BS: Bush's speech

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: GUEST,Genie
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 11:35 PM

What Amos said.
What ddw said.

But two things troubled me about the speech:
•"you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" -- Sounds good. Need to enlist cooperation of other nations. But does that mean we're going to bomb Switzerland?
•"They hate us because ... of our freedom." There may be many reasons some other people or nations hate us. I'd guess our wealth and position of power, our consumption of more than our share of the world's resources, the at least perceived decadence of our commercialized culture, our involvement ("interference," to some) in the politics of countries where we have an economic interest (e.g., oil producers), and our having killed many civilians in past military actions--all these are more salient reasons why some folks hate us.
This hatred does not justify the kind of terrorist attacks that happened on 9-11-01, but we would be wise to take an honest look at what others may see as our faults.
It is folly to think that others hate us only because of our virtues.
Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: kendall
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:03 AM

Doug, Troll, to say that a man is an outstanding speaker, and a consumate politician is hardly praise! It's what's in a mans heart that counts not how well he bamboozles the public with well chosen words.

Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president, but, a genuinely good man. Nixon was just the opposite.

Besides, you conservatives should be grateful to Ted Kennedy. When he opposed Carter, he handed the presidency to Raygun.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Troll
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:07 AM

We are grateful to Ted Kennedy. We're grateful that he's a Democrat. He's such a marvelous bad example.

troll (ducking and running for cover.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: kendall
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:12 AM

Didn't I say that in my PM to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Troll
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:18 AM

Cross post. Of a sort. Great minds and all that.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:24 AM

I reckon that beady-eyed an smirkin Bush feller mus be mitey interstin ta' yall, but I wuzza kinda wundrin if enny uv yall got one uv them salamis? Thet Donnel got me an Paw rite hungree. Yall kin go on a talkin, but we shur cud uze some salami.

CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Troll
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:45 AM

Don't know 'bout salami, Cletus, but I know there's a liberal supply of boloney around here.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Amergin
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 02:25 AM

Just as there is a conservative supply...

BTW I was the Guest who signed as NIT...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 02:38 AM

troll,

You asked for alternative plans. I know you didn't ask me, but I figure, what the hell. I posted this in two posts adressed to someone on the thread called, "The Key to All US war strategy"...

GUEST, just a nobody... we do everything we possibly can to promote, protect, and preserve a coalition with as many countries in the world as we possibly can.

We work together with all of the countries in the coalition to come up with a plan to use diplomatic, law enforcement, and financial avenues to isolate and starve the organizations who are responsible for the terrorist attacks. This includes holding banks accountable for any help they give to terrorist organizations by sheltering money for them.

We make absolute sure that we do not do anything to destabilize any countries that have governments who are friendly to us or who are willing to help us.

We learn to work with other countries as equals instead of acting like a father figure to them and treating them like children.

If there is anything that is going to save the US, it will be for us to learn that we need the rest of the world, and we need their help as much as they need ours. If we fail to learn this lesson, I fear that we are in very big trouble.

The first and most important thing, in my opinion, is that at this moment in history, perhaps more than any other moment in history, we not only have the compassion and sympathy of much of the rest of the world, we also have their empathy. By that, I mean that they can, probably for the first time ever, see themselves in our shoes. This is very critical, and should not be wasted.

Because of this, they will very probably be willing to work with us and help us, as long as what we propose to do helps all of us. Most other countries probably won't have the burning desire or need for retribution that we have here. Most of them will probably be interested in solving the problem of terrorism, and no more. If we use our military might in a way that destabilizes countries that are crucial to this effort, at least one of which has nuclear weapons (Pakistan), the other countries in the coalition will probably recognize that they will not be helped in the long run by these military actions, that they may, in fact be hurt, and may remove themselves from the coalition.

I did a research paper about a year ago to find out what is the most powerful motivator for people. This was not research that originated with me. I was researching work that was done by others. What I found was that the most powerful motivator is what I would call "enlightened self-interest". By that I mean, people are motivated the most powerfully, and in the most lasting way when they understand how it is in their best interest to behave in a certain way. But what makes it enlightened self interest is the understanding of how what is in their best interest is also in the best interest of others. So, obviously I'm not talking about extortion. I mean people are motivated most powerfully by what is genuinely in their best interest.

If the US says, "You must do what we want or you will suffer in some way", that would be extortion. If we say, "We must work together to find a way to solve this problem in such a way that we all benefit", that would be motivating people through the use of enlightened self-interest.

Once we have built a coalition of willing participants that is based on the idea of enlightened self-interest, we determine what the benefits will be for all of the members of the coalition. The most obvious would be to protect all of us from terrorism. Even the banks will probably suffer in the long run if terrorism is allowed to destroy the economies of many of the richest nations on earth. So, even for the banks, there is an element of enlightened self-interest in helping to eliminate terrorism. In fact, it seems to me that there are probably very few groups, nations, or other interests who would benefit in the long run from allowing terrorism to continue or to flourish in the world.

If we put together such a coalition, we will need to identify what sort of actions would be detrimental to any of the members in the long run. One example of this would be if we caused, through military action in Afghanistan, destabilization in Pakistan resulting in an overthrow of the government now in place which is friendly to us at this time, by Muslim fundamentalists who are friendly with the Taliban. This, of course would be contrary to Pakistan's self-interest (as defined by the majority of people there at this time, which would likely change if we killed a lot of Afghanis), and it would also be contrary to our self-interest, because we would then have two enemies in the place of one, and one of them with nuclear weapons.

You see where I'm going with this. So we form a solid coalition. We work with the coalition as equals, rather than as an authority figure who says, "you're either for us or against us". Then, we put together the best minds that each of the countries in the coalition have at their disposal, and formulate plans to use the tools at our disposal to find out who the terrorists are, and how leverage might be applied to dry up whatever resources they have to help them to accomplish what they are trying to do. And whenever it is possible to, try to take into custody important figures within the terrorist organizations only if doing so does not put any member/countries of the coalition in jeopardy in any significant way.

It seems to me that the most important thing we can do to the terrorists is to remove their sting. Even if they are still walking the streets, if they are perceived as ineffectual and weak by the starry eyed youths whom they would want to recruit, would anyone want to join them, much less give up their life for them? Take away the glory and there is no point in any of it. We don't take away the glory by killing them or making them glorified prisoners. We take away the glory by making them ineffectual.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 09:14 AM

Take a deep breath, Troll- plenty of alternatives to the Dubya Rambo/Lone Ranger approach out there, some mentioned on this very forum, by smarter folks than me. Try doing what you suggest to others all the time- think! Why do you need me to think for ya? :>)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: kendall
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 09:44 AM

Carol C, I dont often say, "Ditto" but, this time all I can say is "RIGHT ON THE MONEY"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 10:29 AM

A Global anti terrorist tribunal of the UN or Hague or Nurenburg with judges composed of Islams and the international community psossibly excluding the US Isreal and India should be established to hear the evidence from Interpole ,US etc. and hand down indictments.

Carol , nothing sadly may erase the success in the starry eyes of new terrorist recruits. They have seen 2 Goliaths fall and will never forget or regret it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 10:40 AM

CONTINUED HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 12:30 PM

Although Clinton could think on his feet while bush freezes I could not bear to listen to Clinton. FDR on the other hand was compelling.:

We look forward to a world founded on four essential human freedoms. 1. The freedom of speech and expression for everyone everywhere in the world ,
2 The freedom for every person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world
3. The freedom of want everywhere in the world.
The fourth is the freedom from fear any where in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: SharonA
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 04:11 PM

Donuel (re The Four Freedoms): Number 3 should read "Freedom FROM want"... although I guess we should be free to want MORE, if we want, too (isn't that what capitalism is all about?).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's speech
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM

Donuel, I shur am happy az ta ya postin them freedoms an specially that one about wantin an all cauze me an paw an the Reg boyz ar awantin one of them salamis. Iffen ya cud seez yur way kleer ta send it weed be much oblijed.

CLETUS