Sad milestone, American victims of Islamic terrorists reach 3,000!

[hypewaders]

"those congressmen were voted into power by the same people who you now say have changed their minds??"

There you have it.

 

[Baron Max]

Tell me something, Hype ....if you felt very, very strongly about something, but a bunch of protestors didn't want you to do it ...would you just change your mind and not do it? Are you so weak-willed that you'd let others make up your mind for you? Just like that? Even if you felt very strongly about the issue?

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

No.

 

[Baron Max]

No.

But you want President Bush and his administration to do that very thing?! How can you expect that of him, yet be so strong in your own personal determination? Are you that much of a hippo-critter?

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

I doesn't seem likely to me that President Bush thinks independently about foreign affairs. He doesn't strike me as an individual with much determination or even concern for affairs beyond his circle of associates. He doesn't seem to have a very good background in international issues, aside from his disastrous Presidential experience. He doesn't seem to have a lot of empathy for the victims of his Iraq adventure. However, it would be a fabulous thing if President Bush could break from his elitist herd, and begin thinking independently.

 

[Baron Max]

I doesn't seem likely to me that President Bush thinks independently about foreign affairs. He doesn't strike me as an individual with much concern for affairs beyond his circle of associates. He doesn't seem to have a very good background in international issues, ...

And don't ya' think that that's exactly what people would say about you if you chose to continue on a course that you felt strongly about ....and the protestors didn't agree with you?????? Hmmmm???

I find it difficult to believe that so many people here at sciforums feel that our entire govermental policies should be set by a bunch of protestors shown on tv news, or a bunch of radicals who have little or no knowledge about government or international politics. Odd that you'd want our system changed to that form of government. Really odd.

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

Reflecting more on your questions, Baron, I must add that determination is not a virtue, unless it is applied for the good of the nation in the case of Presidential responsibilities.

Bush need not respond to protesters in reshaping foreign policy. There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course. It's not just a matter of character, but of Constitutional duty, that he respond by making policy changes now.

Please respond to my questions in return.

 

[Baron Max]

Reflecting more on your questions, Baron, I must add that determination is not a virtue, unless it is applied for the good of the nation in the case of Presidential responsibilities.

Sure. Good for the nation. But who makes that determination? A bunch of protestors? A few radicals yelling on the tv news every night? Perhaps the news commentators themselves ...hammering away, day after day?

Bush need not respond to protesters in reshaping foreign policy. There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course.

Do you have any reliable data to confirm that assertion? And I hope you're not so stupid as to link up some poll numbers!! I want some reliable info for that assertion ...or else I'm going to have to assume that you're just one of those radical protestors yelling in the streets, trying to force your own foreign policy for the US government.

It's not just a matter of character, but of Constitutional duty, that he respond by making policy changes now.

President Roosevelt didn't respond to the criticism about World War II in Europe ...and there was plenty!! In fact, most of congress didn't want to go to war in Europe ..and we might not have had it not been for the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Yet here, you'd have had Roosevelt let the Brits take on the German armies alone, huh? Just 'cause "the people" didn't want to go to war???

Baron Max

 

[Buffalo Roam]

hypewaders
~ (4,746 posts)
Today, 02:25 PM #20
US Forces did not land in Europe late in the war (1944) to find that Hitler had no weapons with which to threaten his neighbors. Allied Forces did not bring political chaos to Europe. Hitler was not nefariously blamed for Pearl Harbor. Domestic support for WWII did not plummet to less than a 25%. Our losses in Europe would not have been acceptable under discovered false pretenses. Your WWII comparisons are irrelevant crap.
"Dead people don't get angry, Hype. If we killed all of 'em, who'd be left to get anyry? "
How would you propose to kill a billion people, Baron?

hypewaders, the reason our troops landed in Europe was because of a man named Neville Chamberlain, who declared Peace In Our Time, and allowed Hitler to develop his weapons of mass destruction,

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

Yes we got past it, straight into WWII, and millions of dead and wounded!

 

[hypewaders]

Which has what relevance to this discussion?

 

[URI]

Saddam is dead

>> Who kills Iraqis?

America.

Saddam kept Iraq in line. Without him over 300,000 Iraqis have been killed

f' the American casualties. Saddam did no wrong, he educated (~60% or more are University trained), he stabilized, and he huffed and puffed and kept the state in line.

Along come the INVAIDERS on no justification and carnage has resulted, AND it is far from over.

America should be take to the war crimes tribunal, and every yank fined one million $US.... LOL as if that will reestablish a future for all the children maimed, killed and displaced.

The consequences of this whole greed getting exercise will be a festering sore that may send us all into a police state

No thanks guys, it makes me puke..

 

[Baron Max]

Which has what relevance to this discussion?

Geez, ya' mean that you haven't been paying attention, Hype?

Go back and re-read some of the last few posts ....and try to follow along with the comments and responses. I'm sure you can do it if you put your mind to it.

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

Baron Max: "I want some reliable info for that assertion"

Assertion: There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course.

There's a lot of consultations taking place, and as I announced yesterday, I will be delivering my -- my plans, after a long deliberation, after steady deliberation. I'm not going to be rushed into making a difficult decision, a necessary decision, to say to our troops, we're going to give you the tools necessary to succeed and a strategy to help you succeed. I also want the new Secretary of Defense to have time to evaluate the situation, so he can provide serious and deliberate advice to me. - President GW Bush

Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq. - Washington Post

The truth of the matter is there's a need for radical change in policy. There's a need for a political solution in Iraq and a bipartisan solution here at home. Without those two things happening, there is no possibility, in my view, we succeed in Iraq.-FOXNews

As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas -Washington Post

Still promising to prevail in Iraq, the president plans to unveil a new strategy to a disillusioned public by Christmas. -MSNBC

President Bush reviewed Iraq strategy on Saturday with top generals for a second day in a row amid increasing election-season pressure to make dramatic changes to address deteriorating conditions.

With an increasing number of Republicans – including candidates in the November 7 elections – publicly conceding that the Iraq is not going well, Mr. Bush has suggested that he is open to changes in war tactics, reports CBS News correspondent Dan Raviv.

President Bush is reviewing Iraq strategy with top commanders for a second day in a row as election-season pressure increases to make dramatic changes amid deteriorating conditions. -CNN

Faced with a growing list of recommendations and a range of contradictory policy options from key advisers, President Bush yesterday delayed a planned announcement about a new strategy for the war in Iraq until the new year. -Washington Post

We find the Bush administration's delayed Iraq decision particularly repugnant and outrageous. Here we have the "great decider" unable or unwilling to discuss Iraq strategy and purposely delaying his decision until after the first of the year. He cites talking with his advisers as the major reason. Is this not an on-going process rather than a specific project?

Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq is the principal contributor to the U.S. loss of prestige world wide.

Gerald & Dolores Maxey

Farmington Hills

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: "I want some reliable info for that assertion"

Assertion: There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course.

So you take the words of a few people, the views and opinions of only a few people, to make the leap of faith that they're right ....and that there's a great majority in agreement? Geez, Hype, you're much, much more gullible than I thought you were.

Baron Max

 

[Picture]

Saddam is dead

>> Who kills Iraqis?

America.

..

hmmm, I thought that foreign Arabs & Iraqi Arabs fight each other.

 

[Baron Max]

Hype, why don't you take some time to answer my earlier post? I've copied it below so you don't have to waste too much effort:

“ Originally Posted by hypewaders
Reflecting more on your questions, Baron, I must add that determination is not a virtue, unless it is applied for the good of the nation in the case of Presidential responsibilities. ”

Sure. Good for the nation. But who makes that determination? A bunch of protestors? A few radicals yelling on the tv news every night? Perhaps the news commentators themselves ...hammering away, day after day?


“ Originally Posted by hypewaders
Bush need not respond to protesters in reshaping foreign policy. There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course. ”

Do you have any reliable data to confirm that assertion? And I hope you're not so stupid as to link up some poll numbers!! I want some reliable info for that assertion ...or else I'm going to have to assume that you're just one of those radical protestors yelling in the streets, trying to force your own foreign policy for the US government.


“ Originally Posted by hypewaders
It's not just a matter of character, but of Constitutional duty, that he respond by making policy changes now. ”

President Roosevelt didn't respond to the criticism about World War II in Europe ...and there was plenty!! In fact, most of congress didn't want to go to war in Europe ..and we might not have had it not been for the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Yet here, you'd have had Roosevelt let the Brits take on the German armies alone, huh? Just 'cause "the people" didn't want to go to war???

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

I am responding to your posts, Baron. Have a little patience please.

"So you take the words of a few people, the views and opinions of only a few people, to make the leap of faith that they're right"

No leap of faith is necessary for coming to grips with this, Baron. Maybe in your case it does require some extra courage.

Americans want a change of course in Iraq, and you can easily find abundant convincing evidence for this fact in the same ways as you would go about proving any other overwhelming popular desire: Listen to and read the opinions of a broad spectrum of Americans.You can also look to the polls not for hair-splitting nuances, but overall concerns. Iraq is at the top of the national agenda, because Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy about how this war is going.

 

[Baron Max]

..., and you can easily find abundant convincing evidence for this fact in the same ways as you would go about proving any other overwhelming popular desire: Listen to and read the opinions of a broad spectrum of Americans.

Is that how you do it, Hype? You listen to a broad spectrum of individual opinions? Or do you read only a few people who claim to have listened to that "broad spectrum" of Americans?

I would also ask ....what do you consider a "broad spectrum"? And additionally, how do you find the time to listen to all those people's opinions? I mean, ya' know, there's some 300 million people in the US ...that's a lot of listening, Hype. How do you find the time to play on sciforums???

You can also look to the polls not for hair-splitting nuances, but overall concerns. ......

I wouldn't believe polls if they forced me to read them at the point of a gun! I'd rather have them shoot me instead. If you believe the polls, about any-fuckin'-thing, then you're not nearly as intelligent as I once thought.

Sorry, Hype, but you're gonna' have to do a lot better than that to get me to believe that "all Americans" are against the war or even that they want a change. We hear that all the time on the news, but how do they know? Ahh, yes, they take a poll ....which means taht they call up about 1,000 people and ask them!! ....LOL!!

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

Regarding to your WWII comparisons, Baron: Post 20 above addresses them. How ever often you would like to bring it up, please go back to that post for an inkling that WWII enjoyed vastly more popular American support than the present war in Iraq, hands down.

Regarding your question on U.S. civics:

"Good for the nation. But who makes that determination? A bunch of protestors? A few radicals yelling on the tv news every night? Perhaps the news commentators themselves ...hammering away, day after day?"

"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand...not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people...."

-- James Madison, The Federalist, No. 37

The concentration of [all the powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government.... The government we fought for was one not only founded on free principles but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy...that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectively checked and restrained by the others... For this reason...the legislative, executive, and judicial departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval

Leaders in democracies differ from their authoritarian counterparts in the conduct of war in that they require higher levels of consent from the populace to initiate and prolong wars. This need helps to explain a broad array of empirical regularities regarding the differential war behavior of democracies. For example, democracies tend to pick fights that they are likely to win quickly even though they are more likely than authoritarian states to accept draws or even defeats as a war goes on. Such patterns suggest a broader and more continuous conception of democratic accountability than one based solely on voters’ use of elections to reward incumbents for triumphant wars and punish them for unsuccessful military adventures. In this more extensive view, democratic leaders rely on “contemporary consent”: they need high levels of public support to initiate a war and must maintain that support to carry on a war. This assumes a relation between public opinion and policy not unlike that of the “dynamic representation” model for domestic policy.

Erik Voeten, Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential
Accountability

 

[hypewaders]

"What do you consider a "broad spectrum"? And additionally, how do you find the time to listen to all those people's opinions? "

I meet a broad spectrum of people in my work. I get around. I talk politics in the course of a day. I read extensively. I follow the news. I'm interested in people's opinions, and I'm interested in the future of my country. That's how.