America... Watch Out!
I'll never understand how perfectly rational people ever tied the two together.
On this point we agree...but I'm sure we agree for different reasons. I'll grant your position that Bush spoke about 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath...but I think we've both already agreed that he never said there was a direct link!
As I stated above...
Rather, the argument is that taking down Saddam's regime is one of the things we could do to prevent another attack like 9/11. And that does not necessarily require a finding that Iraq was involved in 9/11. They are two different issues. But that issue never gets discussed because the liberals almost uniformly -- and falsely -- characterize it was claiming that Iraq was "responsible" for 9/11.
In other words, the Iraq conflict is part of the preventative war on terror that Bush talked about so much after 9/11! You may disagree with the reasoning, but to deny that there were reasons is disingenuous in my opinion! Your State of the Union quote from Bush fits in perfectly with what I've argued here and above!
As ancillary contributions, the issue was confused, in my opinion, by an ill-informed media at best, and probably some willful manipulating to score negative political points against a president they (the media in general) are not real fond of!
Now I ask you, as a rational person, how do you prove you destroyed something that no one can prove you had?
You provide unfettered access to every building that UN inspectors spot check without hesitation. You do not extradite inspectors time and time again over a 12 year period. Every behavior Saddam demonstrated in the interwars period was that of a man with something to hide! This point cannot be understated. Regardless of if we ever find WMD's (which I'm first to admit is unlikely), it is clear that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN and USA! The detailed language of the UN sanctions made it clear that force was justifiable if he did not comply. Saddam decided to play a game of bluff in hopes that the French, Russians, etc at the UN would cover him. He lost his bluff...
I can again understand how you may not agree with the decision to use force over Saddam's bluff, but it certainly is not an irrational opinion to have. There are only so many times you can have a man shooting at our planes, publicly denying WMD's while privately boasting of their possession, etc before action is taken.
The climate changed after 9/11! If Bush had ignored all the private intelligence that our European allies and we had with respect to WMD's in Iraq at that time, would have been criminal in nature. He made a difficult decision after months/years of debate to use force. Again---the majority of both parties supported this decision and voted accordingly!
And get off your liberal/conservative whatever motif. That's decisive nonsense that has nothing to do with arguing a point.
In this thread alone, off the top of my head, you have talked of "obnoxious vehicles" and "Bush is a moron", etc! And now you want to preach about devisive (I assume this is what decisive was) language? This says nothing of the non-responses given to "neocon', "jackasses", and my personal favorite "Satin's plan."
With all due respect, please do not go this route again! The hypocrisy belittles you!
I respond to this silliness in defense only...I've no interest in getting into a personal battle again! If you want to continue to discuss Iraq in a rationale manner...then I'm game! If you just want to post your usual opinions as fact, then I’m more than happy to point out the counterargument. Or, maybe for once, you could try and be a little more understanding that everybody does not share your worldview and that there is room for different opinions. If you would present yourself in this manner, I’m sure the urge for personal insults will decrease from all sides!
By wussification I don't mean we march into a new country every week and "Liberate" it.
What I do mean in wussification is taking responsibility for ones actions. In this case, we marched into Iraq under the WMD spell and obliterated much of it. We have a responsibility to at least help rebuild and leave. The ones who joined the military voluntarily know the risks up front and are irresponsible morons if they didn't know that.
I have a major problem with people who no longer take responsibility for their own choices. When I say let someone drive an SUV I mean it! Because while some others take offense to it as being a gas hog and polluting the air we breathe, they end up paying for it anyways, hence they are forced to take responsibility to fill that gas guzzler. It's not exactly my cup of tea though to pay one day's salary to fill my tank, hence I drive a little Civic.
Besides a little thing called Volcanoes that spew much more pollutants into the air than anything else on Earth does. When you're up in space, take a look at the thin atmosphere that is over the US? Nope, South Africa!
I find it funny that the Reuters article mentions nothing about Commander Eileen Collins from the last Discovery Shuttle mission talking about the deforestation and pollution coming from South Africa. Instead it is referred as "wide spread environmental" damage.
We have so many environmental standards that its impossible to compete with the rest of the world, hence one part of many in the "wussification of America."
