games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
actually this is a weird cancer pho because for me BUSH is the cancer and not sadam.
sadam is just an appendix but not a cancer like bush .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
kicked out the weapons inspectors the first time because Saddam obviously wanted to develop his weapons without their presence. Erm.... the inspectors LEFT. On their own. They weren't kicked out, as the Bush administration wants you to think. and if america was smart they would also come on the street and say " no more Wars !!" Erm... I guess you've been missing out on the news. MILLIONS of Americans, joining more around the world, went out to the streets and protested the war. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-28, 17:43 by Assamite »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lilazzkicker
|
I cant comprehend the cancer& appendix statement to well....oh well.
Anyone think of what high chance of happening, if Bush/Suddam is asassinated? If that happens with Bush, might there be a push for the war effort after all, trying to stop it the first place righjt? And Suddam, who takes over when he is gone? Someone maybe a bit worse then himself in the first
place?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Well why did the inspectors leave then? They just get tired and go home or what? As far as protests numbering millions of people in the USA, where do you get your numbers? That's about as believable as the "Million Mom March" that turned out to be more like 100,000, many of them paid activists. Sure, there may be a few million world-wide protesting, but not several million in the USA from the accounts I've heard to date. For the record, here are the sponsors who funded the protests at Berkley just recently:
Socialist Party USA
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)
Move On
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Green Party USA
The progressive Common Dreams
Free Palestine Alliance
Workers World Party
Partnership for Civil Justice
Nicaragua Network
International Action Center
Muslim Student Association of the U.S./Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General
American Muslims for Global Peace
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
International Action Center, NYC
Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti
Muslim Student Association of Richland College, Dallas, Texas
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
Muslims Against Racism and War
Simmons College Feminist Union
International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Left Turn
Heidelberg Forum
Retired Admiral, German Navy, Germany
AFSCME Local 1072
African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition
Dominican Workers Party, NYC
District Council 1707 AFSCME, NYC
National Lawyers Guild
Muslim Student & Faculty Association
transgender author and Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for Mumia
UFCW Local 27, Baltimore, Maryland
Brooklyn Greens, Brooklyn, New York
Cuba Advocate Newsletter
SAFRAD Somali Association
Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain
Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California
California Prison Focus
Socialist Party USA? Communist party of the Netherlands? I guess we have some idea of just who is protesting, hardly the American majority. Nice to see how such a "grass roots" protest needed so much damned HELP to get organized! Millions indeed, heh.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium Yeah social democracy is on the rise, its about time too, I've been getting a bit angry at the Right Wing lately, especially after Patriot Act 1 Millions indeed, heh. Well not everyone can sell their souls to oil tycoons and get the money for their politics |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-01, 08:17 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
http://forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/134.html
Well, how about these individuals then? Not all, but some of them sold their own people down the river and cut their throats to gain their fortunes. I'm sure Saddam, Yasir, and Fidel use ALL that money to feed their poor starving people too, RIGHT?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030228...28-22388785.htm
