BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?

Subject: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:51 PM

It amazes me that Jimmy T, Doug R, or any other Bush supporter can say that Bush is better when it comes to "protecting us from the terroristic issues" (Jimmy T--Neither Candidate-13 Oct 3:19 PM.)

Bush's needless invasion of Iraq has in fact produced far more terrorists than there were previously; specifically through "collateral damage", a chillingly clinical term for people being killed inadvertently. As I told the White House comment line just before the invasion, and have said here several times, for every dead woman or child due to US action, broadcast on al-Jazeera, there will be at least one more terrorist.

Far from learning from this, Bush and his supporters show every indication of using pre-emptive unilateral war as a foreign policy regarding North Korea, Iran. (and then who?). The thought processes necessary to reach the decision to start a war are sadly lacking in Mr. Bush and his cohorts.

Added to this, what kind of example do you think pre-emptive war shows to the rest of the world? Would you like India or Pakistan, China or Taiwan, Russia etc. to learn from Mr. Bush's example?

As I have said before, I am a registered Republican who, with other thoughtful Republicans, abhors Mr. Bush's cavalier attitude toward foreign policy, specifically toward the most serious decision any human can make---to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

He's better AT it than anyone else at present. His administration is the World's number 1 agent OF terrorism.

I am sure, though, that he does not see it that way at all.

Pre-emptive war is terrorism. Threatening people with imminent attack unless they surrender to you is terrorism. Occupying a country by force is terrorism. Bombing cities is terrorism. Torturing prisoners and holding them indefinitely without fair trial is terrorism. Imprisoning and executing your own citizenry at probably the highest per capita rate in the world is terrorism. Promoting the maintenance of gross economic inequality in the World in order to acquire dirt-cheap foreign labour is terrorism.

But none of these things are called terrorism by the wealthy and powerful people who do them. No one thinks of himself as a terrorist...but if his purpose is to terrorize other people (in order to "win" or to profit) then that's what he is...a terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:32 PM

L. H-

I can't really agree that the US is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism. But it's clear that Bush has abused his power, is behaving like a rogue bull, and shows no signs of changing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:01 AM

I can easily understand that you might not see it that way, Ron. It's very subjective. Palestinians, for example, might think of Israel as the number 1 terrorist power in the World, while the Israelis would see it entirely differently. Each one feels that they are the victim of terrorism...and they're both right quite about that. When a victim retaliates in kind, then there are two sets of victims and two sets of perpetrators.

The great strength of Gandhi was that he did not retaliate in kind, and that was because he regarded all people as one people in spirit...while fighting in any case for India's independence from colonialism. It is possible to defeat evil without imitating it...but it takes absolutely tremendous courage and unity on the part of those willing to do it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:42 AM

Excellent thread Ron Davies. If you want to be informed and don't mind getting more bad news...

Rent or buy Fahrenheit 9/11

Look at the featurette "Eyewitness Account from Samara, Iraq."

You will see exactly how the new terrorists in Iraq have been created.

Incompetant searches, a total lack of respect for Muslim culture, sexual and physical humiliation of prisoners.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:16 AM

Barbarism has ALWAYS depressed the well-being of our nation when we resorted to it. If we had used higher skills in the nineteenth century we would have a better nation now than we do,.

Bush, more than anyone else, more than his father, even, represents the forces of barbarism and the kind of crude self-satisfied smug loudness that traditionally makes "Americans" into "Ugly Americans".



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:12 AM

I wonder what proportion of the electorate which puts their vote with Bush will do so because of the exhortation to be afraid? It's a constant thread throughout the rhetoric of Bush an co..

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:59 AM

So much today can be placed directly and precisely at George W. Bush's door--these gruesome beheadings, for example--they are a direct response to the American occupation and brutalization of Iraq. The resistance over there are learning more American techniques as they go. I heard about some Baghdad drive-by shootings recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:10 PM

He's a lot better at causing terrorism. As to healing it, no, I do not think so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:47 PM

Ron Davis: you are a Republican? The Nelson Rockefellow kind of Republican?

Anyone who votes for Kerry because he/she believes Kerry will protect the U.S. from terrorists is sadly misinformed I fear. When a nation is at war, it is no time to elect a anti-war president.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:11 PM

LOL Doug. I thought it was Bush who declared the war...

As for protection against terrorism. I believe a lage part of that is to try to remove reasons for it. Starting an illegal war, invading another country and killing innocent people will not deter people, it will sway other people towards terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:04 PM

Doug:

Kerry is not against dealing with the war and prosecutring effectively. If you have listened to him, you know that. Why are you mis-stating his position?

What he is against is collosal stupidities such as those committed by your boyos in the Cabinet.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:04 PM

The basic problem is that Bush can't identify his "enemy". He doesn't understand what Al Quaeda is and his vengeance for Saddam is transparent.
Al Quaeda started when the disbanded Mujahadeen reacted to the presence of American troops on Saudi soil. This is what motivated bin Laden and followers to establish their "jihad". They are a sect not unlike the Weathermen in the sixties in the US but with a lot more money and their ideology is fixed in their interpretation of religion. Bush has them confused with the citizens of Iraq which operate on different ideologies and methods of resistance. Bush's "crusade" may appeal to the people who "don't do nuance" but it is a simplistic and ideological driven reactionary response.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM

Doug don't you remember when Bush said that he wanted to be the "Peace President"?

I hope its not too late for you to change your vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:16 PM

BBC have just shown a roomful of people being asked to put their hands up if they thought Kerry won the third debate. Up went most of the hands. Then they were asked who was going to vote for Bush. Up went most of the hands again. If I hadn't hada the benefit of Doug's intelligent reasoning at Mudcat, I would have been quite surprised that any nation on earth could produce a roomful of such zombies.

I wonder if Doug has been following those briefings from the UN nuclear inspections team about all that potentially dangerous stuff in Iraq that's gone walkabout? Much of it, including an entire building apparently, came up for sale in the Arab dictatorships. Thank goodness Saddam is in prison, or the situation might have been quite worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:03 PM

There was such a room on cnn Fionn

When asked who they would vote for
24 people
7 Bush
10 Kerry
7 undecided.

I don't know what Martin Gibson will do when Kerry wins, but I hope he learns some humility and becomes a little less insulting. I hope Bush does the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:55 PM

The enemy of my enemy will be my enemy....tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 12:43 PM

Hey Doug--

Good to hear from you again.

In fact I've mentioned my party affiliation before. Yes, I'm a Republican and a veteran-- are you a veteran? Among many other issues with Mr. Bush which I have detailed elsewhere on Mudcat, I'm annoyed at how Bush gamed the system and his cronies have attacked a real military hero. And ( I like to believe) I'm a thinking person--i.e. a Kerry voter. There's nothing wrong with a thinking Republican--it's not an oxymoron--rather than a knee-jerk bomb-'em-back-to-the-Stone-Age type.

Pray tell, which type are you?


I'm going to the Getaway soon---have to check on Monday about how things are going. here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 12:45 PM

Ron:

Have a helluva good time. Yer my kind of Republican.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 01:08 PM

"When a nation is at war, it is no time to elect a anti-war president."

I get it now! To be re-elected, start a war, then explain the YOU are the pro-war candidate, and no one should vote for someone against the war.

the logic is clear...how could I have been so blind!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 01:09 PM

What a specious, knee-jerk, fear-mongering piece of jejeune, amoral, callow rhetorical manipulation. I spit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM

Ron Davies,

Thank you! I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with a true Conservative, someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and prudent political actions. Someone who truly respects our country and has served unselfishly.

Reading your post was a breath of fresh air!

(One of my fave Republicans is David Gergen.) There are intelligent Republicans out there and these malicious neo-con Reactionaries are hi-jacking the GOP. So glad to hear from you. As a Democrat, I applaud you.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:19 PM

What war, anyway? Wasn't it Bush himself who crowed "Mission accomplished"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Better On Terrorism?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:18 PM

What war, anyway? Wasn't it Bush himself who crowed "Mission accomplished"?

That was the "Shock and Awe" war against Iraq that Bush said "mission accomplished" about. Then there is the war against terror. The Bush people intend for that war to go on forever. That's why they keep creating new terrorists.