Bush's war on terrorism a failure?

by frankiespeakin 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Mil,

  Calling them brain-dead is not accurate in my opinion, and shows a lot of disrespect. It is possible to be grateful for our military and opposed to the war in Iraq. I'm not quite sure why this viewpoint, that I feel a lot of Americans share, is so difficult to grasp without descending into calling people brain-dead.

  I stand partially corrected. I never meant they are not totally braindead in the absolute sense as can be seen from the context in which I used the word. My use of the term braindead was only wiht reguard to letting a government manipulate a person to pick up a gun and kill anyone the government says to kill and suspend all thier moral judgements. I realize that some in the military have refused to fight in a war they thought was unjustified and have suffered court martial and in prisonment, to them I take my hat off.

  Niether am I implying, by my use of the term that those that jion the military are stupid or lack thinking ability. Many in the military I'm sure are very intelligent, but as far as deserving honor by me because they have joined the military, well that is another story, they do deserve to be honored by the particular government they they are fighting for, but not from me, for I see nothing honorable in it.

  As far as having anarchist leaning this may be true but only in so far as I am against governments forcing people to comply to "all" there edicts. I realize we need some form of government, but do not feel the need to let the government dictate to me in matters I consider strictly personal choice, and definately feel the US as well as other types of government get way to envovled in matters that should be strictly personal choice. I think of myself more as a free thinker, and willing to comply with governmental request I consider reasonable and for the wellfare of others but not resticting it to just the welfare of those of a particular nation but all of humanity.
• 

  My MILs worst nightmare, a nonJW

  As far as having anarchist leaning this may be true but only in so far as I am against governments forcing people to comply to "all" there edicts. I realize we need some form of government, but do not feel the need to let the government dictate to me in matters I consider strictly personal choice, and definately feel the US as well as other types of government get way to envovled in matters that should be strictly personal choice. I think of myself more as a free thinker, and willing to comply with governmental request I consider reasonable and for the wellfare of others but not resticting it to just the welfare of those of a particular nation but all of humanity.

  Frankie,

  What government allows you to pick and choose what edicts you want to follow and what edicts you don't? What governments have a system where the individual liberties of the individual are recognized? In a way, I think the US is most suitable to your way of thinking.

  There is no draft, so you can object to the war without actually being forced to go to war. (regardless of how you feel about the military)

  As a citizen, you have the ability to start or participate in grass roots campaigns that can eventually lead to legislation. Civil Rights Laws, MADD, Amber Alert Law, etc...

  If you disagree with the President's or any other politicians way of handling things, you can vote them out of office. There are no Presidents for life.

  So, recognizing that we need some form of government, (your words)..... what government represents the closest match to your ideology?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Back to the topic of this thread.

  Listening and reading Bush's fielding of questions from reporters from the offical WHitehouse web site, Bush says it is better to fight terrorism in Iraq than to fight it in the homeland. To me it sounds like Bush is trying to save his own skin, no doubt he is very worried about being assasinated by terrorist. Even though he will have secret service(SS) protecting him while in office and for the rest of his life, I'm sure he realizes that the protection he and his family recieves while president will not be as great when he leaves office, and so maybe his over reaction to terrorism as seen by having Iraq invaded on unverified reports (rumors), that they have weapons of mass destructions was motivated by his own insecurities and fears that he might be the next target.
• 

  My MILs worst nightmare, a nonJW

  maybe his over reaction to terrorism as seen by having Iraq invaded on unverified reports (rumors), that they have weapons of mass destructions was motivated by his own insecurities and fears that he might be the next target.

  or maybe Bush honestly believed that he was doing the right thing, however instead of listening to the advice of the military (Gen Shinsecki who said we need to go in with a force of 450,000 to stabalize the country after we take Hussein out) he listened to a civilian, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. It could be as simple as he made a terrific strategic miscalculation.
• 

  MinisterAmos

  I don't know, I for one don't even lock my doors anymore now that Saddam has been captured and given the death penalty. I feel sooooo much safer!

  It does apparently take a rocket scientist to know that you don't take the side of the enemy just because you don't like the policies of your president.

  Dude we don't even know WHO the enemy is, WHAT he intends to do, WHEN or WHERE he intends to do it. Not that anyone we are currently fighting is my enemy anyway. What does a civil war in Iraq have to do with daily life in my neighborhood? NOT A DAMN THING!

