Phoenix bhai, go ahead and 'Just Do It'. F&B Khel Khilari ka trained banda hai. Wahan ehsan bhai ne sabb ko seedha kiya hua hai. Threads merge hotay hein, bandd hotay. Ye aadi hein iss baat ke.
:D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Phoenix bhai, go ahead and 'Just Do It'. F&B Khel Khilari ka trained banda hai. Wahan ehsan bhai ne sabb ko seedha kiya hua hai. Threads merge hotay hein, bandd hotay. Ye aadi hein iss baat ke.
:D
[/QUOTE]
lol.....FB sahib kabee kabee ronaq bhakssttay hann hamary forum ko ...so i decided to be polite....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
4. Has moved the main actionable battleground in the war on terror overseas with us the aggressor rather than adopting policies that would require us to fight it at home as the defender.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I can fully agree with any of the points you've put forward (even #10), but this one is simply absurd.
Aside from the fundamental moral problem that this creates--specifically the implication that those who happen to live in the war zones we create are less valued as humans, their safety falls below our own--the whole idea can be broken by a handful of people. It only took 19 to carry out the tragedy that we claim as justification for this notion. How in the hell can it be that engaging thousands elsewhere can prevent another 19 penetrating our borders and wreaking havoc once again?? You see, for this idea to be true, we must prevent that from happening, not simply try to deter it. If one attack falls through then the battleground, by your assumed standards, again is America. So then the efforts elsewhere, all those who suffered for this notion are all pointless.
myvoice, do you believe what you write here or are you just having a good time getting reactions?
Sept. 30th, the 1st of 3 Presidential Debates takes place in Coral Gables (Miami), Florida. Finally down to the issues.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Here’s a partial list of things that come immediately to mind.
- Has restored the responsibility for the security of our country to the White House where it belongs rather than in the UN.
- Wiped out a terrorist supporting government in Afghanistan;
- Wiped out the government of Saddam.
- Has moved the main actionable battleground in the war on terror overseas with us the aggressor rather than adopting policies that would require us to fight it at home as the defender.
- Got Libya to peaceably give up WMD programs and rejoin the community of nations;
- Restored credibility to the willingness of the US to use its military forces to protect its people and its interests;
- Gave American wage earners a big income tax cut.
- Steadied and restored the US economy in the face of an unprecedented convergence of negative events: inherited recession, inherited speculative stock market bubble, inherited corporate financial accounting crime, and 911.
- Restored a sense of moral dignity and clarity to the White House.
- Got the twins through college with no major personal catastrophes.
He deserves four more years to try to complete the work in progress and to solidify these accomplishments.
[/QUOTE]
1 – If one considers the Iraqi Debacle to have decreased our security, this is hardly an accomplishment. While the security of the US should not be the responsibility of the UN, Iraq actually demonstrates why the power to wage war should not be the responsibility of an ill-advised president.
2 –Few Americans would argue the attack of Afghanistan wasn't the right thing to do, any president would have done the same thing. But the terrorists that attacked us still roam the mountains of Central Asia. So the might of the US military toppling a 3rd world country is hardly a Bush accomplishment. Now a successful post-war strategy would be an accomplishment.
3 – Probably his biggest mistake, don’t know how this made the list.
4 – The war on terror has many fronts, the least of which was Iraq where all of our resources and good will have gone.
5 – They weren’t even on the Axis of Evil. Bush did find WMD, Weapons of Mass Distraction, uncovered at a convenient time as to some how justify the Iraq attack. As if Libya was anywhere on America's overextended radar.
6 – At what price was the credibility of the US military restored? Its credibility by every other measurement was destroyed.
7 – Gee thanks, but that few hundred bucks has been shifted in costs to states and communities. So I’m still paying the money but so will our children and grandchildren. It may have had a short term stimulus effect, but we are still paying the money AND adding trillions to our debt.
8 - By his short term stimulus package? I didn’t know he even had a real economic policy. For all these “unprecedented negatives” he inherited, he also inherited unprecedented positives that he has turned upside down.
9 – Conservatives love to talk about this. But there is more to moral dignity than who you sleep with. I find the actions that lead us to an immoral war to be more troubling than a president who is not monogamous.
