georgym Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by Drunk ,... NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush would lose narrowly to a Democratic Party candidate if the U.S. presidential election were held now because of concerns about possible war and the economy, according to an opinion poll published on Thursdayhttp://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-politics-bush.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by gmccookny NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush would lose narrowly to a Democratic Party candidate if the U.S. presidential election were held now because of concerns about possible war and the economy, according to an opinion poll published on Thursdayhttp://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-politics-bush.html As usual, you show no logic when attempting to make points. Now you're mixing up the war and the economy. Any presidential candidate who's leading the country during a recession is not likely to fare well in a re-election bid. People associate a bad economy with who's an office, and a good economy with who's in office, even though economists have stated time and time again that the President has very little impact on macroeconomic changes. This isn't an American recession it's a GLOBAL recession. Read the Economist, read Financial Times, educate yourself. That's a totally separate topic from the whole Iraq issue. And anyway, the poll clearly states that President Bush would lose if the election were held TODAY. Things change in 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by msoprano13 and what happens if this country goes into iraq bombs the hell outta them and they do not find any weapons.....the unted states govt will look real credible then just as they do now... I'd worry less about the united states' credibility and worry more about what happens if this country goes into iraq, bombs the hell out of them and we DO NOT find any weapons... begging the question "well, then where are they?"because they DO exist. We know. That worries me far more than watching pissants bitch about a government's image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by Drunk As usual, you show no logic when attempting to make points. Now you're mixing up the war and the economy. Any presidential candidate who's leading the country during a recession is not likely to fare well in a re-election bid. People associate a bad economy with who's an office, and a good economy with who's in office, even though economists have stated time and time again that the President has very little impact on macroeconomic changes. This isn't an American recession it's a GLOBAL recession. Read the Economist, read Financial Times, educate yourself. That's a totally separate topic from the whole Iraq issue. HELLO McFly>?/? EARTH to McFLY it says WAR and ECONOMY, the 2 together. Here's some logic for your drunkin' noggin: Bush is to intellect as South Central L.A. is to safe.Bush is neither competent to lead our nation (although i do praise his handling of 9-11) nor safe to lead it. He has too many carryover's from his father's administration, and they all look like they're going to croak any minute.You can keep rambling, giving us statistics, but i don't think any sane, normal person trusts our leader as far as we can throw him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 d/p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by gmccookny d/p Did you read what I wrote? I said things change in two years. Bush I went from over 80 percent approval to losing the election in '92. Show me the same poll in two years and I might give a shit. K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trancerxn112 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 honestly these little trifles are pointless... each side is trying to prove why they are right and why the other side is wrong... some actually do a great job but the rest of you are just using hearsay and rumors to fuel your opinions so id like to give my 2 cents into the argument. First, there are a substantial amount of reports that prove that Iraq and namely the dictator Saddam has many rockets, nerve, chemical and biological agents that are unaccounted for. Second, in his declaration to the UN weapon inspectors a 700 something page essay he claimed he had no weapons but a month and a half he conveniently located a few rockets and promptly disposed of them hmmm how can you just FIND rockets... i mean change in the couch is one thing but lethal rockets that can carry a nuclear, chemical or biological payload... u dont just pull them out of a pair of jeans and say "LUCKY!". Third, the countries that stand against us arent doing so because they disagree with what the US, Britain and Spain are trying to push they are just saying that we did not give them enough time to comply with resolution 1441 which was passed UNANIMOUSLY by a 15-0 vote. Fourth, will the yuppy liberals please choose their words better and stop using the group think method to fuel there passionate responses... i dont doubt that they feel strongly about their opinion but try to listen to what the other side is saying... same goes for the pro-war people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackorn Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Take this into consideration- If the Palestians had the technology and the resources that the Israeli's had, they wouldn't hesitate one second to kill every single one of them. Do the Israelis go ahead and murder people indiscriminately? Or do they wait until they are murdered through terror tactics to retaliate? The same goes for the entire Middle East. If we were a third world nation and THEY had our weaponry we would have been toast ages ago. They are a people with no technology save what was given to them by other countries because they have money, from oil (which they couldn't even pump themselves without us going there and showing them how). If the roles were reversed there would be no resolutions, no diplomacy. Just destruction because we are different. Being politically correct is all fine and dandy until we're faced with a crisis like this. Wake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivehadit Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp Go to Original t r u t h o u t | Letter U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling Letter of Resignation, to: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003 Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. John Brady Kiesling Go to Original U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War' By Felicity Barringer New York Times Thursday 27 February 2003 UNITED NATIONS ¯ A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq. The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson." Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision. He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues. "No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war." Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department policy not to comment on personnel matters. In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners." His letter continued: "Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests." It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in the State Department's culture of public support for policy, regardless of private feelings, to resign with this kind of public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy. Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game ¯ we have a very strong premium on loyalty." (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) © Copyright 2002 by TruthOut.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghhhhhost Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by cintron But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride? --Khalil Gibran, The Book Of The Prophet. reading the particular passages u bold-faced..just made me think of Bush...not Saadam as u probably intended to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by njangel No, that is the problem, ppl dont think - They just want to go in there & bomb the shit out of the country. People just dont think, they speak & they think the louder they yell the more they will be heard. njangel, You're telling us that The US government hasn't been discussing, thinking, and planning against Saddam since President Bush Sr.? You think that we "just want to go in there and bomb the shit out of the country"? ???? This topic didn't just surface. It's not like we announced four weeks ago that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The clock has been ticking too long--there has to be confrontation. I do agree with you on the anti-american remark. I am 100% against war HOWEVER, I feel that you can't be lukewarm in situations like these. You either support the US or you don't. Remember, when it comes to the game of politics---- the rules are the same for every country.Saddam is ready to go to war with us. SO is North Korea. You watch your back first. So don't potray America as the evil big brother.....---I'm sure there are many iraqi citizens who disagree and dislike Saddam. But when war starts you should support your nation or just get out. That's all. In a perfect world there are no governments, and there are no countries....-iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trancerxn112 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by iliana In a perfect world there are no governments, and there are no countries....-iliana That sounds like an anarchy without governments to bring order to the people it would be darwanism all over again "survival of the fittest." Besides theres no such thing as civilization without governments even if there was no central governments people would still band together and create small town like governments and elect a leader and call it the tribe of america our system is just a lot bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by trancerxn112 That sounds like an anarchy without governments to bring order to the people it would be darwanism all over again "survival of the fittest." Besides theres no such thing as civilization without governments even if there was no central governments people would still band together and create small town like governments and elect a leader and call it the tribe of america our system is just a lot bigger. ( Can't you just wallow in optimism for one freaking second and pretend that the Lord of the Rings & The Wizard of Oz are both true stories!! gEEEZZZZ!!!!!!!!)I wasn't being literal. You gotta admit the "idea" of government is pretty lame. I'm madly in love with laissez-faire philosophy but as we all know, that has major loopholes. Why...because we have so many OTHER countries and OTHER governments.I'd like to go back to living in the Inca dynasty and partaking in human sacrifices. ----- a little more spiritual don't you think? -iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trancerxn112 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by iliana ( Can't you just wallow in optimism for one freaking second and pretend that the Lord of the Rings & The Wizard of Oz are both true stories!! gEEEZZZZ!!!!!!!!)I wasn't being literal. You gotta admit the "idea" of government is pretty lame. I'm madly in love with laissez-faire philosophy but as we all know, that has major loopholes. Why...because we have so many OTHER countries and OTHER governments.I'd like to go back to living in the Inca dynasty and partaking in human sacrifices. ----- a little more spiritual don't you think? -iliana well Laissez-Faire is the free-market idea that America was aiming for got close but didnt actually get a firm grasp on the idealism of it... Lord of the Rings = good movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 7 Author Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by njangel See this is where I have a problem, anti-american. I love how ppl call liberals or ppl who disagree with Bush's action "anti-americans". When this all started, I said we shouldn’t go to war with a part of the Security Council. So none of really "know" whats going on - but a lot people watch CNN and read a newspaper & just go along with what the govt. says, they don’t think for themselves (not saying you, yourself do). But yet they go around putting other ppl.'s beliefs down. People have a lot of fucking nerve. I agree with what you are saying. there are people on here that post that do claim to think they know exactly what they are talking about.when like you said, nothing is a known fact just everyones own opinion. anything i type is my opinion and i have never stated otherwise..and i don't think people that don't like the president or disagree with his actions are anti-americans.. People on here say themselves they are anti-american. i never labeled anyone..I just can't understand why some people on here feel there is no danger to us and our families and that there are other solutions when it seems to me there are no other solutions, those solutions have been worn out already.. but noo apparently people on here see a better way and they know what they would do if they were the president .. thats all.. ahh i see what a long thread this has become.. after a long day at work and my head clouded, don't know if i will read but maybe i will make myself just cause i started this topic.. which by the way u go everyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 LOLLLOL Nice Pic! Question: Since when is "Liberal" a bad word????? And why is it associated with anti-war loving people???????????????I'm sure there are many conservatives who dont want war, no??-iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by girly sassa- i would like to know how you would feel if we didn't go to war and saddam used his weapons and killed several of your family members.. how would you feel then? that there was a reason why they were killed adnd that they deserved it? Thats what you seem to say.. SHE WOULDNT GIVE THREE FUCKS, SHE IS ANTI-AMERICA. AS A MATTER OF FACT I THINK SHE MIGHT RUN OUT INTO THE STREETS AND CELEBRATE LIKE THE PARASITES DID.... EXCUSE ME I MEANT TO SAY THE PALESTINES DID ON 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Originally posted by iliana LOLLLOL Nice Pic! Question: Since when is "Liberal" a bad word????? And why is it associated with anti-war loving people???????????????I'm sure there are many conservatives who dont want war, no??-iliana LIBERAL - BAD,CONSERVATIVE - GOOD, AND I BELIEVE NO ONE WANTS A WAR, BUT ITS A MUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eccentricmofo Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Let me just say reading these posts have made me realize beyond a shadow of any doubt that forums and threads are horrible places to hold debates. Phrases, information, etc. being taken out of context insanely....oy...just all of you guys meet up somewhere and talk for an hour I swear that there would never be such a long confusing thread. So, with me having a few points to make I decided to quote a few people to do such..Originally posted by CitronWhen you state your opinons, admit that they're opinions and NOT in ANY WAY based upon anything of substance other than your own emotions. To be honest, if everything on clubplanet was filtered for emotion, there would only be two posts every day...lol, and also you have to realize that this is a venting of sorts, all of us have hardly any (actual) control over what occurs with this whole mess so that is why this thread exists.--Khalil Gibran, The Book Of The Prophet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nympho69 Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Originally posted by sassa what speech? and what did he say that you agreed with? :laugh: i <3 sassabush seriously lacks in passion and the ability to motivateim not exactly for war cause i really dont know the whole truthbut i can say for sure if i were the president i would at least be able to convince the majority of the people in the U.S to support warthat just brings me to an interesting question, why hasnt bush tried using propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war???i dont know but anyone who doesnt seemed convinced themselves when speaking, isnt really fooling anyone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Originally posted by nympho69 that just brings me to an interesting question, why hasnt bush tried using propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war???i dont know but anyone who doesnt seemed convinced themselves when speaking, isnt really fooling anyone.... when does bush NOT use propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njangel Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 illiana (sp?) - I didnt mean our govt, I meant the ppl who go around saying we should blow up Iraq & anyone else who we dont like off the face of the earth - I know our govt & the UN have tried, I give them creditgirly - I didnt mean to jump down your throat, in other arguments Ive had & on other message boards, liberals get lables anti-american frequently. I take it kinda of personally, I love this country & just becuse I question things, I dont feel I should be judged for that, this argument is a no-win situation, but at least your not one of those ppl who puts down liberals, thats refreshing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Originally posted by dnice35 LIBERAL - BAD,CONSERVATIVE - GOOD, AND I BELIEVE NO ONE WANTS A WAR, BUT ITS A MUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME. so a liberal that supports the war is bad....and a conservative that is against the war is good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Originally posted by dnice35 LIBERAL - BAD,CONSERVATIVE - GOOD, AND I BELIEVE NO ONE WANTS A WAR, BUT ITS A MUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 1. I wasn't directing my question to you. 2. I've ALREADY stated that War is inevitable. 3.You're a waste of sperm. DO NOT REPSOND TO MY POSTS. -iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Originally posted by nympho69 :laugh: i <3 sassabush seriously lacks in passion and the ability to motivateim not exactly for war cause i really dont know the whole truthWhy don't you try educating yourself then?? Don't you think the fate of your future is important?????Tip: Go to Barnes and Noble and pick up "Time", "Newsweek", "UsNews", and when you get home stop watching Buffy and turn to CNN. but i can say for sure if i were the president i would at least be able to convince the majority of the people in the U.S to support warIf you were president the United States would be a third world country. Maybe you should study home economics??? that just brings me to an interesting question, why hasnt bush tried using propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war???i dont know but anyone who doesnt seemed convinced themselves when speaking, isnt really fooling anyone.... Man, can i send you on a student "trip" to Iraq????? Maybe after you get back home, your fucking stupidity will be gone! -iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.