You're no Harry Truman ...Dubya

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ASLANSPAL, Jun 1, 2006.

  1. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    BLITZER: Let's check in with Jack Cafferty now. He's got "The Cafferty File." Hi, Jack.

    JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. President Bush comparing himself to President Truman and the war against Islamic radicals to the Cold War. Speaking at West Point the other day, the president said in both cases, we have been fighting "followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, crushes all descent, has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims."

    In comparing himself to President Truman, Mr. Bush pointed to the ways both have responded to threats to the United States. There is one difference worth noting, however. That would be that President Truman didn't invade anybody the way President Bush invaded Iraq. It's also worth noting that Truman was controversial at the end of his time in office but is now viewed by many as one of America's great presidents.

    Here's the question, how does the war on terror compare to the Cold War? E-mail your thoughts to [email protected] or go CNN.com/CaffertyFile. Wolf?
    .

    BLITZER: Jack is joining us with "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.

    CAFFERTY: Thanks, Wolf.

    At West Point the other day, President Bush compared himself to President Truman and compared the war against Islamic radicals to the Cold War. The question is: How does the war on terror compare to the Cold War?

    Dan in Portland, Oregon writes: "In the Cold War, we knew our enemy. Not so with the war on terror. They can be your next-door neighbors and you will never know it until it's too late."

    Yvonne in Cary, North Carolina: "I don't think there's a comparison between them, except that they are both founded on faulty ideology. Communism had done away with a god. Muslim terrorists are on a crusade to convert the world by murder."

    Chris in Denver: "I think it is a desperate comparison made by a president trying to prop up his approval ratings. The Soviet Union had the ability to completely annihilate most major American cities within a few hours."

    Ulf in Miami: "The difference was, the Cold War was between states. The war on terror is between states and non-state actors, thus, in reality, an international police operation, with the United States as the international self-declared unilateral police force."

    Chris in Crawfordsville, Indiana: "The new Cold War is with China. And if this administration doesn't deal with it soon, they will lose this one. We are already losing the war on terror because of our open borders."

    Marcus in Arlington, Virginia: "During the Cold War, the other side really did have WMDs."

    And Tom in Nashville writes: "The Cold War was an intense chess game, where highly intelligent and skilled administration personnel moved knights and bishops with extreme care. In the war on terror, those people in the highly intelligent and skilled administration positions are wondering if they should move the little horsey or the ones with the pointy heads."

    (LAUGHTER)

    CAFFERTY: Wolf.

    (LAUGHTER)

    BLITZER: Good letters, Jack. Thank you very much.



    Rove must have put him up to this Truman/Bush thing because it sure did not work and it insults Harry S. Truman...bush may go down as one of the worst 8 year Presidents in our history unless he kills osama bin laden and gets his father involved to save his legacy ..what I see now is a lot of feeble attempts to save himself and comparing himself to Harry
    Truman is pathetic...look for the rove/bush culture to lash out and attack like a mongrel in a corner...you are already seeing it with the separation of powers being affronted...oh guess what now the gay marriage ban is all of a sudden front and center...well why wasn't it front and center after the election..people see through this....stir up the base with red meat ..get them emotional to vote against their economic interests.

    bush has hurt this nation...but we will rebound and he will just sit on his ranch in isolation...he sure will not travel the world.
     
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Bush is nothing more than a puppet of the elite APAL fixating on him only helps them redirect attention away from the real culprits orchestrating all this evil and mayhem from behind the scenes. These people are such cowards that they resort to using bumbling idiots like Bush and his admistration of criminals to cover their own backsides.

    Sheesh, Bush, Rumsfeld and thier crews can't even keep track of their own lies, do you really think they're calling the shots?
     
    #2 poncho, Jun 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2006
  3. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well you got one thing right. George W. Bush is no Harry Truman. Truman would have nuked Iran already.
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yeah! Let's just nuke them creepy Ayrabs we don't need no steenking evidence theys buildin no bombs! :rolleyes:
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean like he allowed General MacArthur to lead us to victory in the Korean War? Oh, that's right. Truman didn't do that.

    You mean like he nuked North Korea and China in the Korean War? Oh, that's right. Truman didn't do that, either.