But eh, that's a different topic.
~Rob Willi
1) Fox News gets the ratings it does because truthfully, about half the country is right-leaning and FoxNews is unabashedly right leaning. People like to have their opinions validated. Even if you assume that the so-called "mainstream" networks are left-leaning (which I am not as quick to say) between CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc there is more chance of "splitting" the left whereas there is one decisive choice for the righties.
2) What idiot would assume that independents dont listen to talk radio? That's about the stupidiest assumption I've heard in a while. Independents I would imagine are *more* likely to listen to talk radio from *both* sides, thus listening to more talk than either the left or right. Independants are better able to see the BS from both sides, which is most likely why they are still independants.
3) As someone who was an original supporter of the War in Iraq, I now cannot see how anyone is still convinced that the reasons for the war were at best obfuscated and at worst straight up lies. Seriously, Colin Powell stated in his UN speech that not only did Sadaam have WMD but we knew exactly where at least some of them were. Quoted directly from the transcript of said speech:
We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again.
These inspections would be unlikely, any inspections of such facilities would be unlikely to turn up anything prohibited, especially if there is any warning that the inspections are coming. Call it ingenuous or evil genius, but the Iraqis deliberately designed their chemical weapons programs to be inspected. It is infrastructure with a built-in ally.
Under the guise of dual-use infrastructure, Iraq has undertaken an effort to reconstitute facilities that were closely associated with its past program to develop and produce chemical weapons.
For example, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of the Tariq (ph) state establishment. Tariq (ph) includes facilities designed specifically for Iraq's chemical weapons program and employs key figures from past programs.
Yet, to date, we havent found a darn thing. We obtained so much more evidence (documents, testimony) when the inspectors were there. There is no reason left for me to believe that this whole venture wasnt at best a miscalculation. I could get into how the Iraqi women will be adveresly affected by any new government that will now be set up, but I think the words "Islamic Law" say everything.
4) Why would an individual gas station wish to conserve supply? Isnt it a good thing if you sell all your product? I would think that would be a measure of success. :)
lata, jeremy
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
Others have argued that our labor laws make it impossible for us to compete with China. Perhaps we should get rid of those as well?
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
It's also tricky to enforce. If a Japanese electronics maker produces a product with 90% of its parts from China, that product is still subject to whatever agreements we have in place with Japan, not China.
*** Edited 9/1/2005 3:22:52 PM UTC by Brian Noble***
Remember a time when you didn't hear about peices of foam hitting the space orbiter and causing damage on lift-off? You can attribute that on EPA regulations banning CFC's starting in the early 90's including the freon used to cool the shuttles at lift-off. Now the substitute being used is causing damage to the shuttle on lift-off and is 30 times more expensive to use.
We lost the Columbia and crew 2 and a half years ago and we are more paranoid about doing future missions to space. Is space exploration important? That's anyone's personal opinion that I can't make for them. Its more of a question "Is the trade-off worth it?"
Newer cars with A/C and refrigerators are being manufacturered without CFC's and helping to clean up the environment, which is great! Does that have to extend to the space program? My opinion is that it shouldn't, but that is only my opinion. I honestly think that space exploration is very important for my own reasons.
That is simply one example, though in what I think the wussification of America is. There are many, many others, but this is a coaster forum, which I'm glad for the safety regulations we have today for them.
~Rob Willi
No, Rob, you assume that me and most Americans are down on the war because of the way it is being reported. You said it, not me.
HeyIsntThatRob? said:
You automatically assume that because I'm stating news that goes against what the media is reporting is coming from Fox News...
Right, because international chest thumping at the expense of thousands of lives is a perfectly rational justification for war. Good thinking.
My real question is... why are you supporting the wussification of America?
Which part of that has to do with political parties or political leanings? Um, nothing? Bush is a moron. All kinds of people are morons, on both sides of the aisle. Al Gore is a moron too. I don't know about you, but I vote for people qualified to do the job, not along party lines.
Jeffrey R Smith said:In this thread alone, off the top of my head, you have talked of "obnoxious vehicles" and "Bush is a moron", etc!
And get off your liberal/conservative whatever motif. That's decisive nonsense that has nothing to do with arguing a point.
Jeremy adequately covered the other points I wanted to make.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
RatherGoodBear said:
You guys need to straighten out my family then. Most of them identify themselves as staunch democrats. Yet they also think Bill O'Reilly's the only guy on TV who tells it like it is. So how do we explain that one?
They would be (to borrow a right-wing phrase) DINOs: Democrats In Name Only. For further examples, see Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi.
As for O'Reilly (begin personal opinion) he is a pontificating blowhard who behaves as if he believes he is the sole potentate of the truth. Occasionally, he does make valid points, but then again, occasionally the Sun shines up a dog's butt.
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
Again guys, its a discussion, take it easy.
~Rob Willi
RideMan said:
Just last week, the Federal government passed legislation which imposes CAFE requirements on SUVs. Anybody care to guess how the industry is going to get around this one? Even larger trucks? SUVs with open beds on the back? Family cars that can be classified as "transit bus"?--Dave Althoff, Jr.
I watched an interesting piece that relates to this a week or two ago. Many bigger SUV’s actually breach the 3000 or 6000 pound weight limit on residential streets. It has been difficult to enforce because they are for the most part used as passenger vehicles, but for all purposes they are trucks.
Through my study I have found the most effective way to deal with “regulating” things is through pigovian taxes. One instance is industrial pollution, where it has been found that the most efficient way of dealing with emission is to tax on the amount of emissions that a factory emits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
If it was proposed to discourage SUV use, perhaps a luxury tax can be placed on SUV’s to discourage their use. Problem is drawing the line a between pick-up tucks and SUV’s. Perhaps a tonage factor could decide this, as "light" SUV's get halfway decent mileage and their use is not nearly as bad as a 9MPG Hummer *** Edited 9/1/2005 6:00:49 PM UTC by Joe E.***
2.99/3.19/3.29 at Sunoco, 3.09/3.19/3.29 at Exxon, 2.89/2.99/3.19 at BP.
Then, there was the Sunoco up the street from Kennywood. 2.59/2.69/2.79.
People were, naturally, lined up all over to get in. I got in line, and was immediately waved down by the owner to pull up to a full serve tank. When I said I didn't need full serve, he told me that he lowered all the pumps to 2.59 so people wouldn't have to wait as long.
I asked how he could sell gas for 50c less per gallon than other Sunoco stations. He said that when the new tanker comes in, he has to raise it 40c, but for now, he's selling at the same price until it runs dry, and that the other guys are "just being ridiculous."
He could easily raise prices 20c/gal and still have a line.
No matter where prices go, guess where I'm filling up from now on?
Times of hardship often bring out the best and worst in people, it's nice to find a buisnessman who is more interested in helping people than the almighty dollar.
If anyone's coming near Kennywood, I suggest filling up at the Crossroads Sunoco on Homestead-Duquesne Road, about 3/4 mile up the hill behind KW's parking lots, at the second red light.
Hi
I wonder if the recategorization of "light truck" might make it possible for the minivan to make a comeback, once the regulatory advantages of building the vehicle intentionally oversize (so that it becomes a "truck") go away.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
My undergrad degree is in Journalism and, for many years, I have been an acute advocate for a media watchdog organization that Stephen Brill founded years ago--some of you may remember his magazine BRILL'S CONTENT, which issued a COMPLETELY NONPARTISAN ANALYSIS of all television, radio and print news organizations and the stories they published/covered/broadcast. I have been an INTENSE OBSERVER of all media for the last 20 years of my life and it, truth be known, is much more my area of expertise, than roller coasters ever could be. I don't come to the table with anything but a careful and considered opinion when it comes to discussing television news coverage. I'm going to throw some things out here for discussion because I KNOW there's going to be some folks who are not going to like what they read. But, this isn't hyperbole or conjecture; these are cold, hard facts about The State of Modern Journalism.
1) In the last 8 years, what was once considered a "biased" or "liberal" media has actually swung hard to the right, "packaging" news in an infotainment format that is easy to digest by the American Consumer. Most (not all, Thank God) are taking their morning lead-off stories DIRECTLY from a carefully orchestrated and executed pipeline that is completely White House Driven. The Drudge Report packages and "feeds" the American Media Behemoth. What is led on Drudge is run by every major news organization in the country as the stories of the day. If you look closely and analay You need look no further than MSNBC, Fox News, the three major networks, and, even, to a certain extent, CNN. How "news" is created and disseminated becomes the focal point of the agenda. If you can control the dissemination of news, and what is construed as "news," then you control what is actually covered, and, penultimately, what the people are thinking about. Any mention of the "biased" or "liberal" media has become a repeated attempt to squash any form of dissension at all. People like Ann Coulter are "propped up" to tell you, The American People, how "liberal" everything is, when, in fact, the opposite is just the case. And, people not wanting to delve, or investigate, simply accept the news hashed out to them and go on with their day. The Jeff Gannon/Guckert gay military prostitute story earlier in the year was an incredible example. When it became apparent that a significant breach of American Security had occurred and someone had committed a felony by giving this guy fraudulent credentials to the White House Press Room, an investigation and criminal charges should have occurred. Everyone I talked to (I have relatives that work in DC and are close to the government) stated that Gannon was actually Karl Rove's boytoy and that the story would eventually come out. It hasn't and it won't. Why? Because the American People continue to drink the Kool-Aid being given to them. Another sterling example is the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson/Robert Novak story: anyone with any knowledge of American jurisprudence knows that a major crime of TREASON has occurred and yet--there is nothing being done about it. Richard Nixon resigned for far less and Bill Clinton was impeached due to his sexual indiscretions. This is ABUSE OF POWER at the highest levels wherein there should be immediate investigations into both of these matters (and this is just the tip of the iceberg) and highly probably impeachment and resignation of BOTH of the oil barons that currently reside in the Executive Branch.
2) We have been living in an ERA OF MISDIRECTION with the media. It's much easier to feed/shovel the Runaway Bride story, the Michael Jackson Trial or the Natalee Holloway story, or Baseball Players on Steroids, than hold anyone accountable for above cited indiscretions (for that matter, you could IMPRISON easily three-quarters of this current bunch of neocons for lying, perjury, abuse of power, and any number of infractions to the Geneva Convention. The Iraq Story, far and away the most compelling and convoluted news story of the last decade, is grounds for every major felony charge you could ever hope to cite. Felonies everywhere you look, massive graft and corruption on a scale unprecedented since Ancient Rome, cronyism, Greed and Hubris the likes of which we've never seen, and an uncaring antipathy towards the People (whom they serve at the PLEASURE of, hanging chads or no) that will eventually be their downfall. [Sidebar: Whatever your opinion of Bill Clinton, the man had an instinct for what to do during times of calamity and catastrophe and natural disaster--the current occupant sees fit to play golf a day and a half after unprecedented destruction to the Southern Part of the country. Then, finally, four days later, instead of going to the place of destruction and talking to the bereaved and bankrupt, he decides the "non-messier" option to fly over and look pensively down at what "the people" must be going through is the way to go, and then fly home to curl up with the latest adventures of "My Pet Goat"--reads better upside-down anyway].
What awful retribution we must expect of ourselves, if this is how we are going to treat our fellows in the very Blue Section of Louisiana (and don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise--they're being viewed in their full, highly disposable "Blue-ness") in this, one of the oddest and most provocative and devastating disasters we've seen since 9/11.
New Orleans is history as an American city. The toxic jumbalaya swirling around the dead bodies and the rotting lumber and raw sewage may just engulf this whole country.
Apathy in the end is a Seven Deadly. Pride goeth before the fall. . .
I shudder at where we are today. The troops have been abandoned; now the American people are being abandoned. The superpower is one major catalytic event away from being dethroned.
And still people refuse to read.
Barry J.
3) As someone who was an original supporter of the War in Iraq, I now cannot see how anyone is still convinced that the reasons for the war were at best obfuscated and at worst straight up lies. Seriously, Colin Powell stated in his UN speech that not only did Sadaam have WMD but we knew exactly where at least some of them were. Quoted directly from the transcript of said speech:
You would have to believe in the highest of conspiracy theories to determine that Bush, et al lied to the country. In fact, I dare say you would have to assume that all high ranking politicians from each party were in on the LIE!
