The "global war on terror" is over

[RickSp]

Andy Borowitz has a slightly different take on the topic:

Elsewhere, President Bush overruled advisors who wanted to change the name of the “war on terror” to the “global struggle against violent extremism,” arguing that the latter phrase contained words over two syllables.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart Lovely 9/11 hindsight... C. Bush has done so much better. Worked like a charm, hasn't it. pffft! :rolleyes: Ahhh, so when Bush looked us in the eye and said this is not about blood for oil, he was lying. Glad to hear one of Dear Leader's minions admit it.

#1, #2, #3
What that sarcasm is all about ?
(I can post some words addressed to you as well, especially since it does not require any extra-oridinary IQ level at all).

You disagree with reality ? Your choice, then.
Politics is not about who lies or tells the truth, but money.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Rainbow You disagree with reality ? Your choice, then. Politics is not about who lies or tells the truth, but money.

Government officials are sworn to uphold the law. They do so with clear knowledge of the penalty for violating the rules, or for failing to uphold the law.


So how is that 100 CC's of reality?


We build prisons specifically to house those that would violate the rules.


How have these people managed to remain beyond accountability?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Government officials are sworn to uphold the law. So how is that 100 CC's of reality? We build prisons specifically to house those that would violate the rules. How have these people managed to remain beyond accountability?

#1
That is correct.
#2
No clue :-)))
#3
What do you want me to do (?) :
- go after every single politician and jail every single one ?
How many of us would be granted a freedom, then ? Few guys, I believe.

One must be a naive person, believing in every word a politician says. One needs to read "between lines".

Example :
- Bush says that, terrorists and/or "insurgents" hate freedom
That is not exactly what he (Bush) means. Anybody who takes Bush's words literally can be taken as a (politically) illiterate person, at least.
Bush means, that those men hate the form of the ideology and philosophy a government, the U.S. (as a state) is based on. In this moment, Bush is correct.

Example :
- Bush says that, Saddam harbour terrorists, and U.S. must enter Iraq
That is not quite correct.
It happened that some terrorists were seen in Iraq, prior U.S. attack. Bush used that fact as an argument.

Every single piece of information is being used to build-up an impression in men's minds, to get their approval. That is a part of politics.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Rainbow #1, #2, #3 What that sarcasm is all about ? (I can post some words addressed to you as well, especially since it does not require any extra-oridinary IQ level at all). You disagree with reality ? Your choice, then. Politics is not about who lies or tells the truth, but money.

What reality...? You defend Bush by pointing out what Clinton may or may not have done pre-9/11, when Bush did absolutely nothing pre-9/11. Then you point out what Bush's bigtime plans are for the region, while conveniently ignoring that not a single one of Bush's plans seems to be working out, and most have been total disasters. Given that both of the examples you chose...

--"G. Bush has decided to change Arabic states' political surface, while that process can eliminate (and/or minimize an influence of) terrorists that reside within these states."--

--"G. Bush has decided to re-shape Arabic states' political arena, in order to have uninterrupted oil supplies."--

... have so far been completely unsuccessful, I'd say there's room for sarcasm, since obviously it is you that seems divorced from reality.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart What reality...? You defend Bush by pointing out what Clinton may or may not have done pre-9/11, when Bush did absolutely nothing pre-9/11. Then you point out what Bush's bigtime plans are for the region, while conveniently ignoring that not a single one of Bush's plans seems to be working out, and most have been total disasters. Given that both of the examples you chose... --"G. Bush has decided to change Arabic states' political surface, while that process can eliminate (and/or minimize an influence of) terrorists that reside within these states."-- --"G. Bush has decided to re-shape Arabic states' political arena, in order to have uninterrupted oil supplies."-- ... have so far been completely unsuccessful, I'd say there's room for sarcasm, since obviously it is you that seems divorced from reality. .

B. Clinton had changed his orders prior the executive action to eliminate Osama that was about to take place. The whole action was already set up, and Osama was marked as a "dead man" with less-than 24 hours to go. That is a significant factor.

The whole idea for your arguments seems to point to an alleged debate on the issue, as who is better : Clinton or Bush. There is nothing to debate. B. Clinton made a crucial mistake, that affects the whole situation in Iraq (at least) today.
That is the reality.

