"You're either with us or against us?"?

Question

When Bush said this he was talking to nations that harbor or sponsor terrorism. When Democrats use it as a slogan, does it polarize or unite?

If you recall where this came from it was the post 9/11 speech. He specifically said this only to nations that "harbor terrorists". He didn't say it to France or New Zealand.

g: They are taking it out of context and using it as an anti-bush slogan. That's basically the foundation of the "Bush thinks we're not patriots if we weren't for the war". Which he has actually said the exact opposite. I guess I wasn't clear.

Answer 1

liberals are just polarizing to begin with, and generally not with us in the fight against terrorism. They cant even define terrorism, let alone formulate a strategy to fight it. other than, cut and run, appease, and bombing a random aspirin factory. that gets us nowhere, and doesnt kill any terrorists, it creates more terrorists because it allows current terrorists to live, and shows the islamic world our percieved weaknesses (paper tiger, as such after clinton ran from somalia after 18 deaths, and not allowing his troops to use armor or ac-130 gunships and all the available firepower at hand for a superpower). Say what you will about Bush "creating more terrorists", atleast he hunts them, rather than pretending they dont exist. This is a war of annhilation, either fight or we will be annhilated. we didnt choose this war, but we must end it, if you think cutting and running will be a victory for the US, then wait and see the "victory rallies" the terrorsists will throw around the world, and the inevitable follow up death blow on our soil. we must finish the job, on their soil, before it is finished upon us. Bush sr didnt finish the job in 92, lets not repeat the mistake, finish the job, or we will hand the terrorists an oil rich taliban style caliphate, used to fight US interests around the world, and US interests INSIDE the US.


Andrew D- do a google search for "gore chernomyrdin act", under this provision, Gore (democrat) allowed russia to supply Iran (state Sponsor of terrorism) with 2 nuclear reactors, a ten year supply of fissionable uranium, kilo class subs, and su-27 fighters. why were the Democrats helping to arm the axis of evil?

In addition, the democrats gave north korea 2 light water nuclear reactors. why were the democrats helping arm the axis of evil? you say 'well bush didnt do anything!".... atleast he didnt let them have nuclear reactors for crying out loud

Answer 2

I really get annoyed when you only get offered two choices: for or against. I think there are so many other ways to look at things.
The philosophy of yin-yang suits me-that within good, there is a little bad, and within bad, there is a little good.
We need to be more open to people with other opinions and ways of looking at things.
I guess that statement would obviously polarise those who do take either side, and perhaps also polarise a nebulous mass like myself who likes to look a bit further past what people like Bush are saying, and why they might say it.
It would also unite people strongly if they were in the "with us" team as they could live in that lovely dreamy land where everything about them is "right", because they have the ultimatum which says everyone else is wrong.
SO my true answer is, there is no right/wrong, so there is no unite/polarise. There is just a bunch of people making a firm statement. Humpgh.

Answer 3

that's an extremely stable ingredient. If a exceptional form of those countries are not with us, they are against us -- that's the comparable as attacking us. Even the British are not with us on bombing Lebanon lower back to the stone age. All this time, i assumed that they have got been our acquaintances. yet they are quite our enemies. What a ask your self. i think of we could desire to nuke London for being against us. yet they do have nuclear bombs. We greater effectual make optimistic we kill each final Briton on the 1st wave of assaults so as that they gained't be waiting to respond in kind. that must be the only in charge ingredient. of course, that should coach anybody that we don't take no guff (like that wimpy Clinton did).

Answer 4

Actually, he was trying to get support for the war in Iraq, not trying to deter countries from harboring terrorists. Why do you think they were so harsh against the French when they pulled their troops from the UN troops? It was just another scare tactic used by BushCo to try to get help in their unjust war.

Besides, the statement itself is polarizing!

Here is this:

In a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said coalition partners would be called upon to back up their support with action. He said he would deliver that message in his speech Saturday to the United Nations.

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."


From here:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

Answer 5

It is polarizing when G.W.B uses it,why should it be any different for the democrates.

It is an incredibly poarizing slogan....New Zealand didnt join in on the invasion of iraq,does that mean we support terrorism,and want the US to fail in Iraq??
Another stupid thing to come out of GWB mouth..

Answer 6

Bush has done nothing to stop Iran (a state sponser of terrorists) who are building a nuclear weapon, he has done nothing to stop the N. Korea who helps Iran to build their nuclear weapons/missiles & can sell nukes directly to Al Qaeda who can use them on us, & Pakistan harbors/supports terrorists that kill our troops in Afganhistan and Bush hasn't done a thing about it!!!

How can anyone unite under a President who isn't doing what he said he would do and who can blame the Democrats for trying to capitalize on it to save our country from someone who obviously can't handle the job?

Answer 7

Democrats use it as a slogan? I've not seen this?

Answer 8

When Johnny come lately said that to cultures thousands of years older than his, he became the laughingstock of the planet

Answer 9

You're kidding right? Two choices. That's polarization by definition isn't it?

Answer 10

polarize. It is just a bad slogan nothing today is that black & white.