Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
This incident in Spain is eqiuvalnt there to 9-11 here. It's a major terror incident, and was completely unexpected by the Spanish government and its citizens.



I'll agree with that. This was certainly just as cowardly an attack as 9/11 was. When I said "something could have been done," that was just wishful thinking and anger on my part. I figured that was clear.

Quote:

Al Qaida released a statement shortly after the Iraq War began, saying that Britain and Spain were targets for retaliation for their participation in the Iraq war (as well as Poland and Japan). But that was a while ago.



Yeah, I remember that. Were we sharing inteligence with any of these countries about terroirst activities?

Quote:

I think this makes it clear that it isn't just a war between the U.S. and Al Qaida. That in fact, the entire world is a target for Muslim extremism. (As if the point were not already made clear by Muslim terrorism and violence in Russia, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, China and elsewhere. )



I'll agree with that too. Terror is everybody's problem, not just ours.

Quote:

But, y'know, blame it on Bush. ("Not Partisan" ?!?!)



Okay, I need to clear a couple things up before we go any further (I had a feeling this was gonna come back to bite me).


1) As I said before, I'd have made the same comments no matter who was in office at the time, had they made a promise to wipe out terror and recently declared significant progress in the war on terror (which seems to have been proven otherwise.)

2) My anger towards Bush was directed at the fact that a couple of weeks ago, the same day as the attacks in Iraq and Pakistan that he made a statement saying that the US had made progress against terrorists, and then this happens. And I'm angry that MAYBE this could have been prevented had Bush not been side-tracked with everything else on his plate (and I made the "maybe" part VERY clear). But nowhere did I blame this incident on Bush (at least, I didn't mean to come off like that). If I'm going to stand up and say "THIS IS YOUR FAULT, YOU HEARTLESS MONSTER!" it's going to be to the butchers who actually carried this out. My only beef with Bush (in this case is his claim that we were making progress against terror and then the attacks in Iraq, Pakistan, and Spain happen, which together killed about...what, 400 people? It makes me wonder how much of what he says is political campaign talk and how much is true.

Quote:

This terrorism began under Clinton, and Clinton had 8 years to deal with it.



I'll agree that Clinton had eight years to deal with it, but I'm not so sure that it began during his time (depending on exactly which terrorism you're talking about.)

Quote:

You blame it all on Bush, some of which I actually agree with. Bush was only in office 8 months, so he didn't have time to implement anything.



Granted I lashed out pretty blindly during my rant, nowhere did I say that I'm blaming it ALL on Bush. I don't. I just wish (and to a degree, feel) that MAYBE he could have prevented this. It's wishful thinking and just pure rage that so many people have been butchered in such a short period of time, and I blamed more of it on Bush than was reasonable. Surely you know what its like to lash out at someone in blind anger who maybe doesn't deserve it.

Quote:

Regarding your comments that Bush should have done more to prevent the bombing of Shiites in Iraq 2 weeks ago, or to prevent what happened in Spain:



Again, that was just me being pissed that this happened. Thinking logically, I know that there's probably nothing (or very little) that could have been done to prevent these attacks. Logic goes out the window when anger takes over.

Quote:

And also regarding your "non-partisan" Bush-bashing "Bush should have done more:
How many hundreds of billions have we spent on homeland security? Ans still they say, shipping crates could be used by Al Qaida to bring in nukes or other WMD's for a terror bombing. Or trains, or 18-wheeler trucks, or other means. Despite the maximum effort within our own borders, we are still vulnerable, and our government tries every day to close those gaps.
And yet on local news, I still see a story every two months or so of how local reported snuck guns or knives or other more potentally dangerous materials through airport security.



Again, a lot of the "Bush should have done more" was just reacting to his "we're making progress against terrorist" right before the major attacks (not to mention his post 9/11 promise to wipe out all terrorists, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't remained focus on that), and just blind anger that nobody was able to do something about this.

Quote:

It bothers me that your reaction, and the liberal reaction in general, is to blame Bush first, and irrationally, for ANYTHING that goes wrong.



Actually, if you wanna get nitpicky, read my first post, you'd see my first reaction was to condemn this attack and hope that whoever was behind it was exterminated.

