|
| Thread: Bush has Won. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
posted November 03, 2004 10:54 PM |
|
|
Just say RealDeal, or RD.
George didn't start the war on afghanistan. 9/11 if i may.
I don't see that as bush's fault.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 11:09 PM |
|
|
Correction,
9/11 was an action done by terrorists. Terrorrists did not lead Afganistan; they are not the leaders of the country.
And in your previous thread you dished out some pretty rude comments. Some even that are against the CoC... I don't know if they where aimed at me, but certainly uncalled for.
You are allowed to have your opinions, so are others. 
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
in his 4 years he started 1 War, i may agree that it was the brightest thing a man has ever done, but going on like a loonatic just because of it, is far more worse, because that my friend, is insanity.
Oh sure, people send thousands of other people to die on a daily basis. Why should that worry us? How silly of us to believe that Bush is an evil man just because he sends people to certain death while at the same time strangling the budget?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh sure, people send thousands of other people to die on a daily basis. Why should that worry us? How silly of us to believe that Bush is an evil man just because he sends people to certain death while at the same time strangling the budget?
Well put.... very very well put indeed.
I would also ask a question: why attack Iraq? 9/11 you say was caused by Afganistan... if anyone can give me a good answer, I will consider the point of attacking Iraq.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 12:38 AM |
|
|
First, let me say that I am NOT a Bush supporter. Having said that....
Neither Bush nor any other US president has unlimited power. I admit to not knowing all the rules, but to the best of my knowledge, the president CAN'T go around starting wars whenever he pleases. He just doesn't have that kind of authority.
I suppose he could TRY to take control of the military and do whatever he wants. But thats what's called a military dictatorship. If that happened, any war on foreign land isn't the war he would need to worry about. He'd be too busy fighting the war here in the US....and it's a war he couldn't win. If you think the US military is tuff, try pissing off the American people on their own turf. 
Quote:
9/11 was an action done by terrorists. Terrorrists did not lead Afganistan; they are not the leaders of the country.
It depends on your definition of terrorrist. The Afgani government knowingly gave refuge and maybe direct support to terrorrist and their training camps.
I don't like Bush, but I agree with what he said after 9/11. A very loose parphrase is something like this.....terrorrists don't carry a flag, they don't have a country or wear a uniform....the US was attacked in an act of war and the US will go after the terrorists anywhere in the world, either with the host country's cooperation or without.
As for Iraq, there are other threads about Iraq. But since people in this thread seem concerned about an attack on another country I'll say this. To repeat, the pres. doesn't have that kind of power. He went into Iraq with the full knowledge and support of the US Congress and at least some of the leadership of other countries. If the situation should present itself again, I think those same groups would be extremely reluctant to give support without OVERWHELMING evidence.
Quote:
Oh sure, people send thousands of other people to die on a daily basis. Why should that worry us? How silly of us to believe that Bush is an evil man just because he sends people to certain death while at the same time strangling the budget?
Anyone not willing to make those kinds of decisions should never run for president, prime minister, king, czar or whatever. That's an unfortunate reality of the job and an unfortuate reality of the world we live in.
Maybe it sounds like I support the war in Iraq. I don't now and I didn't before they went in. I'm simply saying it's extremely unlikely to repeat itself.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 12:49 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 3 Nov 2004
|
Quote:
Neither Bush nor any other US president has unlimited power. I admit to not knowing all the rules, but to the best of my knowledge, the president CAN'T go around starting wars whenever he pleases. He just doesn't have that kind of authority.
BUT... it would not have happened had it been Karry of another Democrat.
Quote:
It depends on your definition of terrorrist. The Afgani government knowingly gave refuge and maybe direct support to terrorrist and their training camps. A very loose parph/rase is something like this.....terrorrists don't carry a flag, they don't have a country or wear a uniform....
Fair enough. I agree.
Quote:
the US was attacked in an act of war and the US will go after the terrorists anywhere in the world, either with the host country's cooperation or without.
THAT is the problem. you cannot go in someone's back yard looking for terrorists then taking over the country. Without cooperation doesn't mean: "We will take you over because you will not comply"
And I don't think 9/11 was an act of war. It was made out to be and then labeled latter as "War against Terror" or "War against all countries that do not cooperate with us"
When a country is at war, the economy is strong. The present state of America's economy is anywhere but strong. Simply put, America is not at war.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 04, 2004 12:59 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 3 Nov 2004
|
I Didn't Want To Post Here
Binabik, surely you must realize that the likelihood of another war(i.e. invading another country) depends, largely, on whether a suicide bomber with a nuclear device detonates in the middle of one of our cities. The country that man hails from will most certainly see military retribution, guaranteed.
....now to return to avoid posting in this thread.... bort's is much better in my humble opinion.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 01:51 AM |
|
|
I really figured that Americans had more sense than this, seems I was wrong, oh well, time to head for the nuclear bunker I guess 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 02:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
BUT... it would not have happened had it been Karry of another Democrat.
When you say "it" would not have happened, do you mean Afganistan or Iraq? If Kerry were president, Afganistan would probably stil have happened, but not Iraq.
Quote:
THAT is the problem. you cannot go in someone's back yard looking for terrorists
At the risk of sounding like too much of a hardliner, we can and we will. If Kerry won that would not change. THAT is not the problem. The problem is with the country who allows or even supports terrorists.
Note that I'm talking about going after terrorrists and any country who harbors or supports them. I am NOT using this as an argument for going into Iraq. Iraq would have been fair game if they has been openly harboring/supporting terrorrists.
Quote:
Binabik, surely you must realize that the likelihood of another war(i.e. invading another country) depends, largely, on whether a suicide bomber with a nuclear device detonates in the middle of one of our cities. The country that man hails from will most certainly see military retribution, guaranteed.
I'd say that falls into the catagory of "overwhelming evidence". But even then I don't think we would go after the country unless it was shown the country sponsored it. Also, if a nuke were detonated in this or any other country, the entire world would put every resource available to root out the terrorrists.
Quote:
I really figured that Americans had more sense than this
Referring to what? Are you referring to my view of going after terrorists or something else?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 02:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Referring to what? Are you referring to my view of going after terrorists or something else?
I'm referring to re-electing Bush, Kerry's not perfect, but rather him than Bush.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 02:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
When you say "it" would not have happened, do you mean Afganistan or Iraq? If Kerry were president, Afganistan would probably stil have happened, but not Iraq.
Iraq.
Quote:
At the risk of sounding like too much of a hardliner, we can and we will. THAT is not the problem. The problem is with the country who allows or even supports terrorists.
Wow. That is exactly what people despise. You really did a good job explaining the pure American Way. LOL
See? you can and do what you want. That's not a good thing when it's not in your country.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 02:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm referring to re-electing Bush, Kerry's not perfect, but rather him than Bush.
Oh. Yea, I thought for sure the Iraq war would get Bush booted out of office. I really don't know how many Americans support that war.....but you're right, a lot of Americans don't have much sense. I do know there are also a lot of Amricans who do have sense. I've even talked with a number of republicans who seriously questioned if Bush was "rational" to put it politely.
But on the other hand, maybe you don't know American politics as much as you think. You see, Kerry is what is commonly referred to as a liberal.
I give you credit for knowing a lot about US politics, but you might not realize how much of a dirty word the "L-Word" is. That label doesn't set well with a very large population in this country. The Democrats realized that back in the early 90's when the reps took over Congress for the first time in 40-50 years. That's when the term "L-Word" was coined. The dems were smart in that they realized they wouldn't get elected with that label. I don't think their actual views changed, but their rhetoric did. They started taking a much more moderate public stance. With the Iraq war going against Bush, maybe they got too cocky and ran another liberal.
I think it's inevitable that the republicans will eventually learn the same hard lesson. Their rhetoric is too far right and IMO out of touch with the average Republican, let alone the average non-Republican. One of these years they are going to lose and lose big. But obviously this time around the L-Word was a more dominant factor than the R-Word. When the "R-Word" becomes a common term, remember where you heard it first.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 03:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
See? you can and do what you want.
When we are attacked, we defend ourselves.
Quote:
That's not a good thing when it's not in your country.
If the attackers came from this country we would have attacked them here. They came from elsewhere, so that's where we attacked them back.
This is the entire point of the "no flag, no country, no uniform" paraphrase. If a country had attacked us, do you think we would have been justified going to that country and attack back? Like when Japan attacked us in WW2? The terroists attacks were different, but much the same. The terrorists don't have borders. But they do have locations. We go to the locations where they are because there's nowhere else to do it.
BTW, I'm trying to explain the rationale of this country. This is not neccesarily my own opinion of how it should be handled. I have very mixed feelings myself on how to handle terrorists. I think attacking them in their own stronghold is a justifiable option, but that doesn't mean it's the best option.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 03:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
BTW, I'm trying to explain the rationale of this country. This is not neccesarily my own opinion of how it should be handled. I have very mixed feelings myself on how to handle terrorists. I think attacking them in their own stronghold is a justifiable option, but that doesn't mean it's the best option.
Thanks, I was beggining to be concerned. I don't think it's a justifiable option, but I've said all I needed to say to put my point across.
What do you think would be the best option?
It's funny because the US doesn't learn that you can't fight violence with violence. Geez, our parents and teachers teach us that in Canada. It always goes in a circle of: you started, no you started, no no no YOU started etc... I am almost certain there will be another attack on the States and then the states will counter by invading someone else like Jordany or so on. Ultimately, it'll be your downfall. - Mark my words.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 06:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's funny because the US doesn't learn that you can't fight violence with violence.
Think about a fight. Before the physical violent fight, there is usually alot of harassment, negative attitude and tension. After a fight, people learn, the problem is solved. If there is never any fight, there will always be people talking smack.
Look at regular fights or wars. There was WW2, America and Germany hated each other, now they are great allies. Same with Russia and U.S., after the war they had better relations.
When a fight needs to be fought, it needs to be fought.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 06:54 AM |
|
|
Conan
Yea, I had to redeem myself a little with that last bit. I know I was sounding pretty militant, but I'm not. I'm completely against the US playing world police all the time, even when we are "invited" to do so. I think the war against terrorism is an exception, but we've both been through that argument.
As for an alternate solution to terrorism? I don't know, any suggestions? Identifying the problem is easy, solving it is a whole different matter.
In the short term I think the only thing to do is gather intelligence and try to break up cells. But invariably, that will lead to other countries. The vast majority of countries are taking care of terrorist organizations themselves and are sharing intelligence with each other. But there are some who either support terrorism, or simply look the other way. So the same situation exists we've already gone over.
In the long term I think US policy has to change. IMO both the dems and reps are both blind in this matter. Bottom line is that the US goes around sticking their nose in everyone else's business....and that ticks them off. I don't think this is limited to the US and it's not even limited to governments. Even human rights groups can cause anger around the world. For example look at the groups who have worked for women's rights in the middle east. They feel their cause is justified. I agree with that, women in the middle east are treated like dung. But no matter how good the cause, does that give them the right to go into other countries where they are not welcome by whoever holds the power. They see it as outsiders messing with affairs that are none of their business. It's always justified by saying "we're right, you're wrong" or "the women over there ARE treated like crap, our cause IS just and right". This same idea could be applied to any number of things. Some causes may have widespread support, some very little support. But in every case the cause is "justified".
Wouldn't it have been nice if someone had gone in and taken out Hitler early on? Think of all the literally millions of lives that would have been saved. But we can only say things like that in hindsight. So there are cases when it may be justified to go into another country to right wrongs. But there's a very fine line. How do we decide or know where that line is? (by "we" I mean a generic we, not just the US) Who is to decide what is a justified cause and what isn't. If you're a Star Trek fan, it's like asking when it's OK to violate the Prime Directive. The problem with the US is that we make that decision too easily. And hence, a lot of people/countries get ticked off about it, especially in the middle east.
The thing is, once a route is taken, nobody will ever know what the alternative route would have brought. What would have happened if the US never went into Iraq? We'll never know. What if US, Canada and a lot of other countries never got into WW2 in Europe, no way to know. What about Vietnam, Bosnia, etc etc etc? Never know. In hindsite an answer may seem completely clear, but the fact remains that we will never know with absolute certainty what the alternative would have brought.
One thing certain in my mind is that US foreign policy is behind most of the Middle East's hatred of the US. If that is not addressed in the long run, that hatred will continue being fueled. To continue fighting violence with violence like you say is a never ending cycle....it could go on for generations like we've seen with many other ethnic, religious and ideological battles around the world. After 9/11 I heard all kinds of garbage explanations for "why" middle east terrorists attacked this country. It came from politicians, news analysts and individuals. Garbage like "terrorists are envious of our wealth and status". I knew right then we were in big trouble. At least some, maybe most, of our leaders were completely clueless.
As I said, for the short term I don't know the answer. Pulling out of Iraq will help a lot *IF* we can do so without Saddam or his allies getting back in power. If that happened, the Iraqis who supported us would suffer greatly and we'd have the entire country against us instead of just part of it. But even pulling out of the mid-east comlpetely will not stop the terrorism, becasue the hatred will remain.
Somehow we must deal with both the short and long term solution....and the two may be at odds with each other.
Quote:
It's funny because the US doesn't learn that you can't fight violence with violence. Geez, our parents and teachers teach us that in Canada.
Is that why Canada got involved in WW2? There's always a line that must be crossed, but it's far from easy determining where that line is. But you're right, the US does it far too often IMO.
BTW, if Canada gets attacked by a foreign country, is it OK if we come help you guys out? In return, all we'd want is something small like Nova Scotia or Victoria Island. Or if we're feeling neighborly we might even do it for free.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 07:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for an alternate solution to terrorism? I don't know, any suggestions? Identifying the problem is easy, solving it is a whole different matter.
Hello Binabik,
there´s a rather easy answer to it: Solve the Isreal-Palästina conflict. That´s where the body of the Hydra lies.
It needs to be mentioned that Bill Clinton ´til the very last days of his presidency worked hard on digging out this root of Islamist terrorism.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 04, 2004 07:19 AM |
|
|
Lews_Therin,
A hydra needs food as any other animal, yes? Would it not be prudent to therefore look at the Saudi/Egyptian economic aid? And when I say 'look', I mean with intellect.....or intelligence.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has made this issue his greatest concern. He mentioned it again today shortly after his comments on President Bush getting re-elected.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 07:41 AM |
|
|
Yes, you´re right that financial aid is important, Consis. But in my view, the ideological aid may be an even more important issue. And Israel/Palästina, unsolved as it is at the moment, is THE big humilitation for the muslim part of the world.
(edited as there were probable misunderstandings on my part)
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 08:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
there´s a rather easy answer to it: Solve the Isreal-Palästina conflict.
That's definately a large part of the problem, but I don't think it's all of it. I'm also not sure how or if it can be solved. It would sure be nice if it could be done, but I don't think it will happen in the near future. Every time the talks start getting serious, they seem to break down for one reason or another.
Jimmy Carter managed to end the fighting between Egypt and Israel over the Sinai. Or I should say he sponsored the talks, I don't know what roll he actually played. Egypt and Israel were fighting a heck of a lot more than the current fighting. It was outright war between the two. It was so ongoing and bitter I never expected the peace to last, but it has. But as far as I can remember, that was a different sort of conflict than the current one. I think that was a land grab pure and simple.
____________
|
| |
|
|