If Bush's plans would not work, then be ready to pull out much more from your pocket for any oil-related services, technology, goods, ect. and not you only, but millions are going to be affected as well.
What is to be defended, then ?
Who is better ? Bush or Clinton ? "Dem's" or "Rep's" ?
Check your bank account, and figure that on your own.
That is the reality.

The Science and Technology has made not enough progress to develope new solutions for energy-based goods, services, ect. Who are you going to blame, then ?
Bush or Clinton ?
Why do not you blame yourself ?

The reality :
- high-technology states needs more oil than ever
- oil reserves reside in Middle-East region
- Bush has started what the next U.S. President is going to continue
The reasons :
- source for the energy
- no positive perspectives for new technologies that may replace and/or minimize theh influence of the most known and used : oil
- no new technological developement(s) that can be used in conjunction with computting-related one
Perspectives :
- your live may become miserable (or worse) if U.S. does not succeed
- your children may share your "achievements"

What is that matter of importance, whether Clinton or Bush was/is better ?
Do you bother with political bodies, too ?
Check your pocket, and you will find the answer very quickly along with the meaning for the whole situation in Middle-East, and Iraq especially.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Rainbow The whole idea for your arguments seems to point to an alleged debate on the issue, as who is better : Clinton or Bush

It really wasn't, Rainbow, but if you insist...

Bill Clinton did bury the heart of our military in never-ending guerilla war by stupidly invading, overthrowing and occupying Iraq by mistake.

*Ding*

Game, set and match to Bill Clinton.

.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Some poor country got hit with a hundred plus bombs by these radical moon god worshipers from hell today.
No matter what you call it, I think this will end up as WW3, the modern world agaisnt most of Islam.

I'm for peaceful solutions, but I can't give into their desires to have us all dead, can any of you?

[Matt W]

'Most of Islam' my ass. I've had this argument a dozen and one times before, 'GodBless', and I really can't be bothered to go through it again, except to say that you obviously have not a clue what 'most of Islam' wants.

[GodBlessAmerica]

It's a large portion of most of that culture. If not Matt, why do we have an Al Jazerra (sp) that is radical as the only main news in the Middle East?
That radical satellite station is IMO an obvious reflection of the majority opinion of the Middle East.

Heck, just last week I turned into the FBI some Iranians citizens in America that were talking about all the American targets they were getting ready to take out in their terrorist missions.

I'm totally with you Matt in NOT wanting this to be a battle on a world scale, but based on what I see, hear and recent history, I think it's leaning heavily the way I see it going.

[Matt W]

Al-Jazeera? You think that's radical? Oh dear.

And you obviously associate Islam with just the Middle East. Get a clue and stop stereotyping.

It'll only turn into an anti-Islam battle if the radical Right makes it one. Right now, the majority of Islam is united in denouncing the London bombers, 9/11 and other sickos who target innocents - regardless of ethnicity or religion.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Yes, Al-Jazeera is radical and is a messenger as well for them IMO.

[Chris]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica It's a large portion of most of that culture. If not Matt, why do we have an Al Jazerra (sp) that is radical as the only main news in the Middle East?

There are a host of other Middle Eastern News outlets on TV. Do your homework.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica It's a large portion of most of that culture. If not Matt, why do we have an Al Jazerra (sp) that is radical as the only main news in the Middle East? That radical satellite station is IMO an obvious reflection of the majority opinion of the Middle East.

You really ought to do some homework before you go spouting off. Aljazeera isn't a "station", it's a news network. Check it out, you might even benefit from hearing the other side of the story. You don't have to believe everything they say, but then I don't believe everything my own government or our news agencies tell me either.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...8856D01CDB.htm

[monty of ll]

GBA said: "Heck, just last week I turned into the FBI some Iranians citizens in America that were talking about all the American targets they were getting ready to take out in their terrorist missions."

Well heck GBA, tell us more about the Iranians you turned in to the FBI! And golly gee, how did you know they were Iranians? Don't they all look the same?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart It really wasn't, Rainbow, but if you insist... Bill Clinton did bury the heart of our military in never-ending guerilla war by stupidly invading, overthrowing and occupying Iraq by mistake. *Ding* Game, set and match to Bill Clinton.

Keep posting absurds, if that serves and satisfies your mind.
That is your business, after all.

The oil is the main source for the energy and high-tech states need that (damn) oil more than ever. There is no any other technological solution as a substitute or a replacement to that, as of today. More over, next decades would bring not much (if anything) as a breakthrough developement in that field.

