Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: Does this article display liberal media bias?
Voters: 37. This poll is closed
Yeah. You're right.
Look at the post results...
Look at the post results...
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Rubbish. A government is elected by the people for the people. They should be expected to answer truthfully to the people whenever they put themselves in a position where quesitons need answering.
Ah...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Simple really.Rubbish. A government is elected by the people for the people. They should be expected to answer truthfully to the people whenever they put themselves in a position where quesitons need answering.
Hypothetical:
Reporter: "Mr. President, do you really think our forces can stabilize Iraq?"
President: "Not by themselves, no. I just have to hope and pray that we don't lose too many soldiers over the next 3-5 years as Iraq builds the forces and infrastructure it needs for stability. The great danger here is that public opinion supporting the war will slip enough to where Congress dumps the funding and forces a withdrawal. If that happens, it's 70-30 that Iraq will degenerate into 3 or 4 warring mini-states with at least two of those states serving as bases for terrorism."
--or--
Reporter: "Mr President, isn't it obivous that our economy is going to take a big hit from rising fuel costs?"
President: "Absolutely. And Americans can expect to get hammered at the grocery store as well as the gas station since most of our consumables move by truck. I think it's pretty obvious that people will be cutting back at Christmas this year and most of the drive-travel destination motels might as well lay off the staff now and use the time for maintenance. On the other hand, oil stocks should climb steadily and sweater comapnies should be doing a brisk business, so I don't think the recessionary trend will last much past the Winter. Once the public accepts the higher price as the norm, things will re-balance and it will be smooth sailing."
Yes, GC, I am playing the hyperbole game a bit here to illustrate my point. Do you really think that level of honesty is either likely or helpful?
Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
I believe Cuba would be more your type of Island, RED HARVESTIf you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
I believe Cuba would be more your type of Island, RED HARVEST
The great thing about the nick is that it has nothing to do with politics or communism. Simple play on grim reaper theme and hair color. The Stalinist's get angry because they think it is some sort of anti-communist/anti-Russian name. And the right wingers think it is pro-communist. Perfect as it draws out both sides into making poorly informed swipes. I believe Cuba would be more your type of Island, RED HARVEST
So no, I don't think so.
However, I do think you would like Cuba: authoritarian, single party rule, run by a man in uniform, no dissent. A land where time stands still. Yep, seems a good match.
Originally Posted by :
There is no such thing as too much honesty.
There is no such thing as too much honesty.
Yes the governnment should have no secrets from us or our enemies LOL. Theres many a time honesty is not the best policy. If your married or have a stedy gf next time she looks terrible and asks how she looks tell her the truth. Let me know the out come.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.
Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.
If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.
Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
Dissent is well and fine. But, when it consists of nothing but a litany of complaints with no constructive ideas I think it does give a certain level of comfort to our enemies. It shows we are divided and don't support the goals of the military and could give hope that we'll pull out.We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.
Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.
If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.
Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
There is a difference between saying 'The administration is mismanaging this war, instead of xyz we should be doing abc.' vs 'The administration is mismanaging this war, their bungling is losing the war.'
I'm not going to try to say that an American doesnt have the right to say whatever they want- but some statements can undercut the war effort.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Dissent is well and fine. But, when it consists of nothing but a litany of complaints with no constructive ideas I think it does give a certain level of comfort to our enemies. It shows we are divided and don't support the goals of the military and could give hope that we'll pull out.
There is a difference between saying 'The administration is mismanaging this war, instead of xyz we should be doing abc.' vs 'The administration is mismanaging this war, their bungling is losing the war.'
I'm not going to try to say that an American doesnt have the right to say whatever they want- but some statements can undercut the war effort.
I agree.Dissent is well and fine. But, when it consists of nothing but a litany of complaints with no constructive ideas I think it does give a certain level of comfort to our enemies. It shows we are divided and don't support the goals of the military and could give hope that we'll pull out.
There is a difference between saying 'The administration is mismanaging this war, instead of xyz we should be doing abc.' vs 'The administration is mismanaging this war, their bungling is losing the war.'
I'm not going to try to say that an American doesnt have the right to say whatever they want- but some statements can undercut the war effort.
