John McBush is funny (1 Viewer)

[DadsDream]

"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox. "And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with (enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq) and so we were fashioning policy along those lines."

All I see here is Bush reminding everyone of the hand he was dealt by Clinton.

 

[blackadder]

Simply illustrating what happened to cause the change in the "a more humble foreign policy" to which you alluded...as a reminder and a caution about overly optimistic idealism.

I am not optimistic, nor am I an idealist.

I am a realist. I mistrust authority instinctively, just like the men who wrote our Constitution and structured our government so as to diffuse power and undermine the natural tendency towards its abuse.

9/11 explains and justifies rooting Al Queda out of Afghanistan.

It did not justify its use as a pretext for unecessarily spreading the war to Iraq based on contrived evidence.

Let's just skip the degenration into "slam dunk" etc. There was no WMD and enough people knew that that they set up an entirely new office in the Pentagon just to fabricate a case.

 

[DadsDream]

I am not optimistic, nor am I an idealist.

I am a realist. I mistrust authority instinctively, just like the men who wrote our Constitution and structured our government so as to diffuse power and undermine the natural tendency towards its abuse.

9/11 explains and justifies rooting Al Queda out of Afghanistan.

It did not justify its use as a pretext for unecessarily spreading the war to Iraq based on contrived evidence.

Let's just skip the degenration into "slam dunk" etc. There was no WMD and enough people knew that that they set up an entirely new office in the Pentagon just to fabricate a case.

So, you're admitting that 9/11 was an adequate reason to change from "a more humble foreign policy" to which you referred earlier. Cool.

 

[blackadder]

So, you're admitting that 9/11 was an adequate reason to change from "a more humble foreign policy" to which you referred earlier. Cool.

No.

There is nothing in "humble" that implies you do not respond to an attack or address real threats.

In fact, I would go with as overwhelming a response as possible, since my previous humility would have given my the clear and indisputable moral high ground.

I just assume that even in a "humble" posture that foregoes meddling in the domestic affaris of other countries you still have the obligation to respond to the actual attackers, not to use the attack as a pretext for another agenda.

 

[THAJCODE]

 

[jpcdolphan]

that's the only reason you and saintman defend mccain on this because you don't know what he gave up.......as i said before as a former military service man , i can tell you if you are in a war/conflict you know there is a chance that you can be killed or captured.that is the chance our military members take everyday...it is par for the course...in the event you are captured you are NOT suppose to give up info on your fellow serviceman's troop movements/locations amoung other things like mccain did..there is no way to tell how many serviceman where put in even greater danger than they already where or killed as a direct result of mccain giving classified info to our enemy...as i said before, he could have told the enemy anything, how could they have told the difference? but he chose to give them the real deal...there where a lot of other u.s. serviceman in that same camp that mccain was in....they where torchured, they didn't tell the enemy ****.......now i like john mccain for the most part, but as i said before ...i do not respect this about him....not one bit

Well, some of the more experienced people (like any posters that went to SERE) are going to have to chime in on this but I'm pretty sure it's not simply a case of "telling them anything and they won't be able to tell the difference".

After all, if it was that easy, wouldn't the military tell that to everybody in case they get captured? Methinks an experienced interregator isn't going to fall for that one.

Also, in the event that a person with very high value intel is captured, aren't there procedures in place to change that info in order to minimize the damage?

What links do you have to show where McCain gave up all this priceless info but everybody else held up? That's pretty much impossible.

 

[SaintJ]

On the assumption that it's pretty unlikely that McCain, if he's the president, will be required to make any material decisions while a long-term captive of the Vietnamese government, can we fast forward to what he's done since, oh, 1990 and take it from there?

Yeesh.

No wonder the Katie Couric thread was so popular.

 

[RebSaint]

All I see here is Bush reminding everyone of the hand he was dealt by Clinton.

This idea that Bush was hamstrung by previous administrations is false. Every president has choices. This claim is completely 100% specious. He HAD choices. I don't know why you continue to put forth this idea that Bush's policies were hamstrung or shaped by the previous administration. Bush's policies don't even resemble Bush the presidential candidate, much less Clinton. Invading Iraq in many ways was the first time the doctrine of pre-emptive strike was employed in the middle east; furthermore, Iraq is the first country the U.S. has attempted to nation-build. Bush had choices which had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous administration. Furthermore, Bush decided what to do in Iraq regardless of what available intelligence regarding the real threat Iraq posed.

A more humbling foreign policy would include stop being an overly-agressive imperialist power hellbent on tranforming nation states into democracies because they have oil, or engaging in other imperialistic adventures which will invariably hurt the image of United States credibility on a global scale and create more terrorists world-wide.