    Yeah, let's just nuke Iran and shut down the Middle East oil fields for the rest of our lifetimes and make due with $300/bbl. oil and $15/gal. gasoline.:rolleyes:
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Now just wait a second here Ken...those evil Iranians are setting on top of our oil! We're going to need those resources when we move forward on our glorious mission to liberate and bring democracy to the middle east and open those markets for our benevolent transnational benefactors. You heard those crazy Iranians...why...they come right out and said they'd actually defend themselves if attacked!!! :eek: :mad:

    Where's your sense of patriotism boy? You should be out there waving your flag and supporting our troops, after all you're a North American now, you should be proud that our boys and girls are willing to die for the homeland and uphold the cherished principles enshrined in the UN charter! It isn't your place to question, now shape up and be a good Christian and global citizen and obey_your_orders! ;)
     
    #6 poncho, Jun 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2006
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    In that respect, thank goodness Bush is no Truman... being satisfied with a "tie" that maintained a static, expensive, liberty deteriorating Cold War for years after.

    This is actually a more valid point than you give credit for. Truman nuked Japan because there was a potential to lose a million American soldiers and several million Japanese in an invasion.


    The logic leading to that decision parallels Iran more than the Korea-MacArthur reasoning does.

    What makes you think that would happen?

    I think nukes would be the absolute wrong option... but how would a nuke on Tehran shut down even all of Iran's oil production?
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    All the while knowing the Japanese military was spent and ready to surrender.

    But he did send a vivid message to the soviets, we were willing to kill multiple thousands of people to prove that we could.
     
  9. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. That said, even as a puppet, Bush still took an oath he is terribly breaking.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128


    Yeah well, at least he's still upholding his oath of secrecy to the chapter of the death cult Thule society he and his dad and cousin John Kerry belong too. That's something I suppose.
     
    #10 poncho, Jun 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2006
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, you do have a point there!
    lol

    Hey, BTW, poncho, you may enjoy The American View
    www.theamericanview.com

    They have a great weekly radio program and podcast.
    There may be a local station in you area but if not you can also download mp3s as a podcast in itunes or directly from their site.
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    How so? We were actively at war with an enemy who attacked us when we nuked Japan, whereas Korea hadn't attacked us nor has Iran.
     
  13. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daisy, I agree with you for once! lol
    at least that we should not nuke someone that hasn't attacked us.
    I actually don't think we should have bombed japan either but that is beside the point.
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I usually listen to Alex Jones at http://www.infowars.com/. Today he interviewed.

    [​IMG]

    And,

    [​IMG]

    He's interviewed people like Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, David Shippers, retired police officers, FBI, Border Patrol, CIA people like Ray McGovern, DEA, you name it he's interviewed them and none of them, repeat...none of them except for a few rare die hard neocons and their mainstream shills disagree with him about the NWO.

    Of course you hardly ever see any of them get airtime on Fox or CNN, unless they get 30 seconds of the standard MSM demonization routine. Wonder why that is?
     
    #14 poncho, Jun 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2006
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Iranians have supported attacks on Americans, are actively supporting terrorism against the US and its allies, and have pretty much made it clear that they will support terrorism against us in the future.

    The claim that they haven't attacked us is flawed since state sponsors of terrorism don't have the honor to do their own dirty work. Iran is one of the greater state sponsors of terrorism.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you run some sims through your head, or read the sims that some others have written, about what would happen if we attacked Iran, even if only with conventional weapons?
     
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Wouldn't you be a little ticked off if a foreign power came to this country and violently overthrew the democratically elected government installed a puppet regime and helped themselves to your assests Scott? We did it to them in 1953.

    Our government had no qualms about using state sponsored terror to oust Mossadegh.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran

    [/FONT]
    http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/iran/index.htm

    The pot shouldn't call the kettle black.

    Or be surprised when the kettle uses the same tactics against the pot, especially when the pot used it first against the kettle.

    Or read the history of the Iranian human wave attacks against Saddam's army, bare handed kids, little kids drove back his mechanized superior forces. Wave after wave of human bodies like the Chinese and Soviets used.
     
    #17 poncho, Jun 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2006
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you talking about unwilling to produce or unable?

    If we are going to use nukes then we had better be prepared to occupy their oil producing regions as long as necessary.

    Again, I think nukes would be a terrible idea... but if done, you'd have to go all the way.
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, Have you run through sims concerning what will happen if the Iranians develop nukes (especially if they succeed in having them without us knowing) and supply terrorists with them? They reportedly already have missiles able to reach Israel with nuke warheads... have you run through that sim?

    These are not nice guys and they are not going to go away if we ignore them.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I have.
     

Share This Page

Loading...