ChasingBlueSky 0 #1 November 21, 2005 For those saying going against the war is unpatriotic, etc..... http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/nationworld/articles/1994827.html President softens tone as he wraps up trip to Asia. During a stop in Mongolia, he praises the nation for Iraq aid and condemns radical Islam. By Terence Hunt The Associated Press ULAN BATOR, Mongolia -- In the wake of congressional unrest over his war policies, President Bush thanked Mongolia today for standing with him in Iraq and compared the struggle against Islamic radicalism to this country's battle against communism. "Free people did not falter in the Cold War, and free people will not falter in the war on terror," the president said in a speech prepared for delivery to members of Parliament and others at the Government House. Bush said Mongolia has stood with the United States as "brothers in the cause of freedom." He called Mongolians' success in driving communist leaders from power 15 years ago an example for the world. "Like the ideology of communism, the ideology of Islamic radicalism is destined to fail -- because the will to power is no match for the universal desire to live in freedom," Bush said. Bush's four-hour stop in this poor and sparsely populated nation was the first by an American president. The brief visit was a reward for Mongolia's pursuit of democracy and support for the U.S. fight against terrorism. Bush has been fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia as war critics in Washington found a new voice in hawkish Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania. The White House initially attacked Murtha, but Bush on Sunday toned down his backlash by saying there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing the war. He told reporters that Murtha is "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible. "People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible." Bush brought up the growing Iraq debate when he met reporters after inconclusive talks with President Hu Jintao about friction in U.S.-China relations. He expected a warmer welcome in Mongolia, which has been eager for closer military relations with the United States and has provided about 120 Mongolian soldiers in Iraq. The number is small, but White House officials are quick to point out that, per capita, only two other countries -- the United Kingdom and Denmark -- have sent more of their soldiers to Iraq. The Mongolians have been rewarded with $11 million in U.S. aid to improve military forces. Bush also noted that the country was one of 16 chosen to share in $1 billion in U.S. aid as part of his Millennium Challenge Account that rewards poor countries that show a commitment to economic and government reform. Bush urged the parliament to pass anti-corruption legislation as part of the transition to a successful democracy. Mongolia's share of the $1 billion is subject to approval after the country submits a spending proposal to Washington. The millions of dollars expected from the program could make a big difference for a country with a total gross domestic product of only $1.1 billion. Bush said U.S. forces are proud to serve with the "fearless warriors" of Mongolia, home of legendary, ferocious horseman-warrior Genghis Khan. Bush specifically thanked two Mongolian soldiers who gunned down a suicide bomber who was trying to drive a truck full of explosives into a coalition mess tent in southern Iraq. With eight more U.S. military deaths over the weekend, Bush reminded Mongolians that their transition to liberty was not always easy. But he said Mongolians have built a better life with their struggle against communism. "Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism teaches that the innocent can be murdered to serve their brutal aims," Bush said. "Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent." Besides his speech, Bush's schedule for Mongolia included a closed-door meeting with President Nambaryn Enkhbayar and a visit to a traditional felt tent to see Mongolia throat singing and other cultural events. Mongolia was the last scheduled stop during Bush's weeklong visit to Asia, which included visits to Japan, South Korea and China. He returns to Washington tonight. Bush ran into stiff resistance from the Chinese to his call for expanding religious freedom and human rights. He also reported no breakthroughs toward reducing China's massive trade surplus, overhauling its currency system or protecting intellectual property rights. The president took satisfaction simply in the fact that Hu mentioned human rights when the two leaders made joint statements to the press. "Those who watch China closely would say that maybe a decade ago, a leader wouldn't have uttered those comments," Bush said. "He talked about democracy." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained that "we've certainly not seen the progress that we would expect" on a months-old U.S. request for action by China on specific human rights cases. Bush said the United States had presented a list of "dissidents that we believe are unfairly imprisoned." When a reporter suggested Bush had seemed unenthusiastic in the joint appearance with Hu, the president responded, "Have you ever heard of jet lag?"_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 November 21, 2005 No problem with that. But the acidic rhetoric from many that are accusing in a bold faced fashion is what is causing the rabid debate. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #3 November 21, 2005 >But the acidic rhetoric from many that are accusing in a bold faced > fashion is what is causing the rabid debate. Agreed. Kudos to Bush for toning it down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 November 21, 2005 Quote>But the acidic rhetoric from many that are accusing in a bold faced > fashion is what is causing the rabid debate. Agreed. Kudos to Bush for toning it down. Bill, sometimes I hate you...in a good way of course. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 November 21, 2005 I don't recall anyone saying that being against the war is unpatriotic. I do remember people saying the outrageous, disrespectful, personal attacks on the President at a time of war, when our troops are at risk, endangering them is unpatriotic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #6 November 21, 2005 QuoteNo problem with that. But the acidic rhetoric from many that are accusing in a bold faced fashion is what is causing the rabid debate. Since both sides are tossing about playground-worthy insults and rhetoric.....both are at fault. I'm waiting for the "I know you are but what am I" line of arguments next. This post was in response to the multitude of hard-core war supporters that use any base argument that an anti-war view is 100% wrong, unamerican, against the troops, blaah blah blah. As if having independent thought and opinions of your own was a bad thing. That line of thinking has scared me about this administration. And the trend of it in the populace scared me more of what that could hold for the future......._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #7 November 21, 2005 QuoteI don't recall anyone saying that being against the war is unpatriotic. I do remember people saying the outrageous, disrespectful, personal attacks on the President at a time of war, when our troops are at risk, endangering them is unpatriotic. How is ANY form of challenging the administration unpatriotic? Freedom of speech is the root of all our freedoms. To limit it due to war time BS is.....well, BS._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 November 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteI don't recall anyone saying that being against the war is unpatriotic. I do remember people saying the outrageous, disrespectful, personal attacks on the President at a time of war, when our troops are at risk, endangering them is unpatriotic. How is ANY form of challenging the administration unpatriotic? Freedom of speech is the root of all our freedoms. To limit it due to war time BS is.....well, BS. There's still no impediment on free speech for those that want to say that. However, lack of tact, or thought in such cases is, in some cases, "out of bounds" in terms of etiquette. If that makes any sense.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #9 November 21, 2005 Quote There's still no impediment on free speech for those that want to say that. However, lack of tact, or thought in such cases is, in some cases, "out of bounds" in terms of etiquette. If that makes any sense. Well...that should go for both sides in the current petty argument. The simple fact is that you can often defeat ignorance with fact. No one seems to be doing that. Nonetheless - freedom of speech is not limited by tact or vocabulary. Larry Flint has shown that. Responsibilty is needed.....but what you say is protected. To claim otherwise is unpatriotic. So.....maybe I didn't get what you were saying.....my thought is....if you want to say somethinng...say it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 November 21, 2005 >The simple fact is that you can often defeat ignorance with fact. And unfortunately you can drown out fact with rhetoric, which both sides have become masters at. >Responsibilty is needed.....but what you say is protected. To claim otherwise is unpatriotic. Agreed. Like a former president once said: "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 November 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteI don't recall anyone saying that being against the war is unpatriotic. I do remember people saying the outrageous, disrespectful, personal attacks on the President at a time of war, when our troops are at risk, endangering them is unpatriotic. How is ANY form of challenging the administration unpatriotic? Freedom of speech is the root of all our freedoms. To limit it due to war time BS is.....well, BS. I'm sure your boss apppreciates a dissenting opinion and I'm pretty sure you are welcomed to dissagree with him. I'm equally sure that if you start calling him stupid and dumb, that he will be a lot less likely to listen to you and if you keep it up and/or escalate the attacks to the point of disrespect, he will fire you. The point being that a dissenting opinion is good. Personal attacks cross the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #12 November 21, 2005 QuoteThe simple fact is that you can often defeat ignorance with fact. No one seems to be doing that. Believe me, I try, very hard to do so here in SC. Yet, the ignorance grows in fertile ground here sometimes. QuoteNonetheless - freedom of speech is not limited by tact or vocabulary. Larry Flint has shown that. Responsibilty is needed.....but what you say is protected. To claim otherwise is unpatriotic. So.....maybe I didn't get what you were saying.....my thought is....if you want to say somethinng...say it. We don't necessarily disagree here. For a long time, in politics, there were certain "unwritten" rules that allowed non-partisan dialogue to continue when the cameras aren't on. Since President Bush was elected, these backchannels have been closing.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #13 November 21, 2005 QuoteThe point being that a dissenting opinion is good. Personal attacks cross the line. I totally agree. I mean, satirical humour is one thing, but that repetitively condescending, "Shrub," and "sKerry," stuff was pretty lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #14 November 21, 2005 Quote I'm sure your boss apppreciates a dissenting opinion and I'm pretty sure you are welcomed to dissagree with him. I'm equally sure that if you start calling him stupid and dumb, that he will be a lot less likely to listen to you and if you keep it up and/or escalate the attacks to the point of disrespect, he will fire you. Responsibility in your words is needed. Agreed. However, using harsh language is no where near unpatriotic.....nor is using that language to disent from talking points used by any administration. QuotePersonal attacks cross the line. Why does this seem ironic to me?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 November 21, 2005 QuoteQuote I'm sure your boss apppreciates a dissenting opinion and I'm pretty sure you are welcomed to dissagree with him. I'm equally sure that if you start calling him stupid and dumb, that he will be a lot less likely to listen to you and if you keep it up and/or escalate the attacks to the point of disrespect, he will fire you. Responsibility in your words is needed. Agreed. However, using harsh language is no where near unpatriotic.....nor is using that language to disent from talking points used by any administration. QuotePersonal attacks cross the line. Why does this seem ironic to me? It does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? ***"We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1990 interview with historian Stanley Karnow. *** Little hard to deny this reality when it comes to Iraq isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #16 November 21, 2005 >Little hard to deny this reality when it comes to Iraq isn't it? Wow. I can remember when all the GOPers were saying that Iraq has nothing in common with Vietnam. Now those same people are comparing the two. Recently a few GOP commentators have accidentally said "Vietnam" when they meant to say "Iraq." Makes me think the future might not be as rosy as those commentators paint it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 November 21, 2005 Quote>Little hard to deny this reality when it comes to Iraq isn't it? Wow. I can remember when all the GOPers were saying that Iraq has nothing in common with Vietnam. Now those same people are comparing the two. Recently a few GOP commentators have accidentally said "Vietnam" when they meant to say "Iraq." Makes me think the future might not be as rosy as those commentators paint it. Nice little non-sequitur spin, Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #18 November 21, 2005 Quote It does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? If it is the will and voice of the American people....then it must be heard no matter what they are saying. Trying to keep something quiet can and will have a much larger negative impact in the long run._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 November 21, 2005 QuoteQuote It does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? If it is the will and voice of the American people....then it must be heard no matter what they are saying. Trying to keep something quiet can and will have a much larger negative impact in the long run. I think you are missing the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #20 November 21, 2005 QuoteI think you are missing the point. Not really. But I would like to hear why you think that._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 November 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think you are missing the point. Not really. But I would like to hear why you think that. If you back and read what I've said in this thread, I think you will see I've been very clear. Disagreement and dissent is good and I consider it patriotic. Disrespectful rhetoric to the point it encourages our enemies isn't. I disagreed with Clinton at the time we were at war in Bosnia, but I never called him names and I didn't appreciate those who did at that time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #22 November 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote It does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? If it is the will and voice of the American people....then it must be heard no matter what they are saying. Trying to keep something quiet can and will have a much larger negative impact in the long run. I think you are missing the point. I'm taking your point to be that we should have unwavering support of the administration, even if they have screwed up beyond imagination. The other side would be to voice your dissent, which I gather you are against because it is demoralizing to the military regardless of whether it is right or wrong. I think we have the duty to dissent when our leaders have gone a stray. I recognize it may be unpopular with certain people who don't hold the same opinion or soldiers tasked with carrying out the policies, but the ability of American citizens to change policies or courses of action which have proven to be bad is one of the things that makes America great. And from this post: QuoteI'm sure your boss apppreciates a dissenting opinion and I'm pretty sure you are welcomed to dissagree with him. I'm equally sure that if you start calling him stupid and dumb, that he will be a lot less likely to listen to you and if you keep it up and/or escalate the attacks to the point of disrespect, he will fire you. The president works for the citizens, not the other way around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #23 November 21, 2005 you said: QuoteIt does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? Quote "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1990 interview with historian Stanley Karnow. Quote Little hard to deny this reality when it comes to Iraq isn't it? bill said in response: Quote Wow. I can remember when all the GOPers were saying that Iraq has nothing in common with Vietnam. Now those same people are comparing the two. Recently a few GOP commentators have accidentally said "Vietnam" when they meant to say "Iraq." Makes me think the future might not be as rosy as those commentators paint it. and then you said: QuoteNice little non-sequitur spin, Bill. non-sequitur: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. You compared Iraq to Vietnam by way of American dissent to the war. Bill just followed up on that. Hardly a non-sequitur.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 November 22, 2005 Then you are not reading what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #25 November 22, 2005 QuoteThen you are not reading what I said. I got your point now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