U.S. wants to protect its people with steady oil supplies. That is a "battle for a state's survival". No state is going to apply any pacifistic and/or idealistic rules when it comes out to become a necessity.
Additionally, "U.S. Dollar" went up (vs. "Euro"), for the first time since U.S. has entered Iraq, to cut off Saddam-Germany-France deal for trading Iraqi oil while all the transactions were paid in "Euro".
("Euro" is over-rated, but that is yet another issue).

Maybe you do not need the energy, as a source that supplies homes, apartments, electrical devices, machines, technology, services, ect.
However, there are some people that do not share your ideas, and a goverment would need to take care of them and supply the energy for their business enterprises and residential needs.

Off Topic
*Ding*
What is that *Ding* (as you post) ? A sort of cartoon or comics books onomastics ?

[righthand]

Frank Rich: Someone tell the president the war is over
International Herald Tribune ...MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005 ...The New York Times

WHO WON? Let's have a special poll for gorgie.

Like the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President George W. Bush may be the last person in the United States to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man? A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved President Lyndon Johnson's handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as LBJ's ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing America's long extrication from that quagmire. But the current Texas president has even outdone his predecessor; Bush has lost not only the country but also his army. Neither bonuses nor fudged standards nor the faking of high school diplomas has solved the recruitment shortfall. Now Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout "don't ask, don't tell" and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press. [The president's cable cadre is in disarray as well. At Fox News, Bill O'Reilly is trashing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding O'Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration's prewar inflation of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. (On this sinking ship, it's hard to know which rat to root for.) As if the right-wing pundit crackup isn't unsettling enough, Bush's top war strategists, starting with Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, have of late tried to re-brand the war in Iraq as what the defense secretary calls "a global struggle against violent extremism." A struggle is what you have with your landlord. When the war's uber-managers start using euphemisms for a conflict this lethal, it's a clear sign that the battle to keep the Iraq war afloat with the American public is lost.

Forgive me for quoting at length from this piece in the International press. You all know my thoughts on georgie porgy, but this is a case of shutting up while a REAL MASTER does a REAL hatchet job. Do read more. I've only put in a flavour of an excellent hatchet job. By the time it was over I was feeling sympathy for poor gorgie.

Then I copped myself on. I know he's at his most dangerous now. Like a cornered RAT, I could wake to find the US or it's satellite in the Middle East has nuked Iran. Or a coup and dicky in charge. Well we know he's always been in charge, but now dicky arrests gorgie and blames the big bad war on poor gorgie. I keep flip-flapping. Poor gorgie, screw georgie, poor gorgie, screw georgie. I'll never make a politician, will I?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Rainbow The oil is the main source for the energy and high-tech states need that (damn) oil more than ever. There is no any other technological solution as a substitute or a replacement to that, as of today. More over, next decades would bring not much (if anything) as a breakthrough developement in that field.

And just look how well our war in Iraq is solving that little problem. To say nothing of the fact that Bush & Co. has stated repeatedly that this is not about blood for oil. So what you're saying, Rainbow, is not only did Bush lie when he said this war wasn't about oil, but that, with gasoline now at $3/gal., his specific policy to ensure the stability of mideast oil has been a failure. To say nothing of Iran and North Korea now becoming more combative, not more compliant, now that we're buried neck deep in Iraq.

Quote by: Rainbow Off Topic *Ding* What is that *Ding* (as you post) ? A sort of cartoon or comics books onomastics ?

Yeah, sorta like the end of the round, end of the game. And I misprinted... I meant Clinton did NOT bury our military in a hopeless quagmire, thus making him better than Bush.

But the "whole idea" of my arguement was not about Clinton vs. Bush. I simply pointed out that you were the one trying to excuse Bush by saying, Oh yeah, will Bill Clinton did such and such... ignoring both the things Clinton did do and the impeccible vision of post-9/11 hindsight. My other two points were to your stated Bush goals, not any comparison to Clinton... those goals being to "change Arabic states' political surface" and to "re-shape Arabic states' political arena, in order to have uninterrupted oil supplies.", neither of which Bush's War seems to be achieving much success at. Quite the opposite.

