Bush: Bring Em On!

Originally posted by Animal: Six gun diplomacy? This doesn't surprise me coming from Bush. It's almost as if Yosemite Sam is in office. He is correct, it will take years and could quite possibly turn into another USSR vs Afghanistan episode before anything is resolved in Iraq.

Well since unlike the USSR we are not trying to invade and make Iraq part of the USA, I am pretty sure we won't be facing the same kinds of things the USSR did. I think the State Department is making a mess of things currently but eventually they will get a stable and acceptable governing body in place over there.

As for "Six gun diplomacy" it sure as hell beats laying down and saying "please screw me and my wife and kids too". I think the US has historicly done better with forceful "macho" type guys in the front office.. like Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt's. The wussified Carters, Clintons and others have always ended up with very bad results for this country.

Yeah, I prefer a "MAN" in the office rather than a sensitive touchy feely type any day.

Im not trying to offend anyone who identifies them selves as touchy feely type men. It is just a preference I have.


[ 07-04-2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by skywalker: Ya know, it's one thing to say "Bring'em on!" when you are personally doing the fighting, but a whole 'nother thing when it is being said an ocean away. Especially when other people's lives are at stake. Not very Presidential if you ask me. Cowboy in the White House! Mark

Oh please not this old and tired and irrelevant "Lead the troops from the front" schtick. that is such a lame thing to say. As for cowboy in the white house, I would rather a cowboy than a sissyboy.


[ 07-04-2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: When UK plays basketball, I cheer them on,

We're not very good at it but thanks for the support anyway. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps he ment University of Kentucky [img]smile.gif[/img]

I was kind of thrown for a second on thatone too [img]smile.gif[/img]

[skywalker]

How much macho does it take to get shot in the back by a sniper?

Mark

[skywalker]

Originally posted by MagiK: Well since unlike the USSR we are not trying to invade and make Iraq part of the USA, I am pretty sure we won't be facing the same kinds of things the USSR did. I think the State Department is making a mess of things currently but eventually they will get a stable and acceptable governing body in place over there. As for "Six gun diplomacy" it sure as hell beats laying down and saying "please screw me and my wife and kids too". I think the US has historicly done better with forceful "macho" type guys in the front office.. like Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt's. The wussified Carters, Clintons and others have always ended up with very bad results for this country. Yeah, I prefer a "MAN" in the office rather than a sensitive touchy feely type any day. Im not trying to offend anyone who identifies them selves as touchy feely type men. It is just a preference I have.

I don't know about you MagiK, but I was doing alot better when Clinton was in office than right now.

There is more to being President than being a Macho Punk. I doubt the rhetoric that Bush spews has anything to do with him being macho.

America needs a leader with brains, diplomatic skills and the ability to make the tough decisions that are not the most popular ones instead of decisions that will get him re-elected.

Mark

[EDIT] To fix the quote.

[ 07-04-2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Mr. Mopery]

Originally posted by MagiK: Well since unlike the USSR we are not trying to invade and make Iraq part of the USA, I am pretty sure we won't be facing the same kinds of things the USSR did. I think the State Department is making a mess of things currently but eventually they will get a stable and acceptable governing body in place over there. As for "Six gun diplomacy" it sure as hell beats laying down and saying "please screw me and my wife and kids too". I think the US has historicly done better with forceful "macho" type guys in the front office.. like Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt's. The wussified Carters, Clintons and others have always ended up with very bad results for this country. Yeah, I prefer a "MAN" in the office rather than a sensitive touchy feely type any day. Im not trying to offend anyone who identifies them selves as touchy feely type men. It is just a preference I have.

Don't agree with you here, on a couple things Magik. First off, I'm really not sure what the government's ultimate goal is with Iraq. Not involving the U.N. seems partly a "hey, screw you for not helping us pay to get rid of Saddam" but it also seems like Bush is keen on that oil. He's a Texan you know (as if he'd let you forget it).

