Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-13-2007, 01:29 PM   #1
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Bush has asked for an alternative proposal for his "surge" plan.

How about this?

Let Al Maliki prove NOW that he will cooperate.

Why send another 21,500 service people over just to find out THEN that Al Maliki won't cooperate?

Why?

Well, honestly, I think it's because Bush WANTS to put more men over there and hang it up until the next President comes and has to take the blame for whatever happens. The truth is, ALL the blame for this hellish fiasco belongs solely to George W. Bush.

Eric Shinseki told Bush before he invaded that he needed something like 300,000 to 500,000 men to control Iraq after the invasion. What did George do? He fired Shinseki--a much better, more intelligent and honorable man than himself.

Now Bush wants to throw an extra 21,500 soldiers into the meat grinder with no guarantee that Al Maliki will cooperate and no meaningful recourse if he doesn't. What's he going to do? INVADE him? This "surge" idea is like making a modest down payment long after the accumulated interest dwarfes it. If Bush bullies this "surge" through (What? Was he DRUNK when LBJ did this and called it "escalation"?), he will still end up with a force far too small to effectively control that civil war.

Donald Rumsfeld stupidly said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

How stupid is that? Would you go to dinner with the money you happen to have in your pocket, or would you make sure you had enough before you went into the restaurant? Would you buy a million-dollar house with the income you happen to be making or would you either buy a cheaper house or get a bigger income?

The anti-war movement is not primarily motivated by the misery of civilian and military deaths, but by the needlessness of those deaths, the arrogance and smug superiority with which Bush ordered them, the lies and manipulations he used to bamboozle his supporters to believe in this needless adventure.

Now he is grasping at straws and the substance of anything he does from here on will be simply to leave the ungodly mess in someone else's hands.

He did something good in Afghanistan, but he abandoned it before it was even half done. AGAIN the Afghans are abandoned by an American administration and while Bin Laden remains free to thumb his nose at our incompetence, Iraq has become the very haven for terrorists that Bush claimed he was going to war to prevent.

Oh, and let's get that straight: BUSH did not go to war. He has sent everyone else's sons, daughters, fathers and even mothers to face an underfunded and crudely planned fiasco in hell while he smirks and makes speeches, grinning while he speaks of the deaths of thousands of people far better than himself.

BEST alternative? Bush resigns and his successor has him tried for war crimes.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 01-13-2007 at 01:34 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 02:39 PM   #2
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Eric Shinseki told Bush before he invaded that he needed something like 300,000 to 500,000 men to control Iraq after the invasion. What did George do? He fired Shinseki--a much better, more intelligent and honorable man than himself.
Great, but it's on the record and in Tommy Franks' book what HE told Bush. Or are you just picking and choosing facts to suit yourself?

There were far bigger screwups and setbacks in World War II... simply because no one has a crystal ball. What we DO have is one of the largest selections of anti-American Monday Morning Quarterbacks that the world has ever seen. Couple that with the weirdest strategy for winning (not) a war that the world has ever seen ... "winning the hearts and minds of the enemy population"... and of course there's failure.

Bush has now noted..... far too late.... that one of the big screwups has been the restrictions we've put on our own soldiers. Too late, Bushy. As a couple of generals have now said... if you'd done that instead of "hearts and minds" BS 3 years ago, we'd have been out of this mess.

And strange.... our huge "anti-war" crowd never said a word when Clinton went into Bosnia. Partisanship is far more important to our Left than any real concern about "the troops" who the mention with such lip-service. Right? So let's leave this faux concern about the troops out of Leftist rants. It's an insult to the troops.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 03:38 PM   #3
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Great, but it's on the record and in Tommy Franks' book what HE told Bush. Or are you just picking and choosing facts to suit yourself?
I don't remember what Franks said, but it looks to me like Shinseki had it dead on. A typical Bush tactic to fire (or smear) those who tell the truth.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
There were far bigger screwups and setbacks in World War II... simply because no one has a crystal ball.
I don't think WWII was "elective" as was this invasion of Iraq. And plenty of people knew without a crystal ball that invading Baghdad would lead to exactly what we have now. GHW Bush knew it. Dick'em Cheney knew it. He said at the end of the first conflict that invading Baghdad would involve a bloody quagmire and the rebuilding of another nation's entire government. Why did he "forget" those facts this time around?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
What we DO have is one of the largest selections of anti-American Monday Morning Quarterbacks that the world has ever seen.
The anti-Americans will you always have among you, but opposing this fiasco in Iraq is not the same thing. We were doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but the chickenhawk abandoned them again and pursued his personal animosity for Saddam at the cost of thousands of American lives and untold thousands of Iraqi's lives. Bush was dead set on invading Iraq long before 9/11 and he used that tragedy like he used Terry Schiavo. He has no shame and all his pride is unwarranted. It's our duty as citizens to protest. Most 2nd amendment boosters talk about how we have to keep guns to prevent government tyranny. Yet to raise one's voice in protest is considered somehow unAmerican.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Couple that with the weirdest strategy for winning (not) a war that the world has ever seen ... "winning the hearts and minds of the enemy population"... and of course there's failure.
You're talking about Bush's strategy?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Bush has now noted..... far too late.... that one of the big screwups has been the restrictions we've put on our own soldiers. Too late, Bushy. As a couple of generals have now said... if you'd done that instead of "hearts and minds" BS 3 years ago, we'd have been out of this mess.
But there's no reason to believe that even the increased number of troops will not face restrictions from Al Maliki. And it would be all to easy for an outraged Shiite population to completely and permanently sever the 400 mile supply line from Kuwait that our forces depend on. If that happens, we could literally see a huge part of our forces swallowed up and destroyed in Iraq.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
And strange.... our huge "anti-war" crowd never said a word when Clinton went into Bosnia. Partisanship is far more important to our Left than any real concern about "the troops" who the mention with such lip-service.
I was out of the country when the Bosnia thing was happening and I never knew much about it. But I think it was managed a hell of a lot better than what we have now. As I said, the needless death is an awful part of every war, but in this particular conflict, every single death is the result of George Dumbya's enormous ego and smug self-satisfaction.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
So let's leave this faux concern about the troops out of Leftist rants. It's an insult to the troops.
I think it's far more insulting to put a chickenhawk in charge of their lives, send them into Iraq without sufficient armor, renege on the limits of their time in combat, send them back before their time is due, and all the other indignities Bumbya has heaped upon them.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 03:53 PM   #4
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Bush has asked for an alternative proposal for his "surge" plan.

