Thank You Ralph Nader!

[prodigal]

Re: Re: Run Ralph run!

For example, we were attacked on 9/11. As a result, Mr Bush ordered our military into Afghanisan in pursuit of the perpetraors. That's good. Given the same circumstance, do you actually think that any sitting American President would not have done the same thing?
QUOTE]

Well, what did Clinton do after they hit the WTC the first time (plus all the other episodes mentioned above by Dubya)? So, it's not just that I SUSPECT a dem might not get serious about the war on terror; they have a track record to prove that. And aside from just one mans failures (Clinton) the dems have a decades old reputation as weak on defense.
Granted, Bush may not be perfect but it's my opinion that he is a man of principle and is willing to lead. Not to have taken the actions he has would have been far riskier to the country than the symbolic pin pricks taken by his predecessor. Isn't it better to be fighting the enemy over there than in our our own streets?
Thanks Dubya, well said, you beat me to it.

 

[rettofly]

There was a problem, in the view of the US Supreme Court, with a recount by "selected counties." However, that was not an error of the Florida Supreme Court, it was an error on the part of legal counsel for Gore. The Florida court did not come up with the "cherry pick" concept. It was the lawyer's idea to request a recount limited to specific counties as opposed to state wide, not the Florida courts. You can state the facts without attempts to mislead.

If the Gore forces couldn't overturn the election in the counties they cherry-picked for Democrat predominance, how would the result have been different if the entire state had been recounted?

I can't believe that this issue is still alive!

 

[Dubya]

For you libs......

who run at the first sign of a factual discussion rather than name calling.



BUMP

W

 

[surplus1]

If the Gore forces couldn't overturn the election in the counties they cherry-picked for Democrat predominance, how would the result have been different if the entire state had been recounted?

I can't believe that this issue is still alive!

The result may very well have been exactly the same. My problem is not that Bush was chosen as the winner. My problem is that I feel the final result, whatever it was, should have been determined by counting the votes and not by a directive of any court, Supreme or otherwise.

Unfortunately it will always be alive. Perhaps the most important "freedom" that we have as Americans is the right to chose our leaders by our individual votes. Anything that calls that choice into question, is, and should be a problem for all of us.

From my perspective this is not about "political party", it's about our right to vote and to have that vote counted regardless of who it's for. As I see it, this is not a partisan issue. I would not feel any different if Mr. Gore had emergerd the "appointed winner".

 

[surplus1]

Re: I'll take a crack at that.

Thanks for you candid reply. I appreciate and respect your point of view.

I agree that Mr. Bush started out with a gustified and adequate response to the 9/11 attacks. Our goverment did what it needed to do in Afghanistan and the entire world supported us. I find it somewhat unfortunate that we don't seem to have folled up on what we did. That country remains in total chaos and continues to harbor bands of terrorists. Unless we plan to occupy it indefinetly, there will be a resurgence of the bad guys, the instant that we leave. That bothers me. I believe we cannot win the war, if we cannot win the peace. Military power alone is only a temporary solution to any problem.

I do not question the performance of our military which has always been exemplary. I do question our political leaders. Sometimes we do have to drop bombs, but bomb dropping will not eliminate terrorism. There has to be something more.

I certainly don' have the answers, but I don't think Bush does either. This is no "simple" problem for any President, but in our system, that's where the buck stops.

A reminder....the previous administration was faced with terrorist attacks....and the response was?

After the USS Cole attack...Clinton quote "We will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes..."

That is interesting. To help me understand you thinking more, I ask this question.... Should the United States have invaded and occupied Yemen after the attack on the USS Cole? What should our response have been?

Each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack-the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,

All significant events. You seem to be dissatisfied with our response and I assume you list these events for comparison with the actions of Mr. Bush. That brings me to ask these questions.

1. What country do you believe the United States should have attacked and invaded in response to the first WTC bombing?

2. Should the United States have invaded Kenya and Tanzania after the attacks on our embassies there? If not, what country should we have attacked in response?

