Is GW Bush Cursed

[patriot]

1. Election Fiasco

2. 911

3. Enron, Worldcom and other Corporate scandals

4. Economy and stocks hitting bottom

5. Iraq

6. N. Korea

7. Shuttle disaster

.... 2 more years of GW Bush?

[ewallace]

:rolleyes:

[Chang Style Novice]

I curse him all the time.

[yenhoi]

So far, except for #3, those have all been beneficial to him politically, so I guess he is cursed!

lol

[myosimka]

Let's see
1) He got in despite losing the popular vote.
2) He has received nearly free reign over our civil liberties under the mantle of protecting Fatherland...I mean Homeland Security.
3) Somehow he managed to bury the conversations with energy and utility execs prior to the scandals since it wasn't in the interest of the american public(but a bj was???)
4) Pushing a tax cut that the american people don't want(don't blast me on that one, you personally may want it but that's sort of anecdotal. I am just looking at poll data) and justifying rampant deficit spending. Hmmmm, sounds familiar.
5) Gets to engender further jingoistic public support for policies plus see number 2.
6) N. Korea, timing is such it's effectively being whitewashed by Iraq situation.
7) Played the strong guy now gets to come out and do the compassion thing. The political downside to this is what?


Personally I'd have to say that the man is remarkably fortunate. And may one day give a prior Pres a run for his money as the Teflon man.

[Radhnoti]

1. Losing the popular vote/election fiasco. Not the first President to win the electoral but not the popular, probably not the last. This is a republic, not a democracy. The alternative is open rebellion of the less populated states. If a fiasco existed it rests squarely upon the shoulders of (portions of) the FL voting system.

2. 9/11 and the loss of freedoms. It could be (and has been) argued that Pres. Clinton's threatening military action...then just bombing and declaring victory emboldened many of the U.S.'s enemies, who began to think the U.S. would never "follow through". I agree that our subsequent loss of freedoms and increasing police state is both frightening and a MAJOR strike against Pres. Bush.

3. Corporate scandals. Just browsing the folders on Enron...here's a few facts oft overlooked by our "unbiased" media.
"From 1990 to 1994 Enron gave 42% of their donations to the Democrats .Florida's state pension fund, which lost $325 million on Enron, is examining what role Frank Savage, a major Democratic donor, may have played in the state's loss. The fund's investments were directed by Alliance Capital Management, where Savage was a senior executive and chairman at the same time he sat on Enron's board. He has donated $100,000 to Democrats and is raising money for New York gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall. Lloyd Bensten, Clinton's first treasury secretary, was a recipient of Enron's money. At the time of his campaign for Senate, he received the second largest donation from Enron. The bulk of Enron's alleged chicanery had to have happened during the Clinton administration. Clinton officials publicly helped Enron win the contract in India as well as in Indonesia. Enron had received U.S. government funds to build power plants in China, the Philippines and Turkey. Enron also won contracts in Pakistan and Russia while accompanying senior U.S. government officials on state trips. In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's project, Lay's company gave $100,000 to the DNC."
To sum up, it wasn't a dem or repub thing, it was a POLITICAL thing, but it's funny to watch the media try to lay it off on Republican's without hitting any of their own. Also, though the U.S. public may have been mostly interested in the Clinton BJ, his political opponents were mostly upset about lying under oath...an offense for which people are JAILED. As they should be.
4. Economy...I think it's pretty obvious that market forces are pretty much out of the control of any of the administrations sitting in the Oval office. At least out of the control of a President who's just been in office a little over 2 years! But, I agree that for better or worse the sitting President does get the flak or credit for the economy. Also, the "unbiased" polls I've seen on the proposed tax cut are all worded: "Would you rather have a tax cut, or COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT." <---Note, no money returned from a tax cut could do that. Everyone I know wants more money back and thinks the government is a wasteful, bloated monster that will just waste their money if they get to keep it. Just check out all the pork being pushed on both sides of the isle snuck into almost any bill being sent to Bush, and I'd guess you agree. Large government sucks, which was implied earlier when talking about Homeland Security. It's funny how the tune changes as we talk about different (usually politically charged) aspects of our government.
5. Iraq. Iraq is something he'll only be criticized for, since the alternative...(letting them develop whatever they want to strike Israel and possibly the U.S.) is far less likely to happen after the U.S. strikes. The only saving grace for Bush may come after the (presumed) victory and dark closets are opened.
6 N. Korea. I admit I may need some educating on this...but, N. Korea was taking aid from the U.S. which we were offering because they agreed to quit working with their nuclear programs.
Then, they come out and say, "Ha, ha, U.S. you are so stupid, we've continued the programs and have nukes." And after this announcement we dropped the aid. I just see this as cause and effect.
7. Shuttle disaster. Hmmm...maybe. Republican's get the reigns, call for tax cuts. Meaning less funding for NASA, who fires the guy who would've caught the problem? Yeah, it's thin. Dam thin, but possible I suppose.

