The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[skipper kelly]

Does the Oklahoma City bombing ring a bell. It was an attack on mainland US soil.

 

[skipper kelly]

Are relations between US and China better or worse or the same than pre Bush?

Please show me how they are worse. Very tough one for you to prove.

 

[skipper kelly]

Numerous? How many is numerous? Can you name these numerous countries? For each country named can you show me any the evidence where they have alienated themselves from the US because of the rhetoric such as you stated.

 

[just maybe]

Does the Oklahoma City bombing ring a bell. It was an attack on mainland US soil.

If you prefer, 'foreign attack'. But that's a given...Oklahoma City bombing was not an attack, it was a domestic crime. If you are going to be that stupid as to claim Oklahoma City as an attack in the proper sense, all crime must be considered an attack on mainland US soil.

Are relations between US and China better or worse or the same than pre Bush?

Please show me how they are worse. Very tough one for you to prove.

Quite easily. On assuming the presidency, policy against China changed from 'strategic partner' to 'strategic competitor'. The renewed closeness with Taiwan, resumed arms sales to Taiwan, and the 'spy-plane' incident, withdraal from the ABM treaty, intent to bring Japan under a NMD umbrella, and the NMD itself, the attempts to reinvigorate Japanese militarism and so on have all deteriorated the relationship - I have an essay on it if you'd so care to read.

The Clinton era was one of the high points of the relationship. From Chinese rhetoric, American rhetoric and external viewpoint it is clear the relationship is far more distrustful than it was.

Numerous? How many is numerous? Can you name these numerous countries? For each country named can you show me any the evidence where they have alienated themselves from the US because of the rhetoric such as you stated.

Iran, North Korea, multiple Middle Eastern countries, France, Germany, China...plenty have been pushed away by US rhetoric since Bush assumed power. Is there any doubt that statements such as 'I despise him' about Kim Jong-Il and inflammatory labels such as 'axis of evil' are wholly unnecessary and cause further tension? I dare you to say otherwise...

 

[skipper kelly]

If you prefer, 'foreign attack'. But that's a given...Oklahoma City bombing was not an attack, it was a domestic crime. If you are going to be that stupid as to claim Oklahoma City as an attack in the proper sense, all crime must be considered an attack on mainland US soil.

terrorist attacks? yes.

Was it only foreigners partaking in 911? I would have thought for something to be classified as 'foreign attack' it would have to be state sanctioned. What foreign country sanctioned 911?

Quite easily. On assuming the presidency, policy against China changed from 'strategic partner' to 'strategic competitor'. The renewed closeness with Taiwan, resumed arms sales to Taiwan, and the 'spy-plane' incident, withdraal from the ABM treaty, intent to bring Japan under a NMD umbrella, and the NMD itself, the attempts to reinvigorate Japanese militarism and so on have all deteriorated the relationship - I have an essay on it if you'd so care to read.

The Clinton era was one of the high points of the relationship. From Chinese rhetoric, American rhetoric and external viewpoint it is clear the relationship is far more distrustful than it was.

Im still not convinced that the US/China relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that it is frightening.

Iran, North Korea, multiple Middle Eastern countries, France, Germany, China...plenty have been pushed away by US rhetoric since Bush assumed power. Is there any doubt that statements such as 'I despise him' about Kim Jong-Il and inflammatory labels such as 'axis of evil' are wholly unnecessary and cause further tension? I dare you to say otherwise..

You stated that numerous countries have been alienated because of his rhetoric. You have only given an opinion as to effect of the rhetoric. Where is the evidence?

 

[rick James]

If you prefer, 'foreign attack'. But that's a given...Oklahoma City bombing was not an attack, it was a domestic crime. If you are going to be that stupid as to claim Oklahoma City as an attack in the proper sense, all crime must be considered an attack on mainland US soil.

But 9-11 couldn't be classed as a foreign attack either as the terrorists weren't representing a particular nation, they were representing a warped interpretation of islam. They weren't soldiers, therefore it's not a foreign attack.

Therefore, your claim = not fact

 

[skipper kelly]

OK. Can the 1st point be deleted from the list. Clearly an incorrect statement.

 

[just maybe]

terrorist attacks? yes.

Was it only foreigners partaking in 911? I would have thought for something to be classified as 'foreign attack' it would have to be state sanctioned. What foreign country sanctioned 911?

Wrong. Most of the attackers were foreigners. No requirement for a foreign attack to be state-sanctioned. Pure speculation by you.

Im still not convinced that the US/China relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that it is frightening.

Of course 'frightening' is perhaps the wrong word. Replace with 'serious' if you like. But the world's largest power, and the up-and-coming challenger, both with contrasting nuclear capabilities, have a deteriorating relationship, I'd say that's frightening.

You stated that numerous countries have been alienated because of his rhetoric. You have only given an opinion as to effect of the rhetoric. Where is the evidence?

Erm...Iran and North Korea's increased hostile relationships with the US? China's open hostility to numerous US statements? France and Germany's opposition and resultant distancing of the relationship to American statements before the Iraq war?

 

[rick James]

Wrong. Most of the attackers were foreigners. No requirement for a foreign attack to be state-sanctioned. Pure speculation by you.

Of course hte requirement is for it to be state sanctioned. If an australian goes to Bali and kills an indonesian it isn't a foreign attack.

 

[just maybe]

Of course hte requirement is for it to be state sanctioned. If an australian goes to Bali and kills an indonesian it isn't a foreign attack.

If a militant group of Australians goes to Indonesia and kills Indonesians in a planned attack, it's a foreign attack.

Please provide me with a definition that shows the requirement is that a foreign attack be state-sanctioned.

 

[just maybe]

The attacks were the first highly lethal attack by a foreign force on the U.S. mainland since the War of 1812

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/September_11,_2001_attacks


Sorry, skipper kelly, what were you saying about 'clearly incorrect statement'? Maybe you want to retract?

 

[skipper kelly]

Wrong. Most of the attackers were foreigners. No requirement for a foreign attack to be state-sanctioned. Pure speculation by you.

So lets see if I understand this. Your original statement says attack, doesnt mention the word foreign. You then tell me it is an assumption that it is a foreign attack. I accept this and then assume that the normal meaning of foreign attack would apply, ie state sanctioned. But then you tell me it doesnt have to be state sanctioned only has to involve foreigners. So using your distorted logic, you are trying to tell me that this statement "the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century" is to mean 'the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century by a foreigner.' Can this foreigner be acting alone or does he/she have to be acting in concert with other foreigners. Does the participation of US citizens still make it a foreign attack?

Are you saying that 911 are the 1st murders on the US of A mainland in the 20th century which have involved foreigners?

 

[skipper kelly]

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/September_11,_2001_attacks


Sorry, skipper kelly, what were you saying about 'clearly incorrect statement'? Maybe you want to retract?

opinion of the author. Not fact. next..........

 

[just maybe]

So lets see if I understand this. Your original statement says attack, doesnt mention the word foreign. You then tell me it is an assumption that it is a foreign attack. I accept this and then assume that the normal meaning of foreign attack would apply, ie state sanctioned. But then you tell me it doesnt have to be state sanctioned only has to involve foreigners. So using your distorted logic, you are trying to tell me that this statement "the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century" is to mean 'the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century by a foreigner.' Can this foreigner be acting alone or does he/she have to be acting in concert with other foreigners. Does the participation of US citizens still make it a foreign attack?

Are you saying that 911 are the 1st murders on the US of A mainland in the 20th century which have involved foreigners?

The normal meaning of 'foreign attack' does not include 'state sanctioned'. That is simply made up to suit your argument.

The normal meaning of 'attack' includes 'foreign' - which is why internal attacks are labelled 'crimes' and external attacks are labelled...er...'attacks'.

Evidence has been provided from a legal encyclopedia above for your interest.

Poor attempt, skipper kelly. Very poor. Collapse at your first hurdle.

Now, either join the topic at hand and stop your pathetic quest to discredit me, or leave full stop.

 

[just maybe]

opinion of the author. Not fact. next..........

So that makes any encyclopedia opinion of the author. Guess it's impossible to prove anything to you.

Nice one.

 

[skipper kelly]

So that makes any encyclopedia opinion of the author. Guess it's impossible to prove anything to you.

Nice one.

In this case it is the opinion of the author. I also note the use of the term 'highly lethal'. Is this also to be assumed as part of your statement.

Now adress the questions you failed to answer.

 

[skipper kelly]

Does the participation of US citizens still make it a foreign attack?

 

[just maybe]

Livingstone explained, noting that 9/11 was the first attack on the U.S. mainland since the British invasion during the War of 1812.

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%3D154973%26M%3D50011,00.html

The USA has not known a significant attack on its mainland since Union troops flattened the South at the end of the Civil War

http://www.jhcrawford.com/op-ed/wtc.html

The attacks were the first highly lethal attack by a foreign force on the U.S. mainland since the War of 1812.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/September:11:2001:Terrorist:Attack.htm

the first foreign attack on the US mainland since 1812

www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/download/events/terrorism/Colas-paper.doc

It was the first attack on US soil since the British burned the White House in 1814

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/002/723icbol.asp

the first upon the mainland since the War of 1812

www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/September-11,-2001-Terrorist-Attack



Wow Skip...thats lots of 'opinion' being cited...guess it can never be a fact though, eh? Just lots of people lying...

 

[skipper kelly]

Yes, but it is still only opinion.
And well done on learning to use google.


Does the participation of US citizens still make it a foreign attack?

 

[just maybe]

Does the participation of US citizens still make it a foreign attack?

If they didn't have foreign origin, no. But if they did, then yes, because they most likely became citizens for the purposes of the attack.

But irrelevant, 15 of the 19 were Saudi citizens.

Come on Skip, you really might as well give up, you picked a really stupid point to argue as the evidence is abundant that it is fact.

 

[just maybe]

Yes, but it is still only opinion.

Ah, the sook. When it doesn't suit him, it's just 'opinion'.

 

[- PC -]

What foreign country sanctioned 911?

According to Bush and co it must have been Afghanistan and Iraq... America , surely, wouldnt attack innocent nations would they?

 

[skipper kelly]

If they didn't have foreign origin, no. But if they did, then yes, because they most likely became citizens for the purposes of the attack.

So those born elsewhere that are US citizens are still classified as foreigners. Strange concept.

Now you are also assuming why people have taken US citizenship.

Seems you keep changing the boundaries when it suits from your original statement "the 1st attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century."

So we now have to assume its a foreign attack, doesnt have to be state sanctioned but must include foreigners. Then when these people arent foreigners but US citizens, we must also assume that their only reason for citizenship is for the sole purpsoe of an attack. Geez theres a lot to read into one little statement.

 

[skipper kelly]

Ah, the sook. When it doesn't suit him, it's just 'opinion'.

thats about the 6 time in this thread you have made personal comments. Strange.

 

[skipper kelly]

According to Bush and co it must have been Afghanistan and Iraq... America , surely, wouldnt attack innocent nations would they?

I dont understand what you mean PC.