There were folks offering just that sort of criticism, and they were rebuffed.
So what do we do now? Beats me. The big mistakes were made early on, and many of them can't be compensated for now.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
So what do we do now? Beats me.
LOL, so you are just going to disagree and not give an alternative!!! You just proved his point and the point I've made. Its all snipe, snipe, snipe, but ZERO alternatives. God, do you even read what you write!?!?! You sound like John Kerry, "I have a plan". Mr Kerry, what is your plan, "Well, uhh, I would just do things differently, did I mentioned that I served in Viet Nam?". LOL!!!So what do we do now? Beats me.
DevDave:
In general, I agree with you that those who complain without presenting a viable alternative aren't adding to the discussion. I'd give Red H a bit of room though, since his posts strike me as more of the "I wish it hadn't been malfed, why doesn't anybody do something" variety more so than the Phil Donahue "Bush did it to make his friends rich, we have to cut and run now like a whipped dog" drivel we hear all to often.
I too am frustrated that the time/resources going into the stablization of Iraq make it harder for us to wax the next terror-haven/rogue state in line. Backing off Iran or NK, or taking Syria apart like the dime watch it is would please me more. However, since Iraq is broke and must be fixed if we're gonna have a long-term win, we simply have to finish the job well.
I do suspect that we need a lot more boots than we have though. The finest army in the world can't use multi-million dollar force multipliers to identify 5 badguys up in the third room on the left, back hallway, flush them out and take them down. That's a job, and a long slow tough one, for the dog-faces. I think our gals and guys are doing it and doing it well -- but they're not in a position to do that and something else, and I wish the DoD had been more honest with itself about that from the get go.
In general, I agree with you that those who complain without presenting a viable alternative aren't adding to the discussion. I'd give Red H a bit of room though, since his posts strike me as more of the "I wish it hadn't been malfed, why doesn't anybody do something" variety more so than the Phil Donahue "Bush did it to make his friends rich, we have to cut and run now like a whipped dog" drivel we hear all to often.
I too am frustrated that the time/resources going into the stablization of Iraq make it harder for us to wax the next terror-haven/rogue state in line. Backing off Iran or NK, or taking Syria apart like the dime watch it is would please me more. However, since Iraq is broke and must be fixed if we're gonna have a long-term win, we simply have to finish the job well.
I do suspect that we need a lot more boots than we have though. The finest army in the world can't use multi-million dollar force multipliers to identify 5 badguys up in the third room on the left, back hallway, flush them out and take them down. That's a job, and a long slow tough one, for the dog-faces. I think our gals and guys are doing it and doing it well -- but they're not in a position to do that and something else, and I wish the DoD had been more honest with itself about that from the get go.
GC: I agree in principle with what you are saying.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how we would get to the point where Seamus' interview could take place.
If it were implemented overnight, American politics would combust, setting in motion a chain of events that would destroy the sun.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how we would get to the point where Seamus' interview could take place.
If it were implemented overnight, American politics would combust, setting in motion a chain of events that would destroy the sun.
GC:
In principle, it is likely that all of us would agree with you, not just Atpg. I certainly don't enshrine mendacity as the apex of social interaction.
In practice, political leaders have been leaving out details, glossing over unpleasant facts and employing misdirection since at least the time of the Roman Republic -- and probably well before. I do not think our current era to be any worse and, I admit with a touch of sadness, not any better either.
Yet it is demonstable that some of the lies and mis-direction were perpetrated IN the public interest and not at the expense thereof. So where and how do you draw the line in order to serve the greatest good?
Absolute truth at all times and in all situations may not always be to the good.
Thoughts?
In principle, it is likely that all of us would agree with you, not just Atpg. I certainly don't enshrine mendacity as the apex of social interaction.
In practice, political leaders have been leaving out details, glossing over unpleasant facts and employing misdirection since at least the time of the Roman Republic -- and probably well before. I do not think our current era to be any worse and, I admit with a touch of sadness, not any better either.
Yet it is demonstable that some of the lies and mis-direction were perpetrated IN the public interest and not at the expense thereof. So where and how do you draw the line in order to serve the greatest good?
Absolute truth at all times and in all situations may not always be to the good.
Thoughts?