10 – George’s partying days lasted well into his 30’s, give it a chance.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Phoenix bhai, go ahead and 'Just Do It'. F&B Khel Khilari ka trained banda hai. Wahan ehsan bhai ne sabb ko seedha kiya hua hai. Threads merge hotay hein, bandd hotay. Ye aadi hein iss baat ke.
:D
[/QUOTE]
:D
No problem Pheonix.
There was a time when I used to post here. Lekin itne Phadee dekhe aur upar se saari thread ki final mazil ek hihoti thi. So simply ignored it and moved on to my KK.
But after this incident I am discouraged. :p
myvoice bhaijaan,
I thought if anything Bush was an economic hero to you and your defense is that it could have been worse? Isn’t it the similar to the argument that anyone but Bush could have done it better? FACT: I am a wage earner like any other American, and tax cuts did not do jack for me, instead due to the tax cuts I am trying to help out the local school district to raise enough money to retain the math & science teachers they have.
Your #1 and #3 are clear contradictions. Anyone who considers that Iraq war benefited in the global war on terror is in lala land. If it has done anything is to fuel more recruits to the terrorists and anger throughout the world towards the US government and it’s citizens making them anything but safe.
4 is the most concerning to me because it shows that that you are among those American who believe that American blood is above all others, which contradicts the very basic principle of the constitution you claim to believe in that “All men are created equal”. If the argument is that killing 12000+ Iraqis and 1000+ US soldiers/civilians & 7000+ wounded, with 200+ UK & other solders killed [so far, only God knows how many more there will be] was worth it, than even by doing simple math on body counts, this war has been far more devastating than September 11th
It is also a wrong to say that US forces are killing terrorists. The 12000+ Iraqis killed were not terrorists; they were not the ones who had WMD, they were not the ones who gassed anyone, they hadn’t oppressed anyone but they were the ones being oppressed, nor did they sponsored terrorism in any shape or form.
** "#4 is the most concerning to me because it shows that that you are among those American who believe that American blood is above all others, which contradicts the very basic principle of the constitution you claim to believe in that “All men are created equal”. **
ahmadjee, Being the President of the USA is a job. The most important part of the job description is protecting the safety and security of Americans. In discharging that responsibility, a President should not, IMO, engage in any mental excercise regarding balancing the value of American versus non-American lives. I can't imagine electing a President who would say that he did not act to save 100 American lives because the only way to save them involved killing 110 non-Americans and since all lives are equal that it would be wrong to save 100 Americans by killing 110 non-Americans.
I support the strategy of taking the fight to the terrorists and their supporters to their turf. I believe we should be relentless in our application of military force to root out terrorists bent on harming Americans and America's interests. If you think I'm evil or morally bankrupt because I think the lives of my parents, wife, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, and countrymen ought to be protected even at the expense of the lives of non-Americans in other parts of the world, then so be it. I'm sure that most Pakistanis believe President Musharref should place more importance on perotecting the lives of their families than on the lives of some Indian, Brit, or American.
waging war on nouns isn’t new.. look how well the War on Drugs is going.. 
and Stu bhaijaan.. i’m not one who claims to know who was actually behind the attacks of 9/11.. but yes.. i’ll reject conspiracy theories spun by the government which can’t stand on one leg if scrutinized without the flag wrapped around your eyes and duct tape covering your mouth.
Semi:
1 – I don’t happen to believe that the Iraq War decreased our security. I share your concerns regarding a President going to war based upon bad information.
2 –I don’t share your opinion that any President would have toppled the Taliban. Too many times we merely tossed a missile or two into a lonely tent in response to attacks against us. As to post-war Afghanistan, reconstruction and stability will take time. We’ll have good days and bad days. We’ll adjust as conditions warrant.
3 – I don’t think toppling Saddam was a mistake and I don’t think many Americans would say it was. The mistakes are all in post-war strategy. So toppling Saddam was an achievement but the mess we’re in now is not.
4 – Iraq certainly is a battleground in the war on terror now. It is the main battleground. I’d rather fight the terrorists there than on the streets of New York.
5 – Libya is a success in that it is the first country to dramatically change its behavior in response to American policy. Hopefully, giving them lots of carrots will persuade other leaders that it would be better to follow Quadaffi’s lead than Saddams.
