|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Me: you're a lengthy writer but you make no sense. Let me critique most of
your points.
As for you voting for whomever you think will be the best person for the
office at the time, why don't you concede that you'll vote for whomever the
media brainwashes you to vote for, which is usually a Democrat. You also
criticized Bush's speech when nearly everyone praised both the substance and
its careful delivery, but I guess YOU know better.
As for use of "I" and "we," the President was careful and smart enough to say
"I" when he was doing something; such as constructing a new cabinet position;
and "we" when all American were involved in getting a job done. The use of
"I" is not to brag but to assume responsibility. As for "we," some American
will be called on to go to Afgan to clean house and those of us who stay
behind will have to do whatever we do best to ensure the strength of our
economy.
One major confusion you're also having is local terrorism vs global
terrorism. What's going on in Israel and Ireland is local terrorism. What we
and the Europeans are experiencing is global terrorism. When the new Bush
administration attempted to put the lid on Israel, the hope was to contain
this barbarism and give the new administration time to develop workable
solutions. As we have seen, it is now too late for that -- the pit bull is no
longer fensed in. Terrorism has successfully gone global and now threatens
all freedom loving people.
Let me also educate you on some history. Reagan did fight terrorism even
thought the gang of Dems in Congress did everything they could to stop him.
Don't you remember the Cuban zealots who were setting up terrorist cells all
over South America? Don't you remember the Sandinista guerrillas? Reagan kept
South American free and should largely get credit for the collapse of the
USSR. As for Bush senior, he was only in for four years, but don't you
remember the Iraq war? My, what a short memory you have? That was a major
intervention to curtail an overt terrorist nation. Do you remember how the
Dems in Congress first fought Bush senior and refused to vote in support of
intervention? Do you remember how he had to get world opinion to twist the
Dems arms in Congress to finally get approval to do what was needed? I'm
sorry to say, you don't have your facts straight on these issues.
As for taking action now in light of the WTC destruction, it has nothing to
do with patriotism, as you have said. To the point, it has everything to do
with protecting freedom, free trade, and to secure our safety. These are all
essential factors to improve the plight of people worldwide, which is not
what these fanatics have in mind. As for invading Afgan and bombing it to
hell -- I don't think so. Have you seen the videos of the Afgan people? They
are really primitive and destitute. Let me provide an analogy of our action,
as I see it. If there's a criminal in the getto, do we bomb the hell out of a
getto to get him? No! We just go in with some force and take him out! That's
all!
On a final note, it isn't Bush's plan to go after every terrorist. You didn't
listen to his wording. He said he would go after those terrorists with global
ambitions. If they can be taken out, then the local thugs my atrophy without
international support -- as we can all hope.
Ralph
Me wrote:
> Dorothy,
>
> I did watch the analysis and listen to the discussions, in fact the
> TV has been on steady for that last 2 weeks jumping among various
> channels. I have also monitored and posted on a number of forums. I
> am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I vote for the whom ever I
> feel is the best person for the job at that point in time and yes, I
> did vote for Bush. IMO, Gore was the bigger fool and Bush the lesser
> of the two evils by a very small margin
>
> 1. I was not attacking Bush personally, I was critiquing his speech
> delivery. His speech writers wrote and he said what people wanted to
> hear, which was the purpose of the speech. I wasn't saying that Bush
> wasn't emotional (in his own way), just that he isn't a good speaker
> and doesn't show emotion well. His delivery was monotoned and
> whether he is or not, he came across as the arrogant American
> stereotype. I would have liked him to raise his voice, take off his
> shoe and bang it on the podium, show some facial expression, show
> something other than just that thin lipped smile/grin he has. Given
> that he is President, Bush would do well to get some instruction in
> the art of public speaking.
>
> 2. Again, I find it interesting how Bush used "I" and you use "we".
> Did you ever hear that old Lone Ranger joke where they get attacked
> by a band of Indians? The Lone Ranger says "looks like we are in
> trouble Tonto". Tonto's reply "what you mean we Lone Ranger?".
> Perhaps he knows that although most everyone in the world is
> horrified by this attack and the loss of human life, not everyone
> agrees with the direction that he wants to take. But to many,
> voicing that concern suddenly makes one unpatriotic, a liberal patsy
> and/or other choice names. But that right to speak freely and to
> disagree is one of the cornerstones of this country. It is NOT
> unpatriotic to disagree with the policy or directions that this
> country and it's leadership takes at any time. Period.
