A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 10:17:34

:laugh:

At least I showed up.

clark · 2004-11-02 10:19:32

I had more important things to do.

BWhite · 2004-11-02 10:40:30

To reference what Bill was saying, bring hope for a better future, close the terror schools... change them is the underlying task. Even taking the most velvet-gloved approach, using force only when unavoidable and under the cover of darkness, we will be exapnding our culture at the expense of theirs. Some will see the chnage as being for the best and they can be worked with. Others will only grow more enraged, but they're already trying to kill us so we have little to lose.

'tis a pity GWB needs to be John Wayne or Garry Cooper and trounce the infidel in a straight up fight.

"Whup his ass then make 'em say uncle." Yup that's a fine plan. Sneaky would be so much better.

But winning sneaky means GWB cannot be crowned as the Henry V wannabe Boy-Warrior-King

Bush doesn't really intend to win the "War on Terror" since all he really cares about are the style points.

= = =

Whoa! Look at me! I am a Warrior-King fighter pilot Mr. President plays dress up Dude.

= = =

Okay, I am in a mood. . .

:band: :band:

BWhite · 2004-11-02 10:43:37

Elsewhere I offered the opinion that GWB wants to play John Wayne.

Problem is the game is being played in Casablanca, where John Wayne types usually die within 24 hours.

clark · 2004-11-02 10:50:43

I was always of the opinion that Bush bore a striking resemblance to Bubbles, Michael Jackson's chimp.

Favourite line from that movie?

Humphrey Bogart (Rick): Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.

Play it again Sam!

Grandma got sued by the lawyers,
After votin on election eve
You can say your vote don't matter,
but as for me and grandpa we believe...

BWhite · 2004-11-02 11:07:23

Anyway, speaking of the need for nuance. . .

Many people in their 60's today have parents who had TB and therefore have a postive skin test. They also have ailments like arthritis. My mother for example.

Treating the arthritis while NOT inflaming the TB is a tricky business requiring great care and subtlety by the doctors. My mother's story is the same as my friend's mother-in-law's story except my mother has always read up on medical stuff and has insisted that she recieve nuanced treatment.

Cobra, you obviously understand the truth of this analogy as applied to the War on Terror. So how can you still support Bush?

clark · 2004-11-02 11:17:15

You know, Kerry's wife spoke about a holistic treatment for arthritis, it involved soaking a bunch of white raisins in water (or was it wine?) and then eating them after they had soaked for a few days.

Bush's wife dosen't seem to have any cure for arthritis, so maybe we should support Kerry and his wife since they at least have a plan.

Nuanced enough yet? :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 11:32:26

Cobra, you obviously understand the truth of this analogy as applied to the War on Terror. So how can you still support Bush?

I don't actively support Bush, but I conclude that he's the best of two poor choices available. Disregarding the domestic reasoning and my desire to manuever the two Parties into mutual implosion, it breaks down like this:

Bush has set the tone for the opening campaigns of a long struggle. He's moved too overtly, making many mistakes but it ceases to matter because we must now deal with the now. Bush is "weak Roman" to use your term, which is a bad mix between proper "Roman" and paper-tiger sap like the enemy expects. Weak Roman is untenable, therefore Bush is not desireable to continue the fight.

Only any strategy currently on the table with present conditions is weak Roman. Turning attention to Kerry, if he truly intends to follow the course he recently advocates he will do no better. Weak Roman round II. Otherwise, he might back off or outright withdraw. This is no longer another choice, we've been there too long and done too much. If we leave it will be defeated Roman, the weakest possible. If we continue as we are we can't achieve all our goals, but we can hold the line and perhaps make some small progress. If we retreat we make it that much harder when we finally accept the need to take a long-term viable approach and it could possibly preclude the possibility if we appear too weak and leave too much ruin in our fleeing wake.

A continuation is the best we can realistically hope for under current circumstances, Bush will do so, Kerry will probably do so with a chance of cut-and-run. We've reached an empasse, neither side can achieve much more than it already has unless the conditions change. If we change them, we'd better make damn sure it's in our favor, and I don't believe that Kerry offers any reason to believe he'd be more likely to change it to favor us.

I'd like to throw Bush out and put in someone who's up to the task, unfortunately that individual has yet to turn up on a ballot. We're stuck.

That said, if Kerry is President-elect tomorrow morning, or next week, or sometime in May, I'll just have to send out another memo. Either way, I'm looking beyond a four-year horizon. Hopefully we'll soon get a Presidential candidate who can, who will do the same.

clark · 2004-11-02 12:16:58

Only any strategy currently on the table with present conditions is weak Roman. Turning attention to Kerry, if he truly intends to follow the course he recently advocates he will do no better.

Well, ya know, it seems that Kerry might have more latitude in deploying more troops to Iraq since he could ostenibly declare that there are too few troops there now, and it was a mistake to send so few in the first place. Whereas Bush couldn't neccessarily do this without admiting that sending in so few troops was a mistake...