6 – I think you misunderstand my point. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t believe any country seriously factored into their thinking the possibility that the US would go to war to topple regimes in response to supporting terrorists. Now they do.
7 – The states did not receive any less federal money because of the tax cut. If your state raised your taxes after the US government cut your income tax bill, blame your state government not GW.
8 – Every President inherits positives and negatives. The one “positive” that he inherited that has turned upside down on his watch was the surplus. I don’t happen to believe the government ought to operate with a surplus. That’s not money the government earned by being good at anything. It is taxpayer money. A surplus means you are spending less money than you are taking from the taxpayer. Spending less is good but taking more than you need is not. The goal is to have a balanced budget rather than running a surplus or a deficit.
9 – Since I don’t believe the Iraq war was immoral, I can’t agree with you.
myvoice bhaijaan, I don’t consider you or your views morally bankrupt but hypocritical none the less. Humanity first – regardless of the color of one’s passport being my guiding principle.
I predict by the time US forces will leave Iraq the death toll of just American soldiers will be at least twice that of 9/11 and so will be the effect of war on American economy but the most devastating failure will be that terrorists will still be as strong as they were before with little to no security to American lives here or abroad no matter how much they perceive it to be. Instead most of the success in the war on terrorism will come from blocking terrorist finances, pressuring resident governments to capture them and exporting true American values rather than pop culture and arms.
The general in charge of Pakistan went the same route in the 80s collaborating with CIA & the Saudis to bring war to the communists [then considered much worse than the terrorist] on their own turf in Afghanistan. Not only did they manage to destroy the Afghan culture, they are responsible for getting two million Afghans killed and twice that displaced & life in ruins. On top of that they all left the country in despair and civil war. The American got their revenge for Vietnam, Pakistan’s general get to keep his army strong on your tax dollars and the Saudis got to establish their narrow-minded theology all over the place. And while keeping the lives of their citizens dear & their national interest first & foremost, US/Pakistan/Saudi used up the Afghans as cannon fodder while creating menace to the world like Bin Laden.
Moral from both the stories is the same; selfish policies on personal or national level do little to bring peace to our acquaintances and to the world at large. They might bring temporary security & prosperity but eventually the bad karma comes back home.
The fun part about MV’s #4 is that it can never be disproved, can it? So what if we lose more citizens defending against a possible attack than we would if that attack actually occurred. So what if the “other” casualties are ten times ours, not just 100 to 110. So what if our economy suffers more in “defense” than it would in tragedy.
If no attack happens MV and his cohorts would be right by default, right?
But if an attack does happen, well, that would be dirty libruls undermining them.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon: *
So what if we lose more citizens defending against a possible attack than we would if that attack actually occurred. So what if the "other" casualties are ten times ours, not just 100 to 110. So what if our economy suffers more in "defense" than it would in tragedy.
[/QUOTE]
The job of President is not to simply react when he senses danger. His job is to *act.. properly. A cop on the street doesn't unload his weapon at a mugger if it would also take out twenty people in the crowd. That would be criminal negligence. A good president would not attack an entity if the danger is greater than the benefit. Sometimes this cynical calculus is required. It is for this unique quality of discretion that we have an Executive branch. Yes, the president must defend the American people. But he must also realize that not every defense is wise and effective. Sometimes a given defense can be counterproductive.
Spoon:
I agree with you that #4 on my list is not susceptible to direct proof. Neither is #8 or #6 really. These are just my opinions on the achievements I perceive to have been made during GWs first term in office. They are debatable. Heck, as we have seen, some people don't see removing Saddam as a positive "achievement" either.
I accept it as a given that had we not taken massive military action overseas in conjunction with the other steps we have taken in response to 911, we would have experienced more terrorist attacks in the US.
You write, "A good president would not attack an entity if the danger is greater than the benefit." I agree with you but think you don't take the analysis far enough. You need to ask "danger to whom" and "benefit to whom." The US President needs to place greatest importance on dangers and benefits to the AMERICAN people. Chirac can worry most about dangers and benefits of the French. Musharreff dangers and benefits to Pakistan. Etc., etc., etc.