How about this?

Let Al Maliki prove NOW that he will cooperate.
How can al-Maleki prove that he will cooperate, when he is barely in charge of what goes on in Baghdad? Notice? His nonresponse to Bush's SoTA speaks volumes.

Quote:
Why send another 21,500 service people over just to find out THEN that Al Maliki won't cooperate?

Why?

Well, honestly, I think it's because Bush WANTS to put more men over there and hang it up until the next President comes and has to take the blame for whatever happens. The truth is, ALL the blame for this hellish fiasco belongs solely to George W. Bush.
Agreed.

Quote:
Eric Shinseki told Bush before he invaded that he needed something like 300,000 to 500,000 men to control Iraq after the invasion. What did George do? He fired Shinseki--a much better, more intelligent and honorable man than himself.

Now Bush wants to throw an extra 21,500 soldiers into the meat grinder with no guarantee that Al Maliki will cooperate and no meaningful recourse if he doesn't. What's he going to do? INVADE him? This "surge" idea is like making a modest down payment long after the accumulated interest dwarfes it. If Bush bullies this "surge" through (What? Was he DRUNK when LBJ did this and called it "escalation"?), he will still end up with a force far too small to effectively control that civil war.

Donald Rumsfeld stupidly said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

How stupid is that? Would you go to dinner with the money you happen to have in your pocket, or would you make sure you had enough before you went into the restaurant? Would you buy a million-dollar house with the income you happen to be making or would you either buy a cheaper house or get a bigger income?
Nice analogy.

Quote:
The anti-war movement is not primarily motivated by the misery of civilian and military deaths, but by the needlessness of those deaths, the arrogance and smug superiority with which Bush ordered them, the lies and manipulations he used to bamboozle his supporters to believe in this needless adventure.
I don't agree. I think that the anti-war movement IS primarily motivated by the high body-count, rather than the "right-ness" of the invasion and occupation.

Consider: we were the primary instigators of the Sanctions, which in practice could only be called genocide against the Iraqi children. It certainly didn't hurt Hussein, all that much. But, we let the Sanctions drag on for over a DECADE, first by knowingly (and illegally) destroying their infrastructure, and then embargoing such dangerous items as agricultural equipment, yogurt-making machines, and almost going so far as to embargo vaccines for children (for diptheria, cholera, and the like).

And, what did Madeleine Albright famously say about 1.5 million children dying? "If it brings down Hussein: it was worth the cost." Nice, that she can be so blithe about the lives of innocent children.

But, while her sentiment may not be wholeheartedly embraced, her laissez faire attitude about Iraqi lives, unfortunately, is, by the American ppl. If we were "winning" this "war:" the anti-war response would be much more muted, and unpopular.

IMO, there's something basically hypocritical, about this attitude. It's like accepting that your neighbor likes to beat up old women and children for their social security checks and their candy and accepting it, so long as they don't beat up YOUR aunt, or bother YOUR kids.

Quote:
Now he is grasping at straws and the substance of anything he does from here on will be simply to leave the ungodly mess in someone else's hands.
See, IMO the whole war was wrong, start to finish. We shouldn't have invaded (yes, Virginia, the weapons inspections were working, and were far more economical than an invasion and costly occupation, which only seems to increase the destabilization).

Quote:
He did something good in Afghanistan,
...such as...?

Quote:
but he abandoned it before it was even half done. AGAIN the Afghans are abandoned by an American administration and while Bin Laden remains free to thumb his nose at our incompetence, Iraq has become the very haven for terrorists that Bush claimed he was going to war to prevent.

Oh, and let's get that straight: BUSH did not go to war. He has sent everyone else's sons, daughters, fathers and even mothers to face an underfunded and crudely planned fiasco in hell while he smirks and makes speeches, grinning while he speaks of the deaths of thousands of people far better than himself.

BEST alternative? Bush resigns and his successor has him tried for war crimes.

David
Yep, total agreement with you, there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 03:55 PM   #5
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,219
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Bush has asked for an alternative proposal for his "surge" plan.
Call me naive, but hadn't the ISG already done that?