Just sayin, not really looking to debate (think of it as food for thought), that Bush is constrained to continue the same policies because they are all part of his "master plan", and Kerry has more leeway to modift that plan without immediate rebuke for previous pre-war planning.

In my mind, it would seem those that advocate a stronger policy in Iraq might be better served if they supported a different leader who had more flexibility in acting without the previous baggage inherent in the creation of this situation.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:20:52

Well, ya know, it seems that Kerry might have more latitude in deploying more troops to Iraq since he could ostenibly declare that there are too few troops there now, and it was a mistake to send so few in the first place. Whereas Bush couldn't neccessarily do this without admiting that sending in so few troops was a mistake...

The other side of it being that Kerry has a big anti-war base to appease while Bush wouldn't have to face another election and could worry less about immediate approval numbers.

Whatever happens with the election, there will always be that "might have been" next time something goes wrong.

clark · 2004-11-02 12:23:41

Very true. Bush dosen't have to answer to anyone.

BWhite · 2004-11-02 12:35:53

Well, ya know, it seems that Kerry might have more latitude in deploying more troops to Iraq since he could ostenibly declare that there are too few troops there now, and it was a mistake to send so few in the first place. Whereas Bush couldn't neccessarily do this without admiting that sending in so few troops was a mistake...
The other side of it being that Kerry has a big anti-war base to appease while Bush wouldn't have to face another election and could worry less about immediate approval numbers.
Whatever happens with the election, there will always be that "might have been" next time something goes wrong.

Old Klingon saying: Only Nixon could go to China.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:38:24

Very true. Bush dosen't have to answer to anyone.

well, there's the Almighty.

But when weighed against someone who answers to the flaming Left a guy who talks to an invisible man in the sky somehow isn't all that frightening.

So you see my dilemma.

John Creighton · 2004-11-02 12:39:25

Very true. Bush dosen't have to answer to anyone.

Hmmm….I wonder how that will effect his second term.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:40:54

Old Klingon saying: Only Nixon could go to China.

That's a Vulcan proverb if I remember correctly.

John Creighton · 2004-11-02 12:40:55

But when weighed against someone who answers to the flaming Left

Flaming it what sence? ???

clark · 2004-11-02 12:42:20

Hmmm….I wonder how that will effect his second term

Fewer press confrences.

But when weighed against someone who answers to the flaming Left a guy who talks to an invisible man in the sky somehow isn't all that frightening.

Look, the left isn't all queers.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:45:19

Flaming it what sence?

In the sense of being extreme, not watered down. Wacko socialists. Filled with the fires of liberalism burning in their bowels.

Which is where much of Leftist thought originates.

clark · 2004-11-02 12:49:16

If leftist thought originates in the bowels, then Right leaning thoughts are the defecated product.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:56:52

If leftist thought originates in the bowels, then Right leaning thoughts are the defecated product.

We're all just throwing feces at each other anyway.

Silly monkeys.

clark · 2004-11-02 12:58:54

Monkey poo! :laugh:

edit- and oddly fitting statement given the subject title of this thread.

BWhite · 2004-11-02 13:07:08

Old Klingon saying: Only Nixon could go to China.
That's a Vulcan proverb if I remember correctly.

True.

Who says I cannot admit error?

clark · 2004-11-02 13:09:16

True.
Who says I cannot admit error?

Bill, you are a liberal! :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-11-02 15:11:46

True.
Who says I cannot admit error?
Bill, you are a liberal! :laugh:

And damn proud, too.

But I do favor nuclear space propulsion, for civilian uses only.

clark · 2004-11-02 15:14:12

Ah, conflicted liberal.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-11-02 10:17:34

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#27 2004-11-02 10:19:32

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#28 2004-11-02 10:40:30

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#29 2004-11-02 10:43:37

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#30 2004-11-02 10:50:43

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#31 2004-11-02 11:07:23

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#32 2004-11-02 11:17:15

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#33 2004-11-02 11:32:26

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#34 2004-11-02 12:16:58

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#35 2004-11-02 12:20:52

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#36 2004-11-02 12:23:41

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#37 2004-11-02 12:35:53

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#38 2004-11-02 12:38:24

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#39 2004-11-02 12:39:25

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#40 2004-11-02 12:40:54

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#41 2004-11-02 12:40:55

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#42 2004-11-02 12:42:20

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#43 2004-11-02 12:45:19

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#44 2004-11-02 12:49:16

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#45 2004-11-02 12:56:52

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#46 2004-11-02 12:58:54

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#47 2004-11-02 13:07:08

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#48 2004-11-02 13:09:16

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#49 2004-11-02 15:11:46

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

#50 2004-11-02 15:14:12

Re: A metaphor for the War on Terror - Any doctors here?

Board footer