The politics thread

[Gorth]

England and Ireland had a simpler situation.

 

And I believe both parties were capable of being civil.

[Sorgoth]

Sorry but your post anoyed me a little, and I cannot sleep cause its too damn hot so I edited my post.

 

I think you're forgetting that Clinton bombed Iraq before Bush was in office, or the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait and sided with terrorist to begin with.

 

As I said, old news, and not a reason for going to war(apart from the terrorist part, but I think thats suspect).

 

And lest we not forget that Saddam was put in power by the CIA to combat Iranian terrorists. We screwed the pooch on that one, and there is no denying it. Iraq has been an issue for nearly 30 years. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

 

Yes Iraq has been a problem for years, but hardly a threat since desert storm. Old news and not a reason for going to war.

 

WMD have been found in Iraq. I guess you don't follow the news.

 

I guess I need to catch up lol.......As far as I knew the had found signs of WMD but not WMD. Suspect.

 

Futhermore, before we stepped foot in the country, we took satellite photos of caravans of trucks leaving Baghdad for Syria. I bet money alot of those weapons left on that caravan.

 

These are a reason for the war and they are suspect in my mind.

 

Facts don't lie. The UN passed a LITANY of resolutions, demanding Iraq's compliance well before Bush was in office. The UN made it their issue, the refused to back up their own threats.

 

Nothing new. They do this alot.

 

You do realize that Iraq has invaded Iran numerous times, don't you?

 

Yes, old. Not a reason for going to war.

 

You do realize that Iraq has tried to practice genocide on it's own people, forcing certain sects of Islam into hiding in the mountains of Northern Iraq, right? Or did you miss that?

 

That was not a reason for going to war, that came afterwards when they needed to justify the war.

 

Hmm. The UN waggles their finger, and Iraq kept being naughty, killing people. There was bloodshed in Iraq before we got there. Perhaps you missed that as well. Yeah, the UN was doing a swell job.

 

Nothing new. They do that alot.

 

I'll accept that. I can't keep track of EVERYTHING they do. However, I would ask you what they are doing about Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, South Africa, Liberia, Cuba, etc.

 

About the same as the US is.

 

I contend the UN has invalidated itself. You got upset when someone didn't back their argument with facts. Where are the facts to back your claims?

 

I said reason, not facts. And I'm not claiming anything, this is what I think as I make up my own mind and do not listen to propoganda or hold any bias views. I'm fully aware of Iraq's past and history ever since the UK made it.

 

Sogorth made a point that the UN wasn't in the position to order troops into Iraq. I was simply pointing out that Sogorth was incorrect. The UN has that right, and capability. That is the purpose of the security council, to provide global security.

 

The UN is not an aggressive organization like the US. And I dont think Iraq was a threat to global security.

 

The UN has had no qualms ordering the deployment of troops in the past.

 

Yes, for peace keeping.

 

Bah, for me there is too much suspect info. And I am so sick of hearing about Iraq I no longer follow it. So I'll leave the table. Thanks for your facts, I was running low on toilet paper. Feel free to flame my anti US goverment arse, but I will not change MY views on this since I made my mind up a long time ago and have not followed whats going on since.

[Nartwak]

How about you investigate that QUOTE button f***wit?

[Gorth]

How about you investigate that QUOTE button f***wit?

So much for world peace...

[Nartwak]

He called it upon himself!

[Sorgoth]

This forum has a strange quote thing and I dont know how to seperate a quote into smaller parts.

[Nartwak]

Use the quote button in the ADD REPLY page. Highlight the text in your message that you want quoted and press the QUOTE button.

[Gorth]

This forum has a strange quote thing and I dont know how to seperate a quote into smaller parts.

From personal experience, I found it easiest to copy the text I want to quote to notepad or similar program. Then I use:

 

(QUOTE=Sorgoth)

 

My own comments

 

(QUOTE=Sorgoth)

 

Further comments of my own

 

Repeat until message delivered (oh, and use [ and ] instead of ( and ).

 

[Nartwak]

Yeah, what he said!

[Sorgoth]

Sorry, tierd and I never thought this place had that button. Only thought I could quote by replying by pressing "quote" from the message I wanted to quote.....eh, yeah.

[Nartwak]

Okay.

[Meshugger]

I think Gorth pretty much nailed it, GWB is simply trying eradicate terrorism with brute force --> only attacking the symptoms, when someone should look for the cause of the problems.

 

The U.N. is the worlds only international forum where people sit down and discuss the problems. Having super-powers setting the rules is not the "right" thing to do, no matter how noble and valiant they think their cause is.

[EnderAndrew]

I think we do need to look at the cause of some of these problems.

 

But listen to GWB's speeches. He says that so long as this country is the bastion of freedom and democracy, we'll always be a target.

 

Sounds a little extreme perhaps. Maybe's he's discounting the fact that people are uneasy with a US military base in the same country as Mecca. Maybe he's forgetting that people don't care for our alliance with Isreal. These things tick people off.

 

However, maybe there is some truth to what Bush is saying. Many Muslim fundamentalists believe that women are inferior, and that democracy is a bad thing. I think in a war of idealogy, tanks and bombs shouldn't be used. Be an example of why your idealogy is better, and people may clammor for it. France revolted and demanded Democracy because they wanted it. One could contend that extreme fundamentalists in Islam will always see the US as "the devil" because of the values we preach. The US is quite a target, and would likely attract attention and terrorist attacks even if we didn't back Isreal, or have a base in Saudi.

 

So, what can you do about that?

 

On the same hand, maybe it's not our place to force democracy on a populace. However, Aghanistan sure took to it like a fish to water. Women are serving in official capacities for the first time in that country's history. I would assume that all humans would prefer freedom and democracy to a dictatorship, but that remains an assumption on my part.

 

What are the root causes for the problems with terrorism in the US? How can they be resolved?

 

And should we turn our backs on Isreal?

 

I don't know how many people here put stock in the Bible, and that's another can of worms, but follow me for a second. I'm no crazy fundamentalist Christian, but the Bible does in fact say that one of the last signs of the end is when every country of the world turns on God's land and people. Most people interpret that to mean Isreal. Several Arab nations have tried to unite against Isreal. Many other nations of the world have at best apathy for Isreal. Saddam and Osama both preached uniting against Isreal. If the US didn't back Isreal, I'd have to wonder what would stop the Middle East from rising up and trying to destroy Isreal.

 

I have to say, that makes me a little uneasy. The Christian Coalition has their hand in the Republican Party, and GWB is a card-carrying member. Surely such a notion has been presented to him before. I wonder if Biblical prophecy doesn't play a small role in foreign policy.

[Meshugger]

I think we do need to look at the cause of some of these problems.

 

But listen to GWB's speeches. He says that so long as this country is the bastion of freedom and democracy, we'll always be a target.

 

Sounds a little extreme perhaps. Maybe's he's discounting the fact that people are uneasy with a US military base in the same country as Mecca. Maybe he's forgetting that people don't care for our alliance with Isreal. These things tick people off.

 

However, maybe there is some truth to what Bush is saying. Many Muslim fundamentalists believe that women are inferior, and that democracy is a bad thing. I think in a war of idealogy, tanks and bombs shouldn't be used. Be an example of why your idealogy is better, and people may clammor for it. France revolted and demanded Democracy because they wanted it. One could contend that extreme fundamentalists in Islam will always see the US as "the devil" because of the values we preach. The US is quite a target, and would likely attract attention and terrorist attacks even if we didn't back Isreal, or have a base in Saudi.

 

So, what can you do about that?

 

On the same hand, maybe it's not our place to force democracy on a populace. However, Aghanistan sure took to it like a fish to water. Women are serving in official capacities for the first time in that country's history. I would assume that all humans would prefer freedom and democracy to a dictatorship, but that remains an assumption on my part.

 

What are the root causes for the problems with terrorism in the US? How can they be resolved?

 

And should we turn our backs on Isreal?

 

I don't know how many people here put stock in the Bible, and that's another can of worms, but follow me for a second. I'm no crazy fundamentalist Christian, but the Bible does in fact say that one of the last signs of the end is when every country of the world turns on God's land and people. Most people interpret that to mean Isreal. Several Arab nations have tried to unite against Isreal. Many other nations of the world have at best apathy for Isreal. Saddam and Osama both preached uniting against Isreal. If the US didn't back Isreal, I'd have to wonder what would stop the Middle East from rising up and trying to destroy Isreal.

 

I have to say, that makes me a little uneasy. The Christian Coalition has their hand in the Republican Party, and GWB is a card-carrying member. Surely such a notion has been presented to him before. I wonder if Biblical prophecy doesn't play a small role in foreign policy.

The fundamentalist muslims don't hate the western world because of equal rights, freedom of speech and democracy, they hate us because of the decadent lifestyle that comes with it.

 

I do hope that you're wrong about the last paragraph that you wrote.

[The.Donut]

Wouldn't things be simpler if religion didn't exist?

[Meshugger]

Wouldn't things be simpler if religion didn't exist?

I think not, then idiots would just use other ideas to justify their agendas.

[Sorgoth]

Yes, people would just find somthing else to use as an excuse. But if religion had never existed then maybe poeple would'nt have so many differences.

[EnderAndrew]

The fundamentalist muslims don't hate the western world because of equal rights, freedom of speech and democracy, they hate us because of the decadent lifestyle that comes with it.

 

I do hope that you're wrong about the last paragraph that you wrote.

Those in power rarely like to give up power.

 

If you have a virtual theocracy, and a sexist one at that, the concepts of freedom and democracy sure would come across as a threat to your power base.

[taks]

george bush is not very smart lol

this is one of my favorites... usually made by a liberal that doesn't know better...

 

here goes:

 

GWB, contrary to popular belief, did in fact score OVER 1200 on the SAT tests. this, btw, was back before they "adjusted" the scores (early 80's) so they no longer correspond to IQ. given his numbers, he's probably in the 130 or so IQ range. hardly an idiot. more like the 95-97th precentile. probably smarter than most of the idiots that post the above comments, actually. granted, he's no clinton (rhodes scholar), but not many are...

 

this information isn't very hard to find out. five minutes searching on the web... that's all. therefore, when someone says bush is "not that bright" it must mean a.) the poster isn't bright enough to know or b.) the poster is simply regurgitating political RHETORIC without any basis in fact.

 

c'mon people. failing to objectively analyze anything in life is like telling the sheepherder you don't mind going baaaaa as long as you're happy. lambchops is the only result.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

GWB is also the first President of the United States with a Masters Degree.

 

He got it at Yale.

 

Yep, he's a real idiot.

[Judge Hades]

It was bought with donati0ons. If you take a look at his grade reports he was a "C-" Yale student.

[Sorgoth]

What does it matter? It's not like he's the one guy making all the decisions is it?

[EnderAndrew]

What does it matter? It's not like he's the one guy making all the decisions is it?

Quite true.

 

Most Americans fail to realize that the President's power is dwarfed by figures like the Speaker of the House.

 

My girlfriend is Canadian, and she got a 100% in her civics class because she knew more about this country than most Americans. I think this country really needs better public education.

 

People should read some Jonathon Kozol. His books are downright frightening.

[LostStraw]

What does it matter? It's not like he's the one guy making all the decisions is it?

Quite true.

 

Most Americans fail to realize that the President's power is dwarfed by figures like the Speaker of the House.

 

My girlfriend is Canadian, and she got a 100% in her civics class because she knew more about this country than most Americans. I think this country really needs better public education.

 

People should read some Jonathon Kozol. His books are downright frightening.

Yes, but being the public figure head he's the easiest to blame when things go wrong. Good god the economy sucks.. I know, lets blame the president.

[EnderAndrew]

Yes, but being the public figure head he's the easiest to blame when things go wrong. Good god the economy sucks.. I know, lets blame the president. 

 

That's what frustrates me about people. The President doesn't control the economy.

 

Let's draw a simple comparison between our economic crisis and the crash in '29.

 

The stock market was over-valued in the 20's. The stock market prospered, but set itself up for a huge crash.

 

In the 90's we had a similiar situation. People weren't investing on borrowed money for the most part, but we had too much growth too quickly. We were ripe for a crash.

 

Then 9/11 happens and everyone panicks. In my town, someone started selling gas for $4.50 a gallon that day. For reference to non-US residents, it was $1.20 the day before.

 

Clinton had cut the military to a fraction of it's previous size. And the public demanded that the government be responsible for relief after 9/11.

 

This really gets me. We all give money to insurance companies all the time. When the s*** really hits the fan (hurricans, terrorists, whatever) insurance companies always throw their hands in the air and the government foots the bill. Insurance companies brag about billions and billions of dollars in liquid assets, and they have huge profit margins but then they scream they'll go bankrupt if they have to pay claims.

 

Ahem. So the government gives money not only to rebuild New York, and DC but to the families of victims. You see, taxpayers are somehow required by unwritten laws (with no precedent) to take care of people who got s*** on in life. I feel for the victim's families. It's horrible. It really is. But demanding money from the government really was unprecedented.

 

Bush was put in a situation where he was required to spend, spend, and spend. And the while big corporations are hoarding what they've got, and investors are panicking.

 

The government cut interest rates, and trying to support the economy as best they could. However, no one man controls the economy.

 

It's pure myth.