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 04:01 PM   #6
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
I don't remember what Franks said, but it looks to me like Shinseki had it dead on. A typical Bush tactic to fire (or smear) those who tell the truth.
I'm going to stop right here. You don't know what you're talking about, once again. Franks listed himself and all the generals that wanted a small, rapid force. You're picking and choosing your facts in a rather clueless way.
Quote:
I think it's far more insulting to put a chickenhawk in charge of their lives, send them into Iraq without sufficient armor, renege on the limits of their time in combat, send them back before their time is due, and all the other indignities Bumbya has heaped upon them.
You may have missed a few of the fairly analytical dissertations about the characters of people who make this "chickenhawk" charge. It's pure personal attack. Where did you serve? Maybe we should bring up the point that Al Gore tried to prevent the votes of servicemen from counting in the 2000 election because he knew that most military votes are Republican.... for the simple reason that the percentage of Dem's and libs who serve in the military is very small. They complain... but they don't serve in meaningful numbers.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 04:06 PM   #7
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
Call me naive, but hadn't the ISG already done that?

regards,
Well, the Brits aren't going to "surge".... the same types of liberals who blocked any action against Hitler are now blocking any actions against the Islamic threat.

The ISG was just one committee.... just because it was the one the liberal media wanted to hear, doesn't mean there wasn't other input. Notice that on the ISG there was not one single military person. Do you really want a war that is controlled by civilians? But wait.... what do you care so much about what the US and Bush do? Isn't your country something of a mess in terms of crime and employment? Go worry about the UK for a change.

Better yet, go to the Guardian archives and read the comments from Americans to the Brits who wanted to tell us how to run a certain election.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 04:31 PM   #8
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
How can al-Maleki prove that he will cooperate, when he is barely in charge of what goes on in Baghdad?
Al Sadr and he are hand-in-glove. Al Maliki supports the murders of the Sunnis. He doesn't need to control something that's going the way he wants it and the Americans simply protect him in his power.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
His nonresponse to Bush's SoTA speaks volumes.
To me, it says that he has no intention of doing what Bush says, that Bush is speaking for himself and that surge or no surge, things in Iraq are going just fine to suit him.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
I think that the anti-war movement IS primarily motivated by the high body-count, rather than the "right-ness" of the invasion and occupation.
War is a very sad fact of life. I don't think the fighting in Afghanistan provoked the kind of protest we see toward the fiasco in Iraq. Americans understand sacrifice for a just cause, but Bush asks us to sacrifice our children for his pride and ego.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Consider: we were the primary instigators of the Sanctions, which in practice could only be called genocide against the Iraqi children.
I don't agree. Saddam just took what money their was for his own good. The sanctions didn't kill Iraqi children. Saddam did. And still, incredibly, they were better off with him in power (or removed by some more intelligent means) than they are now, after George Bush got involved.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 04:43 PM   #9
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
The sanctions didn't kill Iraqi children. Saddam did
I'm sorry, David: but this statement belies reality.

I don't seem to recall Saddam agreeing to starve his people. Sure, he played his stupid macho poker-game of "do-I-have-wmds-or-don't-I (and thus, he's indirectly responsible)," but he didn't decide to bomb his own infrastructure and embargo needed supplies.

The last two directors of the Oil-for-Food Program called the Sanctions as little more than genocide. Yeah, Hussein was partly responsible: but your logic of Hussein being responsible falls in line with blaming a torture-victim for all the punishment he gets, because he's being so stubborn.

When do the main perpetrators of this genocide get called into account? IMO, it's been past-due for over a decade.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 05:34 PM   #10
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,219
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Well, the Brits aren't going to "surge".... the same types of liberals who blocked any action against Hitler are now blocking any actions against the Islamic threat.

The ISG was just one committee.... just because it was the one the liberal media wanted to hear, doesn't mean there wasn't other input. Notice that on the ISG there was not one single military person. Do you really want a war that is controlled by civilians? But wait.... what do you care so much about what the US and Bush do? Isn't your country something of a mess in terms of crime and employment? Go worry about the UK for a change.

Better yet, go to the Guardian archives and read the comments from Americans to the Brits who wanted to tell us how to run a certain election.

Mike
What have Brits got to do with blocking Bush's surge?

I thought the war was controlled by civilians, the military doesn't declare war governments do, the military just do their bidding. Soldiers are civilians in uniform. Unless it is a Military Junta which I don't think either of our countries are, yet.

Are people outside of the US not aloud to have an opinion?

Isn't my country in something of a mess in terms of crime and unemployment? - Actually no, unemployment figures have been down since the conservatives were ousted and have been pretty steady ever since, our economy has been relatively stable too. And some categories of crime are definitely down while others are admittedly up. However, you probably will explain to me how I have been brainwashed and can't see the truth.

Your method of attacking anything and any person that doesn't fall into your narrow view of the world is disingenuous.

Who formed the ISG? and for what purpose? I'll rely on my US breathrin to inform me.

Mike I'm sure you are the only forum member who believes that an opinion is only valid if it comes from the same side.

I did read with some amusement the Guardian article prior to the last election in your country. It was a bit daft in my view, and some of the comments from the americans to their uk counterparts were valid, some funny and some taken in the spirit that was intended, some quite hateful and some just plain ill informed and bigoted.