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
I disagree with you. I think unabated truth should be demanded of politicians by the people who put their livelyhood on the line by voting them into office.
Compadre, you are, at the very least, consistent. I don't think we'll collectively head in the direction you suggest, but if 4 decades have taught me anything, it is that I do NOT know all that much. We shall see.I disagree with you. I think unabated truth should be demanded of politicians by the people who put their livelyhood on the line by voting them into office.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
LOL, so you are just going to disagree and not give an alternative!!! You just proved his point and the point I've made. Its all snipe, snipe, snipe, but ZERO alternatives. God, do you even read what you write!?!?! You sound like John Kerry, "I have a plan". Mr Kerry, what is your plan, "Well, uhh, I would just do things differently, did I mentioned that I served in Viet Nam?". LOL!!!
And he could not have done ANY worse than Bush, nor could Gore. LOL, so you are just going to disagree and not give an alternative!!! You just proved his point and the point I've made. Its all snipe, snipe, snipe, but ZERO alternatives. God, do you even read what you write!?!?! You sound like John Kerry, "I have a plan". Mr Kerry, what is your plan, "Well, uhh, I would just do things differently, did I mentioned that I served in Viet Nam?". LOL!!!
I don't have any easy solution. It isn't my fault that they guy you elected screwed this up so badly. Have you got a solution? Put it forward. Replacing those in charge in '04 was my best hope of finding an answer. I upheld my end, while you got suckered.
You can't really have a solution until you analyze the problem and figure out how you got here. (Hint: it wasn't liberals that made this mess.) So I've been focusing on how we got to this point. "Mission Accomplished", "Bring 'em on!" and other assinine amateurish approaches got us where we are to day. Poor planning and delusional thinking got us here.
The situation in Iraq is not helping us in our aims as a nation, nor is it going to without some unforseen changes. It isn't up to us anymore. It is up to the Iraqi's.
Left with few options, my solution: Give the Iraqi's about a year to pull themselves together and get control of their country--make it clear today that we are not staying indefinitely to prop them up because they can't agree with one another. Ultimately it is about them, let them know they have to do this. If they don't want to have a unified country and want to have a civil war, we can't force unification on them. If they can't do it with our help in a year, then they aren't going to, so pull out and be done with it. If they start getting a handle on it and progress is clear, then remain as needed/requested in declining amounts for a few years.
Enforcing things as a long term occupier, with no real Iraqi govt. wont' work. It is folly.
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...
What about me? Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...
Originally Posted by :
And he could not have done ANY worse than Bush, nor could Gore.
Even for you this is a ridiculous claim. Maybe they would have done netter and maybe they would have done worse. Of course my opinion is they would have done worse but I wouldnt say they could not have done better. Unlkike you Im no Nostradmas.And he could not have done ANY worse than Bush, nor could Gore.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Even for you this is a ridiculous claim. Maybe they would have done netter and maybe they would have done worse. Of course my opinion is they would have done worse but I wouldnt say they could not have done better. Unlkike you Im no Nostradmas.
Oh really? I fail to see anything ridiculous about it. We have a president who can't seem to get anything important right. It is not much of a leap at all to say the other choices would have done a better job. No doubt there are portions that they would have mishandled. However, neither of them had Bush's arrogant "do-it-my-way/don't-listen-to-others" approach. It is hard to imagine either making bigger blunders than the guy currently in the office. Charisma does not equate to good decision making. Even for you this is a ridiculous claim. Maybe they would have done netter and maybe they would have done worse. Of course my opinion is they would have done worse but I wouldnt say they could not have done better. Unlkike you Im no Nostradmas.
Looking back at 2000:
- International relations would be better.
- Energy policy would have been better.
- The annual budget deficit would be much smaller.
- We would not have gone to war under a false pretense.
- The national debt would be ~$2 trillion less, giving us far more flexibility.
- If we went into Iraq to topple Saddam, we wouldn't have been immediately discredited by lack of WMD's.
- If we invaded we likely would have used a larger occupying force and had a better chance at stability/success. That's the difference in actually listening to what experts suggest about force requirements, rather than claiming you know it all.
- Disaster relief would have been better managed from the top (probably still not great, but again, certainly not as bad.)