And finally, as to energy, yes, we need energy. We do not, however, have the right to just march into a country and take it simply because the current owner is sticking his tongue out at us. We're going to have to find another solution to our energy woes, and Bush's lame ass lobbyists wet-dream of an Energy Bill was not it.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart And just look how well our war in Iraq is solving that little problem. To say nothing of the fact that Bush & Co. has stated repeatedly that this is not about blood for oil. So what you're saying, Rainbow, is not only did Bush lie when he said this war wasn't about oil, but that, with gasoline now at $3/gal., his specific policy to ensure the stability of mideast oil has been a failure. To say nothing of Iran and North Korea now becoming more combative, not more compliant, now that we're buried neck deep in Iraq. My other two points were to your stated Bush goals, not any comparison to Clinton... those goals being to "change Arabic states' political surface" and to "re-shape Arabic states' political arena, in order to have uninterrupted oil supplies.", neither of which Bush's War seems to be achieving much success at. Quite the opposite. And finally, as to energy, yes, we need energy. We do not, however, have the right to just march into a country and take it simply because the current owner is sticking his tongue out at us. We're going to have to find another solution to our energy woes, and Bush's lame ass lobbyists wet-dream of an Energy Bill was not it..

#1
You pay appx. $3.00/gal, now.
If U.S. leaves Iraq now, the market reacts to that news very quickly and you pay $4.00 (at least) or more, while $100/barrel realisticaly appears on a horizon.

Bush lies and you do not.
The difference : Bush is the U.S. President and you are not.
Am I to understand you want to become the U.S. President ?

(Fictional) example :
Bush :
- "hey Folks, we face economy and energy-related problems. Let us suffer, in the name of Democracy"
U.S. Nation :
- "that is great Mr. President. We give up all the energy-related technologies, enjoy $1.00/week business and employment, so we switch for candles and move (in)to caves."

What is your solution, then ?
Sit down and watch events around the globe, in the name of Democracy, so others would perceive U.S. as a Peaceful nation ?
- you have not enough oil resources
- inflations rules
- unemployment rules
- business completely unstable
According to your ideas, U.S. is a Peaceful nation and the American people live in misery and poverty.

Do you have any idea what it takes to replace and/or build an energy-related network, that would supply the whole U.S. with electricity ?
What about planes, airports, railroads, ect ?
What about the core for the state existance, support and security, like (for example)military and its equipement ?
What are you going to give to the People, then ? The U.S. Constitution (them) to read ?
People would hate you to the bones, and remove from power with ease, (maybe even assassinate prior a removal).

Iran or Korea ?
U.S. has that what it takes, in case of an emergency. There is no need for that, so talks should do the job, as of now. U.S. does not need to go with military-related solutions, as of now.
What Bush says about "all the options are available on the table", that means he plays games with those guys : "word-for-word". That is all.

#2
The Bush's solution to Iraq :
- restructure Iraqi political surface

Bush's solution(s) is the result of mistakes made in the past.
U.S. tolerated all the sort of governing bodies around the world, in order to get some resources - vital for U.S. economy, technologies, business, ect.
The whole idea is to establish a political system (within a state) that would guarantee steady oil supplies to U.S., not making the same mistakes as it was in the past with Iran (for example).
In other words, Bush wants to create an environment that provide steady oil supplies for U.S.

#3
What other energy-related developement do you mean ?
Is that going to come out as a sort of a "miracle" ?
The only known (as of today) solution : get the hellium3 from the Moon. It would take some time. Meanwhile, we need to exist and make a progress.

Are you after some lobby ? or those who stick out their tongues at U.S. ?
IF "yes", then establish your own business and you get some more than them together (B.Gates alike, for example) and care much those who may even show their arse at Us.
The key : steady oil suuplies to U.S. technologies, economy, enterprise, jobs, ect.

The price is very high. We have lost some lives, already.
That is very painful, I agree.
If U.S. does not succeed, we have much more ahead of us :
- financial and economical "dark clouds" closing at us

What is your solution ?

[RickSp]

Rainbow,

Even discussing energy policy with you is a waste of time. You claim :

The oil is the main source for the energy and high-tech states need that (damn) oil more than ever.

I suppose you are unaware that in the US electricity is generated primarily with coal or nuclear power. Only about 3% of electricity generation is from oil. (The largest single use of oil is of course transportation.) Oil is roughly between a quarter and a half of the source of energy consumed in the United States, depending how you categorize natural gas.

So justifying wars of empire on the magical oil you go on about is simply absurd. The oil we need is far better acquired in the world oil markets rather than by waging war, which tends to reduce available supplies as our foray into Iraq has demonstrated.