Reports over here state that approx 70%+ of the US population are not behind Bush's new strategy. Are they right or is it my liberal news media lying to me?? They also aired a prominent Republican stating that Bush's strategy would be the biggest foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. Again, true or not. You seem to know where the truth lies.

regards

Mark

I'm listening to Marvin Gaye's "What's Goin On" right now, it seems just as apt now as it did then.

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 06:01 PM   #11
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
I did read with some amusement the Guardian article prior to the last election in your country. It was a bit daft in my view, and some of the comments from the americans to their uk counterparts were valid, some funny and some taken in the spirit that was intended, some quite hateful and some just plain ill informed and bigoted.
But see, Mark.... your comments are mainly about the Americans in relation to that "daft" article. The absurdity of Brits constantly and negatively worrying about the US and giving advice never crosses your mind. The Europeans should simply shut up, given their record for so mismanaging things that they've caused two world wars resulting in the deaths of millions. I.e., the opinion of Europeans on how to run the world is useless.

European arrogance is to be admired just for its size, but look at something simple, like the Bosnia thing, that the Europeans once again simply couldn't handle. Show me something, anything, that validates European opinions as anything other than useless backbiting from people who can't handle their own affairs, much less the world's.

How well have the Europeans handled the Iran problem with their much-vaunted "diplomacy" which is more and more beginning to resemble the way they handled Hitler prior to WWII? Maybe if you worried more about European failures rather than your constant perception of American failures, you could get more done?

Oh.... and am I "euro-bashing"? Sure... but even if we put our backs to it, we couldn't catch up with the "America bashing" that seems to be the major sport of Europe.

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 06:29 PM   #12
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,219
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
But see, Mark.... your comments are mainly about the Americans in relation to that "daft" article. The absurdity of Brits constantly and negatively worrying about the US and giving advice never crosses your mind.
You seem to be very well balanced Mike, you have a chip on both shoulders

I thought the guardian readership giving advice to one small town in the US was ill advised or 'daft' as I had said. The comments from the americans was mixed as I said. Where is the problem? you take it as a cue to spew out another round of Euro bashing, hence-

Quote:
The Europeans should simply shut up, given their record for so mismanaging things that they've caused two world wars resulting in the deaths of millions. I.e., the opinion of Europeans on how to run the world is useless.

European arrogance is to be admired just for its size, but look at something simple, like the Bosnia thing, that the Europeans once again simply couldn't handle. Show me something, anything, that validates European opinions as anything other than useless backbiting from people who can't handle their own affairs, much less the world's.
and
Quote:
How well have the Europeans handled the Iran problem with their much-vaunted "diplomacy" which is more and more beginning to resemble the way they handled Hitler prior to WWII? Maybe if you worried more about European failures rather than your constant perception of American failures, you could get more done?
I'm plenty aware of European shortcomings, but the thread was started specifically about GWB, not European history and it's relative successes and failures.

Quote:
Oh.... and am I "euro-bashing"? Sure... but even if we put our backs to it, we couldn't catch up with the "America bashing" that seems to be the major sport of Europe.
Oh I don't know Mike, you seem to be playing a blinder for your 'side'

In my lifetime, my experience has been one where many of us over here, looked to the US with some level of envy, your better material life, your more open government, better dentistry, to name a few. US bashing did not start in earnest until you elected your present president, and he started to make unilateral policy desicions that didn't seem to respect 'the rest of the world' . Don't blame us for having an opinion, look to why it might be that way.

I'm sure things will change once your next elections are out of the way and the next president (whatever their political colour) changes tack. The Neo-cons have had their day, others will have theirs.
What are you going to do if the Democrats get in? The rest of the world might breath a collective sigh of relief, which may drown out your gnashing of teeth

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 07:41 PM   #13
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
You seem to be very well balanced Mike, you have a chip on both shoulders

I thought the guardian readership giving advice to one small town in the US was ill advised or 'daft' as I had said. The comments from the americans was mixed as I said. Where is the problem? you take it as a cue to spew out another round of Euro bashing,
That's odd, Mark.... I see most of your posts as negative to the US. Constantly. It seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored, doesn't it?
Quote:
I'm plenty aware of European shortcomings, but the thread was started specifically about GWB, not European history and it's relative successes and failures.
Glass houses, Mark. Glass houses. What proposals and *actions* have the Europeans taken of any substance in decades, Mark. They talk. The Isam issue was quelled temporarily by the after-actions of World War I, but it has grown and grown until it has begun outright attacks on the West... again. Bush is just a passing president affected by the ramifications of an anti-West, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, etc., religion which, unfortunately, makes its civil laws an indivisible aspect of its "religion". Right or wrong, Bush is at least doing something. Europe is doing nothing but complaining.... and going under. Look to your own problems. Frankly, I'm sure if a poll were taken in the US about the love for our sometimes-when-they-need-something European "allies", the poll would be pretty low.

If I saw you worrying aloud about the problems in Europe as much as you do with the US, I would say nothing, I assure you, Mark. As it is, your cloak of righteousness seems tattered, in my eyes.
Quote:
In my lifetime, my experience has been one where many of us over here, looked to the US with some level of envy, your better material life, your more open government, better dentistry, to name a few. US bashing did not start in earnest until you elected your present president, and he started to make unilateral policy desicions that didn't seem to respect 'the rest of the world' . Don't blame us for having an opinion, look to why it might be that way.
If you look back at Reagan (another highly reviled "cowboy" in the European press and opinion), the truth is that Europe always likes a near-socialist Democrat and despises any American president that doesn't put Europes selfish interests first. That's it, simply put.