- We would still have some diplomatic capital in dealing with Iran and North Korea.
This Administration has successfully painted our nation into a corner. We've got our forces tied up militarily in a defensive role that they are not designed for. We've lost our initiative from both a diplomatic and a military perspective in the war on terror. The national experiment with supply-siding has been a bust, so we are running massive deficits with no end in sight. Despite all the supposed efforts toward homeland security, we've proven twice that we cannot evacuate a major city if needed, nor provide much aid within the 48-72 hour window.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
Looking back at 2000:
As to your summary point on Iraq -- that only the Iraquis can make it work -- you are obviously correct. I don't think that a 12-month prop-up is realistic. It's too rich a target. Unless we were to provide them with an even better target elsewhere, tearing Iraq in 3 and igniting conflict between the pieces serves the Wahabist-fringe groups long term goals.Looking back at 2000:
- International relations would be better.
More amicable certainly. Whether or not the greater degree of amicability served U.S. interests would depend on how you define those interests. - Energy policy would have been better.
Marginally at least. Certainly CAFE standards and such would have be established and some decrease in gasoline use would've been likely. - The annual budget deficit would be much smaller.
Very likely. Defense spending would be far less, given the likelihood that no Iraq War would have occurred, and the Bush Administration really hasn't cut domestic spending to the bone by any definition, have they? - We would not have gone to war under a false pretense.
While I might argue with your premise here, setting that aside I would agree that no invasion of Iraq would have occurred. The action if Afghanistan would have been fairly similar, along with troops deployed in support of the Phillipines etc. and a greater number of covert ops strikes at AQ facilities, but the conflict in Iraq would have been very unlikely with a Gore administration. - The national debt would be ~$2 trillion less, giving us far more flexibility.
I think your numbers are a notch optimistic here, but I agree there would have been less deficit by a considerable margin, as I have noted above. - If we went into Iraq to topple Saddam, we wouldn't have been immediately discredited by lack of WMD's.
The invasion of Iraq, under Gore, probably would not have occurred. Had it occurred, it would have been under UN aegis, limited in scope, and any occupation would have been both multinational and brief. - If we invaded we likely would have used a larger occupying force and had a better chance at stability/success. That's the difference in actually listening to what experts suggest about force requirements, rather than claiming you know it all.
As noted above, it would (had it occurred at all) been a multinational effort. If it had to rely on US forces alone, I suspect that the number of "boots" available under a Gore administration would have been fewer than we have now. Under Gore, DoD spending would have been less than under Bush, with a greater effort made emphasizing participation in multi-national police efforts and somewhat of a de-emphasis on offensive capability. - Disaster relief would have been better managed from the top (probably still not great, but again, certainly not as bad.)
Well, both parties have been subject to cronyism, especially for "minor" posts like FEMA. Hopefully both have learned their lessons on that score. I suspect it would have been a bit of a wash, but you may be correct. - We would still have some diplomatic capital in dealing with Iran and North Korea.
We had little with either in any case. Both are pursuing their own objectives so as to strengthen their internal control and international positions. Their perception of American inneffectuality seems pretty constant regardless of who's in office. The believe, probably accurately, that we won't kill our sons and daughters by the 10s of thousands to stop them, so they have little worry about our supposed power.
Having now gone point by point, I will state my own view.
I am happy Bush and not Gore was in control following 9-11. Bush is a cowboy, has antagonized everybody, makes our allies cringe, and is proving to be no military genius. But he's trying to win -- not to maintain status quo ante.
Every previous admin has let us down on this since Nixon. Such terrorism must be extirpated for the world to move forward. Criminalizing it, speaking out against it in international forums and so on are all nice, but accomplish nothing. The only way to win is to take point, accept that everyone will loathe you for it, but to keep going until the job is done. There will be no thanks, there will be no payback, fewer people will like or respect us after terrorism is destroyed than did before 9-11. It still has to be done.
I am happy Bush and not Gore was in control following 9-11. Bush is a cowboy, has antagonized everybody, makes our allies cringe, and is proving to be no military genius. But he's trying to win -- not to maintain status quo ante.
Every previous admin has let us down on this since Nixon. Such terrorism must be extirpated for the world to move forward. Criminalizing it, speaking out against it in international forums and so on are all nice, but accomplish nothing. The only way to win is to take point, accept that everyone will loathe you for it, but to keep going until the job is done. There will be no thanks, there will be no payback, fewer people will like or respect us after terrorism is destroyed than did before 9-11. It still has to be done.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
There will be no thanks, there will be no payback, fewer people will like or respect us after terrorism is destroyed than did before 9-11. It still has to be done.
*If* terrorism is ever destroyed. To me, it looks like something we'll have to live with.There will be no thanks, there will be no payback, fewer people will like or respect us after terrorism is destroyed than did before 9-11. It still has to be done.
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
*If* terrorism is ever destroyed. To me, it looks like something we'll have to live with.
Unfortunetly most likely correct...*If* terrorism is ever destroyed. To me, it looks like something we'll have to live with.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
It's ignorant to think terrorism can be destroyed. Especially since it's something our own government is willing to support and utilize when it suits their needs. Al Qaida was our invention, after all.
And it is asinine to simply "accept" a situation where our only choice would be to play target or to slink home like a whipped puppy. I'm well aware that a universal elimination of terrorism is impossible, but it is within our capabilities to eradicate the majority of them, politically marginalize them, undo much of their support and thereby reduce it to localized nuisance levels.It's ignorant to think terrorism can be destroyed. Especially since it's something our own government is willing to support and utilize when it suits their needs. Al Qaida was our invention, after all.
Yes, in the past we have supported terrorism. We did fund and in some cases train people who would later coalesce into Al Qaida. If you are going to argue that that past bad decision prevents us from correcting the situation in the present then you are advocating a moral purism that is not only diconnected from political reality but fundamentally self-defeating. If you make a mistake, you clean it up, you don't sit down and whine about how bad you are as a person and let anyone who wishes to kick you around.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Al Qaida was our invention, after all.
That's a flat-out distortion, one that I'm tired of. Let's see some evidence to back up that claim.Al Qaida was our invention, after all.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
That's a flat-out distortion, one that I'm tired of. Let's see some evidence to back up that claim.
That's a flat-out distortion, one that I'm tired of. Let's see some evidence to back up that claim.
He is confusing the support of the Afganstan Rebels against the Soviet Union with the formation of AQ. Typical logical of those who want to everything the fault of the United States
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
It makes the claims of "We're supporting freedom!" alot more reasonable if we are not holding ourselves to a hypocritical standard.
So, was it Soviet "freedom" that the Afghan mujhadeen was fighting against ?It makes the claims of "We're supporting freedom!" alot more reasonable if we are not holding ourselves to a hypocritical standard.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
So now we get to decide where the "Freedom Fighter" and "Terrorist" line is drawn? I don't buy it.
What are you talking about? Who said freedom fighter?So now we get to decide where the "Freedom Fighter" and "Terrorist" line is drawn? I don't buy it.
lesser evils sometimes compromises have to be made forthe greater good
Originally Posted by :
You're the one implying that we were right to support the Afghan Terrorists, no?
Um, when you fight against a military, you're not a terrorist. You're the one implying that we were right to support the Afghan Terrorists, no?
And, we only gave support to native Afghans; not the fighters trucked in from around the Middle East.
Crazed Rabbit
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Rubbish. The government should not take it upon itself to make such immense decisions. Especially when they just might get the country involved in a prolonged war later on.
Rubbish. The government should not take it upon itself to make such immense decisions. Especially when they just might get the country involved in a prolonged war later on.
Isolationism has never worked for America never will. We had the power to stop the Soivets and we did
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
OOooooh, the ebil soviets! Communism was bad, but it wasn't as bad the monsters we've had a large hand in creating. At least the USSR was answerable to the rest of the diplomatic community.
OOooooh, the ebil soviets! Communism was bad, but it wasn't as bad the monsters we've had a large hand in creating. At least the USSR was answerable to the rest of the diplomatic community.
how could we have kown that?
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
How could we not? Terrorism isn't new.
True but the Soviets posed more of a threat you cant divide things. sometimes gray area is thereHow could we not? Terrorism isn't new.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO