NationStates Jolt Archive

Calling up the war that founded this great nation and gave a good, hard poke to those inferior British folk, George W. Bush has said the War on Terror is the same. :headbang:

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_george_washington)

MOUNT VERNON, Va. -
President Bush honored the 275th birthday of the nation's first president on Monday, likening George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to a nation to the war on global terrorism.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River.

"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Bush chose the national Presidents Day holiday to make his first visit as president to Mount Vernon. He and first lady
Laura Bush helped lay a wreath at Washington's tomb, then the president gave a speech from a platform on the bowling green lawn of the estate.

"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today. He doesn't look a day over 275 years old," Bush said to laughter.

Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732.

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive," Bush said on a clear but frigid day, speaking to several hundred people.

Mount Vernon is about 16 miles south of the White House. Bush traveled by helicopter.

"In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush. "After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power.

Washington's retirement didn't last long, Bush noted.

"As president, George Washington understood that his decisions would shape the future of our young nation and set precedent. He formed the first Cabinet, appointed the first judges, and issued the first veto."

"Over the centuries, America has succeeded because we have always tried to maintain the decency and the honor of our first president," Bush said.

Before and after Bush's speech, recorded music by the 3rd U.S. Infantry Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps blared through loudspeakers. Organizers of the event said the fife and drum corps had planned to perform live, but decided against it Sunday night because of expected temperatures in the 20s that could have damaged their historic instruments.

1. Hahahaha!
2. Absolute bull. That is not our job. The Constitution itself says it, as did George Washington in his farewell address.
3. He isn't welcoming you. He's rolling in his grave, thinking "What did we do wrong?!?!?"
4. Terrorism is an empire and we're the underequipped underdog? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
5. Until you came along...

Terrorism is a threat to our freedom and liberty and needs to be combated to preserve all that we have fought, worked, and died for in our nation's history. It's similar to the Revolution in that regard.

A bunch of rich, land-owning tax evasionists are exaggerating an overseas threat to their interests and are manipulating the populace into following and fighting for them?

Umm, that's quite similar actually...

LIAR!

Your new meme leaves me flaccid.

A bunch of rich, land-owning tax evasionists are exaggerating an overseas threat to their interests and are manipulating the populace into following and fighting for them?

Umm, that's quite similar actually...

LIAR!

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds. :headbang:

Terrorism is a threat to our freedom and liberty

Hardly.

If we got out of the Middle East al-Qaeda wouldn't give a damn about us, except perhaps a vague wish to see us converted to Islam.

Hardly.

If we got out of the Middle East al-Qaeda wouldn't give a damn about us, except perhaps a vague wish to see us converted to Islam.

I doubt they would stop at that. Al-Qaeda is not confined to the Middle East by any stretch, and they operate in places that have nothing to do with our involvement in the Middle East, even within nations that are neutral or even outright opposed to our involvement in the region. Their desire is to impose their version of Islam on all who oppose them, and they'll keep fighting until that goal is accomplished or they are destroyed.

Although I do agree we should pull out. It is a waste of our money and a risk to our soldiers' lives to have them stationed there for the sole purpose of keeping oil artificially cheap.

I doubt they would stop at that. Al-Qaeda is not confined to the Middle East by any stretch,

Of course not, but the reason they are concerned with international affairs is because they see the heartland of Islam as being threatened.

and they operate in places that have nothing to do with our involvement in the Middle East.

They have deliberately targeted nations for their involvement in the Middle East... and have made this motive quite explicit in their statements.

even within nations that are neutral or even outright opposed to our involvement in the region.

Which ones?

Their desire is to impose their version of Islam on all who oppose them

Ultimately, perhaps.

But what should concern us is their immediate objectives... and those call for the expulsion of the West from the Middle East, not the full Islamization of the West.

A bunch of rich, land-owning tax evasionists are exaggerating an overseas threat to their interests and are manipulating the populace into following and fighting for them?

Umm, that's quite similar actually...

LMAO

I would be much appreciative if Bush would stop making stupid comparisons. Our fighting for our independence is suddenly the same as our fighting some vague ideology that includes the use of terror? No matter what rhetoric Bush tries to use he is not going to make his war any more successful, supported or any more moral by trying to attach the name of our first president to it.

Terrorism is a threat to our freedom and liberty and needs to be combated to preserve all that we have fought, worked, and died for in our nation's history.

A few thousand radical jihadis versus a nation of some 300 million...armed with basic weapons and improvised explosives against a large army, air force and navy with vast funding, nuclear weapons, natural resources.....You'll pardon me not seeing the threat to the American nation there. Unless their beards render them immune to mortal weapons, of course.

The World After September 11 - Monsoor Hekmat (http://www.m-hekmat.com/en/1990en.html)

Terrorism is a threat to our freedom and liberty and needs to be combated to preserve all that we have fought, worked, and died for in our nation's history. It's similar to the Revolution in that regard.

...who are you and what the hell have you done with our Vetalia?!

I doubt they would stop at that.

I don't. Why not give it a try and find out before you naysay it?

Actually, terrorism is not a direct threat to freedom and civil liberties. Neither does it have to be. Let me explain.

Terrorism alone never accomplishes much. Why? Because terrorist groups, even comparatively well funded ones like Al Quaeda or the IRA, don't have the resources or the manpower to launch a full scale war. This is precisely the reason why they resort to terrorist tactics (suicide bombings, hijacking planes, blowing up buildings, etc).

The government reaction to terrorism is what breaks down civil liberties and destroys our freedoms. A government under siege (or a government that thinks it is under siege) tramples on the rights of it's citizens. This makes the population paranoid / crazy and leads to infighting. Ultimately, as more and more civil rights are removed, public distrust of government grows (which the extreme right wing republicans have been promoting for the last thirty years or more - listen to Newt Gingrich speak for proof of this), and civil war is a likely and possible result.

By all means try and catch the terrorists themselves. But consider what new powers the police and the FBI have under the USA PATRIOT act. They can now wiretap anyones house without a court order, they can view any of your records (phone, credit card, banking, medical, even library) without your permission and without you even knowing about it. Does this help to stop terrorism? No, of course not. Why? Because terrorists don't use any of these things - they take good care to not show up on the system in the first place!

The point is that by letting the government take away civil liberties and curtail our freedoms, we are letting the terrorists win. Also, why not actually try and focus on where the terrorists come from in the first place?
The 9/11 hijackers didn't come from Iraq, or Afghanistan. They, like Osama bin Laden, were from Saudi Arabia.
So why did we not see the headline "Saudi Arabia attacks the USA?"

Another interesting point: We knew exactly what Al Quaeda wanted. It was posted on their website for the whole world to see. "Expel the Infidels from the land of the two holy places", is what they said. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to work out what this means. It means that they wanted US military (the infidels) based in Saudi Arabia (the land of the two holy places) to pack up and leave. Amazingly enough, this demand was met. At the same time that George Bush landed on that aircraft carrier in front of the big "mission accomplished" banner, the last of the US military was leaving Saudi Arabia. The mission was indeed accomplished (Osama's mission was, anyway).

"Those who would trade their liberty for security are deserving of neither."
- Benjamin Franklin

Bush's speech writers must realize that there is a possibility, however remote, that if they stop telling people that we are "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" or "we are fighting them to preserve our democracy" people will start realizing it's a load of horse shit.

A bunch of rich, land-owning tax evasionists are exaggerating an overseas threat to their interests and are manipulating the populace into following and fighting for them?

Umm, that's quite similar actually...

"I believe that is what we call an 'oh snap' rebuttal" :p

I think the American Revolution was nothing but a cabal of old rich business men annoyed because they had to pay taxes, it was over property, nothing else, all that noble sentiment over liberty and freedom was pretense, I mean look how you treated blacks and natives. The aspirations of the American people were used.

I think the French Revolution to name one was far more beneficial to the people. It was based on liberty, justice, equality and the abolition of privedges, while the US seems to be about possessions.

I think the American Revolution was nothing but a cabal of old rich business men annoyed because they had to pay taxes, it was over property, nothing else, all that noble sentiment over liberty and freedom was pretense, I mean look how you treated blacks and natives. The aspirations of the American people were used.

I think the French Revolution to name one was far more beneficial to the people. It was based on liberty, justice, equality and the abolition of privedges, while the US seems to be about possessions.

And lead directly into Robespierre, the Committee on Public Safety, and the execution of tens of thousands of people.

And lead directly into Robespierre, the Committee on Public Safety, and the execution of tens of thousands of people.

The French Revolution was more than beneficial in the long run.

First and foremost, this article proves Bush has no idea what he's talking about.

The French Revolution was more than beneficial in the long run.

The French revolution killed many intellectuals, including Antoinne Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry.

The French Revolution was more than beneficial in the long run.

In terms of developing pluralism and the idea of the modern nation state, as well as the socialist ieas that still have a massive influence in France. I think the point I was making is that a Revolution that only benefits the upper class, as the American Revolution did, is not a revolution, simply a change in oppressor. Democracy is a fallacy as long as it is funded by money, and therefore subject to classist exploitation.

Only this time, the French hate our guts.

Terrorism is a threat to our freedom and liberty and needs to be combated to preserve all that we have fought, worked, and died for in our nation's history. It's similar to the Revolution in that regard.

No it isn't. Frankly, it's barely a nuisance. I'm more concerned about dying in a car accident on my way to work every day than I am about a terrorist attack. The greatest threat to our freedom is our own overreaction to terrorist attacks, fed by the Bush administration and their fear-mongering.

I think the point I was making is that a Revolution that only benefits the upper class, as the American Revolution did, is not a revolution, simply a change in oppressor. Democracy is a fallacy as long as it is funded by money, and therefore subject to classist exploitation.

As I see it, without the American revolution, my forefathers would be dead in Stalin's camps or at the hands of the Black and Tans in Ireland.