You want an American that will continue to lean over backward for Europe and not one who will look out primarily for US interests. You want NATO, with the US footing the bill. You want the US to take the short side of every trade agreement or you'll "hate America". You want the US to cut its tariffs while Europe maintains the highest protective tariffs in the world. And so on. You liked Clinton because he would do your bidding, take care of Bosnia for you (a "civil war" that the UN didn't approve either.... but not a complaint from the EU in that case). Let me say it again, Mark... if I saw you and David Chalk as presenting balanced views, rather than the constant America-bashing, I wouldn't say a word back at you.
Quote:
I'm sure things will change once your next elections are out of the way and the next president (whatever their political colour) changes tack. The Neo-cons have had their day, others will have theirs.
What are you going to do if the Democrats get in? The rest of the world might breath a collective sigh of relief, which may drown out your gnashing of teeth
What do you think is going to happen when Bush is gone, Mark? Do you think the Arabs will fold up their tents and return to their peaceful ways? Do you think the Europeans are going to start managing problems instead of just talking about them?

Europe will wait for the next election and pray for a Democrat who will do their bidding in the hope of "raising the popularity polls in Europe." The Dem's will be praying between now and the election that there is not another big attack in the US because deep down most people in the US and the world know that when it's time for the grownups to take action, only a Republican is going to do it.

Could be though that our liberal educators and our press and our Hollywood have convinced enough of the younger generation that we can just make friends with Islam, even if they're cutting our thoats. The problem is that if that's true, we're not going to be there to pull your coals out of the fire this time, Mark. You need to be praying for a Republican, not a Hillary Clinton or an Al Gore.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 11:49 PM   #14
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:

David Orange wrote:
"I don't remember what Franks said, but it looks to me like Shinseki had it dead on. A typical Bush tactic to fire (or smear) those who tell the truth."

Mike:
I'm going to stop right here. You don't know what you're talking about, once again. Franks listed himself and all the generals that wanted a small, rapid force. You're picking and choosing your facts in a rather clueless way.
Mmmm....no. It looks like Shinseki was 100% correct and we have today what he said we would have. And if Franks said we could do it with a small force, he was wrong. But why did Cheney change his tune? He said at the end of Gulf War I that it would be a fool's errand to invade Baghdad. We'd have to end up rebuilding their government, which is not what we're about. We'd be stuck in a bloody quagmire, etc. Franks covered his ass, it looks like to me. And he kept his job. Shinseki told the truth and got canned for saying we needed more troops.

After Bush flipper-floppered (long after more troops could help), Abizaid said we didn't need more troops. And where is he now? OUT. That's the shame of being an honorable, intelligent military man: a self-serving political bully can bring you down in a heartbeat.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
David Orange wrote:
"I think it's far more insulting to put a chickenhawk in charge of their lives, send them into Iraq without sufficient armor, renege on the limits of their time in combat, send them back before their time is due, and all the other indignities Bumbya has heaped upon them."

Mike:
You may have missed a few of the fairly analytical dissertations about the characters of people who make this "chickenhawk" charge.
"The people" who make the "chickenhawk charge"???

I don't know who "they" are. I'm the one who said it. And I don't need to read any critiques of anyone's character when I can see Bush's character right in front of my eyes, every day for the past seven years. He's a chickenhawk. He got out of Viet Nam, shirked his duty in the Air Guard, never put himself in harm's way, but now sends other people to die for NOTHING but his own cowboy ego.

Again, I say that Afghanistan was on the right track, but he abandoned that job half done and the Taliban are taking over there again.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
It's pure personal attack.
He's a terrible leader who sends others to do what he wormed his way out of doing. That is the definition of "chickenhawk."

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Where did you serve?
You quoted in another thread that "If one isn't a socialist at 20 he has no heart. If he's still a socialist at 30, he has no head."

Well, similarly, if you were born in 1945 and didn't go to Viet Nam, you had no patriotism. If you were born in 1955 and did go, you just weren't paying attention to what was going on in the world.

I was on a military track from birth until 17. My father was on carriers in the Korean conflict and I aimed to be a fighter pilot my whole life. I was up for an appointment to the Air Force Academy but I backed out because I had seen too much crookedness in the way our sorry leaders were handling Viet Nam. It had turned into a big testing field for high-tech weaponry, an endless conflict for conflict's sake, mismanaged by politicians and bean counters who didn't give a damn about a soldier's life, much less his lousy arm, leg or face. And the Viet Namese people? The sure didn't give a damn about them. We were supposedly there to "save" them, but by 1972 even a teenager could see that that was not what was happening over there.

I gave up my chance to fly the finest aircraft known to man. I put myself at risk for the draft, which was still going and for which I had registered. Unlike Bush, who got to fly great jets, got paid and probably still gets verterans' benefits despite not showing up for duty and being declared unfit to fly, I wouldn't serve that system at all. While Viet Nam was winding down and was finished by the time I would have been a military pilot, I didn't trust them not to send me into some similar debacle for some other politician's glory at the cost of innocent blood.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Maybe we should bring up the point that Al Gore tried to prevent the votes of servicemen from counting in the 2000 election because he knew that most military votes are Republican....
You mean the allegation, the political Rovian smear?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
for the simple reason that the percentage of Dem's and libs who serve in the military is very small. They complain... but they don't serve in meaningful numbers.
Well, Gore did. Kerry did.

