic nation in the middle of tyrannical regimes in an attempt to foster liberty and democracy. Another reason being to flex America's muscles and remind people of how powerful we are.
Two years after the invasion of Iraq, a quasi-revolution is taking place in the Middle East. Elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (both completely un-heard of) will be taking place this year. Relative peace reigns in Palestine and the "road map" seems to be working. Lebanon is revolting under the yolk of Syrian domination and Libya decided to join the civilized world by giving up WMD programs. Not to mention elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. Jordan I believe is also holding elections but they are actually a very pro-Western nation with strong ties to America.
Is it that hard to connect the dots? Even Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr admit (half-jokingly), What if, after all of this, President Bush was actually right? While there is still a lot of time left in Bush's second term, I think that he definitely has the capability to go down as a visionary and will be analogous to Reagan. What Reagan did to Communism and the Soviet Union, President Bush will do to tyranny and the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
Post by Remey688 on Mar 20, 2005 11:19:52 GMT -8
Republicans critized FDR's handling of WWII, Woodrow Wilson had his critics. Lincoln didn't have a picnic with the Civil War, and half of New England and the central states in 1776 were Torys.
I think the manuever in taking Iraq to draw in and destroy Al Queda and fellow travels wanting o do something to gain the 72 virgins for eternity was brilliant. I don't for a second credit W, He would be the first to reject any credit. I damn would like to propose a salute as in a drink to the goddamn general who did, as Geo Patton woulf have said! I mean I would like send this guy a selection of fine Canadian and Scotch whiskey, vodka and gin and Irish whisky.
|
|
packer
Full Member
"Your public servants serve you right!" A. Stevenson
Posts: 88
|
Post by packer on Mar 20, 2005 16:48:00 GMT -8
Well Falcon, first of all let me say that I hope that all of President Bush's moves in the Middle East turn out to be successful and good. Not for his sake--but for the sake of all those Americans he has chosen to sacrifice. Personally, there is not a hair on the body of any of my 11 grand children that is worth the politics of that entire fucked up region. I predict that the ME will NEVER have a truly democratic government or a truly free society. They carry way too much religious baggage and age old grudges and hostility to allow either democracy or individual freedom to flourish. IMO. Whatever, I mostly want to comment on your "...many people are already throwing around words like "Nobel Peace Prize" and/or "the new Ronald Reagan" about President Bush statement. You actually imply that's always a great (or good) thing. Let me remind you that some guy named Arafat also got the Nobel Peace Prize and that Ronald Reagan presided over the most corrupt (based on the 137 members of his government who were indicted, charged, convicted, or confessed to crimes against the USA) administration in our nation's history. Or are you saying that President Bush really IS like those two misfits?  |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Mar 20, 2005 19:14:35 GMT -8
Well Falcon, first of all let me say that I hope that all of President Bush's moves in the Middle East turn out to be successful and good. Not for his sake--but for the sake of all those Americans he has chosen to sacrifice. Personally, there is not a hair on the body of any of my 11 grand children that is worth the politics of that entire fucked up region. I predict that the ME will NEVER have a truly democratic government or a truly free society. They carry way too much religious baggage and age old grudges and hostility to allow either democracy or individual freedom to flourish. IMO. Whatever, I mostly want to comment on your "...many people are already throwing around words like "Nobel Peace Prize" and/or "the new Ronald Reagan" about President Bush statement. You actually imply that's always a great (or good) thing. Let me remind you that some guy named Arafat also got the Nobel Peace Prize and that Ronald Reagan presided over the most corrupt (based on the 137 members of his government who were indicted, charged, convicted, or confessed to crimes against the USA) administration in our nation's history. Or are you saying that President Bush really IS like those two misfits? In this day and age, you cannot neglect tyrannical regimes and act as though they will ignore you too. I thought that September 11th taught us that lesson already. We can either choose to bring democracy to the Middle East by force, or watch as our interests are threatened abroad and at home by the yolk of Islamic tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Mar 20, 2005 22:27:14 GMT -8
I think the jury will be out for a while on Mr. Bush.
It took at least ten years to effectively evaluate Reagan's role in ending the Cold War.
I'll second Remy's point that creating an arena for the Jihadis to meet their martyrdom was a brilliant stroke, especially since the same intervention removed one of the biggest assholes of recent history.
The scariest thought in all of Lib-land is that Bush, in fact, was right to attack Iraq, WMD's or no.
I really enjoyed the footage of the protesters in SF this weekend. The crowd was probably 1/10th of last years and the rhetoric they were spouting was about half-past irrelevant.
