TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Poll: Congress, Bush share low approval
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Poll: Congress, Bush share low approval

WASHINGTON - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.

An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

"It's mostly Iraq" plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. "These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name."

Iraq, gas prices and wrong track
Democrats agree that the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year's session of Congress while producing little more than this month's Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say.

"People are unhappy, there hasn't been a lot of change in direction, for example in Iraq," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of House Democrats' campaign effort.

Rising gasoline prices could also be a factor, lawmakers said.

In another measure of popular discontent, the survey found that 71 percent say the country is on the wrong track - about even with the 73 percent who said so last May, the worst level since the AP-Ipsos poll began in December 2003.

The survey was taken Monday through Wednesday, before Bush offered to seek compromise with congressional Democrats over a war spending bill setting benchmarks for progress in Iraq.

Bush told reporters Thursday that if pollsters had asked his opinion about Iraq last fall, "I'd have said I disapprove of what was going on in Iraq. They could have put me down as part of the disapproval process."

That was before his decision to send nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, which "would more likely cause me to approve of what's going on in Iraq," he added.

GOP disenchantment
Overall approval of Bush was steady from last month, but fell to 69 percent among Republicans, about 7 percentage points below where it had been in April. Earlier this week, a group of GOP moderate House members warned Bush that the status quo in Iraq could mean Republican election losses next year.

"If the war doesn't begin to turn around, Republicans will have problems," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who said he supports Bush's Iraq policy.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment on the poll.

Congress' approval rating this week was 10 points higher than a year ago, when Republicans were in control.

But after bumping up in April, this month's drop left lawmakers' job approval where it was when the year began. April saw Congress defy Bush and send him a bill financing the war and requiring a troop withdrawal, which he vetoed May 1.

Congressional disapproval
"People wanted change in Washington" on many issues, not just Iraq, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership. "I'm not surprised about where people are. They're hearing only about Iraq."

Congress' reduced appeal was evident in several categories of people. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they approved of Congress, down from 55 percent last month. That included a 12 percentage point drop among Democratic women, though support from Democratic men remained steady.

Approval by minorities also fell a dozen points to 39 percent, with a similar reduction among people whose family incomes exceed $75,000.

By region, the steepest drop was in the Midwest, where approval fell by 10 percentage points to 28 percent. Congress' highest approval was in the Northeast, where four in ten gave it a positive rating.

Pelosi, women and minorities
As for Pelosi, D-Calif., her overall approval of 45 percent stood 10 points higher than Bush's and Congress'.

She was seen favorably by 52 percent of women, but only 39 percent of men. While whites are closely split about her, minorities approve of her job by a 15-point margin.

Pelosi's numbers are about where she was last month but slightly lower than in January. In the last month, she has lost significant support from younger voters, college-educated women and Westerners.

"Voters are frustrated by the fact that the president refuses to change direction on Iraq," said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.

Bush's approval ratings are lowest for his handling of Iraq and domestic issues including health care, with about one-third seeing him favorably. About four in 10 like the job he is doing on the economy and foreign policy.

Men give the president higher grades than women do, whites higher than minorities, and married people higher than singles.

The AP-Ipsos survey involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

misteropus w.e you call yourself. this is a most for you since you seem to LOVE POLLS. Imo and I keep saying congress hasnt done shit to this day, they are endangering the lives of our brave soldiers by not approving the bill to finance their equipment and armory needed to win this operation going on in Iraq. I mean to this day all the dems are doing is just making the living hell to our commander in chief. I mean ill respect the dems till I see some leadership from their part. I mean all their clowning that they are doing now might backfire in the upcoming presidential elections when Americans ask themselves.. what has our Dem controlled congressed done? THEY HAVENT DONE SHIT... I mean these people will tell Americans that if they vote for them theyll get our troops out tomorrow and that all of our ME problems will be solved with a withdrawal

All I ask for our political leaders and the Dems, especially, is to have common sense. Till this day, since the dems took over congress, i havent seen any major change for the better of our country. All you see is them bitch and bitch and Pelosi coming out and sponsoring useless legislation. I mean wtf did they even make her speaker of the house wtf

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover misteropus w.e you call yourself. this is a most for you since you seem to LOVE POLLS. Imo and I keep saying congress hasnt done shit to this day, they are endangering the lives of our brave soldiers by not approving the bill to finance their equipment and armory needed to win this operation going on in Iraq. I mean to this day all the dems are doing is just making the living hell to our commander in chief. I mean ill respect the dems till I see some leadership from their part. I mean all their clowning that they are doing now might backfire in the upcoming presidential elections when Americans ask themselves.. what has our Dem controlled congressed done? THEY HAVENT DONE SHIT... I mean these people will tell Americans that if they vote for them theyll get our troops out tomorrow and that all of our ME problems will be solved with a withdrawal All I ask for our political leaders and the Dems, especially, is to have common sense. Till this day, since the dems took over congress, i havent seen any major change for the better of our country. All you see is them bitch and bitch and Pelosi coming out and sponsoring useless legislation. I mean wtf did they even make her speaker of the house wtf

Umm, they did pass a bill to finance the troops. Bush vetoed it... his bad.

quote:

Originally posted by spiflicated Umm, they did pass a bill to finance the troops. Bush vetoed it... his bad.

If Im correct they basically presented this bill to have a timetable for withdrawal. so basically they passed a bill for funds under the condition to set a timetable for withdrawal, a common political move when passing on bills. so yeah it got vetoed and now our troops dont have the money needed for their operations.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover misteropus w.e you call yourself. this is a most for you since you seem to LOVE POLLS. Imo and I keep saying congress hasnt done shit to this day, they are endangering the lives of our brave soldiers by not approving the bill to finance their equipment and armory needed to win this operation going on in Iraq.

Huh. Strange, considering their bill has exactly the funding that you mentioned. Which bill are you reading again?

And it's also strange that you're blaming the Dems. for the bill not getting passed. Who has the veto power again?

quote:

I mean to this day all the dems are doing is just making the living hell to our commander in chief.

Oh, the poor little soul. Sure is hard having to actually NEGOTIATE rather than get spoonfed everything he ever wanted with a rubber-stamped GOP majority Congress.

Gosh, do you mean he mightly actually have to use a bit of brain power and compromise with the majority will of the people? What a concept.

quote:

I mean ill respect the dems till I see some leadership from their part. I mean all their clowning that they are doing now might backfire in the upcoming presidential elections when Americans ask themselves.. what has our Dem controlled congressed done?

Hate to break it to ya, chief, but the outlook of the upcoming elections are very much in the favor of Democrats picking up more seats. Right now it's a matter of damage control for the Republicans as they are running to the hills away from Bush in order to save their own asses. Why do you think 11 Republicans members went to Bush this week to put pressure on him?:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITIC...sh.gop.meeting/

Does that sound like the Dems' message is hurting in any way? Here's a direct quote from that CNN source:

quote:

One source who attended the meeting said that Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, told Bush that without positive results soon in Iraq, his district will be prepared for defeat. The message from the lawmakers was "we're all with you now, but we have concerns about where we will be next year," a House GOP leadership aide said.

Do these messages by Republicans as of late sound like the Dems. are in any trouble?:

quote:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): �Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports,� said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). �Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don�t see that as viable.� [LA Times, 5/3/07] Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) A likely sticking point is whether to include penalties if the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks. Democrats, and some Republicans such as Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, insist that there be consequences for falling short, such as a loss of U.S. financial support or the withdrawal of some coalition forces. �We can�t be there in an open-ended fashion,� Snowe said. �We have to say: how long does it really take to pass the benchmarks?� [Bloomberg, 5/2/07] Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE): Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a leading moderate, said many Republicans are looking for a way out of Iraq, and he hopes that the Democrats will work with them after Bush likely vetoes the $124 billion war supplemental this week. �I think a lot of us feel that the time has come for us to look for solutions to bring this war to a close,� Castle said. �And I don�t think that�s just a feeling among moderate Republicans but among Republicans in general.� Castle said Republicans of all stripes �are very reluctant to put in dates on our Army� but said that other ideas, including Blunt�s talk of a �consequences package� for the Iraqi government, could bring the parties together. [Roll Call, 4/30/07] Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): �I think we�re still in a fairly toxic political environment,� said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who opposed the president�s troop buildup but voted against the Democratic withdrawal plan. �And I think it will continue like this for a while. That�s the reality.� [LA Times, 5/3/07] Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC): But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, �The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk.� [Washington Post, 5/3/07] Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) �We have to be engaged developing our own proposals and not just going along with what the executive branch is doing,� said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who voted against the Democratic plan to force Bush to start withdrawing troops. [LA Times, 5/3/07] Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who has supported Bush�s war strategy even as the public has turned against it, said, �The marketplace has become ripe for a new idea.� [LA Times, 5/3/07]

Back to elections in '08, there will be more Republicans losing seats versus Dems., which the overall picture at present highly favors more Dem pickups. But you want to paint a picture as if the Dems. are in trouble because, "they haven't done shit"? Again, who holds the veto pen again?

quote:

THEY HAVENT DONE SHIT... I mean these people will tell Americans that if they vote for them theyll get our troops out tomorrow and that all of our ME problems will be solved with a withdrawal

They're simply doing what the majority public wants, champ. Why is that so difficult for you to swallow?

quote:

All I ask for our political leaders and the Dems, especially, is to have common sense.

Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why is it so fucking hard for you to comprehend the possibility that the Dems. are doing EXACTLY what the majority public wants them to do? Take a look at your own article you posted for instance. Notice first the poll compared to last year when the Republicans were in control:

quote:

Congress' approval rating this week was 10 points higher than a year ago, when Republicans were in control.

Now if the Dems haven't done shit in your view, WHERE THE FUCK DOES THAT PLACE THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS WHO WERE IN CONTROL LAST YEAR AND WERE TEN FUCKING POINTS BELOW THE DEMS MARKS TODAY?

C'mon, Latin, show some of that honesty and integrity we've all known to love and expect from an "Independent" such as yourself. Tell us how our dear Republicans last year can be held in such high regard when they were 10 points below the marks of our Democrats this year who, according to you over and over, "haven't done shit".

And here's the capper:

quote:

But after bumping up in April, this month's drop left lawmakers' job approval where it was when the year began. April saw Congress defy Bush and send him a bill financing the war and requiring a troop withdrawal, which he vetoed May 1.

So let's get this thing straight here. April was the month of the highest marks for Congress. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the month where Congress defied Bush and sent him the Iraqi bill that he vetoed in May? So Congress does the will of the majority public, gets the highest marks, but according to YOU they "haven't done shit."

Hmmm, I guess doing what the public wants and receiving its highest approval rating amounts to "doing shit" in your eyes. So is "progress" in your view therefore doing anything and everything the President wants, i.e. being a rubber-stamped Republican Congress like we've had in the past 5 years?

Such "Independent" thoughts to hold.

quote:

Till this day, since the dems took over congress, i havent seen any major change for the better of our country. All you see is them bitch and bitch and Pelosi coming out and sponsoring useless legislation. I mean wtf did they even make her speaker of the house wtf

Well your buddy Newt was a bit busy on tour trying to dismiss his dismal record as House Speaker and attempt to look more Presidential, so I guess she just kinda "fell" into the job. Speaking of which, didn't your article say her relative approval ratings are a bit higher lately? Strange that.