Who didn't? Rove. Cheney. Limbaugh. Wolfowitz. Gingrich.

It's an impressive list, all the cons and neo-cons who wormed their way out of service during Viet Nam although they whole-heartedly supported sending other people and who, decades later, engineered the disastrous fiasco in Iraq: in other words, "chickenhawks."

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2007, 11:56 PM   #15
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
The ISG was just one committee.... just because it was the one the liberal media wanted to hear, doesn't mean there wasn't other input.
Mmmmm.....that was put together by Bush's daddy--former head of the CIA, former War President, GHW Bush. There wasn't much "liberal" about that group. James Baker???? Come off it.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Notice that on the ISG there was not one single military person. Do you really want a war that is controlled by civilians?
You mean like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove and Rice????
How would a war controlled by intelligent, honest civilians be worse than one controlled by scheming chickenhawks???

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
But wait.... what do you care so much about what the US and Bush do? Isn't your country something of a mess in terms of crime and employment? Go worry about the UK for a change.
Yeah, Mike, looks like the Brits are pulling out to take care of their real business at home. They were our biggest allies in the fiasco in Iraq and they've had enough of Bush's bumbling. Whether the US pulls out now or in ten years, Islamic radicals are going to run that country as soon as we leave. That's the whole point about Al Maliki. He's working with Al Sadr, he's got a grip on the death squads and he is fine with what they are doing. Better we should all wake up to the truth of what's really happening in that hellhole now before we waste more lives and money on something we should never have started.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 12:05 AM   #16
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
I don't seem to recall Saddam agreeing to starve his people. Sure, he played his stupid macho poker-game of "do-I-have-wmds-or-don't-I (and thus, he's indirectly responsible)," but he didn't decide to bomb his own infrastructure and embargo needed supplies.
His army didn't starve for food, uniforms, vehicles or weapons. Saddam took what should have gone to the people and while those children were starving, he built huge palaces for himself and his sons. And yet, incredibly, the Iraqi people were better off with him in power than they are in the boiling hell of the tribal civil war that rules that country now.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Yeah, Hussein was partly responsible: but your logic of Hussein being responsible falls in line with blaming a torture-victim for all the punishment he gets, because he's being so stubborn.
Saddam never suffered in all that time. He never missed a meal or a comfort of any kind or any thing he wanted under the sanctions.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
When do the main perpetrators of this genocide get called into account? IMO, it's been past-due for over a decade.
Well, he was called to account for it a couple of weeks ago and his sons got it a couple of years ago. But the whole world would have been better off if we had left Iraq alone and finished our job in Afghanistan.

Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech wasn't only a lie concerning Iraq: it marked "Mission Abandoned" in the only country that really did have a direct role in 9/11. Other than Saudi Arabia, but they are close, personal friends of the Bush's. Oh, and Bin Laden, but his family and the Bush family have a long history of lucrative business together.

So we abandoned Afghanistan again and we turned Iraq into a hell on earth, not only for the Iraqis, but for our entire nation and certainly for the soldiers over there trying to serve our nation.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 12:54 AM   #17
Guilty Spark
 
Guilty Spark's Avatar
Location: Flordia
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 300
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Great post David
Really liked this part.
Quote:
Donald Rumsfeld stupidly said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

How stupid is that? Would you go to dinner with the money you happen to have in your pocket, or would you make sure you had enough before you went into the restaurant? Would you buy a million-dollar house with the income you happen to be making or would you either buy a cheaper house or get a bigger income?
In speaking with a lot of American soldiers many of them are unhappy. Lots are being kept way past their due date to leave. A black hawk pilot friend of mine was supposed to be out he said over a year ago. Lots of them believe in the very near future the US military is going to have serious morale problems on their hands which will effect recruiting. Soldiers won't resign creating a knowledge and skill gap and the US will have to lower their recruiting standards more and more to get people to join.

Canada, who arguably has the worst physical fitness standards in NATO, has lowered our already ridiculous physical fitness standards for new recruits.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
I don't seem to recall Saddam agreeing to starve his people. Sure, he played his stupid macho poker-game of "do-I-have-wmds-or-don't-I (and thus, he's indirectly responsible)," but he didn't decide to bomb his own infrastructure and embargo needed supplies.
Neil I don't even know how to begin to argue this.

If you're hungry, keep moving.
If you're tired, keep moving.
If you value you're life, keep moving.

You don't own what you can't defend
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 01:01 AM   #18
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
His army didn't starve for food, uniforms, vehicles or weapons. Saddam took what should have gone to the people and while those children were starving, he built huge palaces for himself and his sons.
And, they were starving, because of the Sanctions.

Look, granted that Hussein was a horrible megalomanic, and partly culpable.

But only partly. For murdering Iraqi children, the US and GB also need to take a "bow."

Quote:
And yet, incredibly, the Iraqi people were better off with him in power than they are in the boiling hell of the tribal civil war that rules that country now.
True enough. Hussein said it pretty succinctly, didn't he? before the trapdoor fell out from under him, in response to one of his executioners telling him to go to hell..."Iraq IS hell."