[Laughing Cow]

It isn't GW Bush that is cursed, but the rest of the world that is cursed with GW Bush.

Pls, forward any hatemail to: I_don't_care@spam.com.

:D :D

Bush is the President(ergo figure-head), he is neither the cause nor responsible for those things happening.

I doubt if the US President can go against the Senate and win, he does what his advisers tell him is the correct course of action.

Most of those legislation I would assume been lying in a drawer for a loong time and were just waiting for the right circumstances to be put into place.

Just my opinion.

[TaoBoy]

www.whitehouse.org

You'll love it.
Be sure to fill in the Arab Registration Form.

;)

[GeneChing]

I'll never forget the cover of Conspiracy Report that had Bush Sr. standing menacingly inside the CIA logo. It still scares me. For another scare check this out (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm) WARNING - if you look at this site, no doubt the home security/patriot act agents will be confiscating your computer soon.

[yenhoi]

Interesting website gene.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by GeneChing
WARNING - if you look at this site, no doubt the home security/patriot act agents will be confiscating your computer soon.

Please, note, this applies ONLY to people in the USA.

The rest of the world is free to watch as much as we want.
:D

[yenhoi]

I thought twice and checked it. I live in the USA.

I sure hope they dont take my computer, then how would I do my homework or bring my work home?

:confused:

[dnc101]

Another excellent post, Radh. I'll just add this: Yes, Bush met with Enro execs. They asked for Bush to bail them out of their mess. He refused. Clinton met with Chinese officials and gave them every secret they asked for just a campaign contribution.

Tax cuts- they worked for Reagan. And they worked for Kennedy before him.

The shuttle- it is sad that the libs have to take any tragedy and turn it into political mud. But there you are. The first shuttle disaster was blamed on Reagan, and it didn't stick. I doubt this accusation will stick either.

[Radhnoti]

That was a pretty interesting site Gene....makes me think we have some defensive systems in place around the Pentagon that we want kept secret.
Regarding polls and the typical U.S. citizen's willingness to go war, I found this today:

"...the latest Gallup poll finds overall support for an invasion at 58 percent. And according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, a bare majority now say they would support military action even without UN approval.

Given that the administration hasn't even finished making its case - and hasn't actually called for war - analysts say the current level of support is striking." - CSMonitor

The article also points out that Bush Sr. didn't have this level of support, at this point, before the first Gulf War.

[MightyB]

he's friggin awesome.

People aren't used to seeing an American President who actually stands for something. Must have been the 8 years of wishy washy stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing then get a bj politics that everybody has gotten used to.

I actually wanted McCaine, but I think we got the better man and I'm glad that my primary pick didn't make it.

It's too bad people feel it's rotten to have some dignity and pride.

4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years!

[Repulsive Monkey]

That was a very sincere post and we respect your sentiment, even if it is wildly misplaced and that your allegiances are to quite possibly the thickest American President that has ever be born.
His ignorance towards your own fellow countrmens/womens needs is on a par with the very terrorists he claims to be trying to liberatte us from. He is no better, no worse. As misdirected as they are too, they fight for faith, he fights for greed.
Bush is a sick man.

[ewallace]

His ignorance towards your own fellow countrmens/womens needs is on a par with the very terrorists he claims to be trying to liberatte us from.

they fight for faith, he fights for greed.

Who's ignorance again? :rolleyes:

[@PLUGO]

Maybe I misread the news reports or my memory isn't what it used to be...

But Wasn't it the Supreme court that called a stop to the recounting (tossing out a fair number of as yet to be counted ballots) and as a result declared BUSH the president?