And BTW, again here's a list of things that Congress has done lately:

quote:

With that said, the "do nothing Congress" has a wee bit of trouble passing bills that Bush is likely going to veto, such as the stem cell bill (Bush vetoed it once already, his ONLY veto ever), the 9/11 Commission recommendations (Bush does not follow these nor will he ever, thus despite both House and Senate passing this will likely get vetoed by Bush), negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare patients (despite Bush's rhetoric about free-markets, this is a slap in the face on that idea and will likely face his veto), and the reversal of oil and gas royalties which in essence is nothing but corporate welfare to which Bush would likely veto hands down. The only other one that's being negotiated that will likely go through is the minimum wage hike, and that was only after the Senate attached on tax breaks for smaller businesses. The other bill passed by the House such as the federal subsidized loan interest rate reduction is still being negotiated by the Senate, to which I have no idea where Bush would stand on that. Now this is the context to which these bills need to be understood. The House in its first 100 hours did exactly what I mentioned by passing bills that the majority of the people support. Granted, some of those bills get caught up in the Senate and Committees after passing the Senate as I pointed out, but there are bills that are not so popular with Bush that will likely receive his veto. That is not to say, however, that bills worthy of the majority American sentiment went nowhere - so again, how on earth could that fault lie on the Democratic Congress when they are/will receive a veto by the unpopular president with a minority opinion on these issues? And let's also not forget one small little thing that's completely and willfully escaped the GOP Congress over the past six years, something that was painfully needed.......... ......oversight....... http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...189#post7653189

Now that last part called "oversight" probably does seem a bit foreign to an "Independent" like you, as well as a number of Bush-supporting Conservatives. But it's a serious job that was completely disregarded over the past 5 years that they are taking a bit more seriously now. Sorry that may upset you, but when you have a GOP-led Congress that's done absolutely nothing to properly check and balance the power of the Executive, well there's a lot to go through and straighten out now.

So is there anything else you actually have worth saying on this website other than "Dems bad, Bush good"? That's pretty much your entire message on pretty much anything you've ever posted.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover If Im correct they basically presented this bill to have a timetable for withdrawal. so basically they passed a bill for funds under the condition to set a timetable for withdrawal, a common political move when passing on bills. so yeah it got vetoed and now our troops dont have the money needed for their operations.

So Congress vetoed the bill?

Strange, I didn't realize Congress could do that.......

And BTW, Bush has been hyping a false deadline of funding cutoff. According to the Pentagon, there's enough funds to get us through the end of June:

quote:

The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June, despite warnings from the White House that troops are being harmed by Congress� failure to quickly deliver more funds. http://www.theolympian.com/131/story/84816.html

And actually, according to the nonpartisan CBO, potentially we have enough to get us through July:

quote:

In a memo to the Senate Budget Committee dated Wednesday, the congressional analysts said the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May � about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July. Using all of its transfer authority, the Army could have as much as $60.1 billion available. http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/con...ly/dj070330.htm

So that leaves plenty of time for an actual compromise between the Executive and Legislative to occur.

And if you're so big on Congress cutting funds for a war they disagree with the Administration on, I'm sure we'll hear some criticism from you about Republican Congressional members who voted to cut funding for Clinton's efforts in Somalia, such as McCain:

quote:

MCCAIN: �this resolution establishes, in effect, a date certain for a vote on the commitment of United States forces to Somalia�I think we all realize that we have drifted from the use of force to secure humanitarian relief to an open-ended effort at peace enforcement and nation building. �the orderly way to stop it is for the President to present a plan for shaping U.S. withdrawal, set a date for that plan, and have the congress of the United States either endorse or reject such a proposal. [Senate floor speech, 9/9/93]

House Minority Leader John Boehner:

quote:

Boehner voted to reduce troop timeline in Somalia from one year to six months: �Gilman, R-N.Y., substitute amendment to reduce from one year to six months the authorization of U.S. participation in Somalia and delete the section of the bill complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (PL 93-148).� (House roll call vote #179, 5/25/93) Boehner voted to move up the deadline to bring troops home from Somalia: �Gilman, R-N.Y., amendment to change the deadline for the removal of U.S. troops in Somalia from March 31, 1994, to Jan. 31, 1994.� (House roll call vote #555, 11/9/93) Boehner voted against $1.8 billion in funding for the operation in Somalia: �Passage of the bill to provide $1.8 billion in new budget authority in fiscal 1993, including funds for Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.� (House roll call vote #188, 5/26/93)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

quote:

The narrow issue before us tonight is simply how do you leave? We are leaving, we all agree on that. � The only issue here tonight is how we leave and, in my judgment, the Byrd amendment better defines the proper exit for the United States in this most unfortunate experience in Somalia, at least since May. [Congressional Record, S13447, 10/14/93]

But It's Okay If You're a Republican (IOIYR), right?

Let's talk about "hurting" the troops:



Let's talk about the hurt on the troops:

quote:

. �The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans� health care two years from now � even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system. � Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly � by more than 10 percent in many years � White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.� http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...on/16684548.htm

Let's talk about the lack of support for the troops:

quote:

Democrats who control the House and Senate veterans� affairs committees have rejected the Bush administration�s call for new enrollment fees and higher drug co-payments for some veterans and have proposed bigger budgets for health care. In the Senate, Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the veterans� committee chairman, and his fellow Democrats are asking for a $2.9 billion increase over the Bush budget proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs, specifically for medical care. The Bush administration had requested $39.4 billion for the VA for nonbenefits items, including $34.6 billion for health care-related costs. �We believe that this is the amount necessary to treat all eligible veterans and maintain the quality of VA medical services through the upcoming fiscal year,� Akaka said in a statement. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/...vabudget070302/

Who the fuck is hurting the troops again, sir?

quote:

The quagmire in Iraq has vastly increased the demands on the Veterans Administration, yet since 2001 federal outlays for veterans� medical care have actually lagged behind overall national health spending. To save money, the administration has been charging veterans for many formerly free services. For example, in 2005 Salon reported that some Walter Reed patients were forced to pay hundreds of dollars each month for their meals. More important, the administration has broken longstanding promises of lifetime health care to those who defend our nation. Two months before the invasion of Iraq the V.H.A., which previously offered care to all veterans, introduced severe new restrictions on who is entitled to enroll in its health care system. As the agency�s Web site helpfully explains, veterans whose income exceeds as little as $27,790 a year, and who lack �special eligibilities such as a compensable service connected condition or recent combat service,� will be turned away. .....�The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation�s ability to defend itself,� says David Chu, the Pentagon�s undersecretary for personnel and readiness. http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/0...05krugman.html?

Yes, veterans benefits are "hurtful" to our National Security.