I'm tired of being the world's policeman and engaging in a foreign policy which caters to a small business interest group as a opposed to a foreign policy which aligns with national priorities and the greater good.

 

[RABDOG]

Well, some of the more experienced people (like any posters that went to SERE) are going to have to chime in on this but I'm pretty sure it's not simply a case of "telling them anything and they won't be able to tell the difference".

After all, if it was that easy, wouldn't the military tell that to everybody in case they get captured? Methinks an experienced interregator isn't going to fall for that one.

Also, in the event that a person with very high value intel is captured, aren't there procedures in place to change that info in order to minimize the damage?

What links do you have to show where McCain gave up all this priceless info but everybody else held up? That's pretty much impossible.

as you said yourself, you don't know what you are talking about....see that's the value of an inside look verses somebody looking from the outside in....but anyways as i said "i" don't respect that about mccain and "that" isn't going to change, so lets move on

 

[RebSaint]

So, you're admitting that 9/11 was an adequate reason to change from "a more humble foreign policy" to which you referred earlier. Cool.

Responding to 9-11 by invading Afghanistan addressed a real threat. Invading Iraq was an imperialists' fantasy to satisfy a very small business interest group which had nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

 

[jpcdolphan]

as you said yourself, you don't know what you are talking about....

Actually, I never said that at all.

But since you're not planning on coming with any facts to back up your allegations on this, I guess the smartest course of action would be to chalk this up as being your opinion only on what McCain did or didn't do and, like you said, move on.

 

[RABDOG]

Actually, I never said that at all.

But since you're not planning on coming with any facts to back up your allegations on this, I guess the smartest course of action would be to chalk this up as being your opinion only on what McCain did or didn't do and, like you said, move on.

oh it's indead fact what mccain did.....he has said so himself..just do a little research...if you don't want to read it ,there is a whole documentary about mccain and his military service from his grandfather to his father to he himself from being shotdown and captured to surviving a firery aircraftcarrier.....John McCain: Privileged 'War Hero' Fraud, Liar, Colloborator, Traitor: Part 1 , interview with Ret. Col Earl Hopper ((Feb. 8, 2008)

http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/schanberg_mccain.html

but in the interest of moving on.....lets do that

 

[Saintman2884]

Reb, Bush did the wrong thing and trust me he has had to pay the piper and his party has long odds to win the 2008 race. But in terms of Iraq, I disagree a little bit. I think one day the iron was coming down on Saddam, whether by Bush or someone else. Clinton went on record with Larry King Live and said that he knew Saddam was a threat and made remarks that he wanted to get rid of him. So it could be debated that one day some one was going to get rid of him someday. the problem with this war is the timing and the execution. He did it the wrong way and went with his emotions rather then using logic.

Its a moot point now, and maybe its a smoke screen by the Bush people.

I think as far as the national priorities issue you mentioned Reb, the country with the most potential to give us a head ache is China. their the new Germany of the new upcoming global conflict was in the early 20th century to the UK, and the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance we now know of in history. How we deal with them is far more crucial to our future then Iraq is or ever was

 

[DadsDream]

A more humbling foreign policy would include stop being an overly-agressive imperialist power hellbent on tranforming nation states into democracies because they have oil, or engaging in other imperialistic adventures which will invariably hurt the image of United States credibility on a global scale and create more terrorists world-wide.

Quite possibly the most bombastic, unsubstantiated, unproven, accusatory piece of prose I've seen here. It is laced with words of condemnation, rife with disturbing overtones and connotations selected to elicit guilt and self-loathing among Americans.

It is a regurgitation of the discredited dogma of a failed political experiment which has cost the world far more than the US ever has, in terms of lives, in terms of property, in terms of the progress of the human race as a whole.

Pointing a finger at American and crying "Imperialist!" is wrong-headed, in my opinion. It is a label which I personally refuse to wear. This nation is better than that.

We will fight for right to allow others believe differently. That's the key difference between us and those who tried for so long to hang that "imperialist' label on us.

 

[blackadder]

Quite possibly the most bombastic, unsubstantiated, unproven, accusatory piece of prose I've seen here. It is laced with words of condemnation, rife with disturbing overtones and connotations selected to elicit guilt and self-loathing among Americans.

Lot's of people believed differently in Chile in the 70s, but they didn't get any support...

This Day in History 1973: Allende dies in coup

Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war' | World news | The Guardian

I don't feel one iota of guilt and I don't loath myself.

I'm not running the country and I don't own Congress...

I just watch the train wreck.

Pass the popcorn.