3. After the attack on the Kohabar Towers, should the United States have bombed, invaded or occupied the countriy's of the perpetrators? If you answer is yes, should it have been Saudi Arabia or Iran or both?

4. Going back a little further, when the terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing hundreds of our young Marines, should President Regan have order the invasion of Lebanon, Syria or the entire Middle East? Or was it enough to just lob a few shells from a battleship into the hillsides of Lebanon?

In my opinion, the issue is what should the foreign policy of he United States be? From my perspective this should not be about which President can drop more bombs, fire more missiles or invade more countries.

Whether we like it or not, the truth is that the United States cannot occupy the rest of the world and convert it to our style of democracy. Even our vastly superior military power cannot accomplish that.

I don't really care which individual sits in the White House, but I do care what the foreign policy of my country is. Rambo tactics by George Bush, preoccupation (our claim) by Bill Clinton, not going far enough by Bush the First, lackluster response by Ronald Regan, or military faux pas under Carter, are obviously not the answer. All have failed, terrorism is alive and growing in spite of our varied responses under different administrations.

Should we invade and occupy the entire Middle East? Should we attack and occupy North Korea? Sould we take over Pakistan to route out al Queda? Should we bomb Malaysia or Indonesia?

Who are we at "war" with? Is it Islam? Is it Buddhism? Is it both?

It seems to me like the foreign policy of the United States is flawed, regardless of who has occupied the Oval Office or his political party affiliation.

Maybe you're getting the answers that you want from this President, but I'm not. I didn't get them from his predecessors either. Something is wrong, very wrong, and the future of our way of life is in jeopardy. Who sits in the White House from time to time is obviously not the problem nor is it the solution. Photo ops of carrier landings and turkey dinners in the desert are no more effective than invasions of Grenada or Panama, aerial collisions in Iran, missile launches in Somalia, wars of "liberation" in Kuwait or Iraq, failed attempts to "get Kahdafi", burning helicopeters in Iran, support for Saddam Hussein, removal of Saddam Hussein or any of the other measures. None of them have removed the cause of terrorism or prevented it's recurrence.

As Americans, we need to recognize that this "problem" whatever it is, is much bigger than George W. Bush. There is something wrong with our foreign policy. Until we fix it, the problem will continue. I don't have a clue as to how that should be done, but that's ok. What worries me is that neither does our government, and that is their job, not mine.

So you say that any sitting president would have acted similarly....the facts prove you wrong. I wager that had GWB been in office the first time the WTC was attacked, the rest would never have happened. The difference is one is a leader...the other is not.

Yes, I did say that any sitting President would have acted similarly and history seems to confrim that. All have responded with different levels of military activity. Our government's response to problems appears to center around bigger and better military capability. We appear to be at a loss as to how we can make peace, so we embrace one form or another of war as the answer.

I'm not smart enough to understand how or what that has improved. The answer appears to be nothing. Maybe someone can come up with "Plan B". I sure hope so, for the sabre rattling ain't working.

 

[Dubya]

surplus...you stated that other pres. would take actions similar to Bushs' given similar circumstances....I gave you the similar circumstances....the facts show that similar actions were not taken. For you to turn it into invading every country is absurd. The war on terrorism has to be brought to the places they are hiding.

What "Plan B" do you propose? The only thing these people are smart enough to understand is force....period. How many times have we been attacked...on our soil...since 9/11? I'll give you a clue...it's between -1 and 1. So it IS working. You are safe...your family is safe...I am safe...due to the actions and diligence of this administration...like it or not.

The previous administration shot spitwads...this administration is cleaning house.