Marginalization! Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks! ;D
|
|
packer
Full Member
"Your public servants serve you right!" A. Stevenson
Posts: 88
|
Post by packer on Mar 22, 2005 20:19:50 GMT -8
So Falcon, you are back on the "9/11" thing when talking about Iraq. Tell us: are you among the millions of deluded or misinformed Americans who STILL think that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
If yes, please seek either education, information, or help!
|
|
packer
Full Member
"Your public servants serve you right!" A. Stevenson
Posts: 88
|
Post by packer on Mar 22, 2005 20:29:37 GMT -8
101, you and Remey seem to have a valid point about "fighting the battle on their turf" at first glance. But nearly ALL those who really know the Islam/Arab mindset do not agree. In fact, they are almost universal in their opinion that we are creating far more potential and future terrorists by our invasion, destruction, and occupation of any Islam/Arab nation. Common sense should dictate that we try to find the cause and reason for the hatred of America in that region instead of pretending that we can either bomb or occupy our way out of it. Seems to me that Israel tried that shit with the PALS for the past 55 years and are now finally realizing that there IS a better way. IMHO, there are two very clear and distinct reasons for that hatred of America by so many in the Arab/Muslim world. And it sure as hell isn't because of our freedom or our malls or our fancy cars or WDW as some goofs think. But I bet that sharp guys like you can figure out what those two reasons are. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Mar 22, 2005 20:47:12 GMT -8
So Falcon, you are back on the "9/11" thing when talking about Iraq. Tell us: are you among the millions of deluded or misinformed Americans who STILL think that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9/11? If yes, please seek either education, information, or help! Again - when you neglect tyrannical regimes, they will not always pay you in kind. I thought that the Taliban government already taught us that lesson. The fact is that containment was not working and Saddam was bent on obtaining WMDs. In this day and age, letting him get ANY WMDs would be a direct threat to the interests of this country. Therefore the justification for the war was perfectly sound. Anyone who can't find a reason to support Operation IRAQI FREEDOM needs education, information or help. |
|
packer
Full Member
"Your public servants serve you right!" A. Stevenson
Posts: 88
|
Post by packer on Mar 22, 2005 21:00:19 GMT -8
Well gee FF, one of us must need to check our handy "US Constitution for Dummies" on this.
Because I cannot find anything in it where we can wage war and invade foreign nations based on what some impotent dictator MIGHT acquire or what he MIGHT do.
BTW, what section is that in?
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Mar 22, 2005 21:23:52 GMT -8
Well gee FF, one of us must need to check our handy "US Constitution for Dummies" on this. Because I cannot find anything in it where we can wage war and invade foreign nations based on what some impotent dictator MIGHT acquire or what he MIGHT do. BTW, what section is that in? BTW, what section of the Consitution tells us when we "can and cannot" wage war? We reserve the right to wage war whenever the Republic's safety is in jeopardy. |
|
|
|
Post by Remey688 on Mar 23, 2005 3:26:21 GMT -8
So Falcon, you are back on the "9/11" thing when talking about Iraq. Tell us: are you among the millions of deluded or misinformed Americans who STILL think that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9/11? If yes, please seek either education, information, or help! Beyond the number of Al Quida and other nut case jihadists we killed in Iraq/Converting Iraq into a democracy with woman voting is a big thing in the the arab world. W did good. PS The Beriut barrack bombing had something in the chain of events with 9-11 in my opinion! |
|
packer
Full Member
"Your public servants serve you right!" A. Stevenson
Posts: 88
|
Post by packer on Mar 23, 2005 9:18:10 GMT -8
Falcon, if memory serves me right it's contained in Articles 1 & 8 of the Constitution.
|
|
packer
Full Member
"Your public servants serve you right!" A. Stevenson
Posts: 88
|
Post by packer on Mar 23, 2005 9:22:16 GMT -8
Remey, you are probably correct about the barracks attack. Just as some of Clinton's actions as well as Bush One had some bearing on 9/11 so certainly did Reagan's actions after the barracks attack when he folded and ran.
Some "experts" even say that this was THE single biggest impetus to the radicals who then realized the USA could be brought to it's knees in certain conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Mar 23, 2005 17:07:28 GMT -8
Falcon, if memory serves me right it's contained in Articles 1 & 8 of the Constitution. Here is the link for Article 1 of the Constitution: www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1Please tell me where it says when we can and cannot wage war. There is no Article 8. Nice try though. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Mar 23, 2005 18:17:28 GMT -8
Remey, you are probably correct about the barracks attack. Just as some of Clinton's actions as well as Bush One had some bearing on 9/11 so certainly did Reagan's actions after the barracks attack when he folded and ran. Some "experts" even say that this was THE single biggest impetus to the radicals who then realized the USA could be brought to it's knees in certain conditions. If you want the FIRST instance of "fold and run" you'll have to go back to the previous decade to a war we all know and love. The mindset of the looney left and their fellow travelers hasn't changed a bit since then, and the jihadis know it, and count on it. |
|