And there is a scalability issue too. You wouldn't want a President who would nuke 25 million Iraqis to prevent one American citizen from being beheaded by a small group of folks living in Iraq. You would hope that the majority of 25 million Iraqis would respect that one American life enough to root out that small group of folks from their midst on their own. Things get complicated when that majority welcomes that small group of extremists in their fold and the number of potential American victims increases. I wouldn't want the job of sorting it all out and being responsible for deciding who lives and who dies.
Latest Polls reflect that 51 percent of voters disapproved of Bush’s handling of the economy, which they consider the most important election issue. Some 48 percent of voters ranked Kerry better on issues of jobs and unemployment, while just 32 percent ranked Bush as better.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6320953&pageNumber=1
At the same time, the Kerry campaign now seems content to make Iraq the number one issue of the campaign. ** Does this strategy seem downright ludicrous to anybody other than me? **
If voters think the economy is the most important issue and if voters rank Kerry higher on that issue, wouldn’t it make sense to make that the number one issue if you’re the Kerry campaign. It seems to me the Kerry campaign started out that way but got shaken up real badly by the attacks on Kerry vis a vis the war on terror and the Iraq war. So they change their strategy to focus on the War as the number one issue and let the debate on the economy slip onto the back burner. Are we going to see the Kerry campaign shift back to the economy as the number one issue now that these polls are out? The campaign leadership seems about as wishy-washy as the candidate.
I would ask all of you to give vote to Bush. Do not be with loosers. Why shall ones vote be wasted. It is so obvious that Bush would win. Bye sokoon
Reasons to Vote Bush.
Reasons to vote for Bush???
Bush wants to....
- Hand social security monies to private investment companies at a cost of at least a trillion.
Doesn't that make you mad?
What guarantees are there that an investment accounts maintined by private parties will provide retirement earnings...??? IMHO a handout of public monies to private firms is a fertile for corruption.
Think about those Enron workers that lost retirement pensions. People who worked whole life..and got the rug pulled under them...
Think about the frequent financial scandals...
Martha Stewart goes to jail.....I have yet to find material regarding Kenneth Ley has recieved a prison sentence...
- Handing U.S. tax dollars to Haliburton Co.... Nasty rumors comng from Nigeria...bribery...etc..
Haliburton recieving an Iraq no-bid contract worth millions and our Vice President is still recieving monies from his former employer.
Iraq. The promise about elections....even though there are no-go areas.... Sorry Mr. President, but I don't trust you. I fear that you will send my brothers to hotspots after you are re-elected.. to the no-go areas.
Who is running for election in Iraq? Alawi? Is there any other choice?
Granting my boss the lee-way to raise my salary...rather then give me the earnings I earned working overtime.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Here’s a partial list of things that come immediately to mind.
- Has restored the responsibility for the security of our country to the White House where it belongs rather than in the UN.
- Wiped out a terrorist supporting government in Afghanistan;
- Wiped out the government of Saddam.
- Has moved the main actionable battleground in the war on terror overseas with us the aggressor rather than adopting policies that would require us to fight it at home as the defender.
- Got Libya to peaceably give up WMD programs and rejoin the community of nations;
- Restored credibility to the willingness of the US to use its military forces to protect its people and its interests;
- Gave American wage earners a big income tax cut.
- Steadied and restored the US economy in the face of an unprecedented convergence of negative events: inherited recession, inherited speculative stock market bubble, inherited corporate financial accounting crime, and 911.
- Restored a sense of moral dignity and clarity to the White House.
- Got the twins through college with no major personal catastrophes.
He deserves four more years to try to complete the work in progress and to solidify these accomplishments.
[/QUOTE]
MyVoice,
I think the only plus is Libya.
He did not restore any moral values about Americans to the world..
In fact..I think he gave a bad impression about us..and still is.
At least he got the twins to go to college...to bad one of em is such the cracker that she would stick out her tongue.
i remember that i told my friends that when bush won that i was happy cuz he is gonna destroy the country...they were republicans and i was just kidding..but he does seem to be on the path to ruin america....wallah o alam
You were right actually. What do you expect from Dumbya? He has the lowest IQ score 91 among all presidents in last 50 years. Clinton's was 182
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (r)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (r)
121 Gerald Ford (r)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (r)
098 George HW Bush (r)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (r)