>
> There are always many agendas that come into play to make up the big
> picture. With the current state of the economy, a war could help
> boost the economy right now. It could also take people's attention
> away from the economy. Given some of the lies, subterfuge and
> falling away from a number of campaign promises that Bush has
> committed in his limited history so far, one might wonder about
> ulterior motives. Or you can just be a blind "patriot" and accept
> everything your told at face value. There seems to be a lot of
> people who have suddenly come out of the woodwork, waving flags,
> spewing BS but having little or no knowledge of politics, government
> or world affairs. Some of these people are even guilty of attacking
> and killing people merely because they look Middle Eastern. Yes, we
> have our own terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic problems also. Perhaps
> we should put more into solving those also?
>
> 3. I fully support ridding the world of terrorism. But there are
> different ways to approach this task and in fact, it may not be
> something that anyone can do, even the almighty USA, despite whatever
> rhetoric is thrown at the issue. I just don't think we are going to
> succeed at that task by invading or bombing Afghanistan. Why weren't
> we waging this war years ago? And don't bring up Clinton's policies
> because we could have been trying to stop terrorism during Reagan or
> GHB's terms. It's interesting how the Bush team and much of the
> world was applying pressure to stop Israel from going after and
> killing the terrorists afflicting their country.
>
> But now that our own homeland has suffered a terrorist incident, it's
> suddenly all right to mobilize the armed forces, possibly restrict
> civil liberties in the name of this war while chasing down and
> killing terrorists, isn't it? Suddenly, "the sleeping giant" has
> woken and is now going to solve this major problem that has been
> vexing the rest of the world for too many years? Forgive me for
> being just a bit skeptical. Hell, we couldn't even stop the
> terrorists from entering and leaving this country whenever they
> wanted, from getting on airplane after airplane until they decided to
> drive into a building with one.
>
> 4. Regardless of how people and countries feel in the heat of this
> moment, there is a strong likelihood that significant military action
> in the Mideast could destabilize the area. We may wind up with no
> oil and fighting one billion Muslims. Past history shows that
> coalitions change over time and initial support and anger by people
> in the USA will whittle away as time marches on and the casualties
> come home with no appreciable progress in the crusade. This is
> reality. It's not going to be any different now, any more than the
> new economy was. You can't change human nature.
>
> We failed in Iraq (Hussein is still in power and the people are still
> under his oppressed rule), we failed in Vietnam, losing many lives
> there, spent much money and creating great divisiveness in this
> county for many years. I hear Bush and others talking about a "long"
> war just like 'nam. I hear people talking about hand-to-hand combat
> as if it's some video game, which it is most assuredly not. Didn't
> we learn anything at all from our past experiences in 'nam or those
> of the British and Russia in Afghanistan? We can't use cruise
> missiles or aerial bombing for there's little left to bomb in
> Afghanistan! The country is covered with mines from the Russian
> war. The only way we can take out Afghanistan is to neutron bomb it,
> something that hopefully, even Bush won't do.
>
> You know by now that the Afghans stopped the Russians who threw
> everything they had against them for 10 long years. There is a comic
> running on the editorial page of the local paper here (SF Chronicle)
> that is very apropos. It's got a picture of a stone, another stone,
> a bigger stone, a little stone, one stone on top of another finally a
> stone in a cross hairs. The caption is labeled "Searching for
> targets in Afghanistan" with a side caption of "Just find the one
> he's under". We've had a $5 million price on Bin Laden's head for
> years. No one has yet to collect and we haven't been able to find
> him on our own.
>
> Finally, are we going to go after the IRA and other terrorist groups
> also? The Brits haven't been very successful at clearing up that
> situation. Or is this just going to apply to Muslim terrorists,
> specifically those hanging out in Afghanistan now?
>
> No one really knows how this war will be waged, not even the
> government. Or perhaps this is all rhetoric and after an appropriate
> period of mourning, nothing at all will happen. But
> blind "patriotism" like so many are calling for these days will only
> lead us to places we don't want to go. This is not 1941. It's not
> the same country nor the same world. I'll end this with two quotes
> which I hope make some sense.
>
> "When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary
> dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."
> -Anais Nin, The Diaries of Anaïs Nin
>
> "I love America more than any other country in this world, and,
> exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her
> perpetually."
> -James Baldwin, Notes of a Native Son
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|