And it looks like those Iraqi's are a bit more willing to embrace democracy than you might think. If almost all of them defect, then where are the thousands and thousands dead going to come from, hmm? Maybe we should just send over a bunch of Italian film crews so they can give up peaceably and nobody gets hurt! If the enemy doesn't shoot back people don't get killed, so I guess that rules out the normal army in Iraq, and leaves the Republican Guard and Saddam's nutcase loyalists who of course are hiding their units in and around civilian polulation centers like the cowards they are, ensuring mass casualties. But then, that's the goal, isn't it? Keep your troops safe because you KNOW the "good guys" won't bomb civilians deliberately. It's bad PR. And people call the US barbaric, this man doesn't give a damn about his own people! Why does anyone continue to tolerate this man remaining in power? If you think Bush is a right-wing dictator fine, he can be replaced next year with a left-wing dictator if you like in the presidential election, who will assuredly sell the freedoms of the US down the river oh so much quicker but since he'll be a leftie I'm sure he'll be more pallatable and AT LEAST he can be elected. Whether you love Bush or hate Bush, it does not concern me. I make no idols out of human leaders, and the politics of this world never cease to disgust me. I can't believe how anyone can keep on defending Saddam Hussein like he's some kind of "victim" here when this man's tactics and mentality are clearly as wretched as the conditions he subjects his own people to in order to maintain his own power, yet I see and hear about this kind of thing day after day after day. What justice is left in this world, when murderes run free. Protesting in the US is easy, you can do so at any time. It's called constitutionally guaranteed liberty. I DARE someone to go to Iraq and protest. You'll be shot, have your tongue cut out, or worse. Let's see people cry out against Saddam in his own country! Oh yeah, they can't do that can they. It would certainly take courage, something that seems lacking in the world anymore. It's easy to speak out in countries where freedom guarantees that right to speak. It's a pity that not all the world has such freedom, but how can it when people like Saddam are left in power. Who here likes Saddam Hussein and thinks he's ok if he's left alone? Who here thinks that freedom and democracy bought with blood is worse than oppression ruled by bloodshed? Is buying peace with a gun worse than living under the peace OF the gun where maybe the crimerate is down under perpetual martial law but any wrong move gets you dead? Can I see a show of hands?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
hey pho you americans arent that rich either he.
if you guys can affort a small apartment with 2 its awesome .
even here it aint that bad .
with other words every country has money problems .
some bigger then others .
we have deptsmore then 1000000000$
and the US has even bigger depts
and pho do you dare to go to bush and hit him on the face .
dont think so .
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-01, 12:14 by games keeper »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Speaking your mind is one thing Games, physically assaulting someone is another. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Yes there have been socialist dictators, there have been dictators of every shape size and color, your point? Iraquis will not get democracy out of the US, like I've said before the population consists of 80% anti-american muslims, and America is just going to create a democracy? AHAHHA. Well unless you consider Chilie's Pinoche a democratically elected leader, or the Shah of Iran for that matter. Yes they were both democractic and elected by the people....of the american government I DARE someone to go to Iraq and protest I'd like them to do this once america instates its "democracy" |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 01:19 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
er.. they wont be shot or silenced if they protest when we put a democracy in .... so your comment is baseless and makes no sense.. can you explain to me or link me to where you get this 80% anti-american stuff.. cause last time i checked SADDAM controlled what people think, eat, drink, piss.. in Iraq..
OH YEAH! i forgot, in afghanistan, i heard the same thing, "[insert high percent here] anti-american population ... but what, isnt there a democracy there now? and a shitload of happy, now UNOPPRESSED people living there now? ... whoa.. and i thought america didnt do anything right..
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 03:04 by Hedhunta »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Uhh, no, Afghanistan was already in internal strife at the time that America attacked. There was resistance, 2 Large groups in fact, One Democratic, one loyal to the exiled KING of Afghanistan, you know the guy who became an appointed President. Oh and when was the last time you heard any news of any kind come out of that regon with the exception of the occational assination of yet another one of Karsai's helpers?
At last check the only resistance to Sadam did rebel during Desert Storm, and the americans left them there to be gassed. Remember the Kurds?
