Forums | MacLife

Screw it. There is no war. No war on terror. No war in Afghanistan. No war in Iraq. No war in Gaza. No war in Lebanon. Nope, no war at all. "We are at peace, and always have been at peace."
The clock struck thirteen today, and 2+2 = ?. I feel sure I know, but I just can't seem to get it. Funny...

Last edited by blank kludge (2006-07-25 6:49 pm)

resedit wrote:

The blame belongs with those who are kidnapping people and killing them, and cutting off pieces of their fingers.

Trying to say it is bush's fault is creating a scape goat for political reasons - which is really slimey.
Almost (but not quite) as slimey as saying that Hezbollah is Israel's fault.

Bush is not targeting those christians, nor is he encouraging policies in Iraq that do so.

bush=the war=this issue among many. Do the math. As you can quite clearly see, all things lead to bush.

resedit wrote:

Singling out Bush is done out of a hatred for Bush. It's just as silly as blaming Clinton for removing the inspectors in the first place.

Bush is in charge now. I also blame Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy (I could go on...).

But, Bush is the guy who wanted to run the show now.  He's doing it.  And he's doing a poor job of it, to say the least.

--

As an aside...Mr. Res, you may or may not be aware of the fact that, after Clinton, I was actually happy that Bush was elected.

"Ah," I thought, "here's a guy that will clean things up."

Boy, hoooooo boy, was I mistaken.

It is not hatred.  It is more intense and severe disappointment.

The only good, in my life, that has come of my Bush-disappointment (augmented by my Canadian concurrent "Stockwell-disappointment", for those of you in the know) is a thorough distrust of anything emanating from ANY politicians lips.   Sometime around 2002/2003 I stopped seeing politics as white or black, and switched to, mainly, shades of black and blacker.

Trust me, it's a much more refreshing way to live.

bratboy wrote:

bratboy wrote:

You're acting as if we had no choice but to invade Iraq, overthrow the regime, and then carry out the exact course of action that we've taken.

What's your point?
That we underestimated the response in Iraq? Sure. Hindsight is 20/20.
The League of Nations under-estimated Hitler. Hindsight is 20/20.

resedit wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Bush can be blamed for the overall policy that launched the war, and the troop levels. And if he wants to claim the role of commander in chief, then a lot more failure can be heaped on his shoulders.

Does Saddam Hussein bear any blame, or just Bush?
What about the people actually doing the killing, or just Bush?

Bush is responsible for his own decisions. As weak an individual as I believe him to be, his actions were not dictated by Hussein or anyone else. If they were, he has no business being a president.

Bush took it upon his leadership to occupy Iraq and to take on the responsibilities and obligations of an occupation.  The ongoing violence is a result of the failure to secure the nation. Responsibility fo that failure rests with the coalition. The rest is excuses. There may be good and powerful reasons for the failures, but they are failures nevertheless.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2006-07-25 7:03 pm)

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

I don't think that there's another option to be had.

Of course you don't.

If there is evil - it has to be Bush. It can't possibly be those insurgents who do not want a succesful democracy in Iraq. Nope - it has to be Bush to blame.

Now - would you blame yourself if Bush called you and asked you what to do, and you said pull out, resulting in even more slaughter?

Nope - you'd blame Bush.

Since no matter what, you are going to blame Bush, the right has absolutely no reason to heed a single word you say - because no matter what, you are going to blame Bush. You are being unreasonable here. Where you get your hatred from doesn't matter, but since you like to talk about Christian attitudes and how other christians should see things, perhaps you should read what the Bible has to say about hatred.

What part don't you understand? bush went into war on a whim and is responsible for the aftermath 100%. Do you blame others for your mistakes or are you a man who is accountable for his actions?

bush made it obvious he is very much less than a man when he refused to admit to ANY mistakes (regarding the war or anything else for that matter) until very recently. It was also very obvious that the only reason bushy finally admitted some mistakes is because the public was demanding it and he was low in the polls. Like everything else this guy does, it was pure pandering. Doesn't take a brain surgeon, does it?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

What's your point?
That we underestimated the response in Iraq? Sure. Hindsight is 20/20.
The League of Nations under-estimated Hitler. Hindsight is 20/20.

No,  my point is that you're attempting to transfer culpability for the invasion to the people we invaded as if we had no choice in the matter and they forced us to the take exact course of action that we've taken.

We chose our course of action.  That course of action had consequences.  If not for our action, the consequences would not have occurred.

The invasion was our choice, and the choice of Brittain and a few other nations.
Kidnapping, killing, and mutilating Christians is not our choice - that is the choice of certain militants that do not want a democratic Iraq. That is what you don't seem to comprehend.

Blame the US - not the militants - it makes you popular and gets you more dates.

Ribtorus wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I wonder how far lack of responsibility by commanders in chief can be taken.  Someone's in charge of security afterall, and what amounts to incompetence seems to get an easy pass.

Its not the NYPDs fault if they fail to prevent you from getting mugged on the city streets.

Those responsible for security carry the burden of failure.
Those responsible for mugging me enjoyed a measure of success.

It goes beyond that. The mayor of NY did not cause a war in NY which then caused the prevalence of muggers. Steyr argument is very illogical and does not match up to to the argument at hand in any way.

wellfleation wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Its not the NYPDs fault if they fail to prevent you from getting mugged on the city streets.

Those responsible for security carry the burden of failure.
Those responsible for mugging me enjoyed a measure of success.

It goes beyond that. The mayor of NY did not cause a war in NY which then caused the prevalence of muggers. Steyr argument is very illogical and does not match up to to the argument at hand in any way.

Baby steps.

Ribtorus wrote:

There's almost a 'Dear Leader' mentality when it comes to defending Bush in the face of his obvious failure.

Not even worthy of a response.
There is a clear "Blame Bush" mentallity for whatever happens that can somewhow, no matter how much of a stretch, be linked to Bush.

I bet if the DC sewars backed up, someone here would blame bush for taking a smurf at the wrong time.

resedit wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

There's almost a 'Dear Leader' mentality when it comes to defending Bush in the face of his obvious failure.

Not even worthy of a response.
There is a clear "Blame Bush" mentallity for whatever happens that can somewhow, no matter how much of a stretch, be linked to Bush.

I bet if the DC sewars backed up, someone here would blame bush for taking a smurf at the wrong time.

No. Is Bush not commander in chief , the self proclaimed 'decider'?

If he takes on responsibility for sewers, then maybe.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2006-07-25 7:17 pm)

Steyr AUG wrote:

I never would have thought that the police in fact allowed me to get robbed. Fascinating.

You don't believe that local governments and police forces face criticism when they're unable to adequately control crime?



First of all, I don't understand why you're stuck on drawing some parallel to the situation being discussed in this thread with that of some city police force and crime, but beyond that...how can you be unaware of the fact that government agencies are expected to perform in a competent manner, even when their duties require reacting to the actions of outside forces that they cannot personally control?

You know - when I was 17, I was mugged at a bus stop.
There were campus security guards right there when it happened. I didn't blame them for not preventing it, though they possibly could have. I blamed the guy who mugged me.

I also did not blame AC Transit for making the college bus stop the hub where the local high school thugs changed busses.

Last edited by resedit (2006-07-25 7:37 pm)