As for flying off the handle at Bush, I've already acknowledged that I was out of line on some of it, and I'm going to say it straight out - it was wrong of me to do so.

Quote:

Yes, I have some problems with Bush's military policy, and I think he could have done more, or pressed for more efficient and less wasteful use of military and security resources. But I still feel he is the strongest President we could ask for in the present post-9/11 situation, who will pursue the U.S. interest first, and not waffle and cave in to the U.N., Saudi Arabia, France, Germany or anyone else, putting meaningless diplomacy in greater priority than U.S. national security, as I guarantee you Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, and other Democrats have clearly stated they would.



Diplomacy isn't always meaningless, but it should never be our only option. As Tcheky Karyo said in Kiss Of the Dragon, "There is a time for diplomacy, and a time for action."

Quote:

Finally, you can take your "non-partisan" remarks about Bush, and shove them up your ass.

I'm so sick of you voicing your "non-partisan/neutral objectivity" even as you make blatantly partisan remarks.



Look, just because I don't like Bush or many of his policies doesn't mean it's because of partisanship. We don't see eye to eye on many of the issues, I don't like his attitude, and I honestly don't trust the guy. But that doesn't mean I hate Republicans or conservatives or "blame them for all the problems in the world." If you think otherwise, you're wrong. End of story.

Quote:

And I'm sick to death of you, Darknight613, and liberal assholes like you, who always blame America, and especially the Republicans, first.



Excuse me...I can't speak for anybody else, but I have never "blamed America" for anything. I don't always agree with everything America does, but I have NEVER said (or even thought) that America is "the bad guy." I rarely (if ever) accuse republicans or conservatives in general of anything. My negative views about Bush do not represent my views on all republicans or conservatives. I have a problem with Bush, not the Republican party, and not with conservatives, although I admit that I don't agree with where they stand on a lot of issues. There are some issues agree with liberals about, some I agree with conservatives about, and there are others that I'm still trying to figure out where I stand.

But once again, that's not the same as "bashing conservatives/republicans" or "blaming them for everything." You have a problem with liberals, that's your right. I'm not going to try and tell you you're wrong to do so anymore. But don't try to label me as something I'm not just because I don't like ONE PARTICULAR Republican conservative.

Quote:

And then don't even have the guts to admit it.



There's nothing to admit to. You're simply wrong about me. You know a lot about history and politics and current events, but you can't possibly know my thoughts, my beliefs, and viewpoint better than I do. Especially if you're going to base them on some posts on a message board.

Quote:

What about Clinton, asshole. What the hell about Clinton ?!?



What ABOUT Clinton? He did his fair share of screwing up (not including his actual screwing). I never agreed with the way he handled the peace process in Israel. You think that just because I slam Bush that I never slammed on Clinton? Or that I haven't slammed Kerry or Dean or some of the other Democratic presidential candidates? I care about the issues, not pathetic political alliegences.

Quote:


I feel very badly for the people of Spain. I know the anger and the tears I had on 9-11, and my heart goes out to them.
I have a former fiance in Almeria, on the Southern coast of Spain. And if circumstances were just slightly different, I might be there right now, and this would be even closer to home for me.



I'm sure you do feel badly for them. Anybody with a modicum of human decency would.

It just pissed me off that this happened, I needed to lash out, and again, in case you didn't catch it the first time, I lashed out in the wrong direction this time. It hasn't been the first time (as well you know).

So, now that that's been cleared up, shall we let this drop and we go our separate ways, or are we going to repeat the pattern of "I say something stupid/thoughtless, you slam me for it, I try to make amends while still trying to defend my position but accidentaly end up digging myself deeper, things get ugly, etc.?"

To be very honest with you, I'm more than happy to just let this end here and now. My schedule is finally starting to fill up, and I don't have the time to spare engaging in a pointles fight that probably won't change anything in the long run except create more bad feelings. I'm sure you have much more important things to do with your time than fight with some brash, reckless kid.

So what say we at least agree to disagree and let this mini-fight die a quick, painless death, and move on to more important things in our lives?

Last edited by Darknight613; 2004-03-12 8:31 AM.