George Bush is Today's Churchill...

[Crazy Flamer]

According to Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/T.../28/646211.html

Debate, anyone?

[Lurch]

Holy crap, this is nearly as full of drivel as the Illuminati wingnut sites I just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading. The only difference is that this guy is supposedly 'mainstream'. Throw together some quasi-facts with a little fear-mongering, simmer for a few paragraphs, and voila, act like you just proved your case.

" (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism). " I love this style - disagree if you like, but you'd be wrong!! Conspiracy theorists and Worthington definitely share the belief that if only everyone would just look at things, they'd agree b/c the 'answer' is right there in front of your face.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Crazy Flamer@Sep 28 2004, 05:18 PM
According to Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/T.../28/646211.html

Debate, anyone?

Except for Churchill. He began warning that the Nazis must be stopped when they occupied the Rhineland in 1936. He urged an alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union to stop Hitler's expansion. He was called a warmonger, an enemy of peace, reviled in print and in speeches.

The British neo-con conspiracy? Germany invades Poland and that's all the excuse the neo-cons needed to take over and employ their pre-advertised agenda!!

Just kidding.

Churchill carried some baggage - he was first sea lord in WWI and had some collossal failures on his mitts like Gallipoli. Its stuff like that where people might not have been taking him seriously in the inter-war years.

He was named Prime Minister in wartime and was thrown out of office in an election shortly after the conflict ended. He returned for another, unsuccessful term and throw out again.

GW Bush didn't come to office because he was pounding the table on terrorism. As his critics point out, he seemed largely disinterested in foreign affairs and, as our able Lanny loves to point out, his administration "screwed the pooch" on 9/11 through lack of urgency.

Bush is certainly thumping the table on terrorism now but, unlike Churchill, that's not how he came to power.

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

I really don't see how you can compare Churchill to Bush:

Originally posted by Worthington

Except for Churchill. He began warning that the Nazis must be stopped when they occupied the Rhineland in 1936. He urged an alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union to stop Hitler's expansion. He was called a warmonger, an enemy of peace, reviled in print and in speeches. Few stood with him.

When did Bush warn us about 9/11? Oh yeah, he reacted to it and all the terrorist jibba jabba from Bush came afterwards.

And is Bush the only one warning us about this threat of terror nowadays? Is he the only one that wants to fight it? Seems to me that most people would agree those radicals who want nothing more than the destruction of the Western World need to be stopped. I think most take issue with Bush's approach to fighting terrorism (ie: Iraq). I personally think Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. Sorta like if Churchill went off to battle El Salvador, claiming he was dealing a crushing blow to Nazi Germany.

Oh but wait, Bush did urge a worldly alliance to crush that enourmous, looming threat that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Much like Churchill urged a European alliance to combat Hitler and his armies. Looking back, I can see how easy it is to compare Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Germany, and thus Churchill to Bush...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 05:57 PM
GW Bush didn't come to office because he was pounding the table on terrorism. As his critics point out, he seemed largely disinterested in foreign affairs and, as our able Lanny loves to point out, his administration "screwed the pooch" on 9/11 through lack of urgency.

I was reading a discussion about this in a different forum, and one person pointed out a source that had a GW speech from his original campaign, and he did mention a desire to get tough on Iraq back then.

It was quite a while ago, so I doubt I can find the source, but I'll post it if I do.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 29 2004, 01:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 29 2004, 01:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 05:57 PM
GW Bush didn't come to office because he was pounding the table on terrorism. As his critics point out, he seemed largely disinterested in foreign affairs and, as our able Lanny loves to point out, his administration "screwed the pooch" on 9/11 through lack of urgency.

I was reading a discussion about this in a different forum, and one person pointed out a source that had a GW speech from his original campaign, and he did mention a desire to get tough on Iraq back then.

It was quite a while ago, so I doubt I can find the source, but I'll post it if I do. [/b][/quote]
Even Lanny conceded in another thread that "getting tough" wouldn't have included a full blown shoot-em-up invasion without the catalyst of 9/11. "Getting tough" could mean a lot of things. If I'm not mistaken, he's talked about "getting tough" with North Korea, Syria and Iran as well.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well, not a full shoot 'em up invasion of Iraq immediately, like we saw. I think there would have been an escalation and then an invasion. Something would have come up to give the neo-cons their rally point. It was exceptionally fortunate that 911 fell into their laps.

On to the Worthington article... I will give Worthington credit, he did use Bush and Nazi's in the same paragraph, so he's headed in the right direction. The problem with Worthington's article is that he fails to connect the dots and see the parallels between the Neo-Cons and the Facists. The similarities are indeed staggering. Bush is far from Churchill as he is not on the side of the peaceful in this instance. The US is the illegal invader, something the British never did. Worthington just went down the wrong fork in the road as he typed his article.

[Cowperson]

I will give Worthington credit, he did use Bush and Nazi's in the same paragraph, so he's headed in the right direction.

Didn't you bring up the Bush/Nazi comparison a month ago . . . . then back off on it?

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 28 2004, 05:50 PM

" (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism). " I love this style - disagree if you like, but you'd be wrong!! Conspiracy theorists and Worthington definitely share the belief that if only everyone would just look at things, they'd agree b/c the 'answer' is right there in front of your face.

Sounds a lot like a Lanny McDonald post! :evil: :innocent:

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 28 2004, 06:50 PM
" (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism). " I love this style - disagree if you like, but you'd be wrong!! Conspiracy theorists and Worthington definitely share the belief that if only everyone would just look at things, they'd agree b/c the 'answer' is right there in front of your face.

So you take belief from the left, belief from the right, sum them up, divide by two and you discover the truth?

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 28 2004, 11:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 28 2004, 11:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Sep 28 2004, 05:50 PM

" (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism). " I love this style - disagree if you like, but you'd be wrong!! Conspiracy theorists and Worthington definitely share the belief that if only everyone would just look at things, they'd agree b/c the 'answer' is right there in front of your face.

Sounds a lot like a Lanny McDonald post! :evil: :innocent: [/b][/quote]
Hey dude has a point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and beyond that, there are plenty of educated opinions that counter others. As in life, there are often no easy answers. Writers who suggest that there are, or suggest that if you disagree with them you are automatically wrong, aren't nearly as educated as they think they are.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Sep 29 2004, 01:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Sep 29 2004, 01:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Sep 28 2004, 06:50 PM
" (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism). " I love this style - disagree if you like, but you'd be wrong!! Conspiracy theorists and Worthington definitely share the belief that if only everyone would just look at things, they'd agree b/c the 'answer' is right there in front of your face.

So you take belief from the left, belief from the right, sum them up, divide by two and you discover the truth? [/b][/quote]
Heh, I don't think that is what he is saying... Just that it is kind of egotistical to write that, 'if you don't believe me you are wrong'.

Though your comment might be closer to the truth in many cases than people care to admit... After all, life is all hinged on balance right?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 29 2004, 09:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 29 2004, 09:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So you take belief from the left, belief from the right, sum them up, divide by two and you discover the truth?

Heh, I don't think that is what he is saying... Just that it is kind of egotistical to write that, 'if you don't believe me you are wrong'.

Though your comment might be closer to the truth in many cases than people care to admit... After all, life is all hinged on balance right? [/b][/quote]
What I am trying to say is that there is one truth. There may be several `understandings` of the truth, however the truth itself does not depend on a human, because facts are result of "natural laws" such as for example "time is scarce" that are a priori true and cannot be proved wrong logically. Thus facts are independent of humans and work even if no one is prepared to acknowledge them. Im not sure where relativists see the problem?

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Sep 29 2004, 03:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Sep 29 2004, 03:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Heh, I don't think that is what he is saying... Just that it is kind of egotistical to write that, 'if you don't believe me you are wrong'.

Though your comment might be closer to the truth in many cases than people care to admit... After all, life is all hinged on balance right?

What I am trying to say is that there is one truth. There may be several `understandings` of the truth, however the truth itself does not depend on a human, because facts are result of "natural laws" such as for example "time is scarce" that are a priori true and cannot be proved wrong logically. Thus facts are independent of humans and work even if no one is prepared to acknowledge them. Im not sure where relativists see the problem? [/b][/quote]
Well that much is true, like that whole stupid, 'if a tree falls in a forest' debate. Of course it still makes a sound, all the rules for sound are still there even if there is no audience.

I was just comtemplating that often the one truth probably IS closer to the middle. Not always, not even a large amount of the time, just often enough to be something of consideration. If you take knowledge (actual facts not opinion) from both sides it stands to reason you'll have a better understanding and be closer to the truth.

Not anything scientific or even philosophical, just a musing I had. I know it's flawed in it's logic and experiment, but it probably works enough in the real world to be a little bit of value.

Was just a musing I had, hence the winky face at the end.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 29 2004, 04:32 AM
I will give Worthington credit, he did use Bush and Nazi's in the same paragraph, so he's headed in the right direction.

Didn't you bring up the Bush/Nazi comparison a month ago . . . . then back off on it?

Cowperson

Yes, I backed off on it because people were defending Bush by saying that he has not committed genocide and is no where near as crazy in believing that he can build the master race (no, that Paul Wolfowitz). But I still believe that like all the delusional leaders in time bent on world conquest (Hitler, Napoleon, the Cesaers, etc.) he holds certain beliefs close to the vest that should scare the hell out everyone. And it may not be Bush himself, but it is his administration is definitely out there and has some really warped ideas.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 28 2004, 07:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 28 2004, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I was reading a discussion about this in a different forum, and one person pointed out a source that had a GW speech from his original campaign, and he did mention a desire to get tough on Iraq back then.

It was quite a while ago, so I doubt I can find the source, but I'll post it if I do.

Even Lanny conceded in another thread that "getting tough" wouldn't have included a full blown shoot-em-up invasion without the catalyst of 9/11. "Getting tough" could mean a lot of things. If I'm not mistaken, he's talked about "getting tough" with North Korea, Syria and Iran as well.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
And he still might... The U.S. army is just stretched too thin right now.

Ok, that's probably oversimplifying things, but I think there are many issues at play on that then simply 'he didn't mean an invasion'. I'm not entirely convinced he didn't anyway. There were Iraq plans BEFORE September 11th 2001.

Plus, there's still plenty of time. 'Axis of Evil' was only coined what, 18 months ago? In that time he invaded one of those countries. Plenty of time to invade more.

If he gets re-elected, he truly has nothing to lose, could be a lot more 'dangerous' in his second term than his first.

If by 'dangerous' you mean going after other countries. Maybe N. Korea wouldn't be such a bad idea though. I wish he started with that one.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 29 2004, 04:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 29 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Even Lanny conceded in another thread that "getting tough" wouldn't have included a full blown shoot-em-up invasion without the catalyst of 9/11. "Getting tough" could mean a lot of things. If I'm not mistaken, he's talked about "getting tough" with North Korea, Syria and Iran as well.

Cowperson

And he still might... The U.S. army is just stretched too thin right now.

Ok, that's probably oversimplifying things, but I think there are many issues at play on that then simply 'he didn't mean an invasion'. I'm not entirely convinced he didn't anyway. There were Iraq plans BEFORE September 11th 2001.

Plus, there's still plenty of time. 'Axis of Evil' was only coined what, 18 months ago? In that time he invaded one of those countries. Plenty of time to invade more.

If he gets re-elected, he truly has nothing to lose, could be a lot more 'dangerous' in his second term than his first.

If by 'dangerous' you mean going after other countries. Maybe N. Korea wouldn't be such a bad idea though. I wish he started with that one. [/b][/quote]
In all honesty, who would he invade?

We all sat around here on Sept. 11, 2001 and said Afghanistan would be first and Iraq would be second.

No surprises there. The obvious candidates were put to the torch in short fashion.

What's left? Iran and North Korea aren't going to be invaded. Syria? Saudi Arabia? Not likely.

As well, I can't help but notice Iraq isn't going too well. It took 16 years for the USA to embark on a major land campaign after the scarring of Vietnam, the small excursions into Grenada and Panama duly noted. And Gulf War I wouldn't have happened with Saddam invading Kuwait and bringing the world down on him.

Dropping bombs from 25,000 feet or covertly upsetting governments is a little different than an out and out invasion.

I just don't see where the candidates are. Now or in the next 10 years or longer.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Hey I don't know why he would. I don't know why he invaded Iraq so... WHO KNOWS?

All I'm saying is that if he would invade Iraq, why would he stop there?

You're saying why would he, I'm saying why wouldn't he? Really either could be correct.

We didn't see Afghanistan as a candidate before September 11th 2001 though did we? And without that, would Iraq have happened?

I'm not saying he will for sure. I'm just saying it's a decent possibility more is still coming.

The world is an uncertain place. We've seen how George reacts.

[RougeUnderoos]

Yeah, I don't think we'll see them get into another mess before they get the two they have going right now straightened out.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2004, 04:45 PM
Yeah, I don't think we'll see them get into another mess before they get the two they have going right now straightened out.

From a practical point of view, that's exactly it.

Even if you think the mindset is there to take on much more difficult projects in Iran and North Korea, how would they do it with their resources stretched to the limit already and likely into the forseeable future?

Even the dreaded draft wouldn't help since you'd need about three or four years to equip and train several new Army divisions, right about the time the milk carton expires on a second GW Bush term.

Secondly, the political will with the American people simply isn't there. The majority might be on side to finish things off in Iraq and Afghanistan but going to look for other trouble simply wouldn't sell.

I will freely admit that upsetting foreign governments or bombing them from the air is on the table. A major land conflict? Not in the next term and, if you ask me, not for another 10 or 25 years because I don't see the obvious targets for it.

Just an opinion of course.

Cowperson