But of course, that's the fucking Dems' fault, isn't it Latin?

Who's hurting our troops?:

quote:

Injured troops shipped back into battle Salon has uncovered further evidence that the military sent soldiers with acute post-traumatic stress disorder, severe back injuries and other serious war wounds back to Iraq. Hunter Smart, who until recently was a captain in the 3rd Brigade, has experience preparing unit status reports. These detailed accounts showing how many soldiers in a unit are able to deploy to a war zone, make their way up to decision makers in the Pentagon. Smart says he believes brigade commanders were manipulating the reports and pressing injured soldiers to deploy to Iraq. "The unit status report is a big deal," Hunter explained in a phone interview. "You list by name and number the number of soldiers that are hurt and non-deployable," he said. "There was a concerted effort to keep those numbers down." Smart was caught up in those efforts himself. He had suffered a back injury during a previous tour in Iraq when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle crashed, and his injuries were so severe, the Army finally allowed him medical retirement last month, after determining he was no longer fit to serve. ......As Salon revealed in a second report on March 26, the commanders of the 3rd Brigade shipped dozens of injured soldiers to Fort Irwin, Calif., in January as the brigade conducted a month of desert-warfare training. The injured soldiers were put up in two large tents, doing odd jobs and biding their time. Some military experts said they believed commanders were attempting to artificially boost manpower statistics by making it appear that a healthier percentage of the brigade was out in the desert training for Iraq deployment. Both Smith and Smart were among the dozens of soldiers who spent weeks in those tents. Neither could properly train. Smith had already been diagnosed with PTSD at that time, and would awaken at night agitated by the sound of mortars going off in the desert that were used for training. Neither Smith nor Smart was treated for his medical problems while in the desert. In Smart's case, that went directly against the recommendations of his doctors. "I believe taking a month off from his treatment plan will be detrimental to his condition," one chiropractor wrote in Smart's file in late December. "Lack of treatment for this prolonged period of time could cause a setback in his condition that may be difficult to recover." Military families are angered by the treatment of injured soldiers based at Fort Benning. Janie Smith, Thomas' mother, says she was horrified that the Army tried to send her ailing son back to Iraq, which prompted her to contact the media about his predicament. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...jured_soldiers/

Who is it again?:

quote:

�the strains placed on troops in Iraq are in some ways more severe than those borne by the combat forces of World War II. �A considerable number of Soldiers and Marines are conducting combat operations everyday of the week, 10-12 hours per day seven days a week for months on end,� wrote Col. Carl Castro and Maj. Dennis McGurk, both psychologists. �At no time in our military history have Soldiers or Marines been required to serve on the front line in any war for a period of 6-7 months.�� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

Who?:

quote:

Strained Army Extends Tours To 15 Months Move Is Needed for Iraq Troop Increase Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that all active-duty soldiers currently deployed or going to Iraq and Afghanistan will see their one-year tours extended to 15 months, acknowledging that such a strain on the war-weary Army is necessary should the ongoing troop increase be prolonged well into next year. The decision -- coming three months after President Bush put forth his new security plan for Iraq, including the deployment of at least 28,000 additional troops there -- reflects the reality that the new strategy is unfeasible without introducing longer Army tours. The across-the-board extension will affect more than 100,000 active-duty soldiers and will result in the longest combat tours for the Army since World War II. It will also mandate for the first time that active-duty soldiers spend more time at war than at home. "This recognizes . . . that our forces are stretched. There's no question about that," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1100615_pf.html

Oh, that's right, it's the Democrats' fault, right?

Why don't we stop with the charades? You're a fucking Bush-supporting Conservative with absolutely no point of view to share other than your typical "Dems bad, Bush good" bullshit mantra. You haven't even bothered to broaden your mind even to the slightest amount to even consider any other possibility on what's caused this war and why we remain in a quagmire fighting for a fundamentalist Shiite regime in leagues with Iran in a civil war, and there's no way or no fucking mark to logically claim a "win" by any stretch of the imagination.

You have given nothing but modified GOP talking points that anyone could rip off of the GOP website, or FreeRepublic, etc., while blissfully ignoring majority public sentiment about this war which sides with the Democrats on setting a timeline and benchmarks for phased troop withdrawal along with increased diplomatic efforts with Iraq's neighbors. You've continually ignored my direct arguments back towards you, only to rinse, spin, and repeat your tedious, asinine, unsupported, narrow-minded message again and again.

It's old. It's tedious. And I've come to expect nothing less from undying Bush-supporting folks like yourself.

I hate to do this and not add to the conversation, but latinlover you just got schooled.

Shit this is good

Yeah you know what lets blame Bush that our soldiers have not gotten the medical treatment that they need. I do agree its fucked up that it has happened but which Dept does that issue correspond to?

Again, its fucked up that it has happened but come on lets blame it on the president? Its a problem that wasnt dealt properly when Rumsfeld was in charge

I mean in the county that I live in its fucking chaos when it comes to traffic, property taxes etc... Lets blame it on Bush, its our presidents fault that these issues have not been handled properly. Lets all blame it on the Bush administration.


Edit: I havent gotten schooled by anyone I mean MisterOpus dosent even have the capacity to debate with my little cousin that just started introduction to civics in his first year in middle school.

I mean all he is doing is promoting the usual bitching of the Dems, you must be stupid is you dont see that. Misteropus, ill debate you when you show seriousness and more respect towards our country and when you show sign that you truly care about the well being of our nation. The reason I dont take you seriously is because I you want to do is make a political point that will benefit the Dems and not Americans as a whole.

I keep repeating Im not a Dem a Rep or w.e have you. Im an American that cares about this nations and that demonstrates support to our commander and chief to be successful in Iraq.

I mean WTF Bush hasnt even gotten out of office and you have MisterOpus along with his Dem gang already telling Americans that this war is a failure. Buddy wait till 10 yrs to pass by so historians can judge that meanwhile just keep bitching

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Shit this is good Yeah you know what lets blame Bush that our soldiers have not gotten the medical treatment that they need. I do agree its fucked up that it has happened but which Dept does that issue correspond to?

I'm sorry, where does the buck stop again?

Who got us into war again?

Therefore whom should we look towards in ultimately taking care of our troops again?

You really going to try to pass this one off the Administration? Tell me something, chief, you honestly think anyone here reading our discussions would believe for one second that you would not be blaming Clinton or any other Democratic president who took us into war and have subsequently attempted to cut the funding for veterans, increased their insurance pays, and the absolute debacle that occurred at Walter Reed?

Tell me another one, champ.

quote:

Again, its fucked up that it has happened but come on lets blame it on the president? Its a problem that wasnt dealt properly when Rumsfeld was in charge

It goes beyond Rumsfeld, chief. Guess who's in charge of oversight of ALL branches of government during that time? Guess who was in the majority Congress at that time of Rumsfeld? Guess who Rumsfeld ultimately has to answer to?

You're left with two choices, and either one doesn't help your argument:

1. This Administration was fully aware and did nothing

2. This Administration was completely ignorant of the situation because its party completely failed to do its job in oversight.

How could an Administration and its party lose sight of the most basic fundamental situation in a time of war - taking care of those who fight the fucking war in the first place? That is an absolute embarrassment.

And it counters your "Dems hate the troops" bullshit rhetoric that you've failed to support in any way so far.

quote:

I mean in the county that I live in its fucking chaos when it comes to traffic, property taxes etc... Lets blame it on Bush, its our presidents fault that these issues have not been handled properly. Lets all blame it on the Bush administration.

If you wish to start a thread on those topics, that's certainly your perogative to do so. But for now, how about we keep to topic of this particular thread of the Iraq War and taking care of the troops?

quote:

Edit: I havent gotten schooled by anyone I mean MisterOpus dosent even have the capacity to debate with my little cousin that just started introduction to civics in his first year in middle school.

Yes, your outstanding skills of debate have truly been on full display so far.

quote:

I mean all he is doing is promoting the usual bitching of the Dems, you must be stupid is you dont see that. Misteropus, ill debate you when you show seriousness and more respect towards our country and when you show sign that you truly care about the well being of our nation. The reason I dont take you seriously is because I you want to do is make a political point that will benefit the Dems and not Americans as a whole.

Your immaturity is becoming more and more evident. Rather than addressing points you've resorted to ad hominem attacks that gain no points here.

I have answered every argument and point you have made. If you feel I have not DIRECTLY answered every argument you have created, kindly point out any thread and I'll backtrack to that one and do so.

Have you done the same? Have you demonstrated any substance behind your arguments with supporting evidence to assist you? If so, I guess I just haven't seen it yet, and you can kindly point it out.

Stop bitching, whining, and spitting out sophmoric insults and start supporting your arguments just this once. You're wasting my time and everyone else by failing to address specific points and counterpoints made to you.

And do me this one favor as well - when you have any fucking clue about me and my patriotism that runs far deeper than traitorous bastards who support this Administration at all stops without understanding how they have abused their Executive Authority and still hold traitorous fucks like Karl Rove in their Administration,

I will let you know, champ.

The childishness of you Bush-supporters questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you is beyond the point of absurdity. We've passed that stage long ago, champ. You have absolutely no fucking clue about American patriotism with such a horrible narrow scope of view. It's amazing how such thinking borders fascism so closely for their leaders, yet such supporters have the audacity to question others on their love and support for their country.

Newsflash, champ: Bush is not my country, nor is he yours. He is a public servant of the people, and it would be unpatriotic of me to not let him and others know that I feel he is not representing the people very well. Failure of those duties by me is the true definition of being unpatriotic.

quote:

I keep repeating Im not a Dem a Rep or w.e have you. Im an American that cares about this nations and that demonstrates support to our commander and chief to be successful in Iraq.

Explain the idea of "success" now. Stop being a whiny recalcitrant child and give some definitions to your answers such as "success" and "win". What do these terms mean?

quote:

I mean WTF Bush hasnt even gotten out of office and you have MisterOpus along with his Dem gang already telling Americans that this war is a failure. Buddy wait till 10 yrs to pass by so historians can judge that meanwhile just keep bitching

Ahh, I see. So let's continue watching yet another neocon idea come and go just like all the other neocon ideas that led us into this war on false pretenses, led us into the war without a fucking post-war plan of any kind, led us into war without an elementary understanding of the culture we were completely upending and turning upside down, led us into war without any viable diplomacy skills with its neighbors, led us into war without proper support to our troops in the first place, led us into war by diverting our attention AWAY FROM AL QUAEDA whom we had on the run in Tora Bora but gave that chase up to corrupt Afghan warlords, led us into war without any measurable benchmarks or goals of any kind that we can quantify "success" by, led us into war with one failed "surge" after another,

but now you want me, the Dems., the majority American public, the "unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" (Bush's staff, mind you), the majority of the rest of the world, the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group, as well as the majority Iraqi government, all to continue giving these idiots in charge more chances after 3,394 of our men and women have died so far while hundreeds of thousands of Iraqis have also died.

Your attempts at pigeonholing me and the Dems as being the only ones against Bush's Iraq plan are tedious and deliberately misleading. Start acknowledging that I and the Dems. are not the only ones against his asinine policies. The least you can do is demonstrate a bit of intellectual integrity on that. You do realize that the above mentioned are also against Bush's last-ditch "surge" effort, right?

Please answer that question posed to you.

Tell me you understand the situation in Iraq, champ. We are in the middle of a civil war fighting for a Shiite fundamentalist regime that's in leagues with Iran, and their leader that we helped install has established death squads:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.office/

We are stuck in the middle of a civil war fighting for one side that's in bed with Iran, while slowly getting plucked off by Sunni militias one by one. There is no "win" in this situation. There is no "success" that can occur. You define a viable definition of those two words NOW for everyone to see, and you stick by those words with evidence to support them.

Otherwise quit wasting my fucking time, AGAIN.

Finally, answer me this question that you've continued to dodge so far:

quote:

Given the fact that hardly any predictions made by this Administration and its supporters have come to fruition about this war in Iraq, why the fuck do you think you have an ounce of credibility to make any predictions about the situation in the future? Given your support to the group that's been wrong on almost all accounts with this war, what on earth should compel anyone to start believing your predictions now? And lastly, again I wonder, do you think it's okay for Bush to call for a timetable of withdrawal against Clinton back in 1999?

Oh, forgot one more thing. In addition to the Dems., the Iraq Study Group, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a growing number of generals, the majority American public, the majority Iraqi government, the majority of the world, and of course me, there's a growing number of Republicans that are turning the tide against Bush's Iraq plan. I've mentioned the 11 Republicans who went to Bush earlier this week to tell him their growing discontent. Here's some more quotes to consider:

quote:

The heated meeting between the GOP moderates and Bush continued to reverberate through Capitol Hill yesterday, after several Republican conservatives told reporters that they shared the moderates� fears that the war is wrecking the party. �There is no liberal-conservative divide on Iraq,� said one House GOP conservative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the White House further. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

No liberal-conservative divide. Interesting, ain't it, Latin?

quote:

While it was Republican moderates who took their complaints directly to the president this week, others in the party expressed similar misgivings on Thursday. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05.../11congress.php

quote:

The meeting�s confrontational tone �was reflective of where the whole [Republican] conference is,� said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a meeting participant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

quote:

Several Republicans are considering bipartisan legislation aimed at changing the war�s course. Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee have introduced separate proposals aimed at bringing a gradual end to the war. �We are troubled by the current policy,� Ms. Snowe said Thursday. �The White House needs to hear it.� http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05.../11congress.php

I mean, hey, I can understand if I were Latin to think that the Dems. hate my country, the Joint Chiefs of staff hate my country, the growing number of generals hating my country, the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group hating my country, the Iraq government especially hating my country, the rest of the world hating my country, and myself hating this country, all because we oppose Bush's current Iraq plan.

But Republicans? Bush's bread and butter who've towed the party line in lockstep? Never, never would I have fathomed that they would become traitorous like the rest of us.

Latin, why do the Republicans now hate America too?

Gotta love those death squads, eh Latin?:

quote:

�In the first 11 days of this month, there have already been 234 bodies - men murdered by death squads - dumped around the capital, a dramatic rise from the 137 found in the same period of April. Improving security in Baghdad and reducing death-squad activity was described as one of the key aims of the US surge of 25,000 additional troops, the final units of whom are due to arrive next month.� http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/...dad-rising.html

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh, forgot one more thing. In addition to the Dems., the Iraq Study Group, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a growing number of generals, the majority American public, the majority Iraqi government, the majority of the world, and of course me, there's a growing number of Republicans that are turning the tide against Bush's Iraq plan. I've mentioned the 11 Republicans who went to Bush earlier this week to tell him their growing discontent. Here's some more quotes to consider: No liberal-conservative divide. Interesting, ain't it, Latin? I mean, hey, I can understand if I were Latin to think that the Dems. hate my country, the Joint Chiefs of staff hate my country, the growing number of generals hating my country, the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group hating my country, the Iraq government especially hating my country, the rest of the world hating my country, and myself hating this country, all because we oppose Bush's current Iraq plan. But Republicans? Bush's bread and butter who've towed the party line in lockstep? Never, never would I have fathomed that they would become traitorous like the rest of us. Latin, why do the Republicans now hate America too?

hate to contribute to this thrashing, but...

quote:

"I think we have to turn over policing responsibility for the Iraqis as rapidly as possible," he said. "Pull our troops out as rapidly as possible."

quote:

"I think unless a Republican who is nominated is committed to fundamental change in Washington they will certainly lose the election," he said.

who's this he? Newt Gingrich ?

just wanted to add to the list of people who hate america.

INCREDIBLE! MisterOpus, are you stoned or stupid? Do you have your brains in your ass? Dont you know anything? Come on you come up with this BS of Rep talking shit, you know another congressional election is coming up in 08" its called "politics" and also called " trying to save their asses" dude you dont have to be a genius to understand that not many people are going to stand by bush since elections are coming up you know

Right now everyone disagrees with Bush, the dems and including a big MAJORITY of the Reps

You see thats why I dont take you seriously because you come out with stupid shit. You make me waste my time to point out to you obvious things

By the way quit talking about the Iraq Study Group thats all you talk about. You know the purpose of that was to get an independent analysis of the situation in Iraq and some actions to consider. By no means, it was meant to do exactly what that report found.

I mean fuck our presidents didnt even stop there he went to universities around the country talking to respected military historians on other things to reconsider when an upcoming change in strategy was adopted, primarily when Gates was appointed.

I mean WTF is wrong with you... I dont need to show anyone articles stating the obvious. Im tired of your bitching... " Americans want a change, the joint of staff also, Reps, look at the polls" quit crying already for gods sake

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover INCREDIBLE! MisterOpus, are you stoned or stupid? Do you have your brains in your ass? Dont you know anything? Come on you come up with this BS of Rep talking shit, you know another congressional election is coming up in 08" its called "politics" and also called " trying to save their asses" dude you dont have to be a genius to understand that not many people are going to stand by bush since elections are coming up you know

And this disproves anything I've discussed and brought up thus far, how again?

quote:

Right now everyone disagrees with Bush, the dems and including a big MAJORITY of the Reps

Kindly demonstrate how any of the groups I've previously mentioned are somehow in agreeance with Bush's Iraq policies. Be sure to cite sources with verifiable evidence in the same manner as I have done to support your assertions.

quote:

You see thats why I dont take you seriously because you come out with stupid shit. You make me waste my time to point out to you obvious things

As I have mentioned here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...100#post7711100

I will kindly paste my same answer for you:

quote:

Because you're relatively new here, I'll let your continual ad hominems slide for now. But I will say that if you continue attacking with asinine ad hominem fallacies while failing to make any arguments to debate, rest assured a mod will more than likely be notified. IOW, if you're interested in a flame war, kindly take your shit elsewhere. This is a political debate forum. Either engage with intellectual honesty in debate or kindly go about your way. Added in Edit: You might want to review our Mod's 7 simple rules thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...7&forumid=66&s= Take notice of rule #2, if you will.

Now, back on topic, could you please answer the following for me?:

quote:

Given the fact that hardly any predictions made by this Administration and its supporters have come to fruition about this war in Iraq, why the fuck do you think you have an ounce of credibility to make any predictions about the situation in the future? Given your support to the group that's been wrong on almost all accounts with this war, what on earth should compel anyone to start believing your predictions now? And lastly, again I wonder, do you think it's okay for Bush to call for a timetable of withdrawal against Clinton back in 1999?

Stop dodging, show some intellectual honesty for once in your life here and answer that question, please.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover By the way quit talking about the Iraq Study Group thats all you talk about. You know the purpose of that was to get an independent analysis of the situation in Iraq and some actions to consider. By no means, it was meant to do exactly what that report found.

So an independent analysis of the situation and recommendations by that bipartisan analysis were therefore rendered moot because, uhh, they were never meant to do exactly what they were supposed to do?

Are you really trying to make a coherent argument here?

quote:

I mean fuck our presidents didnt even stop there he went to universities around the country talking to respected military historians on other things to reconsider when an upcoming change in strategy was adopted, primarily when Gates was appointed.

Yes, I'm well aware of what the President did. He was told by his commanders on the ground that an increase or surge would not work. He was told by the Iraq Study Group that a surge would not be the answer, and that a phased withdrawal combined with increased diplomacy was the better answer. He was told by his Joint Chiefs of Staff that a surge was not the way to go.

So he fired those commanders on the ground (funny, I thought he always listened to his commanders on the ground?), and went headhunting for folks who'd agree with Fred Kagan's AEI neocon surge idea that was passed down to him.

I'm fully aware of this timeline. What is your point?

quote:

I mean WTF is wrong with you... I dont need to show anyone articles stating the obvious. Im tired of your bitching... " Americans want a change, the joint of staff also, Reps, look at the polls" quit crying already for gods sake

Well I'm sorry you seem to be having difficulty supporting your point. Perhaps you never really have a worthwhile point to support in the first place? Failure to back up your argument with anything substantive tends to leave one believing your point was a bit vacuous in the first place.

It's a basic concept in debate 101 - support your argument. Yet you've done horribly with that on every post you've had at present. You have only yourself to blame for your ineptitude and lack of preparation.

Who the fuck is predicting?
lol I'll I have said is that I support my commander in chief for victory in Iraq

As I have said I dont need to point out or provide articles for obious shit like you do. Ofcourse everyone knows that Reps have criticized bush, I dont need to go out and point obvious shit like you do. Ofcourse Americans are not happy of the war, I dont need to go out and point that shit out with polls. Its fucking common sense!

Dont think Im dodging your questions. Is that no offense I fucking feel stupid reading the shit you write and the articles you show off. Show that to someone that has arrived to this country for first time so he can keep up with obvious feelings about our current administration.

This is the problem here shit that you dont seemed to understand and real analysis. America now cannot only act towards the world on for its own benefit. Its must not only act on whats good for America but also for the people of the X nation they are dealing with...

For example, in Latin America and in the ME America has been basically acting upon its own interest while the leaders of the X nation they are dealing with are giving 3 shits about their people. That is where the Anti American sentiment comes... because the people there are not stupid and ask themselves... wtf should we have some respect for America when America is negotiating with our leader for their own benefit and dont give 3 shits about us.

So you see that is why the US now if putting their moral first and their own interest for second. a perfect example is when they dealt with N. Korea we werent going to make the mistake like clinton did to provide them with money, so they can halt their nuke prog, and where did the money go? did it go to the people? no but to their military

That is one of the things this Admin has learned. That same shit is happening with Iran. If Iran wants to engage in constructive negotiations for the better of Iraq. Come on you must be stupid if you think that Iran wont start conversations about their nuke prog when we send a diplomat to sit down with them.

That is why the US has disregarded in bringing Iran to the table I mean If you want the US to go suck dick to them to stop sending terrorist to harm our troops and with the condition not to pressure them with their nuke prog... hey lets chose your party

My point: The US will only negotiate with those leaders that demonstrate support for the war on terrorism and to those that will bring atleast some good to their people

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Who the fuck is predicting? lol I'll I have said is that I support my commander in chief for victory in Iraq As I have said I dont need to point out or provide articles for obious shit like you do. Ofcourse everyone knows that Reps have criticized bush, I dont need to go out and point obvious shit like you do. Ofcourse Americans are not happy of the war, I dont need to go out and point that shit out with polls. Its fucking common sense! Dont think Im dodging your questions. Is that no offense I fucking feel stupid reading the shit you write and the articles you show off. Show that to someone that has arrived to this country for first time so he can keep up with obvious feelings about our current administration. This is the problem here shit that you dont seemed to understand and real analysis. America now cannot only act towards the world on for its own benefit. Its must not only act on whats good for America but also for the people of the X nation they are dealing with... For example, in Latin America and in the ME America has been basically acting upon its own interest while the leaders of the X nation they are dealing with are giving 3 shits about their people. That is where the Anti American sentiment comes... because the people there are not stupid and ask themselves... wtf should we have some respect for America when America is negotiating with our leader for their own benefit and dont give 3 shits about us. So you see that is why the US now if putting their moral first and their own interest for second. a perfect example is when they dealt with N. Korea we werent going to make the mistake like clinton did to provide them with money, so they can halt their nuke prog, and where did the money go? did it go to the people? no but to their military That is one of the things this Admin has learned. That same shit is happening with Iran. If Iran wants to engage in constructive negotiations for the better of Iraq. Come on you must be stupid if you think that Iran wont start conversations about their nuke prog when we send a diplomat to sit down with them. That is why the US has disregarded in bringing Iran to the table I mean If you want the US to go suck dick to them to stop sending terrorist to harm our troops and with the condition not to pressure them with their nuke prog... hey lets chose your party

I'm really having a difficult time following what you're saying. You're swaying a bit off topic with other examples that we could clearly create other threads for such as N. Korea, Iran, etc.

But if you have no interest in supporting your points that you made directly to me with evidence, and if you refuse to answer my direct questions to you, then why are you here in the debate forum to begin with?

As I've mentioned previously, if you have no desire to debate with intellectual honesty, there are plenty of other threads to entertain. This is not one of them, sir.

I will attempt to address a couple of points, however:

quote:

Dont think Im dodging your questions. Is that no offense I fucking feel stupid reading the shit you write and the articles you show off. Show that to someone that has arrived to this country for first time so he can keep up with obvious feelings about our current administration.

So the points I made with evidence to support them which directly counter your unsupported assertions are merely me "showing off" rather than actually addressing you?

Hmm, strange.

quote:

This is the problem here shit that you dont seemed to understand and real analysis. America now cannot only act towards the world on for its own benefit. Its must not only act on whats good for America but also for the people of the X nation they are dealing with...

Did it ever occur to you that our phased withdrawal, our increase in diplomatic efforts with Iraq's neighbors, our attention moving towards training Iraqi troops and directing our tactics towards al Qaeda operations in Iraq (what the Dems. and the Iraq Study Group proposed) might actually be addressing the "X nation" you described?

quote:

That is why the US has disregarded in bringing Iran to the table I mean If you want the US to go suck dick to them to stop sending terrorist to harm our troops and with the condition not to pressure them with their nuke prog... hey lets chose your party

You realize the primary group harming our troops by a very large margin do not come from Iran, right? Iran sending in terrorists doesn't hold a candle to the Sunni insurgency along with al Qaeda operations. Surely you're aware of that?

And though this is a bit off subject:

quote:

So you see that is why the US now if putting their moral first and their own interest for second. a perfect example is when they dealt with N. Korea we werent going to make the mistake like clinton did to provide them with money, so they can halt their nuke prog, and where did the money go? did it go to the people? no but to their military

Yes, your continual blaming of Dems. and Clinton on everything that this Administration has stirred up is duly noted.

I am curious, Latin. Since you apparently don't support your rhetoric and notions with any evidence (at least none that you've presented so far), what helps you formulate your opinions and philosophy? What do you utilize substantively that helps support your notions?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I am curious, Latin. Since you apparently don't support your rhetoric and notions with any evidence (at least none that you've presented so far), what helps you formulate your opinions and philosophy? What do you utilize substantively that helps support your notions?

I think he might be trying to pull a Steven Colbert on us? Or is he really this narrow minded? I'm not sure anymore. He's a bit too much Bill O'Reilly-is to be real.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I think he might be trying to pull a Steven Colbert on us? Or is he really this narrow minded? I'm not sure anymore. He's a bit too much Bill O'Reilly-is to be real.

or 14 years old with one of those 30%ers as a parent

Im not blaming shit on anyone. I mean.. dont get me wrong I like Clinton IMO he is one of the best thinkers out there. But come on his foreign policy during his admin wasnt good I just gave you an example of that.

That is why you have him writing his own bio and history. If you understand history you would know what I mean. Thats why you have him promoting healthy foods and shit in public schools, helping the people infected with HIV in other nations. I mean there is nothing wrong with that. Clinton could have done more during his admin. I had high hopes when Clinton went to office. Dude this guy had it all to be the next big president... he represented the American dream. A man that didnt come from a rich family, he worked his ass off to be where he is at. A man that could connect with every single American out there, A GREAT speaker. I thought that this man was going to be of the greatest presidents. but you know how that turned out.... With all honesty if I were to chose who to be for one day... it would be Clinton

Moving on... Okay we are training Iraqi forces... and we are going after Al Qaeda. I mean lets face it Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Pakistan, this country gives Pakistan like Billions of dollars to go after them and other terrorist organizations. I do criticize that move because come on... Pakistan hasnt done shit. I mean Anti-American sentiment is alive is Pakistan, shit is so pure its not even funny. IDK If you remember when we got attacked on 9/11.. they where one of the first nations that started celebrating. But fuck come on... we give them money and they dont let us enter their country because the PM is afraid that American presence in his country can cause chaos

Its a special period thats happening in the ME. Because now the US knows who are their friends in the ME and who are their rivals. 5-10 yrs ago we didnt know that. Now that many ME have to step up to the plate to battler terrorism in the ME and those that support and want a stable ME for their survival is crystal clear. And hell we know those who arent doing just that and doing the opposite and just promote that Anti American sentiment and destabilizing the region.

Moving on to another topic... As I mentioned above the US most act on its moral. On what America truly stands... What the US did with N Korea was terrific... if you dont end your nuke prog we are going to fuck up your economy more that it already is. We didnt accept their terms and w.e have you... it was like if you dont do this will go ahead and fuck with your economy. That is the message that I THINK Bush is trying to get out there to the world. Not address the X nation leader but the people of the X nation. Its very complex and its going to take time to get that message out there because for many years America has done the opposite. They must win the trust of the people
IMO this is a key of the diplomacy that the US is trying to get out there.

The main message IMO the US is trying to get out there is: The US is not the problem to your problems, but its your leader the problem to all your problems. So for that matter, as I mentioned the US must act towards the world not as a cop, but to what truly stands for... what im saying is in terms to intl diplomacy nothing to do with Iraq... thats another subject.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I am curious, Latin. Since you apparently don't support your rhetoric and notions with any evidence (at least none that you've presented so far), what helps you formulate your opinions and philosophy? What do you utilize substantively that helps support your notions?

I base my analysis on world events that have occurred. Like how the US handled the pussy missiles of N. Korea. You know what happened with that right? Its not like it occurred 50 years ago. Im sorry but I dont quote what other people have to say like you do. I sure dont like to write essays of how americans feel, how our soldiers havent gotten the right medical attention, what military officials have to say, what other congress has to say. Shit if you want to do that come interview my next door neighbor so you can know how he feels and quote his feelings also

To be honest I dont have time for that type of bitching. There are more complex problems that need more energy so they can get resolved. So when you have something good to debate about let me know

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.