EDIT - I forgot one extra thing, Sadam banned the Muslim name system a while back in order to keep the zealots out of his government so I doubt the Fundamentalists really like him either but you have to remember one thing for the average arab in the middle east it works like this America = Israel and they aren't going to tolerate what they see as a Zionist invasion of their land.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 03:38 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dicion
|
Hey look, South Korea Really DOES still like us  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...l&e=10&ncid=996EDIT: oops, no.. that's KISS.. but ill leave it there for fun.. The real South Korea link is here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ml&e=7&ncid=996Like Pho said, just because people protest, and it's publicized, doesnt mean it's a majority opinion... Hell, people protested, and still protest, Charlie Manson's being incarcerated.. Let me give you another thought of mine, As an american living in Europe: Americans, in general, don't care. We're lazy. Simple as that. so as long as something doesnt affect us Directly, we can be easily swayed to say 'yay' or 'nay'. To your avarage US citizen, Europe and the middle east might as well be on the moon. "Hell, i'll never be going over there, why should i care about it, as long as a jet doesnt crash into my house, i'm happy" was something that a friend of mine back home said when i was back there recently... Which i don't agree with. America also doesnt care about whats not on the news... simple as that.. INSERT: For example, a few months ago, there was a big hubbub on the news about 'child abductions', that topic got REAL big for like 2 or 3 weeks.. Millions of dollars from private AND government funds got sent to a Few specific profiled news cases. (everyone knows about that little girl taken while her sister was still in the room right?) However, Before that, and after that, child abduction rates have basically stayed the same.... so what about little sally who was abducted yesterday?? Where's her family's million dollars to help try to find her... oh yeha.. thats right.. it's NOT POPULAR anymore... so sorry, even though you're a white, middle classed family with 2.5 children just like the other 'profiled' families on the news.. you get jack shit, because the public got bored of that and moved on to something else... So, if it's not on the news, americans dont care... And BTW, the american media doesnt care about 'ethical' news.. they're all for the Shock factor & ratings... so, once america changes the channel on something like that, they drop it and look for something else. Saddam wasnt getting press coverage during the clinton years, so noone cared about him, or the weapons inspections..It was all about "THE STAIN ON THE DRESS". How many millions of US taxpayer dollars went to that DNA testing on the damn dress?? hmm?? Alot, because that was what was 'popular' at the time.. so there was no pressure to do anything about saddam. Now that america has gotten its taste of 'yeha! we kicked those raghead's asses' they're also saying 'well, hell,. while we're at it, and over there, lets take care of this too'. Personally, I dont think the war is necessary. I actually think we should pull out of the desert al together, and just play defense at the US borders... but thats just me. People are all like 'pull out of the middle east, you're not needed there' But i can guarantee you, if we cut all ties to everything in the middle east, there would be countries Crying to get us back there within months.... it's a loose/loose situation, as the worlds remaining superpower, we have to play babysitter to everybody... and we get yelled at for it, but if we didn't we'd get yelled at as well.... /me invests in a bomb shelter and 100 years worth of canned food. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 16:23 by Dicion »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
Phoenix, I am SICK AND TIRED of that tactic of trying to nail protesters and other dissenters as a buch of "commies". You know what I saw at my local protest? Largely middle-class, who happen to make up the majority of the country, by the way. There were also anti-war Veterans. Then, there's the always predictable group of college students. Not a single communist nut in sight. I can't believe how anyone can keep on defending Saddam Hussein like he's some kind of "victim" here Oh, PLEASE.NO ONE is defending Saddam here. It's mostly the fear of regional/global chaos that's getting people to protest Bush's invasion. Not to mention the fact that they don't want American and Iraqi lives lost in a mindless slaughter. And to those who feign support for the Iraqi people with all that "Saddam is bad, gassed his own people" stuff in order to justify invasion, tell me: Where were you BEFORE Gulf War 1 (When he DID gas a bunch of Kurds)? And by the way, Kuwait was never "liberated" - They're under a monarchy, and women there have LESS rights than women under Saddam. Oh, and if you actually CHECKED, Hed, there is NO democracy in Afghanistan. It is controlled by feuding warlords, with a weak central government in Kabul. And conditions aren't much better than with the Taliban in power, either. Women are STILL in Burka for fear of being raped! And Bush is doing ZERO about this - just check the budget, and you'll not see one mention of the reconstruction of Afghanistan. And Dev, actually, the King did not become president. Hamid Karzai did. But go look up his history and you'll see "UNOCAL" written all over it. And I should tell you the principle that NO ONE CAN IMPOSE DEMOCRACY on a population. It HAS to be the action of the people. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 17:37 by Assamite »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
Assamite.. you have wise opinions  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 20:47 by Atom235 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-02, 21:40 by games keeper »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
I'm left wing and proud of it, also I'm not Anti-America, I'm Anti-Stupidity which makes me Anti-Bush.
My mistake Assamite
I ask you now this, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-03, 01:35 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
I'm left wing and proud of it, also I'm not Anti-America, I'm Anti-Stupidity which makes me Anti-Bush.
I ask you now this, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? I'm also what most would consider lefty. But I know that RIGHT-WINGERS as well as Centrists should oppose Bush, as well. His policies screw a vast majority of the world's population, regardless of ideology. I mean, who doesn't NOT want to be blown to bits? And that one last question seems rhetorical to me... And thank you, guys.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Case in point
Patriot Act
and this coming october
Patriot Act II, now the government can kidnapp you, legally
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Assamite, how can you call it dissention? People are constitutionally guaranteed the right to assemble and protest peaceably in the United States. Hell, they let people RIOT in downtown Cincinnati for crying out loud, I'd hardly call the peace protests "dissention". Dissention means you don't sit in the back of the bus and get thrown in jail for it. THAT is dissention. The anti-Bush.. er, I mean anti-war protesters are expressing a political opinion, albeit quite visibly and quite loudly, but that's all it is, an opinion. It's no different than if a bunch of people got up and marched in the street with "Bomb Saddam" signs, or the "Sodamn Insane" shirts people wore during the Persian Gulf War. It's no different from people with the Osama rifle and pistol targets, or a boatload of bumper stickers saying this or that. Yes I know not ALL peace protesters are commies, but I just felt I should point out that the protests at Berkely WERE bankrolled by the above groups. Whether that fact offends you or not, as I've learned a long time ago, if you want the truth follow the money. Besides, I'm all for peace myself! I just differ in the fact that I think it's going to take military action to insure it in the short term. Long term, I doubt it. Humans will always war unless God or some other higher power, aliens, what have you decides to put the smack down on you all, make you play nice, and vaporize/brainwash/send to hell/reprogram people when they decide not to. I never said I liked the fact that war seems inevitable, but I do understand the consequences for complacency and inaction when faced with a threat. In the field of battle anything can get you killed, especially doing nothing, and acting wrongly often times is less damaging that inaction in the long term. The question is, are you willing to act? There are two types of people in the world and both usually have ideals. There are those who will pick up a rifle and gun down a bad guy before they or someone else get shot themselves, and those who will die empty handed from cowardice or worse - sell out their countrymen so that they can continue to live. The only difference between the two is the latter as a result gets a lot of OTHER people killed, like his family. War may not determine who is right, but it does determine who is left. There are a lot of dead pacifists in the world, and not one of them has ever led to lasting peace, nor were they left calling the shots when the bombs stopped dropping. Ideals are good things, but there comes a time when ideals can get you killed. Peace at any cost often has the highest cost, that of servitude and slavery, that of unchecked oppression and misery for all of mankind. The question isn't whether or not you're willing to die for your beliefs, but rather, are you willing to kill to protect them? That's what America did in Afghanistan, right or wrong, and what it's about to do in Iraq. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Well I've got news for you, EVERY nation does this, including France, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Mexico, Nicaragua, you name it. If this was not true, volunteer military forces would not exist.
Now as far as the US throwing the Middle East into chaos, people were saying that before the US invaded Afghanistan, which would not have happened by the way if a bunch of these extremist "religious fanatics" hadn't flown AIRPLANES into the World Trade Center and Pentagon! And don't give me the excuse that if the US hadn't been so supportive of Israel that all of this wouldn't have happened. The US gives aid to Egypt, the US buys oil from Saudi Arabia, so the US supports these nations too. You think it would have made a difference? What would have made a difference is if Pretty Boy had TAKEN Osama when the Sudan had him wrapped up like a birthday present, but NO, does Clinton get any of the blame for any of this? If the US pulled it's money out of Saudia Arabia and started drilling in it's own reserves (which it won't since it's not appealing to the environmental lobby, and frankly I must agree with them there - you need better energy sources ) or else buying more oil from Russia then Saudi Arabia would have NOTHING. They NEED the money from the US, that's also why the US maintains good relations with Arabia and why they let the US maintain a military presence there. The US protects a vital oil supply that it depends on, and the rest of the world as well, and in exchange the Saudi's don't have to worry about someone else picking a fight with them. It also helps to encourage the Saudis to reign in some of that anti-western and anti-Semitic extremism. Don't forget that Bin Laden and most of these terrorists are FROM Saudi Arabia as many have noted, and part of the reason the US maintains a military presense there and why Saudi Arabia tolerates it is to KEEP people like Bin Laden and Saddam from overtaking the country and using it as a base of operations for their terrorist network. The US government isn't the only player on the board who likes oil, after all. Could you imagine the consequences if Bin Laden had control over Saudi Arabia and all it's oil wealth? You have ANY idea what kind of carnage they could bankroll that way? That's part of the concern with Iraq. Since Al Qaida is out of Afghanistan, the hornets will light and nest somewhere else, and Iraq is very attractive at the moment. This will happen again, and again, and again unless the pressure on Al Qaida and states who finance terrorists is kept up. Don't forget Iraq pays $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That is state-sponsored terrorism. That alone makes Iraq a target for the US, damn the UN resolutions.
Stability in the region is AMPLE reason to replace Saddam with someone more friendly to US interests until that nation can run itself without people like Hussein in charge. If 80% of the Iraqi's are indeed Anti-American Muslim extremists, then what the hell is anyone griping about? You think they're all cozy with Europe either? You know how many Al Qaida operatives have been caught in England and Italy of late? What a better way to keep an eye on your enemy then to get RIGHT in their faces? But then, I don't buy into this 80% of all Iraqi's are Anti-American extremists, but then I'm not an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigot either. I happen to like Arabians and Egyptians as a rule, call it a part of my heritage if you will, and I have nothing against Islam. Afghanistan is just beginning to taste of freedom, so expecting things to be perfect by this point is pathetically short-sighted. People tend to forget that change like this does NOT happen overnight, and no it is not always successful. I won't dispute that fact, since every attempt at world peace has also failed over the last hundred years or more. That doesn't mean that people aren't going to try. If Afghanistan can be stabilized and the terrorists rooted out then that can happen in Iraq as well, IF it is handled right. My only complaint about that operation in Afghanistan is that the ground commander was an idiot and didn't seal the border with Pakistan. Instead he relied too much on the locals to do the job since the world, and the American populace in general, has been conditioned under the last decade to expect bloodless video-game sterility in current and future wars. You don't win battles by lobbing 400 cruise missiles into Baghdad or dropping bombs over Yugoslavia without getting your hands in the dirt and rolling the tanks in. They didn't even START to get real results until they laid off on the precision munitions and started carpet-bombing the spork out of them in the mountains. I'm sorry, those are all strategic blunders I'm having a hard time forgiving either administration of. This whole mess with Iraq wouldn't have been a problem for the last 12 years if the operation was completed then, but instead the UN, Bush Senior, and Clinton all thought it would be nice to just "contain" the dictator and only slapped him back from the border and told him to play nice. Chop off the hand and the body lives on. Chop off the head and it doesn't. If you're going to fight a way halfway, don't even bother.
Now, regarding kings... so what if Kuwait has a king? So does Jordan. So does England! Well, a Queen anyway, but you get the idea. Most presidents are like kings, and most countries have either a president or prime minister in which a lot of power is vested. I'm not against monarchial rule, the world had it for thousands of years, so long as the monarch is just. But then, whether a president or a king, or a committee, when are humans ever just? That is the problem, isn't it? There will always be some degree of oppression so long as humans are in control of this planet. As for imposing democracy on a people, do you not think the people want to have a voice? Democracy is a good thing, and everyone wants their say, but it is only good to a point. The problem is that people, the majority that is, are often VERY wrong when it comes to some great and important issues, especially those that involve world stability and security of nations. This forum is an example of that. I can imagine this kind of debate going on during the Cuban missile crisis. And how was that resolved? By LEADERSHIP, by a strong-willed president. JFK would roll in his grave to see what a mockery the democratic party in the US has become. No matter what anyone here may think personally of Bush, I can guarantee you one thing. He knows a hell of a lot more about the potential consequences of a war in Iraq, positive and negative, than anyone here including myself since he has a lot more access to real intelligence data. He also has the resolve to do what he says he's going to. Think I'm wrong? Then tell me how they managed to nab the number 2 Al Qaida guy just today. I remember very much a certain US president saying that they would "hunt them down one at a time". Seems to me like they must be doing something right. As for making such intelligence information available publicly in a "real democracy", well, you can imagine what the terrorists would do with THAT. It's a trade-off. You have to determine how much you trust your leaders to act in your best interests versus how much of a hand you want to have in it yourself. The risk of this trade-off of course, is the threat of tyranny by one's own elected leadership, but then, that's a risk you have to take. Sometimes acting in those interests means doing what appears to be unpopular or wrong at the time. It is a heavy burden for a leader to know things they cannot tell the common public, then choose to act unpopularly because the consequences of not doing so are unimaginable. It takes courage to act unpopularly, especially when it can be political suicide. Look at Tony Blair, he was Mr. Popularity during Clinton's administration, and he finally grew up and became a good leader. But then, the English always did have a good amount of common sense to them. I salute them for standing up the the EU as long as they have over a great many things. If invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power will in the end remove a real threat and make the world safer in the eyes of the US Government as well as the governments of England, Spain, and a whole flock of countries in Eastern Europe then I expect that's what the US will do, morally right or not. I guarantee you any other country who believes their national interest was in jeapardy would do the same, that is, if they had the military might to do it. When the US sits on the sidelines it's accused of being isolationist. When it acts on the world stage it's accused of being interventionist. When it acts in ways that might be damaging to certain countries politically it's accused of everything in the book. The US is wealthy and powerful, and is unique in the fact that it has the ability to act against it's aggressors with impunity. It also has the ability to cause terrible destruction in the world, or to prevent it. That power invokes jealousy, and envy, and revulsion all at once. To me it's really a simple case of the have's and the have nots, the will's and the will not's, the can's and the cannot's. Every country who's opposing the US right now knows not to pick a fight with it in the end because the US is the one remaining super power in the world, both milirarily and economically. The US threatens either sanctions or military force and you watch as countries crawl to their master, begging and pleading, after either take place. Even Russia understands this. After all, they got their asses KICKED in both the cold war AND Afghanistan, the former because Communism doesn't work, and the latter because the US armed the Afghans with those wonderful shoulder-fired rocket launchers we hear so much about lately. The Russians said to the US "don't do it, you can't win in Afghanistan, look at us" when the US went in, and who was it that got creamed? I still see the Capitol and White House intact, yet the Taliban are kind of scarce right now.
I'm sure the conspiracy theories are flying right and left about Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Total Information Awareness, etc. I've read a lot of stuff over the years, nasty legislation from both the left AND the right. As I've said before, humans always lust for power, and those in power desire more of it. Pen the sheep and the wolves will circle, wound the sheep and the wolves will frenzy. This day is no different. Everyone thinks it's going to be the end of the world when things like this happen, they were saying this back in WWII. Just recently for the right wingers it was Hillary, Bill, and Reno taking away all their guns and implementing an Orwellian secret police in the form of enhanced no-warrant wiretaps by the FBI, electronic eavesdropping via TEMPEST technology and Carnivore-ish email snooping, and black helicopters were everywhere. Seen some of those myself actually, you know painting them black does help the US Army to be harder to see at night...  People were waiting for the guys with gasmasks to kick their doors down and haul them off to secret camps at 3 am. To the left, it's Corporate Big Brother with the evil Republicans selling out everyone's rights to big business and setting up roadblock checkpoints, people disappearing at airports, and Orwellian secret police again, etc, in the name of "National Security". I've heard all this and much more over the last two decades, with phantom Gestapo around every corner just waiting to get you. How much of it is true and how much of it is paranoid rantings? If you ask me it seems like BOTH sides are afraid of the same thing - losing their freedom to someone who thinks differently then they do. Funny, sounds like what the terrorists want to do to people, and by running around scared of the Big Bad Republican in the white house right now you're doing a damned good job of playing into their hands. If you think Bush is a bad guy, don't re-elect him in 2004, simple as that. If you're not a US citizen, well, you've no business making US policy then.
I will say this though, don't ever underestimate Bush. If you think he's an idiot you're playing right into his hands. He's extremely calculating in both politics and in how to rally the American people. He's trounced the Democratic opposition on issue after issue politically. He's played them like a second-string fiddle for the last three years and now the Democratic party has no issues to run against Bush on except Iraq, which got them how many seats in the Senate in the last election? He knows how to give them just enough to get their hands out onto the table right before he slams them into putty with a sledge. Bush is forward thinking enough politically to support the development of environmentally friendly vehicles when most ultra-conservatives are bowing down and all but worshiping their gas-guzzling over-macho SUV's. He's supporting, at least on the outside, AIDS research to help people in Africa, and how much did the last administration do for that problem? Oh, and to the Lefties who are against the war, maybe you should read this little piece when you consider who you really want for president in 2008: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm I'd say unity is OBVIOUSLY the order of the day in the Democratic party anymore when you have Hillary "agreeing" with Bush here, so which one of them is being dumb like a fox? What does Hillary know that's of political benefit to her by following this path which should be political suicide if this isn't what America really wants? And what does Bush know that is making Hillary support his views? Whether you agree with me or not on the issues of the day, I have been a student of human character for quite a long time, and I'm seldom wrong when it comes to motivations. I have a very firm grasp on how people behave, and Bush is behaving exactly as I've expected him to. He's played along with the UN, "doing it the right way" while building up the troops to do what was intended anyway. The end result is Saddam is removed from Iraq, and the UN is discredited as an ineffective body at making world policy, of which it is ineffective anyway considering how much of a mess things are in as it is. The US position on the world stage is strengthened if the war is successful as a result, of which I have little doubt it won't be given the amount of hell that will be unleashed in the opening concerto and some of the new weapons being brought to bear against Iraq, not to mention the expected defection of Iraqi soldiers, helped along by some nice psych ops equipment that will be used in case they're not quite convinced of the need to surrender. A successful war in Iraq following the "we went through diplomatic channels, we tried after all" approach is also a damned good re-election platform. I'd hardly call that stupid considering since what happened 9/11/01 is still in the background. Wait for the stock market to take off sometime after this is all over as well, and I guarantee he'll be re-elected. Right or wrong, for good or for ill, underestimating what George W. Bush is capable of is a grave error, and if you consider him to be your enemy, then doubly so the error is upon you if you judge him to be slow of mind. Whether he believes in everything he's thrown before the American people or not, or if it's just re-election strategy, it's very well thought out to date, and from a historical perspective I see very few mistakes in this pattern. He may truly be a saint and a good Christian following his convictions, or he may even be the devil himself in disguise as some of you seem to think. To me if the latter is true, and I do not discount this, it is certainly a reason not to underestimate him.
This all being said, and quite lengthely as I tend to be, I would ask one thing of you who think that war in Iraq is the wrong solution to this problem. Offer up your solution to this. Tell me what should be done with Saddam Hussein. Should he be toppled, and if not by the US, then by who? Should the inspectors go back in and play keystone cops again, with Saddam leading them around to tilt at yet more windmills, teasing with a missile or two or three to keep them happy while he keeps building what he's said he's had before, yet then denies, and says "oops look what I found" later? A liar once, a liar twice, will inspections work now after having failed for how many years? Or should he just be left alone to do what he wants and damn the consequences, like was done with Bin Laden for so long? Tell me your solution. I'm all for avoiding war if it's even possible anymore, so offer up something novel that will really work. Maybe send it to your leaders. You want to make a difference in the world? Since we all seem so good at talking, well, speak up! I know you will. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-03-04, 07:24 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
|
|