The French revolution killed many intellectuals, including Antoinne Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry.

wasn't it also one of the first attempts to abolish absolutism (as in absolute monarchy)?

Only this time, the French hate our guts.

Remember also that the French helped militarily in the revolution against the British and later in the Treaty of Paris to reinforce American independence. It's quite possibly they do not like how far the US has degenerated from pluralism and it's original ideals to what is has become today. And who can blame them?

wasn't it also one of the first attempts to abolish absolutism (as in absolute monarchy)?

Not the first by a long shot. Just one of the more bloody ones, and famous for the ideologies that poured out of it. (Considering that France ended up uner the Bourbons after Napoleon, I fail to see why its such a huge screaming deal).

The Florentine State was a Republic after the Medici were kicked out. If you want some interesting reading, read the other works of Machiavelli (besides "The Prince")

wasn't it also one of the first attempts to abolish absolutism (as in absolute monarchy)?
And they were directly infulanced by the American Republic, which had shown that you could indeed live without a king.

Pitty it took France a few times to really get that thought through their head.

(Considering that France ended up uner the Bourbons after Napoleon, I fail to see why its such a huge screaming deal).
Uh... you got your history reversed. Napoleon came AFTER the Bourbons, not before.

Only this time, the French hate our guts.I suppose that's what we get for siding with the British... :p

Anyone pointed out that a good chunk of the people on the side of the colonists were what would be considered terrorists today?

Anyone pointed out that a good chunk of the people on the side of the colonists were what would be considered terrorists today?
They were considered terrorist back then too. ;)

Remember, we didn't fight fair (according to the British).

Uh... you got your history reversed. Napoleon came AFTER the Bourbons, not before.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration)

The Bourbons were restored in 1814 by the allies.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration)

The Bourbons were restored in 1814 by the allies.
Then we were both wrong. The big N came between the Bourbons. ;)

:"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Proof that Bush, his handlers, writers, and everyone he works with are a bunch of morons.

George "Beware of Foreign Entanglements" Washington believed no such idiotic thing. If there is one thing Washington understood -- and he was an intelligent person who understood many things -- it was that he was the president of the United States. It was not his job to give a crap about anyone else but the citizens of the country that elected him. Period.

Clearly, Bush is desperately hoping that all Americans are as easily confused as he is, but comparing himself to Washington is not going to make Bush look better.

EDIT: More indications of Bush's state of confusion = he seems to think he is the leader of Iraq and that he works for the Mexican government, too.

No it isn't. Frankly, it's barely a nuisance. I'm more concerned about dying in a car accident on my way to work every day than I am about a terrorist attack. The greatest threat to our freedom is our own overreaction to terrorist attacks, fed by the Bush administration and their fear-mongering.

This is what FDR meant when he said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. FDR = another president who was better than Bush. Let's see how many more we can think of. :)

Well despite the numerous differences between the Revolution and the 'War on Terror, I can think of the most obvious, in the Revolution the Americans actually had an enemy. It wasn't like a squad of marines with M4s and heavy machine guns jumping into a hut only to find a surprised Afghani shepherd with his donkey, which is all the 'War on Terror' really is.

This is what FDR meant when he said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. FDR = another president who was better than Bush. Let's see how many more we can think of. :)

George Washington, 1789-1797
John Adams, 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
James Madison, 1809-1817
James Monroe, 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
William Henry Harrison, 1841
John Tyler, 1841-1845
James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
James Abram Garfield, 1881
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
William McKinley, 1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001

Not Present and why:

FDR: Already mentioned.
Lincoln: The fucker suspended my right to have us a corpse with us! :D

There can only be one conclusion as to why US leaders have veered so far from the ideas of their founding fathers, either they don't know or they don't care. The first makes them ignorant and incompetant, the second cynical and power-hungry.

There can only be one conclusion as to why US leaders have veered so far from the ideas of their founding fathers, either they don't know or they don't care. The first makes them ignorant and incompetant, the second cynical and power-hungry.

Or both.

<snipped with thanks> :)


I think you should put Lincoln back on that list because he actually managed his civil war.

Also, I wavered a bit over corrupt bastards like Harding and crazy bastards like Nixon, but you know, in the end, I think Bush will come out crookeder and crazier than all of them. Maybe not all put together... ;)

"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Uh-huh...

*recalls status of women, blacks, and Native Americans during Washington's day*

He didn't even believe the cause was for all Americans...much less other nationalities.

Bush proves once again that he has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.

I think you should put Lincoln back on that list because he actually managed his civil war.

Haha, true, but I can't really say a BLATANT violation of the Constitution is something to make Lincoln better. At least Bush isn't BLATANTLY and DIRECTLY violating it.

Also, I wavered a bit over corrupt bastards like Harding and crazy bastards like Nixon, but you know, in the end, I think Bush will come out crookeder and crazier than all of them. Maybe not all put together... ;)

Nixon was a bit crooked at the end, but you have to admit, his Foreign Policy wasn't too shabby.