Quote:
Saddam never suffered in all that time. He never missed a meal or a comfort of any kind or any thing he wanted under the sanctions.
Yeah, OK, he was bad. Got that. Roger.

Look, I sat and watched (in a public discussion) a video of Hussein's thugs beating Shi'ites who dared to oppose him in the civil war (remember that one? The one where GHW Bush extolled the Iraqi ppl to "rise up" against Hussein? And then we let the ensuing bloodbath against the Shi'ites go unhindered, as we let Hussein's helicopters fly freely, to stifle the uprising...or, don't we share any of the responsibility for that, either?? )

It was a hard video to watch.

So yeah, I get it. Hussein was brutal. But, he didn't instigate the Sanctions, and no amount of your saying that "Hussein is bad bad bad" will change that fact.

Quote:
Well, he was called to account for it a couple of weeks ago and his sons got it a couple of years ago.
While the other world-actors that let it go by when it happened; and THEN were shocked! SHOCKED! to hear that he murdered his own ppl, proceeded to bomb their infrastucture and then starve the Iraqi's...they get to walk, free.

Quote:
But the whole world would have been better off if we had left Iraq alone and finished our job in Afghanistan.
The whole world would have been better off if we had left Iraq alone and treated Afghanistan as a matter of international law, instead of the Wild West.

Quote:
Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech wasn't only a lie concerning Iraq: it marked "Mission Abandoned" in the only country that really did have a direct role in 9/11. Other than Saudi Arabia, but they are close, personal friends of the Bush's. Oh, and Bin Laden, but his family and the Bush family have a long history of lucrative business together.

So we abandoned Afghanistan again and we turned Iraq into a hell on earth, not only for the Iraqis, but for our entire nation and certainly for the soldiers over there trying to serve our nation.

David
See, the thing about Afghanistan that really bothers me is not that we "left our mission behind:" it's all symbolized in the debacle of Guantanamo. And, you can't really talk about the war in Afghanistan without talking about Concentration Camp X-Ray (which is essentially what it is).

It is estimated that 91% of the ppl there are innocent. And why? Because they were picked up in mass street arrests, and sweeps, in Afghanistan and Pakistan...some of them from a bounty.

In 2002, a caravan of mixed Afghan and Taliban prisoners were put by N. Alliance fighters (under the supervision of US forces) in big metal crates, and trucked them out to the desert, where they had to endure 5 days of overcrowding with no water, no ventilation. When some of them cried out for air, the guards shot holes into the containers, killing some of the prisoners.

After 5 days, the surviving prisoners were let out, and some were processed onto Gitmo.

This is the sort of legacy we leave behind when we go on "missions," like Afghanistan. Atrocities happen, they disappear into media black-holes (except for the occasional hiccup, such as May Lai, in Vietnam) or it fades from the US memory.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 01:02 AM   #19
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Grant Wagar wrote:
Great post David
Well, it's sincere if nothing else.

Quote:
Grant Wagar wrote:
In speaking with a lot of American soldiers many of them are unhappy. Lots are being kept way past their due date to leave. A black hawk pilot friend of mine was supposed to be out he said over a year ago.
Bush has CHEATED these people who volunteered to serve their country, only to find that they are serving Dubya's huge, cowboy ego. It is WRONG and I hate it.

Quote:
Grant Wagar wrote:
Lots of them believe in the very near future the US military is going to have serious morale problems on their hands which will effect recruiting. Soldiers won't resign creating a knowledge and skill gap and the US will have to lower their recruiting standards more and more to get people to join.
That or they will simply reinstate the draft. I often worry that that is a major part of Bush's real strategy: to damage our military so deeply that the draft will be brought back. We were doing very well with an all-volunteer force. We were getting very intelligent and highly motivated people. The weak side of that is that once you join, any strutting-monkey politician can decide to "sacrifice" your life for his personal glory.

Now we're taking many more high school dropouts with mental deficiencies and discipline problems. They cost more to train and take more effort to control and command and they will be more likely to commit atrocities.

I'm afraid I do feel a draft.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 01:08 AM   #20
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
I sat and watched (in a public discussion) a video of Hussein's thugs beating Shi'ites who dared to oppose him in the civil war (remember that one? The one where GHW Bush extolled the Iraqi ppl to "rise up" against Hussein? And then we let the ensuing bloodbath against the Shi'ites go unhindered, as we let Hussein's helicopters fly freely, to stifle the uprising...or, don't we share any of the responsibility for that, either?? )
I'm afraid our nation will suffer very badly for decades to come because we had the very, very bad judgment to trust the George Bushes.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Hussein was brutal. But, he didn't instigate the Sanctions, and no amount of your saying that "Hussein is bad bad bad" will change that fact.
My point is that, even with the Sanctions, there was plenty of money to feed the children. It was purely Saddam's choice to spend the available money on palaces and weapons and paying Palestinian suicide bombers instead of feeding his own people. The Sanctions didn't kill anyone. Saddam did.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 01:11 AM   #21
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
That or they will simply reinstate the draft. I often worry that that is a major part of Bush's real strategy: to damage our military so deeply that the draft will be brought back. We were doing very well with an all-volunteer force.
Bush? Have a strategy...? Where?

