As a war president, the first in a generation, George W. Bush on Thursday
took a leaf from the book of the only general to become president in the
last century, Dwight D. Eisenhower. "If a problem cannot be solved," Ike
once said, "enlarge it."

At precisely the moment when critics claim he is stymied, Bush, in his
second inaugural address, has just set out to liberate the entire world.
And our region is at Ground Zero, so to speak, of his new, revolutionary
vision.

He made no specific mention of the Middle East in his address. But it was,
unmistakably, to this region that Bush was referring when he tightly
linked American security to spreading freedom: "As long as whole regions
of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that
feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in
destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal
threat," he declared.

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival
of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in
other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of
freedom in all the world."

In lofty language, and with the disclaimer that the struggle is "not
primarily the task of arms," the second-term Bush has declared war against
tyranny everywhere. And his first battle - in which Thursday's address was
a significant opening volley - will be to convince his own people to
accept that radical strategy.

"We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every
nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and
freedom, which is eternally right," Bush pledged. "We will encourage
reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations
will require the decent treatment of their own people."

This sets the bar so high that even his own government has, to date at
least, failed to clear it. Human rights have not exactly been a high
priority in American relations with Riyadh, Cairo, or even Damascus.

In laying down his revolutionary gauntlet, Bush must know that he will be
derided as a hypocrite and a reckless dreamer. No American can be against
the ideal of spreading democracy, but to stake national security on it,
that's another matter. In front of the Capitol on Thursday, Bush called
not merely for a remaking of other nations' foreign policy, but that of
his United States.

We cannot know now whether Bush will succeed in turning his own ship of
state onto the course that he has charted, much less whether allied ships
will grudgingly follow or continue to drag in an almost opposite
direction. We do know that he has chosen an audacious strategy of
leadership, one based, ironically, on what his father derided as the
"vision thing."

Second term presidents are traditionally expected to coast, anxious not to
jeopardize their place in history. Not so, apparently, George W. Bush.
Hold on to your hats, this may be the most ambitious second-term – or any
term – presidency ever.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1106191077973

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in post
zH0Id.184554$Z7.91439@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk on 1/20/05 10:47 PM:

> As a war president, the first in a generation, George W. Bush on Thursday
> took a leaf from the book of the only general to become president in the
> last century, Dwight D. Eisenhower. "If a problem cannot be solved," Ike
> once said, "enlarge it."
>
> At precisely the moment when critics claim he is stymied, Bush, in his
> second inaugural address, has just set out to liberate the entire world.
> And our region is at Ground Zero, so to speak, of his new, revolutionary
> vision.

<SNIP>

> Second term presidents are traditionally expected to coast, anxious not to
> jeopardize their place in history. Not so, apparently, George W. Bush.
> Hold on to your hats, this may be the most ambitious second-term ? or any
> term ? presidency ever.
>
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ShowFull&cid=1
> 106191077973

Iran. Watch for it.

--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

Snit wrote:

> Iran.**Watch*for*it.

No. The US cannot afford another war. All its resources have been spent
(wasted) in Irak. If they really want to attack, they will have to get
approval and cooperation from those much behated coutries like France.

Moreover, what does this nonsense speech of one Mr. Bush do in a sensible
newsgroup?

--
jjg

Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> Iran. Watch for it.

Then Canada.

Snit wrote:

> Iran.**Watch*for*it.


The worst thing one can do is to threat and antagonize Iranians in some
fashions. In the face of outside threat; They (ordinary people) would all
go back and embrace their Mullah's Regime as their beloved even though they
hate them now.*They*would unite*against*outsiders.*Ordinary people and the
youth all would side with their government against the foreign threat.

They Like America and Americans. They have a long history of independence
and constitutional revolution and struggle for liberty, freedom and
democracy.**They*(ordinary*People)*however*are*not *in*favor*of*direct
foreign agitation.

The mullah's regime of course would love it. It helps them legitimize their
own hardline tough rule (remember like when we recently chose G W Bush
because he's tougher against threats of terrorism?) and getting tougher
against some internal liberal movements trying to open up the society. So
Lets not give Mullahs legitimacy more than what they are enjoying and are
deserving now.

Do you think they would cheer United State and G W Bush if Some bombs gets
dropped on their Nuclear Power Generation Plants? They are proud people and
as much as they hate their regime there now, they are much more likely to
turn against outside intervention and get close and cozier to their
familiar rulers at home.

Just REMEMBER how We as Americans were united after 9/11 attacks as One
America regardless of everything else?

One other thing: Don't you think we should get some results in Iraq First
before starting on other adventures?

We have had lots of bad intelligence bad planning and misunderstandings
regarding Iraq. Now Lets try to understand Iran's situation a bit better
before we get seriously involved there.

Anonymous, <Anonymous@doubleclick.net>, the bulimic, farcical gland, and
peeping Tom, exudated:


> Iranians

> They Like America and Americans. They have a long history of
> independence and constitutional revolution and struggle for liberty,
> freedom and democracy. They (ordinary People) however are not in
> favor of direct foreign agitation.

Do the ameriKKKans have a council of religious fanatics that decides who can
and who cannot stand for elected office too? Does the clergy in ameriKKKa
have power to completely thwart the president?

> Just REMEMBER how We as Americans were united after 9/11 attacks as
> One America regardless of everything else?

That's "One ameriKKKa regardless of everything else" unless you wore a
turban, in which case you got beaten up.

> We have had lots of bad intelligence bad planning and
> misunderstandings regarding Iraq.

You ameriKKKans have always had poor intelligence. That's what makes you
cunts so stupid.




--
Kadaitcha Man replies to Bill Baka's <bbaka@syix.com> multiple death
threats: You make death threats [against me] therefore someone else
has mental issues? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I hope the police blow your
fucking brains out all over the footpath where the dogs like to shit.
Gar'n get fucked, ya bloody poofter.

Hugh Chaloner wrote:

> Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Iran. Watch for it.
>
> Then Canada.

Right, I also think while we are at it, we might as well straighten it up
with them damn Frenchies too and then them the Germans you know? Right? I
think so.

( no matter all meanwhile we are missing the progress that the Chinese are
making and soon would be ahead of US in many ways, technology, science,
economy, education, etc. )

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> Anonymous, <Anonymous@doubleclick.net>, the bulimic, farcical gland, and
> peeping Tom, exudated:
>
>
>> Iranians
>
>> They Like America and Americans. They have a long history of
>> independence and constitutional revolution and struggle for liberty,
>> freedom and democracy. They (ordinary People) however are not in
>> favor of direct foreign agitation.
>
> Do the ameriKKKans have a council of religious fanatics that decides who
> can and who cannot stand for elected office too? Does the clergy in
> ameriKKKa have power to completely thwart the president?
>

More to my point not to legitimize them anymore, remember they thrive on
their religious opposition against Great Satan (USA) and all its demonic
hedonistic and hubristic aspects....

The power of the Church in elections are getting more and more pronounced
here in the States it seems too ..... I don't know how familiar you are
with what happened in the Past election here? Gay Marriage rights, abortion
rights , etc?

>> Just REMEMBER how We as Americans were united after 9/11 attacks as
>> One America regardless of everything else?
>
> That's "One ameriKKKa regardless of everything else" unless you wore a
> turban, in which case you got beaten up.
>
>> We have had lots of bad intelligence bad planning and
>> misunderstandings regarding Iraq.
>
> You ameriKKKans have always had poor intelligence. That's what makes you
> cunts so stupid.
>
Wasn't Ausies (not you personaly maybe) one of great Allies of GWB in this
Iraq adventure thing?


>
>

Anonymous, <Anonymous@doubleclick.net>, the pessimum, slowgoing squirrel,
and sufferer of diseases of the feet & hands, penned:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>> Anonymous, <Anonymous@doubleclick.net>, the bulimic, farcical gland,
>> and peeping Tom, exudated:
>>
>>
>>> Iranians
>>
>>> They Like America and Americans. They have a long history of
>>> independence and constitutional revolution and struggle for liberty,
>>> freedom and democracy. They (ordinary People) however are not in
>>> favor of direct foreign agitation.
>>
>> Do the ameriKKKans have a council of religious fanatics that decides
>> who can and who cannot stand for elected office too? Does the clergy
>> in ameriKKKa have power to completely thwart the president?
>>
>
> More to my point

Fuck your point. You made a claim. Defend it.

Do the ameriKKKans have a council of religious fanatics that decides
who can and who cannot stand for elected office too? Does the clergy
in ameriKKKa have power to completely thwart the president?

>> You ameriKKKans have always had poor intelligence. That's what makes
>> you cunts so stupid.
>>
> Wasn't Ausies (not you personaly maybe) one of great Allies of GWB
> in this Iraq adventure thing?

You do not get to ask questions until I decide that you have answered the
outstanding questions satisfactorily. However you will note that, based on
your responses, a reasonable person would conclude that you are indeed a
stupid cunt. No doubt brought on by you ameriKKKans always having had poor
intelligence.




--
"Some loser at cable-71-8-67-194.mtv.al.charter.com is trying to remove
your 'nospam@fuck-off-and-die.com' datapimp account."

Gactimus wrote:
<snip>
WTF does this have to do with slackware you cross-posting moron

*plonk* with extreme prejudice