W

 

[flying4life]

Dubya,
I couldn't agree with you more about how pro-active our President is on the war on terror. I agree with everything you have pointed out about old Bill's failure to step up and show some U.S. might and that we won't take that from anyone. I originally wanted to jump right on your band wagon and tell Surpluss how much he was wrong about it not making a difference who was in office. However I think he brings up a good point about U.S. foreign policy. No matter how much we do, or how much force we use, they will still hate us and consider us the enemy. At least they know there are consequences for messing with us, but that won't stop them from trying to out do 9-11. All 9-11 has done is set a new bench mark. They took over 5 years to plan it and I'm sure they are planning already on how to surpass it. I don't really think we are safe from further attack, it's just a matter of when not if. These terrorists are claculated and patient and they will do something here again. It will be interesting to see who gets the blame then. Personally I'll blame the shmucks who commit the act.
Surpluss,
I don't have the answers either and maybe it's emotionally driven but I'm glad we are doing what we are doing. It may not be the perfect answer and we may pay for it later, but it feels good knowing our guys are on someone elses soil showing the world we won't just be a punching bag and shrivel up at the sign of cowardess acts. I want the world to know the U.S. will respond to aggression and that they might want to think twice before doing that nasty deed they have in mind for us.
I could go on with so much more about life in general and how everyone seems to have some bigger picture in mind or if life were perfect what would be "the solution", but the truth is people hate other people and they use religion to justify most of their causes. With so many nations and different backgrounds saying all they want is peace, it's incredible how hard it is to obtain.

 

[Dubya]

Yes, our foreign policy is not ideal, nor will it ever be. I agree that the terrorists will not stop, unless they are stopped. We are safer, how safe and how long I agree is anybody's guess.

The problem I have with those that criticize Bush is that they don't want to look at the facts...they only see with emotion and feelings. The world will always contain strife and conflict. Our place in the world is due to the defense of our sovereignty and freedoms and the freedoms and sovereignty of others around the world.

Those that would have us sit idle....isolate and allow the UN and other nations dictate our foreign policy just invite more actions against us. 9/11 aside, WMD aside....we have to be in that region of the world in force...Clinton said it and knew it and ignored it.....Bush knew it when he took office. Bush followed through. He made the tough decision. As long as we are engaging the terrorists on our terms...where we want...when we want...and how we want....we are safer. The people that believe if we just left them alone and isolated ourselves that they would stop and go away are blind.

I just try to look at the facts and not let the media and the politicians tell me how to think. Bush is by no means ideal...but we are lucky..in my opinion...to have a leader. I don't care how eloquent a speaker he may be.

W (The "G" Meister, Regulator, with the tilted brim)

 

[flying4life]

Here here Dubya, I'm right there with ya and am glad we have a leader in the office as well. He may not be as polished as Slick Willy but he gets the job done a lot better. I'm glad we have them on the run but I just don't know how long this forgetful nation will stay on target. There are too many feel gooders and when it doesn't feel good anymore they want to quit and not stay in it for the long haul. When we no longer stay the course and when we do start to tire, they will strike back. It's just a matter of time.

 

[surplus1]

TO: Dubya and flying4life

surplus...you stated that other pres. would take actions similar to Bushs' given similar circumstances....I gave you the similar circumstances....the facts show that similar actions were not taken. For you to turn it into invading every country is absurd. The war on terrorism has to be brought to the places they are hiding.

This is of course a highly complex issue and we are not going to solve it here. The basic difference between us seems to be that you have decided to focus on the individual in the White House as the solution to our problems. In contrast, I feel that the foreign policy of our nation as a whole, is the key to the problems we are encountering. Problems that I belive will continue and increase, regardless of who may be President, but especially because Bush is. He and his associates have the bravado, but they don't have the big picture.

You did give me your similar circumstances and I gave you a summary of ineffective military results, regadless of differing reactions. You chose to ignore those and respond by saying "The war on terroism has to be brought to the places where they are hiding."

I don't have a problem with that thought (better to fight on their soil than on ours), but let's try to apply it. According to our current government (the Bush Administration) and also the one that preceeded it (the Clinton Administration) just one of the many terriorist organizations (al Queda) has operating cells in more than 60 different nations.