[quote]Now we're taking many more high school dropouts with mental deficiencies and discipline problems. They cost more to train and take more effort to control and command p/quote]

yes, true enough.

Quote:
and they will be more likely to commit atrocities.
huh??

Quote:
I'm afraid I do feel a draft.

David
True enough, but personally I think that the draft will return more as a desperate attempt by the Army to bolster its ranks, rather than as scheming, pre-planned tactic.

But of course, it's always a bad idea to "misunderestimate" Bush. So, your fears may be well-founded.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 01:16 AM   #22
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
paying Palestinian suicide bombers instead of feeding his own people.
Sorry, wrong.

Hussein did not pay $$ out to Palestinian suicide bombers.

He offered recompensation to the families of suicide bombers.

Big difference (I know, I know...you don't see it that way...but I do. And I'll be happy to discuss it at length.

But I must add, in your continual attempts to demonize an admittedly bad man...that as early as 1993, he indicated that he'd be willing to recognize the state of Israel).

Quote:
The Sanctions didn't kill anyone. Saddam did.

David
How morally convenient, to think so. Sure let's us off the hook, right?

The money Hussein took could not have fed all of Iraq. And so, Hussein is only partly to blame.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 08:03 AM   #23
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Mmmm....no. It looks like Shinseki was 100% correct and we have today what he said we would have. And if Franks said we could do it with a small force, he was wrong. But why did Cheney ..........
Ah, I see the problem. You simply hate America. Notice in yours and Neil's and Grant's and Mark's et al posts that there is not one single comment about other contributions to "what went wrong". Neil excuses everything Saddam and all Arabs do and blames it on the US. You solely blame Bush and the US (trust me, I don't play this silly game where we bash Bush and pretend we're not bashing the US )..... where have you blamed the Iraqi government for duplicity, lack of ability, etc.,? Where have you blamed Iran's interference? Syria's? The EU's duplicity? Russia's? China's. Liberals at home hindering the war every way they can? All those people have had a hand, yet you don't mention a single one of those factors. Nor does Neil. You're purely focused on hating the US

If you step back and look at it, pretending Bush is the only person who has had an input or an effect on the war isn't just partisan.... it's moronic. Try to imagine that fanatical type of dissertation while sitting with a group of people who are actually knowledgeable about history, military, intelligence operations, etc. No one would even listen to this tripe..... so who is it you think you're talking to? A bunch of Aikido beginners like the one you hold thrall in your class?

Do you think you are a balanced person?

MIke
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 02:18 PM   #24
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Ah, I see the problem. You simply hate America.
Ah, I see the problem. Your limited imagination can only surmise that criticism of the US Gov't, means that we hate America.

Gosh...now isn't THAT a new twist...never saw THAT one, before...

Quote:
Neil excuses everything Saddam and all Arabs do and blames it on the US.
Truth...here

Mikey's take on the truth... (*looking thru telescope, focusing on Betelguese*)...here

Wrong, Mike. It's one thing to say that Hussein was a terrible ruler...no question on that.

Quite another to say that everything he did, from dawn to dusk, was ALL bad, for his ppl.

During Hussein's reign, there were no suicide bombers.
During Hussein's reign, Iraqi's were considered one of the more highly educated ppl in the MidEast.
During Hussein's reign, there were ALSO terrible tortures, wrongful imprisonments, and fiat ruled by fear.

It's nice to sugarcoat history to your liking, and do so at your leisure; but please...stop putting words in my mouth.

It only makes your posts look more like the the dittohead splutter of Rush Limbaugh, than they already are.

Quote:
where have you blamed the Iraqi government for duplicity, lack of ability, etc.,?
AHahahahahaha! Blame a puppet, for not being "puppet-like," enough?

Quote:
Where have you blamed Iran's interference? Syria's? The EU's duplicity? Russia's? China's.
Funny, but I seem to remember Russia, China, France, et al: telling the US NOT to create the stupid, idiotic and illegal move to invade.

Guess you must be talking about some other, alternative, Mike-Sigman-like reality.

Quote:
Liberals at home hindering the war every way they can?
Oh, yeah...it's all the Liberal's fault....riiiight!

Blame EVERYONE, but the US.

Quote:
You're purely focused on hating the US
I really pity you, Mike. You actually believe this tripe. You probably harbor a belief somewhere that we could have won the Vietnam War, if we'd only have hung on, long enough.

Quote:
If you step back and look at it, pretending Bush is the only person who has had an input or an effect on the war isn't just partisan.... it's moronic.
Funny, but I seem to recall that now even Republican's are calling this "surge" a bad idea. Apparently only Bush and about 6 other guys think it isn't.

But right, it's all everyone else's fault.....

Quote:
Do you think you are a balanced person?

MIke
I'd ask the same question of you, Mike: but I (and the readers here) already know the answer to THAT one...
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2007, 02:33 PM   #25
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,508
United_States
Offline
Re: An Alternative Proposal for Bush

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Bush? Have a strategy...? Where?
He may be simple, but so is his strategy: serve the super wealthy and he will always be taken care of.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An alternative appreciation of 'the Do' MikeLogan Humor 5 01-22-2007 05:37 PM
Aikido as an alternative to judo kata? bob_stra General 13 06-04-2006 10:17 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate