Poll

Is George Bush any good?

yes
13 (25%)
no
39 (75%)

Total Members Voted: 41

Voting closed: January 18, 2006, 06:53:12 AM

President

  • 87 Replies
  • 18367 Views
President
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2006, 10:14:47 AM »
Im proud to have no religion what so ever haha
OOYASHAKA!

Re: President
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2006, 11:25:41 AM »
Quote from: "NarrowPathPilgrim"
Quote from: "pspunit"
What are everyone's thoughts on the president of the United States?

Very bad; but I really can't call any of our presidents "good" as every one was a 33rd degree freemason.
I believe (without any doubt) [censored due to the the fact that it is propaganda] And though I think he is working for the same boss and goal, he is much better than Kerry would have been; the Lord only knows what would have happened if that liberal got into office.

Sincerely, Zach Doty

PS. Anyone who wants to learn more about 9/11 needs to watch [censored due to the the fact that it is propaganda]. It is a well done documentary that will leave you with no doubt whatsoever! (Search google and you can find places to download it online)

i'm sorry but you mon ami (lol i dont like french) have fallen for propaganda

President
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2006, 11:30:50 AM »
Quote
I think america would be the worst country in history if the jews had not been behind the murder of Jesus Christ God.

okay that titering on NAZIisum

President
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2006, 09:36:21 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
A Well Done To the good JohnSmith.

  I was going to post what Cinlef did about the Roman soldiers but Cinlef got to it first.  6strings was right about two things - that people killed Jesus Christ and that I am not Catholic (the popes from John XXIII forward (1958 to the present) have been exceptionally anti-traditional as well as rather pro-israel especially in the case of Golda Meir's friend Paul VI, the one who implemented modernist Vatican II.

  As to the Roman soldiers, of course they were following the orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate who had been persuaded to give the order by the Jewish priests like Caiaphas (the high priest) and the others.  There is strong Orthodox Christian tradition that Pilate's wife became a Christian, and I know of a tradition in Ethiopia in which Pilate himself became a Christian and was forgiven his sin.  To be fair, the jews did at least have Nicodemus, although he represented the minority opinion among their leaders.  The point is the jewish leaders were the principle persons behind the crucufixion.  Pilate said more than once he had no desire to issue such an order.

  On a side note, I would say "genetic testing" which I am unfamiliar with in respect to Arthur Koestler's 'Thirteenth Tribe' sounds like a flimsy dismissal of the book which has had a considerable influence.  I am not a biologist or a geneticist, but a group of "jews" with blue eyes and brown hair and european facial features sounds to me related to their european brethren (brethren indeed) in everything except religion (but 6strings was probably referring to some "authoritative study" (by who? the Simon Weisenthal Centre?).  It sounds like somebody does not like the message of the book, and has a desire to glean attention away from the well documented history in it.  

No evidence of jewish influence in Bush administration?
  I can hardly believe that some persons are unaware of jewish influence in the Bush administration.  Where do we begin?  How about current World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, the former undersecreary of Defense who planned out the iraqi invasion, or his mentor Richard Perle, both of whom are jewish neo-conservatives.  The entire neo-conservative movement was founded by a jew, Kristol.  Kristol was a Trotskyite who changed some of his views in the sixties as he saw the US as a vehicle for zionist aims.  (The defition of the neo-conservatives are old liberals turned conservative in some respects which is precisely what characterizes Kristol.)  A zionist? you say.  He is very pro-Israel.  His son William Kristol is editor-in-chief of the Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, the neo-conservative movement's flagship journal.  (Murdoch's mother is a jew, by the way.  Reagan's lifelong friend and financier (and Nixon's as well) was a jewish media mogul who sold his media empire to Rupert Murdoch in 1998.  William Kristol and Richard Perle have each organized a vast network of powerful individuals (in the media and politics respectively) which have the same aims.  The 'Nation' and other news magazines/news sources who do not follow the controlled news of Kristol's outreach have exposed political ties to Israel with members of Richard Perle's network.  I could write considerably more, but to suffice for now to say that books have been written on this.

- Dionysios

But what has the existence of Jewish neoconservatives to do with me? I'm Jewish and about as liberal as they come.

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
President
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2006, 03:44:11 PM »
It's almost as if insane anti-sematism isn't logical...

President
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2006, 05:52:14 PM »
Ok why is GWB a bad president....

does not know how to use a map, he attack Iraq, to get back at Saudies,
who trained in Afganistan, Germany and the US and then flew the planes
on 9/11.

Uses scare tactic to control the population "Let's not let the smoking gun
come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

NO WMD's, never were.

No bid contracts awarded to his VP's former employer

can not focus, Osama who?

continues to allow drug companies to over charge for drugs (no else in the world pays as much)

refuses to honour the trade agreements and rulings of nafta

I think that is enoght to agrue about for now

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2006, 08:58:47 AM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
does not know how to use a map, he attack Iraq, to get back at Saudies, who trained in Afganistan, Germany and the US and then flew the planes on 9/11.


I'm pretty sure that noone believes that that's why he attacked Iraq.  Except you, evidently.

Quote
Uses scare tactic to control the population "Let's not let the smoking gun
come in the form of a mushroom cloud."


Yeah, and people respond so well to calm, well-thought-out, reasonable arguments.  Oh and right, threat of nuclear attack should never be taken seriously.

Quote
NO WMD's, never were.


What, nevernever?  What went into the warheads of SCUD missles?  bubbles?

Quote
can not focus, Osama who?


Good thing the world has only one bad guy -- Osama bin Laden.  No other dangers in the world to worry about but him!

Quote
continues to allow drug companies to over charge for drugs (no else in the world pays as much)


Interesting, I hadn't heard about this one.  I never realized that Dubya is what's wrong with the pharmeceutical community...
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

President
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2006, 10:07:07 AM »
Quote
I'm pretty sure that noone believes that that's why he attacked Iraq. Except you, evidently.


You must be in a red state. Do you not remember his speeches
linking Saddam to al quida. because of them at one point some 40%
of yanks thought Saddam was involved with 9/11.

Quote
Yeah, and people respond so well to calm, well-thought-out, reasonable arguments. Oh and right, threat of nuclear attack should never be taken seriously.


The cia told him the report from the brits that Saddam was trying
to buy urainium from africe was not relieable before he said that.
Using a lie to drop bombs on people is not ok, next thing you know
you'll be using the "it was only 16 words in a long speech, don't
blow them out of proportion" argument.

Quote
What, nevernever? What went into the warheads of SCUD missles? bubbles?


And were where they, ok yes he had them, the point is he didn't
have them now and that is why there are 15000+ US casulties
and we don't know how many Iraqi.
By your reasoning should the world fear you yanks dropping nukes?
I mean you did on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote
Good thing the world has only one bad guy -- Osama bin Laden. No other dangers in the world to worry about but him!


He is the one who attack you, and still wants to again and is still free
with eveny more followers.

Quote
Interesting, I hadn't heard about this one. I never realized that Dubya is what's wrong with the pharmeceutical community...


Yes he is, ever hear the saying "the buck stops here", well it stops at GWB
The FDA has the power to set the price pharmeceutical companies
can charge, GWB has the power over the FDA, instead his medicare plan
still keeps people paying more then most other nations and all the G8's

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2006, 10:38:35 AM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
You must be in a red state. Do you not remember his speeches
linking Saddam to al quida. because of them at one point some 40%
of yanks thought Saddam was involved with 9/11.


Ah, what I meant was, I know of two reasons he sent troops to Iraq:
1)  The fake one, to find WMD's.
2)  The real one, to control and profit Iraq's economic and natural resources.

Quote
The cia told him the report from the brits that Saddam was trying
to buy urainium from africe was not relieable before he said that.
Using a lie to drop bombs on people is not ok, next thing you know
you'll be using the "it was only 16 words in a long speech, don't
blow them out of proportion" argument.


You don't have to convince me of this!  My point was that the quote you posted is not, by itself, a bad foreign policy.  When it's used, as you say, as a known falsehood, that's totally different.

Quote
And were where they, ok yes he had them, the point is he didn't
have them now and that is why there are 15000+ US casulties
and we don't know how many Iraqi.


Again, of course I agree.... but you said, "never were", which is clearly unfounded and inflammatory.

Do you claim that the U.S. and other nations are not threatened, from any direction, by WMD's?  Also, specifically considering Iraq, what do you think happened to the WMD's that are no longer there?

Quote
By your reasoning should the world fear you yanks dropping nukes?
I mean you did on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


By your reasoning, should people living today in Rome fear that hairy men from the forests of Germany will sack their city?

But to answer your question, no, by my reasoning, the world should not fear it.  Your attempt to conflate the American use of nuclear weapons in WWII with Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 80's and 90's is weak and, again, inflammatory.  Do you really want to claim that Harry Truman had the same motives?  that the geopolitical background was the same?  that the economic and military command structure was the same in 1940's U.S. as it was in Hussein's Iraq?  that Dubya is, in fact, Harry Truman in disguise?  Surely not.

Quote
He is the one who attack you, and still wants to again and is still free
with eveny more followers.


Yeah, that's exactly my question to you -- do you think he's the only person in the world who wants to attack the U.S. or other Western powers or their allies?  or that he's the only person with the power to?

I think the world constantly sprouts violent foes of Western culture, that Dubya has a genuine interest in combatting them (among other interests, also genuine but less becoming of a good leader), and that he is the CiC of a vast and cumbersome military machine that evolved in a different world and is not suited for the kind of warfare it is currently undertaking.

His other interests, of course, go a long way towards hindering his misdirected and disorganized attempts to combat a brush fire with assault rifles.

Quote
Yes he is, ever hear the saying "the buck stops here", well it stops at GWB
The FDA has the power to set the price pharmeceutical companies
can charge, GWB has the power over the FDA, instead his medicare plan
still keeps people paying more then most other nations and all the G8's


I don't know enough about this issue to debate on it any further; however, I suspect that curbing price-gouging is often out of the hands of the president.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

President
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2006, 12:35:44 PM »
Quote
2) The real one, to control and profit Iraq's economic and natural resources.


And this makes it ok?

Quote
You don't have to convince me of this! My point was that the quote you posted is not, by itself, a bad foreign policy. When it's used, as you say, as a known falsehood, that's totally different.


So using fear, as I posted, to control a population is good policy,
I don't understand why you think that, that was my point.

Quote
Do you claim that the U.S. and other nations are not threatened, from any direction, by WMD's? Also, specifically considering Iraq, what do you think happened to the WMD's that are no longer there?


The point I made was not about other nations but Iraq, which had no
WMD's and was such a threat it couldn't even offer token
resistance to a invading force.
Since it had been under sanction and more or less impoverished since Gulf war part 1
I suspect there were no WMD's, that seems more logical
then them vanishing without a trace while the nation was have the hell
bombed out of it.

Quote
But to answer your question, no, by my reasoning, the world should not fear it. Your attempt to conflate the American use of nuclear weapons in WWII with Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 80's and 90's is weak and, again, inflammatory. Do you really want to claim that Harry Truman had the same motives? that the geopolitical background was the same? that the economic and military command structure was the same in 1940's U.S. as it was in Hussein's Iraq? that Dubya is, in fact, Harry Truman in disguise? Surely not.


Yes this is a bit off topic but I did say that to inflame. As you should be inflamed about it, I have been
to Japan and seen the photo's of the aftermath, targeting a civilian
population should never be accepted at any point in history for any
reason.

Quote
Yeah, that's exactly my question to you -- do you think he's the only person in the world who wants to attack the U.S. or other Western powers or their allies? or that he's the only person with the power to?


My point is he did attack you and resorces and effort were wasted in Iraq.
He is still free in fact the Canadians are now in charge of operations
in Afganastan, his last known hiding spot.
Because of lies and stupidity GWB has to focus in the wrong
spot now.



Quote
I think the world constantly sprouts violent foes of Western culture, that Dubya has a genuine interest in combatting them (among other interests, also genuine but less becoming of a good leader), and that he is the CiC of a vast and cumbersome military machine that evolved in a different world and is not suited for the kind of warfare it is currently undertaking.


I don't agree with much of this, don't blame the world for sprouting foes,
you should look the policies they sprout from, for instence, the US govorment
has had three count them three NAFTA panels and one WTO panel
rule they have leveled unfair tariffes on Canadian softwood lumber
producers to the tune of 4 billionUSD. Instead of honouring this
agreement under NAFTA rules the US stance is a settelment for a greatly reduced sum. That is how
friendly govorments are treated makes you wonder how govorments
that don't have such a history are treated.

I also don't belive the that the worlds most powerful military can not
adjust it's tactics. If you have great military thinkers you should be able
too when you have the tools, or at least the money to buy and train
on them

Quote
I don't know enough about this issue to debate on it any further; however, I suspect that curbing price-gouging is often out of the hands of the president.


No it is not out of his hands. As head of state he does, as head of state
he could place rules and regulations on any industry he wants,
every other head of state in the world has the same power within
thier borders. Thats why Brits, Cauncks and Mexicains ALL pay less
for perscriptions then Yanks, what you think it costs less to make drugs
in GB?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2006, 01:08:46 PM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
And this makes it ok?


Quote
So using fear, as I posted, to control a population is good policy,
I don't understand why you think that,


I think you are accusing me of haboring sentiments I have never expressed.  Are you trying to influence your audience's emotional responses by building an ethical straw man in effigy of me, and then burning it down?

Quote
The point I made was not about other nations but Iraq, which had no
WMD's and was such a threat it couldn't even offer token
resistance to a invading force.


Ah, you hadn't explicitly mentioned that, in a post whose ostensible goal was to show why Bush is a bad president.  He does claim that other parties have WMDs and are a threat to the U.S., right?

Quote
Since it had been under sanction and more or less impoverished since Gulf war part 1 I suspect there were no WMD's, that seems more logical
then them vanishing without a trace while the nation was have the hell
bombed out of it.


Well, first of all, the only people I know to have suffered from the sanctions were the Iraqi civilians.  Somehow Saddam got to keep his eight lavish palaces and thirty-two square kilometers of personal land.

As for WMDs, they had over ten years between wars for the weapons to all "fall of the backs of trucks", as they say.

Quote
Yes this is a bit off topic but I did say that to inflame. As you should be inflamed about it, I have been to Japan and seen the photo's of the aftermath, targeting a civilian
population should never be accepted at any point in history for any reason.


Again, let's not make presumptions about my sentiments, shall we?  I don't condone the past mistakes of any nation, including the U.S.

Quote
I don't agree with much of this, don't blame the world for sprouting foes,
you should look the policies they sprout from, for instence, the US govorment
has had three count them three NAFTA panels and one WTO panel
rule they have leveled unfair tariffes on Canadian softwood lumber
producers to the tune of 4 billionUSD.


And yet somehow, you don't see Canadians crashing airliners into American cities.  The fact is that there is a striking and, I'm starting to believe, irreconcilable idealogical rift separating Europe and her offspring from the rest of the world.  This makes what would in any other age have been seen as aggressive politicking (possibly, in the worst cases, warranting conventional war) now set of a seemingly endless suicidal holy war.

Yes, I agree that American foreign policy is a cause of the trouble the U.S. is now in.  But I also believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that on the one hand, had it not been the Middle East whom the U.S. tried to strongarm, the repercussions would not have been so (if I may) barbaric; and on the other hand, had the U.S. not started strongarming the Middle East, the level of (if I may) barbarism in that region would not be much less.

Quote
I also don't belive the that the worlds most powerful military can not
adjust it's tactics.


Of course.  But this is a slow process.  You're asking a military system based on firepower to defeat an enemy that does not value its own life, and to fight a war that has no fronts.  Of course it will evolve, but until its evolution is complete, its leaders will be seen as utter failures simply because the mode of conflict in which they have found themselves is in a state of flux.

Quote
No it is not out of his hands. As head of state he does, as head of state
he could place rules and regulations on any industry he wants,
every other head of state in the world has the same power within
thier borders.


I'm pretty sure that heads of state only have that sort of power in ... well, in places like Iraq.  Turns out every group of people with money in a democratic society wields political clout, and that the clout which pharmeceuticals have at their disposal is massive.  Bush can push for more accessible medicine, but he can fail for reasons other than his own impotency.  If he doesn't push, that's the fault we judge him for.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

President
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2006, 03:28:29 PM »
Quote
I think you are accusing me of haboring sentiments I have never expressed. Are you trying to influence your audience's emotional responses by building an ethical straw man in effigy of me, and then burning it down?


Not my intention, I must have not understood what your meaning
behind "My point was that the quote you posted is not, by itself, a bad
foreign policy".

My point again is GWB used this line "the smoking gun
in the form of a mushroom cloud" in speeches to gain support for
before attacking Iraq, even though he knew the reports were not
relieable. If that is not a scare tactic to help control a population
that had just been attack, I do not know what is.
Since every sain person takes nucular threat very serious this is a
perticularly irresposible thing to say.


Quote
What, nevernever? What went into the warheads of SCUD missles? bubbles?


Please do not back peddle, if you did not know who my
point I was infering to why the referace to SCUD's
A missle we all came to know in Iraq attack Part 1.

Quote
Well, first of all, the only people I know to have suffered from the sanctions were the Iraqi civilians. Somehow Saddam got to keep his eight lavish palaces and thirty-two square kilometers of personal land.


I never said the sactions didn't hurt the Iraqi people nor
have I said I am a fan of a tin horn tyrant like Saddam,
but having a few nice houses and some hunting land does not mean
you have WMD's. I fact by going to Iraq GWB has allowed Kim Gong Il
space to move, and he seems to be more a threat (although I suspect
it is mostly saber rattleing).







Quote
As for WMDs, they had over ten years between wars for the weapons to all "fall of the backs of trucks", as they say.


Off point a bit, the justification to war with Iraq was the STOCKPILING
of WMD's. if it was Saddam's discount WMD's for the last ten years
that just proves may point of no WMD's. BTW Saddam did send
documentation to the UN prior to the invasion accounting,
for his weopons. Documentation which was dismissed
as false or incompleat by GWB.
(why the hell ask someone something if your not going what they say)


Quote
And yet somehow, you don't see Canadians crashing airliners into American cities.


The point being that is how friends are treated and it was only softwood.


Quote
Yes, I agree that American foreign policy is a cause of the trouble the U.S. is now in. But I also believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that on the one hand, had it not been the Middle East whom the U.S. tried to strongarm, the repercussions would not have been so (if I may) barbaric; and on the other hand, had the U.S. not started strongarming the Middle East, the level of (if I may) barbarism in that region would not be much less.


this is opinion and sterotyping at best and can not be back up with fact.

Quote
I'm pretty sure that heads of state only have that sort of power in ... well, in places like Iraq. Turns out every group of people with money in a democratic society wields political clout, and that the clout which pharmeceuticals have at their disposal is massive. Bush can push for more accessible medicine, but he can fail for reasons other than his own impotency. If he doesn't push, that's the fault we judge him for.


actually it happens in dictatorships like United Kingdom, Japan Germany,
France, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Finland....and
the USA. Every head of state, by the very definition, has the power
to create new and enforce exsisting rules and laws. When you vote for
a RULER you are doing just that, that is why voting is so important.

As a democratic sociaty you giving one person or a group of people
the power to goven the masses when you vote.

BTW, this is fact, EVERY country mentioned above including the USA
regulates what drug companies can charge for thier drugs.
The US just lets them charge more. If having money = political clout
why do they pay less in Finland with a population of about 8 million for drugs.
You whould think big money verses a relitivly small GDP would put even
more power to the money.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2006, 03:54:20 PM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
I never said the sactions didn't hurt the Iraqi people nor
have I said I am a fan of a tin horn tyrant like Saddam,
but having a few nice houses and some hunting land does not mean
you have WMD's. I fact by going to Iraq GWB has allowed Kim Gong Il
space to move, and he seems to be more a threat (although I suspect
it is mostly saber rattleing).


My point in referring to Saddam's riches, that he kept during the sanctions, was to show that the sanctions failed to restrict Saddam's power; so just because there were sanctions, doesn't mean he couldn't stockpile WMDs.  In retrospect, I think it's clear that he didn't; I'm just saying that sanctions weren't enough to go by.

Quote
Quote
And yet somehow, you don't see Canadians crashing airliners into American cities.


The point being that is how friends are treated and it was only softwood.


So is it just a question of degree, then?  To me, it seems that in the Middle East it's "only oil".  I realize as well as anybody that Dubya has personal interests in increasing his and his friends' influence in the region.  My point was to show the degree to which the reactions are different.

Quote
this is opinion and sterotyping at best and can not be back up with fact.


Opinion?  Stereotyping?  Yes and yes.  What do you think about the Islamic world's response to the Mohammed cartoons?

Quote
actually it happens in dictatorships like United Kingdom, Japan Germany,
France, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Finland....and
the USA. Every head of state, by the very definition, has the power
to create new and enforce exsisting rules and laws. When you vote for
a RULER you are doing just that, that is why voting is so important.

As a democratic sociaty you giving one person or a group of people
the power to goven the masses when you vote.


You are equivocating among legislative systems.  A head of state is an individual person... he doesn't have the powers that the entire legislative bodies have.

I'm curious... why do you refer to those countries as dictatorships?

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

President
« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2006, 08:11:20 PM »
Quote
My point in referring to Saddam's riches, that he kept during the sanctions, was to show that the sanctions failed to restrict Saddam's power; so just because there were sanctions, doesn't mean he couldn't stockpile WMDs. In retrospect, I think it's clear that he didn't; I'm just saying that sanctions weren't enough to go by.


Sure he kept his personal wealth during the sactions, as did every other
wealthy Iraqi, the sactions only hurt the poor, but don't confuse his personal wealth
the nations wealth. It takes more then a couple billion dollars to have a
 weapons program that could threaten a country like the US or Isreal weapons program, do you have any idea
how much these thing cost? I does take the wealth of a nation to have
them. It's not enough just to have a ICBM, which to truely have one
takes the kind of money and science of a space program, but then
you need the staff and experts to run them, why do you think only
the wealthiest nations in the world have ICBM's. So umm yeah
the sactions were a very good clue. Of course the next clue was the
documentation sent to the UN from Iraq accounting for his WMD's.

Quote
So is it just a question of degree, then? To me, it seems that in the Middle East it's "only oil". I realize as well as anybody that Dubya has personal interests in increasing his and his friends' influence in the region. My point was to show the degree to which the reactions are different.


Yes the degree is differnt and Canada does not have as much to complain
about, it's standerd of living is higher then even the US. The true degree
is the standard of living. It is not as high in the middle east, it has nothing
to due with religion but class. We someone screws you over and you
own a lexus you do react differntly when they do it and you have to bury
two out of three of your children or if they can't go to school. Now not all
of that is the wests fault but I hope you see the point.

Quote
Opinion? Stereotyping? Yes and yes. What do you think about the Islamic world's response to the Mohammed cartoons?


Upsetting of course, but using this to class a group is like saying the KKK
represent the Christian west or IRA represent the catholics of northen
Ireland. I don't want to get into opinion
about world religions since I pretty sure we are not theological experts.

Quote
You are equivocating among legislative systems. A head of state is an individual person... he doesn't have the powers that the entire legislative bodies have.


I may be, but that does not change the fact that the leader of a nation
or the leading party's head does have the power to set the agenda
of the govorment (except in the case of minority govorments which can
form in some nations) and if the agenda is to set rules and regulations
for an industry then that is the agenda.


Quote
I'm curious... why do you refer to those countries as dictatorships?


Well as a point that each one of them have govorments that can and do
put in place rules and regulations on industries within thier
boarders, which you infered to earlier was a practice only in places
like Iraq, which is not really correct. It happens everyday in those
nations, and every other nation in the world.

President
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2006, 08:11:08 AM »
why start a debate and then walk away?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2006, 02:18:22 PM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
Sure he kept his personal wealth during the sactions, as did every other wealthy Iraqi, the sactions only hurt the poor, but don't confuse his personal wealth the nations wealth.


The point is that I believe the Iraqi government redirected all the ill effects of sanctions on its people, and thus retained most or all of its economic power.  Ditto for other wealthy Iraqis... Iraq was highly oligarchical, and what benefitted Saddam benefited his cousins.

Quote
It takes more then a couple billion dollars to have a weapons program that could threaten a country like the US or Isreal weapons program, do you have any idea how much these thing cost?


I couldn't begin to come up with an educated guess as to how much they cost; however, I know that the Soviet space program was less costly than the American one.  I imagine the Iraqis could threaten Israel on a much smaller budget than the American defense budget.

Quote
when they do it and you have to bury two out of three of your children or if they can't go to school.


Is this one of those "Americans are baby-killers" arguments?  That's great propaganda, but in proportion to the number of attacks, compare
1)  Babies killed by Americans in conflicts with Iraq to babies killed by Islamic suicide bombers; and
2)  Babies killed by Americans in conflicts with Iraq to babies killed in WWII.

I'm pretty sure Americans put at least *some* effort into not killing babies, whereas the other two parties (Islamist suicide bombers today and armies in WWII) put no effort into it.  In at least one of those cases, the relevant strategic authority commands its troops to target women and children.

Quote
Upsetting of course, but using this to class a group is like saying the KKK
represent the Christian west or IRA represent the catholics of northen
Ireland.


I don't think it is.  The Islamic world's reaction was represented in many countries, violently.  It was supported by the leaders of the Islamic world.  It was by no means a rebellious subculture like the KKK or the IRA; it was the mainstream opinion of Islam.

Quote
the leader of a nation or the leading party's head does have the power to set the agenda of the govorment


Agenda is different from action: that's the difference between a dictatorship and a republic.  Leaders of republics still have to go through a process to get their ideas put into power.  In none of the countries you listed as dictatorships can a leader state his will and have it followed, disobeyed only on pain of death (as was the case in Iraq).  That's what "dictator" means: "speaker".  His word is law; Bush's words, even when intelligible, are not law.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
President
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2006, 02:33:01 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

I don't think it is.  The Islamic world's reaction was represented in many countries, violently.  It was supported by the leaders of the Islamic world.  It was by no means a rebellious subculture like the KKK or the IRA; it was the mainstream opinion of Islam.



Errr not exactly. First off it's nessecary to point out that you only see the people marching in the streets on TV not all the people who weren't. Relativly speaking it was a small minority. The other thing your not taking into account is that many of those countries governments took pains to stir up so violent a response. The Egyptian government only realized it was offended by those cartoons a day or towo after its corruption and incompetence towards safety regulations lead to the death of virtually all the passengers on a ferry (which sank capsized?). Suddenly they're all this months old Danish cartoon is blasphemy direct your anger at foreigners not the people who let your loveds ones die to line their pockets. Scapegoating is an ancient technique of oppresive governments and is easy to do if you control the media.
Context is almost as important as right and wrong when determining who your enemies are.
An enraged
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

President
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2006, 04:35:18 PM »
Quote
The point is that I believe the Iraqi government redirected all the ill effects of sanctions on its people, and thus retained most or all of its economic power. Ditto for other wealthy Iraqis... Iraq was highly oligarchical, and what benefitted Saddam benefited his cousins.


And how did they redirect the ill effect? It would be interesting if you
could explain that one to me.

I'm no expert in micro and macro economics but I think that if you
only have one major export in your country (oil), and can no longer
sell it or any other goods on the world market you can not keep much let
alone all of you economic power. That is just common sense. In order for
the Iraqi goverment to do that it would have to self sufficient, something
no country's economy is.

Also why blame the wealthy for keeping their wealth?

Quote
I couldn't begin to come up with an educated guess as to how much they cost; however, I know that the Soviet space program was less costly than the American one. I imagine the Iraqis could threaten Israel on a much smaller budget than the American defense budget.


To give you a idea how much ICBM's cost they were a major contributer
to the bankrupting of the former USSR, North Korea has to keep most of
it's population starving to death just to have half a dozen atomic
warheads. ( latest best guess but the UN ).
Spending that kind of money is not something one man can do.
I 'm not sure how much personal wealth you think Saddam had but
to do that he would need more then Bill Gates.

Quote
Is this one of those "Americans are baby-killers" arguments? That's great propaganda, but in proportion to the number of attacks, compare
1) Babies killed by Americans in conflicts with Iraq to babies killed by Islamic suicide bombers; and
2) Babies killed by Americans in conflicts with Iraq to babies killed in WWII.

I'm pretty sure Americans put at least *some* effort into not killing babies, whereas the other two parties (Islamist suicide bombers today and armies in WWII) put no effort into it. In at least one of those cases, the relevant strategic authority commands its troops to target women and children.



Ummm no it isn't, but if you want to mention WWII, the fire bombing
of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Nagesaki and Hiroshima killed
more babies then ALL Islamic suicide bombings in history combined.

I was refering to challenges people who live in
poverty we can not understand have to face.
Children starve to death even though both parents work, they die of polio
and lypersy and are born with aids. My point was if you lived like that and
watched coca cola come in and buy ALL the water near your village to
make pop for the wealthy, and you watch your fields dry up and die, you
would most likly harbour some resentment to the nation they came from.

Quote
don't think it is. The Islamic world's reaction was represented in many countries, violently. It was supported by the leaders of the Islamic world. It was by no means a rebellious subculture like the KKK or the IRA; it was the mainstream opinion of Islam.


My poor friend you are miss guided, it was a very small minority,
what confuses people is that the minorty is the most vocal and most
news worthy and there for is what you see on the TV and in the papers.

Do you think the world belives that all Christians think Hugo Chavez
should assasinated because we all heard Rev. Pat Robinson say that?
No we don't, but it was news worthy so we all heard it for weeks.





Quote
Agenda is different from action: that's the difference between a dictatorship and a republic. Leaders of republics still have to go through a process to get their ideas put into power. In none of the countries you listed as dictatorships can a leader state his will and have it followed, disobeyed only on pain of death (as was the case in Iraq). That's what "dictator" means: "speaker". His word is law; Bush's words, even when intelligible, are not law.


I think you missed the point that I used dictatorship in jest so I will
say it a bit clearer "It was in jest and I am well aware that none of them
are dictatorships".

We are getting off my point about the FDA, the FDA has the power to
restrict what a drug company can charge for their drugs within the US
boarders without having "put it to a vote", the FDA is not a elected
body and does not have to follow those rules. GWB has the power
over the FDA and there for can have the price of drugs lowered.

BTW I think you ment democratic societies, not republics, not all
not all republics are the same the USSR was a republic.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2006, 05:27:14 PM »
Quote from: "Cinlef"
Errr not exactly. First off it's nessecary to point out that you only see the people marching in the streets on TV not all the people who weren't. Relativly speaking it was a small minority.


A small but highly effective minority, supported by the prominent voices of the culture.

And I have heard a lot of damning statements from Muslims, in addition to the violence I read about in the news... e.g., letters to my school newspaper, calling on governments to punish the infidels who created or distributed the cartoons.

I haven't heard any statements from Muslims (in alternative news, local news, or mainstream media), saying, "Yeah, it was tasteless, but we support their freedom of expression."  No.  It was always (in my experience), "They should be put in jail."

Quote
The other thing your not taking into account is that many of those countries governments took pains to stir up so violent a response.


That's what I was referring to in

Quote from: "Erasmus"
It was supported by the leaders of the Islamic world.


Quote
The Egyptian government only realized it was offended by those cartoons a day or towo after its corruption and incompetence towards safety regulations lead to the death of virtually all the passengers on a ferry (which sank capsized?).


Heh.

Quote
Context is almost as important as right and wrong when determining who your enemies are.


Yeah, I think governments that scapegoat individuals who are exercizing their civil rights are my enemies.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2006, 06:11:33 PM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
And how did they redirect the ill effect? It would be interesting if you could explain that one to me.

I'm no expert in micro and macro economics but I think that if you
only have one major export in your country (oil), and can no longer
sell it or any other goods on the world market you can not keep much let
alone all of you economic power.


I'm not an economist either, but I'm pretty sure you can make deals under the table with members of the U.N., and that you can levy oppressive taxes and cut social programs to ease your transition from multibillionnairehood (and unquestionable ability to arm yourself) to multimillionnairehood (and questionable ability to arm yourself).

The point is that a government can bleed its people dry and survive on the proceeds, not indefinitely, but certainly long enough to sponsor an extensive retaliatory propaganda campaign.

Quote
Also why blame the wealthy for keeping their wealth?


All depends on where they get it.  If they scrimped and saved their own pennies, power to them... I'm a capitalist.  If they stole it from the people they governed, that's a different story.

Quote
North Korea has to keep most of it's population starving to death just to have half a dozen atomic warheads.


So it's possible, if you keep your population in starvation and in chains... I believe that.

Quote
Spending that kind of money is not something one man can do.
I 'm not sure how much personal wealth you think Saddam had but
to do that he would need more then Bill Gates.


I have no idea how much he had, but he had enough to build them *before* the sanctions, so he had enough to keep what was left over *during* the sanctions.

Also, he had not just his personal wealth to support his weapons program, but also the national wealth, which he controlled unilaterally.

Also, he certainly had a lot of personal wealth.  The fact that we weren't sure how much exactly, combined with the fact that he was certainly *willing* to stockpile weapons, combined with the expected cost of assuming incorrectly that he *wasn't* stockpiling weapons, maybe, just maybe, is cause for suspcion.

Quote
I'm pretty sure Americans put at least *some* effort into not killing babies, whereas the other two parties (Islamist suicide bombers today and armies in WWII) put no effort into it. In at least one of those cases, the relevant strategic authority commands its troops to target women and children.


Quote
Ummm no it isn't,


Who is "it", and what isn't it doing?  Do you think that the leaders of Islamist terrorist organizations do not advocate the killing of women and children?

Quote
but if you want to mention WWII, the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Nagesaki and Hiroshima killed more babies then ALL Islamic suicide bombings in history combined.


That's a straw man argument, and an improper use of statistics.  Those attacks killed more people in general, so of course they killed more of any given subtype of people, assuming similar distributions.

Quote
My point was if you lived like that and watched coca cola come in and buy ALL the water near your village to make pop for the wealthy, and you watch your fields dry up and die, you would most likly harbour some resentment to the nation they came from.


That's a good and true point.  And my point is, if you live your middle-class life and one day watch a group of people fly airplanes into your city, or blow up your subway, or take control of your theatre or your school by gun, or decapitate members of your community, and then watch their countrymen cheering on T.V., and listen to their leaders calling for your death and the death of your family and friends, as well as a hundred million people you never met but are kind of in the same situation as you, you would most likely harbour some resentment to the culture they came from.

Terrorism works.  Terrorism have sufficiently scared people close to me that they are willing to say, "It's okay that my government uses torture against suspected terrorists, as long as I'm safe."  So if you're going to say, "Americans are strongarming the Middle East, what do you expect?" then my response is, "The avowed agenda of terrorists is the death of every last living American... what do you expect?"

Quote
My poor friend you are miss guided, it was a very small minority,
what confuses people is that the minorty is the most vocal and most
news worthy and there for is what you see on the TV and in the papers.


My poor friend, I never said it was a majority.  I said it was
a) represented in several countries, and
b) supported by the Islamic leadership.

Do you deny this?

If you think it's really significant that it was just a minority, I suppose I could look around for inhuman behavior practiced by a majority of Muslims in Muslim nations, and not get very far before stumbling on the treatment of women.  I won't, though, because I think we should try to keep this debate focused.

Suffice it to say, it's a visible and vocal and violent minority, and to my knowledge, it has not been condemned by the majority (though I won't be so bold as to claim that silence is consent, at the very least it is certainly silence).  If you can provide evidence to dissuade me of this latter belief, I would of course be grateful.

Quote
Do you think the world belives that all Christians think Hugo Chavez
should assasinated because we all heard Rev. Pat Robinson say that?
No we don't, but it was news worthy so we all heard it for weeks.


Is Rev. Pat Robinson a representative of nine major Christian fundamentalist nations?  If not, I suggest you have a look at a letter from ambassadors of nine Muslim nations, which contains a veiled threat against anybody who publishes the cartoons, alongside a call on the Danish government to punish the artists and newspaper.  I'd say that's pretty mainstream.

Quote
I think you missed the point that I used dictatorship in jest so I will
say it a bit clearer "It was in jest and I am well aware that none of them
are dictatorships".


Yep, I guess I missed that.  Sorry.

Quote
GWB has the power over the FDA and there for can have the price of drugs lowered.


So, I don't know any more about the FDA than I do about economics; probably less.  You're saying that Bush can say, "I demand that drugs be cheaper," and the FDA is compelled by law to comply without question?

Quote
BTW I think you ment democratic societies, not republics, not all
not all republics are the same the USSR was a republic.


I hesitate to refer to as democracies countries with representative governments.  When I say (probably erroneously) "republics" I mean, "nations with representative governments that distribute power in such a way as to be at least partially, if indirectly, in the hands of the governed."

My personal, probably unsupportable, opinion is that the city-states of ancient Greece, Athens in particular, were democracies, but that not many governments since then have been.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

President
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2006, 06:16:25 PM »
Quote
A small but highly effective minority, supported by the prominent voices of the culture.


you really should pay closer attention to current events before
making statement like this. Almost all prominent Islamic leaders
ask the violent protests stop, even Iran was pushing retalaitory
cartoons, this from a country that has an offical position that Isreal
has no right to exist.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2006, 01:33:54 AM »
Quote from: "JMan1976"
you really should pay closer attention to current events before making statement like this. Almost all prominent Islamic leaders ask the violent protests stop, even Iran was pushing retalaitory cartoons, this from a country that has an offical position that Isreal has no right to exist.


Yeah, I guess I have to admit I can't come up with any sources indicated explicit calls for violence from imams in retaliation for this particular event... I guess I was thinking of the general calls for the deaths of all Americans / British / Israelis from people like Abu Hamza al-Masri.

It's interesting, though, that you bring up the "retaliatory" cartoons.  What do you think the effect will be, and what the intended effect is?  Do you think Jews will burn Iranian embassies?  As it turns out, for example, the Israel News Agency is actually publishing the Holocaust cartoons themselves.  I guess it's possible we're just not hearing about Jewish violence.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
President
« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2006, 05:53:45 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

That's a good and true point. And my point is, if you live your middle-class life and one day watch a group of people fly airplanes into your city, or blow up your subway, or take control of your theatre or your school by gun, or decapitate members of your community, and then watch their countrymen cheering on T.V., and listen to their leaders calling for your death and the death of your family and friends, as well as a hundred million people you never met but are kind of in the same situation as you, you would most likely harbour some resentment to the culture they came from.

Terrorism works. Terrorism have sufficiently scared people close to me that they are willing to say, "It's okay that my government uses torture against suspected terrorists, as long as I'm safe." So if you're going to say, "Americans are strongarming the Middle East, what do you expect?" then my response is, "The avowed agenda of terrorists is the death of every last living American... what do you expect?"

While I understand your point of view and am in no way taking the side of terrorism certain actions ARE NEVER JUSTIFIED IRREGARDLESS OF WHATEVER GRIEVANCES YOU HAVE. Blowing yourself up on a bus full of civillians for example. However torturing POWs is another good example. Just as when terrorist say my people are being persecuted and oppressed (which is often true and the oppresion of a people is evil) the correct responce isn't oh well in that case kill all the men women and children you like, it's what your doing isevil and should be stopped. The flip side is terrorist are killing my fellow citizens (which is evil) that doesn't mean well alright lets torture the @#$% out of them . TOrture is evil regardless of circumstances.
Rationalization of evil is makes me angry.

On a different note niether Erasmus or JMan1976  has pointed out that while Saddam may be strapped for cash he could savve tons of money byh virtue of not having to pay anyone out side his army/secret police. Basically instead of paying the scientist he could just say instead work or be tortured to death. The success rate of that technique of employe management is notable. He only really needs money to get the materials and other rogue states may even have provided them pro bono. Not that it matters since he in fact didn't do any of that
An enraged
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2006, 07:06:33 PM »
Quote from: "Cinlef"
While I understand your point of view and am in no way taking the side of terrorism certain actions ARE NEVER JUSTIFIED IRREGARDLESS OF WHATEVER GRIEVANCES YOU HAVE. Blowing yourself up on a bus full of civillians for example. However torturing POWs is another good example. Just as when terrorist say my people are being persecuted and oppressed (which is often true and the oppresion of a people is evil) the correct responce isn't oh well in that case kill all the men women and children you like, it's what your doing isevil and should be stopped. The flip side is terrorist are killing my fellow citizens (which is evil) that doesn't mean well alright lets torture the @#$% out of them . TOrture is evil regardless of circumstances.
Rationalization of evil is makes me angry.


My whole point was to show the futility of terrorism apology using statements like, "American money is buying all the water that would support so-and-so's field, so of course so-and-so -- or his children or whatever -- is going to become a suicide bomber."

In no way do I think there's any excuse for torture of prisoners or, for that matter, wielding the world's most powerful army like it's your personal toy.

Quote
On a different note niether Erasmus or JMan1976  has pointed out that while Saddam may be strapped for cash he could savve tons of money byh virtue of not having to pay anyone out side his army/secret police.


Good point; this is another aspect of the big difference between Baathist Iraq and Western culture.  In the former case, the dictator speaks, and whatever he wants just happens.  In the West, the government has to get permission of the law, ask nicely, and compensate the people who give the service.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

President
« Reply #54 on: April 01, 2006, 05:38:53 PM »
the

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
President
« Reply #55 on: April 01, 2006, 06:10:17 PM »
Initially I wanted to respond in some depth to your post, but I really don't know what to say to stuff like

Quote from: "Dionysios"
It is a good thing that muslims are currently electing non-western and anti-western statesmen to office like has recently happened for example with the Muslim Brotherhood coming out on top in Egypt and Hamas in Palestine.


and

Quote from: "Dionysios"
Men like khadafi and the Iranian leaders are defenders of freedom who deserve the respect of the world.


The U.S. is a terrorist organization, but Hamas and Ahmadinejad are okay?  Come on, they have the annihilation of an entire race and nation as their avowed foreign policy.

Still, I can try.

Quote from: "Dionysios"
The american government does not get permission of the law.


No, they don't get the permission of the United Nations.  That doesn't make them a dictatorship, which is a relationship between governor and governed.

Quote
Muslim governments on the whole far more resemble their populations wishes than the american,


That's what demagoguery is all about.

So, can you justify the tired old claim that

Quote
The fact is the US military is the biggest and the principle terroroist organization in the world.


Moving on...

Quote
I have a question - how am i out of my mind for suggesting the US go after Israel's nuclear weapons and call it out.  How is it easier to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons than Israel?


You're not out of your mind for that; it's a reasonable, if controversial, demand.  There's a little difference in that Israel has not announced to the world that it wants to obliterate its neighbors.  And it's not easier to prevent Iran... America just thinks that its allies would be safer if it disarmed Iran than Israel.  Isn't that its obvious motivation?

Quote
To claim this is to be racist against the muslim world and one sided in favor of Israel while falsely claiming objectiveness.


I don't claim America is objective... she has interests, just like every country.  And of course its one-sided in favour of Israel; Israel is on America's side.  What do you expect?  The Arabs do the same for each other.

I do claim, however, that America has consistently promoted peace in the region, but this peace has usually been rejected by your friends Hamas and the PLO.  I'd say that's in the bilateral interests of Arabs and Israeli's, wouldn't you?

Quote
They were mass murdering racists then and they are now.


Basically from now on I'm ignoring all of your sentences that contain the word "racist", since they are always inflammatory and hypocritical.  You can go on distilling the mistakes out of the complex history of American foreign policy while ignoring the glaringly evil ideologies of its enemies, if you like, but I prefer to be critical about both sides instead of putting on the America-is-the-devil blinders.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
President
« Reply #56 on: April 01, 2006, 06:59:28 PM »
Ah Dionysios so long since we last heard from you, but all good things must end so now to adress your points.
Quote from: "Dionysios"
The american government does not get permission of the law.  It dictates actions.

Okay I would deal with that I just dont understand it. Whose law? American law? UN law? Biblical law? Also it dictates actions is also just unclear. Not being deliberatly obtuse just don't get what you mean.
Next
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Muslim governments on the whole far more resemble their populations wishes than the american, which is a dictatorship guilty of mass murder and consistent disrespect of God and law.Those muslim governments which deviate from the norm are precisely the ones which are pro-american.

Okay, not to generalize Dionysios since I don't know which Muslim countries to which you are referring but many of them are quite vicious and oprressive dictatorships.They are far more oppresive of their people in genral and minorities in particular than the USa. Yeah the USA has done some horrible things (Guantanmo Bay springs to mind) but that doesn't compare to the ethnic cleasing going on right now in Sudan, (which is NOT a pro-American Goverment). Many pro-American governments like say Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (not fun to be a Coptic Christian there) are also oppresive and evil autocracies, granted but try being a nosy journalist in Iran, watching the Janjaweed butcher your villaged in DArfur and then tell me how those goverments represent their people more than the USA.
Consistent disrespect of God and law? What does that even mean? God as interpreted by you? As for law well see above.
Next
Quote from: "Dionysios"
It is a good thing that muslims are currently electing non-western and anti-western statesmen to office like has recently happened for example with the Muslim Brotherhood coming out on top in Egypt and Hamas in Palestine.

Sorry I cant join you is celebrating the election of Hamas. I viewed that as a step backwards in any kind of peaceful equitable realtion between Israel and Palestine. I would join you in toasting a group that calls for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews but see then I remebered my Jewish neighbours and how their living breathing people like me and not the ultra demonized all powerful evil figures they are tin the minds of Hamas. Guess I'm just not anti-Semetic enought to join you in your toast to rascsim and would be commiters of genocide. Still don't worry Dionysios I'm sure plenty of people who would drink to that once you die and arrive in hell. Still the burning might take much of the fun out of it.Pity.
Next
Quote from: "Dionysios"
The fact is the US military is the biggest and the principle terroroist organization in the world.

Ignoring how you have no or have presented in this argument so far no basis for that statement didn't you yourself inf act serve in the USA military? You know whats fun? Hypocrisy
Next
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Men like khadafi and the Iranian leaders are defenders of freedom who deserve the respect of the world.  khadafi has even supported the IRA, a confirmation of his respect for other theists and that a dedicated muslim does not in fact believe the west is lost but has hope (the IRA is not scorned in Ireland like the KKK which actually is racist.  The IRA are defenders against British terorism and imperialism which has manifested itself through out much of the world like Kenya with its brutal and murderous attempt to suppress the Mau Mau freedom fighters.

Men like khadafi deserve to be put in an insane asylum and treated for mogolomania (as evidenced by his whole I was bathed in a divine aura at the UN, speech)Iranian leaders would deserve our respect if they permitted free and fair elections until then their just another group of autocratz.Khadafi supports an oraganization that used indiscriminate violence? Gasp thats shocking. I Dionysios and both Catholic and part Irish (for the record) but I don't support the IRA nor would I had I been around at the time supported the Mau Mau. I also don't support the steps the British took agaisnt the Mau Mau which where brutal and muderous. I odnt even support imperialsim and much of imperialism you could probably justify labeling as terrorism. See the things is THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Bombings that kill civillians are wrong irregardless of the cause. Which is whats wrong with the IRA.
You know who else resisted British imperialsim and defeated it far more effectivly than the IRA? Ghandi. Odd I don't recall him and his followers bombing civillians and killing people based on religion. On the contrary he seemed to speack about non violence and tolerance. Weird isn't it ? He fought the same injustice received BETTER results all by making his Means justify his End and only doing what was right. Think about it.
Next
Quote from: "Dionysios"
I have a question - how am i out of my mind for suggesting the US go after Israel's nuclear weapons and call it out.  How is it easier to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons than Israel?  To claim this is to be racist against the muslim world and one sided in favor of Israel while falsely claiming objectiveness.Anyone and everyone who wants to stop Iran from having nucleasr weapons without first taking them away from Israel is a die hard racist, and it is persons of this wise-in-their-own-conceit attitude who will not be convinced of their bias by any reasoning which politicians who would use nuclear weapons rely on.  this was the case with japan.  The US needlessly bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  

Well in the most obvious way it's easier to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons than Israel since Iran at present has no nuclear weapons while Israel has many. Iran therefore doesn't posses the trump card of international relations (nuckes to be crude) and thus there is no deterrent from meddling in its affairs. Also stopping soemoen from getting nukes is easier than disarming a country that doesn''t want to be disarmed as a country that already has nukes can hide them and already has in plce the facilities to build them. Thats why preventing Iran (or any no nuke country) from going nuclear is easier than disarming Israel or any country. Iran should be prevented from having nmukes as that upsets the status quo and could lead to a new middle eastern arms race which would destabilize any progress made towards disarmament. Plus the goverment of Iran has said numerous times wished to wipe Israel off the map.
If it had nuclear weapons it is logical to asusme it might use them to try and fullfill that pledge. I can believe you'd approve of that Dionysios since you seem plainly to feel taht nukes are never justified. Even you must admit that Japan during World War Two commited terrible atrocities against POWs and its conquered peoples, yet you didn't feel nukes were justified then, so surely your not so hypocritical to think it's acceptable to use nukes on Israel even thought you plainly (and anti Semetically) beleive it to be evil. Even you aren't that hypocritical. Or are you?
Next
Quote from: "Dionysios"
They were mass murdering racists then and they are now.  And these racists and their supporters pat themselves on the vback after completing their mass murders with publicity to make these inhuman criminals look like "our troops" or "americans in the service of freedom" or some other lie.  People who criticize them like myself and many, many others are labeled as racists or something other, whichever thing will discredit the truth they are saying, reguardless of what it is or how its done.  The propaganda machine at work - and if anyone does not believe the war propaganda in all its vastness and tentacles is not centrally directed - that just shows how stupid they are.  This is what has happened.  

- Dionysios

Dionysios I don't label you as rascist because of your hatred for the american military. THe reason I know your racist is
-Your Holocaust denial
-You racial slurring of Mundi
-Your calling the Jewish nation the worst nation that ever existed
-Your belief that Jews were behind every major event in history from the Crusades to the to the founding fo America to the Spanish Civil War to the Holocaust itself.
-Your support for groups that call for the death of all Jews. (Hamas prime example)
. You hit every branch on the anti semetic tree. It's really quite appaling and sad. You'll not emost people on the site called you rascist way before you made you views on the USA known but immediatly after you racially slurred someone who disagreed with you.
An enraged
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

?

Telor

President
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2006, 07:36:41 AM »
Good idea! :)

President
« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2006, 04:46:53 PM »
Hi
Getting back to the question about GWB and whether he is any good _ I voted yes on the spin of a coin.
I have a stock answer "The Devil, God, George W Bush and Tony Blair are alright if you don't take seriously"
Gran

President
« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2006, 01:29:31 AM »
Quote from: "gran the man"
Hi
Getting back to the question about GWB and whether he is any good _ I voted yes on the spin of a coin.
I have a stock answer "The Devil, God, George W Bush and Tony Blair are alright if you don't take seriously"
Gran

thats a vallied point thanks gran
-grim