I asked you which of them we should take this war to. You avoided a response.

What "Plan B" do you propose? The only thing these people are smart enough to understand is force....period.

Ive already told you that I don't pretend to have the answers so I do not have a Plan B. However, the Government of the United States had better develop one, and apparently it has not done so to date. Terrorism did not start on 9/11 and it certainly hasn't ended there. Our own country has been trying to deal with it throughout the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronal Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton and now Geroge Bush II. None have prevented it.

Whenever there has been an "attack" on the intrests of the USA, its soldiers, its possessions or its territory, there has been a military response. So far, none of these military adventures has prevented the next attack. It is true that we have not had another spectacular attack like 9/11, but if you believe that our military response will prevent one from happening, I think you're in for a very rude awakening.

For the record, I fully support what we did in Afghanistan in direct pursuit of a known terrorist organization that was the source of the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, what we are currently doing in Afghanistan as a follow up is, in my opinion, a failure and will result in a resurgence of the same problem the day after our troops depart.

Again for the record, I do NOT support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I fully recognize that Sadam Hussein was and evil dictator and should not have been running any country. But, unfortunately, the world is full of evil dictators. I do not believe that we can invade and occupy them all. Therefore, I see that policy as wrong.

If we were to put every man, woman and child of our citizens in a military uniform, we simply do not have the population to occupy the "enemy" world. Given that reality, alienating the few friends we have does not strike me as prudent.

You did not answer my questions and you did not tell me who, in your opinion, we are fighting. Instead, you responded by saying "The only thing these people are smart enough to understand is force....period. Ok, I'll have to run with that for you offer no option.

Conveniently, you avoid identifying whom it is you see as "these people". I ask again, who are they? If you are refering to Islamics (which I think you are), then let me show you some statistics.

Indonesia - population 201 millions - 90% Islamic; Pakistan - population 140 millions - Islamic; Egypt - population - 69 millions - Islamic; Iran - population 66 millions - Islamic; Malaysia - population 22 millions - 50% Islamic; Saudia - population 20 millions - Islamic; Syria - population 17 millions - Islamic; Lybia - population 7 millions - Islamic; Algeria - population 32 millions - Islamic; Lebanon - population 4 millions - Islamic; Somalia - population 7 millions - Islamic; Nigeria - population 124 millions - 50% Islamic. The total of Muslims is roughly 650 million people, nearly 3 times the size of the US population. Notice I left out Iraq, the Emiraes, Yemen, the Islamic states of the former Soviet Union and of course Iraq and Afghanistan, which we already occupy. Now, that doesn't even consider other "friends" like North Korea, which is not Islamic.

If "these" people are only smart enough to understand force, how do you propose that the United States exercise force against them? I don't want to offend you but candidly, your presumption is absurd. We could not possibly invade and occupy their countries. What shoud we do then, nuike them?

If our government and current President share your concept that we must use force against "these people" because that is all they understand, then I have serious questions about GWB. Serious enough to be certain that we would be better off if he was in Crawford, TX than Washington, DC.

How many times have we been attacked...on our soil...since 9/11? I'll give you a clue...it's between -1 and 1. So it IS working. You are safe...your family is safe...I am safe...due to the actions and diligence of this administration...like it or not.

The previous administration shot spitwads...this administration is cleaning house.
W

Cleaning house you say? How I wish it were that simple. I'm happy that we have not been attacked again. I am also certain that we are not "safe" by a long shot. The military operations are necessary in some cases, but if you believe that our country can survive in today's world by a foreign policy based on militarism and devoid of anything else you're dreaming.

Either we identify the cause of the hatred and do what it takes to correct it (and it is not envy of our money) or you and I will be living in a fortress and in constant fear of terror for the rest of our lives. Dropping bombs solves nothing.