You have to understand that numerous prominent democrats believed Saddam had WMDs. With this understanding it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements.
It's just not possible -- and that's before we even consider the numerous other pieces of exculpating evidence like: all the non-American intelligence agencies that also believed Saddam had WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet famously saying it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam posessed WMD's, etc...
When you add it all up, it appears that George Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it.
Those who today want to call Bush a liar are trying to score political points against a man they do not like or do not agree with. This is perfectly acceptible. However, to continue singaling Bush out as a liar is simply unjust and frankly not true!
Furthermore, the continued insistance as WMDs as the only reason for the war is bogus. The burden was on Saddam, not the USA or George Bush to provide the clearance and access necessary to assure he was complying with UN sanctions!
The UN itself showed that he did not comply in the following...
United Nations Resolution 1441, 8 November:
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions... in particular through Iraq's failure to co-operate with United Nations weapons inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].
We can disagree all day long about whether the actions Bush ultimatley decided were appropriate from differing worldview perspectives. There is no room for argument that Saddam did not comply with the sanctions imposed upon him post-Desert Storm. The results of this non-compliance clearly allowed for military intervention. Just because Russia, China, and France chose not to enforce their own sanctions, does not change the fact that Saddam breached his agreements as shown above!
There is your reason for the conflict...
On the war note:
When the guy in front of me turns and assails me, I do not turn to the guy behind me for retribution. I go after the cause. I do not go after the guy behind me out of fear he will attack me later.
Quickly, after 9/11, the pictures of the hijackers were all over the newsstands. Do you remember how many were Saudi Arabian?
Now take a guess how many were Iraqi...
Yeah, S.H was a bad guy. There are lots of "bad guys', just that a majority aren't in power near oil interests. They are also horribly brutal to their own and other people, but if we don't need anything from them, we don't seem to care. *** Edited 9/3/2005 8:27:58 AM UTC by Robocoaster***
They Live. We Sleep.
What if some day some country were more militarily powerful than us, and that country claimed that we were a threat to them and intended to do them harm. By the example that we have set, that country would be justified in invading our country, and by means of force changing our government.
It is the Beginning of End of Days for President Cheney and friends. . .the Puppetmaster will soon be given his comeuppance. No Neck is about to hear from people such as this:
Interviewed on CNN Today (Fox would NEVER allow this guy to speak this kind of truth):
There's a woman in a wheelchair lying with a blanket tossed over her at the stadium, while the flies and mosquitoes eat her up.
"I don't treat my dog like that," 47-year-old Daniel Edwards said as he pointed at the woman in the wheelchair. "I buried my dog." He added: "You can do everything for other countries but you can't do nothing for your own people. You can go overseas with the military but you can't get them down here."
From the mouths of the people, not the pundits, or the O'Reilly Spinners who dress everything up and twist it and Swift Boat it so that by the time it arrives on your dinner plate in front of you. . .it's something else entirely. . .
Barry J.
P.S. Jeffrey R. Smith--you are a fine student of Fox and the other cablers that have not served you well. I don't have the time or the patience at this point to rebut your points one-by-one but I could and I will OFFLINE if you like (e-mail each other). We've pretty much exhausted this madness here; we can always take our bloggings and political floggings to other web sites where we can really mix it up!!!! Play ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suffice it to say that if you STILL don't think THAT PERSON is a liar, then you are in serious denial. I have documented evidence that discusses how, less than two weeks after 9/11, they began laying the plans for how they were going to shift the theatre of operations from Afghanistan to Iraq. The "Uniter Not A Divider" simply went along with what was put before him ("What a tasty dish to set before the King"); really, he had no say in the matter. No Neck was, has, and is still calling the shots on the whole matter. The Puppet Master lets his boy clear brush, golf, run, workout, clear brush, run, workout, golf, etc., without having to worry his pretty little head about any of the details. And, besides, remember this oldie but goodie: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." May 1, 2003. Mission Accomplished, and all that. Guess you don't even consider that a lie, do you?
Remind me to not ever conduct business with you. I shudder to think what you might consider a "fair" deal.
BJW
You must be logged in to post
