Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit...

by Seeker 64 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  myMichelle

  After watching the speech last night, my initial impressions were pretty positive. The prez covered an area of prime importance to me by emphasizing that individuals should not be singled out due to ethnicity or religion and also that we are not at war with the Afghanistan people. Like a poster above-Trilobite?- mentioned I would have liked stronger emphasis on this point, IMO there hasn't been enough in the last 10 days.

  Also like Trilobite I was surprised at the ommission of Canada. The US has no greater friend than Britain? Huh. I know the playing of the US's national anthem at Buckingham Palace was a jaw-dropper, but I (in my apparent ignorance) thought that Canada was a buddy too.

  It was a well delivered speech, lots of standing O's. It got to the point where I started to notice the people who didn't stand every time, makes me wonder about what's going on behind the scenes.

  Kinda vague on the "how" and on the definition of "terrorists". Will this "war" putter out after Al Queda is nabbed? Will it include the hate groups here in the States? Kinda like the war on drugs...

  Michelle
• 

  hawkaw

  Seeker,

  I just read over Julie's comments. I still stand by my statements wrt to Bush's speech "delivery".

  However Julie indicated that there was another thread where you were in a debate wrt this policy. What the hell was going on? Seeing we seem to be thinking about the same concerns wrt to this policy which thread is Julie refering too.

  MyMichelle,

  The omission for Canada was just like the omission for Mexico or the omission for France or the omission for Germany etc... Britian was given special mention because Tony Blair was in the "stands" watching the show in 3-D right beside the first lady. Optics optics optics. Canada was mentioned in a round about way - eg. Bush mentioned the article V by NATO which Canada belongs too etc. Quite frankly and as a Canadian, I am glad he left us out.

  hawk
• 

  Julie

  Hi Hawk--

  Here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=12118&site=3

  In the end everyone came to their senses, like in this thread on Bush's speech, but it got much uglier in the other thread.

  Julie
• 

  Seeker

  hawkaw,

  I don't think that thread directly talked about these policies. It was wide-ranging, and it got ugly, but on different topics.

  I'd be happy to explain my views on this war against terrorism, but they won't be popular around here, that's for sure.
• 

  hawkaw

  Seeker,

  Don't get me wrong here but I am a big fan of war for certain situations as long as there is an exit strategy. I will even go and do the nasty too. Yet I am looking at this mess and don't see the exit strategy. I see a lot of things that just aren't right here. Like, just the thought that "this is a new type of warfare" spin drives me nuts. After listening to the spin I gotta ask - What the hell has been going on in Israel and other places over the last 100 years.

  I sense you have concerns. I don't know if they are mine. I let you in on a few of my concerns a few posts ago. You surprised me with even saying you had concerns - Let me here you.

  BTW I am at the computer until about 4:30pm.

  hawk
• 

  Seeker

  hawk,

  My concerns:

  a) Who is responsible? bin Laden? Probably, but I don't trust the government to tell us the truth about the matter. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be some other terrorist group, and the U.S. decided to pin the blame on bin Laden to get revenge for past attacks. Not saying this is the case, but I felt uncomfortable that bin Laden was named on the air within minutes of the WTC attack.

  b) What is the goal? To "rid the world of evil-doers"? That's laughably impossible. Today, the president's spokesperson said, "The president's goal is the cessation of terrorism." Very nice, but impossible. Sounds like the bad old days of Vietnam, making the world safe for democracy. When your goal is open-ended, you never reach it. There will ALWAYS be more terrorists (new ones are being born today). There needs to be better focus. Or maybe there is better focus and Bush is just lying to us.
• 

  hawkaw

  Seeker,

  Bang on!!

  I fully agree and then some.

  This exit strategy really has me worried. You have to know your end game. And in this case, they have yet to define it - that is war insanity!

  They can easily put in the proper security to correct the problem at home. Stronger spying would solve a lot of what happened. I guess the thought of actually going for an improved foreign policy in that part of the world would not be a good 30 second sound bite but it needs to be done.

  I guess if this is revenge - why not say so - Show the evidence to the American people and go after him, his organization and Afghanistan. That has yet to happen but the ships are moving or have moved into position. Bush Sr. had to do it prior to the gulf war. Why the hell is the lame street press letting him away with it never mind the democratic party is beyond me (except I understand the optics of being depicted as anti - American).

  The country thing really has my mind boggled. Russia is going after those people in Chetyna (sp?) again. They would be considered Terrorists by the Russians. Yet we were (are?) outraged with the Russians actions and not the Terrorists! So that leads me to the question - just what the hell is a Terrorist in this case? Why has it not been defined? He is now sending 1,000s of Americans into harms way without this most important piece of information. There must be checks and balances even in war.

  The terrorist definition by Bush reminds me of the "abstain from blood" slogan by the WT. Abstain we have come to find out actually means the blood products the GB says you can't have and only in certain methods.

  There is a good thing I see in all of this. For the frist time there is a true unity in the world's population and countries. I hope it lasts.

  hawk
• 

  Seeker

  Why the hell is the lame street press letting him away with it

  Because the press has been totally emasculated. It's been happening gradually after the right-wing grew incensed at the press for what it did to Nixon. It sped up after corporations began buying up the media companies, and encorcing profit-first rules while cutting back on resources, as well as insisting that their reporters not report anything that would hurt the parent's bottom line. Finally, during the Gulf War, the Pentagon explicitly censored the news coverage. Unlike with Vietnam, the reporters went right along quietly.

  Today, if you want the truth about America, you cannot rely solely on American media. They will not tell you the whole story, and their amazing lack of questioning at this moment in time is more evidence of this.
• 

  hawkaw

  And you know seeker, the odd thing about your comment (which is true in my opinion ) is that most (90 percent?) of the journalists are democrats and not republicans.

  Their absolute lack of questioning is completely beyond me too. Even the New York Slimes doesn't really want to stir the pot in this. The only thing I can think of is that they are going to wait for a while and let everything cool off. But you know, a lot of stupidness can happen in a short time.

  hawk
• 

  Seeker

  It's not surprising to me, really. A reporter's personal beliefs don't indicate what actually gets in print. Since the major corporations are in charge now, if a reporter submitted a story that would hurt the bottom line, it gets canned. How do you think the howling masses would react to a news story indicating bad faith on the part of the president or congress, taking advantage of this situation to push personal agendas? They would call that newspaper or TV station "un-American" and boycott. That hurts the bottom line, and thus no such story gets written.

  Once people calm down, perhaps then we can learn more of the truth of what is happening. But right now if you don't wave the flag like everyone else, yer a dirty traitor. Reminding Americans about the right of free speech is wasted nowadays.