And I doubt your average Iraqi sees the Americans as much other than a new, foreign kind of oppressor. The administration there, and the army, seem incapable of overcoming cultural barriers and, really, just communicating with the people. I think if Bremer took a moment or two to learn a phrase or two of Iraqi, opened an address to the people IN THEIR LANGUAGE, and then spoke through an interpreter to state clearly what the U.S. wants and how it plans to do it...well maybe more people would listen.

Maybe not, but it might help. Couldn't hurt.

Secondly...you actually think Reagan was a "forceful 'macho' type"?? He wasn't forceful, he was SENILE. Had trouble finding his pants in the second term. And his cold war politics weren't forceful, they were foolish. We're paying now for a lot of his foreign policy gaffs.

[Mr. Mopery]

Originally posted by MagiK: Oh please not this old and tired and irrelevant "Lead the troops from the front" schtick. that is such a lame thing to say. As for cowboy in the white house, I would rather a cowboy than a sissyboy.

Just a quick jab at Bush...I can't resist. This is a quote from an admittedly very anti-Bush website, but it's appropriate:

From the ActiveOpposition website: (Concerning Bush's much vaunted aircraft carrier landing) And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

For a man who obviously got a "get out of Vietnam free" card, Bush's bravado (with other people's lives) seems kind of...hypocritical.

Originally posted by skywalker: I don't know about you MagiK, but I was doing alot better when Clinton was in office than right now.

But, to play devil's advocate, you could rest some of the blame for America's economic woes on the Clinton administration. Much of the economic growth of the 90's was due to socialogicals effect, like End of the Century (Millenium) syndrome and the tech market bubble. And I doubt all of America's current problems have occurred since 9/11 etc. Though given Bush's ideas about "economic reform", the U.S. may never get back in shape.

And, to be fair, Clinton skipped the war too...though he never seemed macho about throwing away other people's lives.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by skywalker: How much macho does it take to get shot in the back by a sniper? Mark

If you've been following the news, skywalker, then you know that American soldiers have been targets of ambush and sniper attacks constantly since the war "ended". I heard the report of the sniper this morning, along with two other "ambush attacks" - resulting in the death of another soldier overnight. The report I heard on TV said that 1/3 of the American casualties have been suffered AFTER the war was supposedly over.

It had nothing to do with President Bush's speech...it has been going on for over two months so far.

I'll agree with you about Bush's diplomatic skills - they are non-existent for all intents and purposes. But I disagree with your statement about his willingness to make "tough decisions" instead of popular ones. Uh....you DID notice all the opposition to the War on Iraq, didn't you. And even though the majority of Americans agreed with him, there was PLENTY of opposition right here at home too. The one thing you can NOT say about Bush is that he lets popular opinion sway his decision making. In fact, once he makes up his mind, there is practically no changing it...which is exactly why his diplomatic skills are so bad.

As for his intelligence, I suppose that's debatable. His college transcripts weren't anything to write home about, but he completed the Air Force's training and educational requirements - which I imagine would require a good deal of intelligence in math, physics, and other sciences.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Mr.Mopery: Don't agree with you here, on a couple things Magik. First off, I'm really not sure what the government's ultimate goal is with Iraq. Not involving the U.N. seems partly a "hey, screw you for not helping us pay to get rid of Saddam" but it also seems like Bush is keen on that oil. He's a Texan you know (as if he'd let you forget it).

Hmm you know I'm not sure that the US government knows what the ultimate goal is. There has been so many changes in the new Iraqi "government" that one has to wonder. However I agree with MagiK about the annexing part. [img]smile.gif[/img] Most probably a plan is starting to take shape but I dounbt we will here anything about it until it is 100 % finished, and with the current status of Iraq that will probably not be in the next few months.

Originally posted by MagiK: As for "Six gun diplomacy" it sure as hell beats laying down and saying "please screw me and my wife and kids too".

Sorry for taking this out of the context MagiK but this was the only part I wanted to comment on. Hello? Did you faint? Anyway those two are not exactly the only options are they?

Wouldn't you know. I actually deleted Mr.Mopery's quote before posting my post.

[ 07-04-2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[skywalker]

You know Cerek not everyone is satisfied with Mr. President's performance over the last few years. I am one of them that isn't. Understand that these are my opinions and not necessarily those of the American people in general.

Mark