Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106554)	7/19/2003 11:46:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Neutrality was NOT the only other option- again we see a false dichotomy. In other words, for those not used to deconstructing dichotomies, you could be not with Bush, and still not be neutral on terrorists. And does neutrality really equal passive assistance? Well it sounds good- but really and truly, neutrality equals neutrality. I haven't met anyone neutral on terrorists though- I've met people who thought it should be handled differently, but that hardly fits Mr. Bush's either/or- or your conception of it either.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106554)	7/19/2003 11:55:45 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 281500

It's the same thing, and it's still fantastically stupid .... the fact that the independent democracies are recoiling from actions of the PNAC bunch does not make us 'neutral' either, by the way, it makes us human beings wondering when we'll see human beings again in control of all the US WMDs .... 'neutral', pffft, neutral is not the category folks pick when the bin Ladens and Bushes start up with this 'yer with us or yer with the other guys' crap - we're agin em both, because they are the same for saying that, they are both being dickheads, the one never had a chance with us on account of being a murdering religious whacko, and the other is listening to some god-construct tell him to drop the war on terrorism and go invade Iraq all by his ownself .... blithering idiots - to detest such people is not to be 'neutral', it is to be normal

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106554)	7/20/2003 12:01:39 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Either you are with us or against us". I found 125 references to this phrase. Example: Copyright 2001 Gannett Company, Inc. USA TODAY September 21, 2001, Friday, FIRST EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3A LENGTH: 215 words HEADLINE: Developments on Thursday BODY: * President Bush, in a televised speech to Congress, called for a new Cabinet-level office for homeland defense. He urged Americans to remain "calm and resolute" and told foreign governments "either you are with us or you are against us."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106554)	7/20/2003 9:45:18 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

'With or against us' war irks many UN nations Bush's intention to broaden the war beyond Afghanistan fails to galvanize UN. By Michael J. Jordan \| Special to The Christian Science Monitor UNITED NATIONS - Until now, supporting the United States in its war against terrorists has been relatively easy for many members of the United Nations. But faultlines deepened in the international coalition this week when President Bush informed the UN General Assembly that he intends to take the antiterror campaign beyond Afghanistan. In comments before the assembly of more than 1,000 delegates, the president warned that some states, "while pledging to uphold the principles of the UN, have cast their lot with the terrorists," alluding to Iraq. There will be "a price to be paid," Bush said. That message has some diplomats and UN-watchers wondering how Washington will simultaneously hold together its coalition while broadening its war aims. Meanwhile, a growing number of UN members are signaling a waning appetite for Bush's "with-us-or-against-us" campaign. To some, the with-us-or-against-us smacks of Stalinism. They say it muzzles domestic critics and squelches dissent from those abroad who fear repercussions from the world's economic and military superpower. The president's good-versus-evil rhetoric also denies shades of gray, says Richard Falk, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. Such language "implies too much clarity in a world that's much messier than that," he says. "It shows a lack of respect for the sovereignty of other countries and may place them between contradictory pressures." President Bush's with-us-or-against-us slogan was an effective rallying tool following the Sept. 11 suicide attacks. But the power of those words is fading with every civilian casualty in Afghanistan, and could even be polarizing opposition to the US course. By contrast, says one analyst, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is making a convincing case. "Blair is not boxing leaders in, but saying, 'This is the moral imperative, this is the task at hand, will you help us?' " says Scott Lasensky, a Mideast expert with the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you ask whether we condemn the Sept. 11 attack, we're with you," says one South American diplomat. "But is more violence the best answer? The Americans don't leave room for alternative opinions. When will countries speak out: after 1,000, 100,000, or 1 million more are killed?" rest of article.... csmonitor.com; The international community drew a distinction between Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq and other targets of this Administration. While there was international support for the "War on Terrorism", the scism started when pResident Bush started redefining the war on terrorism to include all Neocon Peccadillos. Eventually, the Administration's language and actions conveyed a "With us or against us" mentality to ALL things BUsh. As predicted in the article above, this black/white diplomacy led to the end of coalition building. Rascal @noparsingneeded.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106554)	7/20/2003 3:48:52 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Bush never said that." Here's an example of Bush saying exactly that, with complete context and a link from the Bush Whitehouse web site: ... I'm asked all the time by people, what can I do to help. You see, as you probably can tell, I don't see many shades of gray in this world. Either you're with us or you're against us. Either you support evil or you support good. This great nation stands on the side of good. And for those who want to help, you can do so by acts of kindness. You can do so by showing compassion for your neighbor. ... whitehouse.gov More examples: whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov whitehouse.gov Another example, more clear: My hope, of course, is that nations make the right choice. And I believe some nations are doing just that; by being steadfast with our coalition and our friends and allies, that nations choose a peaceful course, that they reject terror. And, as I say, many nations are realizing when we say you're either with us or against us, we mean it. There's no middle ground when it comes to freedom and terror. whitehouse.gov I did find one case where he used "terrorists", but I found all the above hits before I found it. I'd bet that Bush used the standard quote at least twice for every time he used the "terrorist" quote. -- Carl