  The only thing we can be sure of is the WHY part. It's because we invaded his country and fried a lot of his country men with ZERO provocation.

  How many Iraqis were on the 9/11 jets again? Oh yeah, that's right Z_E_R_O!
• 

  frankiespeakin

  MIL,

  I think the US is most suitable to your way of thinking.

  There is no draft, so you can object to the war without actually being forced to go to war. (regardless of how you feel about the military)

  As a citizen, you have the ability to start or participate in grass roots campaigns that can eventually lead to legislation. Civil Rights Laws, MADD, Amber Alert Law, etc...

  The US is one of many governments has all these things you mentions here. We are not the first not the best government in granting these types of relative freedoms, take a look at most European governments they offer much of the same.

  If you disagree with the President's or any other politicians way of handling things, you can vote them out of office. There are no Presidents for life.

  I would vote, but realistically you only have 2 or 3 choices in most elections, democrate & republican. not much of a choice. It is like 2 chioces between which is the lessor evil. None so far gets my vote. To run for president takes lots of money, which means you have to offer something to the rich to get the money to run, so in reality capitalism determines who have a chance to run for president and it is in effect between a choice between only 2 parties, and sometimes 3. Not much of a choice for those who favor niether.

  So, recognizing that we need some form of government, (your words)..... what government represents the closest match to your ideology?

  I don't know, to answer that question it would take a lot of study, for those that think the US government is the one that grants the most freedom, I would say you have to be brainwashed to believe the US is the greatest grantor of freedom of all the countries of the world.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  it's not that bush's war on terrorism is a failure, it's that the people who voted him into office have failed the world, including the women and children and old people getting blown to bits in the middle east. not to say that dems are any better. you know, left wing/right wing: two wings on the same bird. and the bird is retarded and going down.

  but even further, the concept of a war on terror is a failure, because you do not achieve peace with war. you might get some short term security, but who wants that? you get peace with peace. you would think that modern civilizations would understand this simple and powerful concept. peaceful change is not going to come from a political solution. it's going to come grassroots from the inner elevation of it's people's consciousness. politics will take care of itself when this is done.

  if there is fighting inside a person (or nation), then there is going to be fighting outside too.

  if america was truly civilized inside, they would be taking peace and civility to the world, instead of war and greed.

  same goes for the dudes they are in a holy war with.

  same goes for canada. canada should be ashamed to be in afghanistan. it's simple: if someone (or a nation) close to you *creates* conflict and struggle for themselves, you do not join them in the struggle and conflict. you show them the way out of it compassionately. but alas, canada has just become america.

  tetra
• 

  SixofNine

  Goodmonday, tetra,

  "you might get some short term security, but who wants that?"

  Not those Tutsi cockroaches, or their cockroach spawn.

  "it's going to come grassroots from the inner elevation of it's people's consciousness."

  Like in Ireland?

  I think you shortchange politics. I can't think of much good in this world that hasn't come about through politics.
• 

  SixofNine

  "but alas, canada has just become america."

  Let me assure you, it hasn't. It very easily could however, if the Canadian people decide to let politics take care of itself. The extremely wealthy already have a strong political advantage, just by virtue of having lots of money to affect politics. The extremely wealthy (and the extremely conservative/non-progressive and the extremely religious, for that matter) will not "let politics take care of itself". Never have, and never will.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Six,

  I think you shortchange politics. I can't think of much good in this world that hasn't come about through politics.

  As man has evolved politics has played its role, but its existance has been like a short blip in the steam of time, it too will pass. Politics is a double edge sword bringing its good and bad. As man evolves it has been responsible for mass subjegation of the human species and over population of the earth which threatens all life, as we destroy so much of the natural enviroment and disrupt the eccosphere. Perhaps we will be grow in consciousness where we become more enviromentally friendly, after we have gone thru a decimation of our species thru global warming, and other disasters caused by our stock piling of WMD.

  I think the earth has certain natural controls to keep population steady states or under control, which have kept us at a population more or less harmless size for millions of years. To day the rapid increase in human population has been like a cancer cell that nolonger multiplies according need of the body but grows out of control until the death of the body or the natural defences of the body arrest it. Perhaps at that time politics will be a thing of the past or human consciousness will be greater and more intelligent I don't know.