Beyond that I see GW as the ultimate result of the continuing corruption of a governmental process by the interests of LOTS of MONEY.

a bit like Gollum. (http://www.notfrisco2.com/webzine/Joel/archives/frodo_has_failed.jpg)

[dnc101]

Originally posted by MightyB
People aren't used to seeing an American President who actually stands for something. Must have been the 8 years of wishy washy stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing then get a bj politics that everybody has gotten used to.
:D



RM, got any evidence to back up your wild assertions?
What qualifies you to decide MB's allegiences are misplaced?
What is it that makes GW thick (which implies stupidity)?
What is it he doesn't know that makes him ignorant?
What has he done that equates him with terrorists?
What makes him motivated by greed?
You think the terrorists are vindicated because they fight for faith, and you call Bush sick? I'd say that's evidence that your values are a little twisted. By your value system, if I fly a plane into your house and kill you and your family, it would be ok as long as I "believe" you are wrong.
:confused:

[ewallace]

But Wasn't it the Supreme court that called a stop to the recounting (tossing out a fair number of as yet to be counted ballots) and as a result declared BUSH the president?
All those votes were counted after the election was declared final and the vote, although electoral, was still in favor of Dubya.


Beyond that I see GW as the ultimate result of the continuing corruption of a governmental process by the interests of LOTS of MONEY.
Yep. No argument there. I get really tired thought of the "Bush's War for Money and Oil" line. Just imagine the thought process, "Hmm, I can start a war with Iraq and take their oil. Then I'd be really really rich. And No one would ever suspect that's the real reason for war". He may not be the smartest man that's ever lived, but those who believe in that conspiracy theory are, in my opinion, right underneath his rung on the intelligence ladder.

[@PLUGO]

What is it that makes GW thick (which implies stupidity)?

Well I understand he was granted a "gentleman's C" when graduating collage. Personal college experiance implies that such C'c are granted as favor's... Also, he seems quite proud of this.

I also read an article indicating he is the President with the lowest IQ in history. I personally don't give much attention to IQ scores, but the guy seems to rely heavily on a teleprompter, and is often seen chewing on his cowboy boots when offering "off the cuff" statments...


What is it he doesn't know that makes him ignorant?
Well he DID ask the president of Brasil if there where any black people in his country!!! :rolleyes:


What makes him motivated by greed?

errr... well I would say it's a common trait amongst Presidents if not most High level Politicians.
There was alos some shady business with "aquiring" a low interest loan from a company he "owned" at the time.

Well I'm sorry for throwing my 2cents into a series of questions directed at Repulsive Monkey...
ducks behind desk...



Just imagine the thought process, "Hmm, I can start a war with Iraq and take their oil. Then I'd be really really rich. And No one would ever suspect that's the real reason for war".

I sort of agree ewallace. BUT from what I've read, such plans have been in place for some time now... Call it conspiracy theory or whatever... It seems more like Bush is playing front man for a er... "Business Plan" that's been in place since before his Dad was in power...

Do you think oil wouldn't end up as one of the spoils of war?

no DIS intended...

[@PLUGO]

The UN's discussion on Powell's presentation can be heard here. (https://secure.transbay.net/kpfa/forms/0_aud.htm)

[ewallace]

Do you think oil wouldn't end up as one of the spoils of war?
Nope. It would be under the giant microscope of the press, and would further damage foreign relations with middle eastern countries. We didn't take control over Iraq's oil in the first war, and I have no reason to believe that we would this time. If oil was really the case, we would just go in and kick Venezuela's butt too.

[dnc101]

DS, you can come out from behing the desk. It's enough for my point that you had the answers and not RM.;)

He might have only got a 'gentlemens C' in college, but he's sure been able to flummox the Democrats since getting in office. He's taken every issue from them. I do have a problem with his appeasement of the libs on several issues, the latest being the aids relief to Africa. And I'll never forgive him for signing Campaign Finance Reform into law. But if GW is stupid, the libs in this country are really feeding on the bottom of the intelligence pond.

I assume the President of Brasil set him straight, and so he's no longer ignorant on that point. (btw, what did the Pres. of Brasil tell him?:D )

You are correct, greed and politics seem to go hand in hand. I don't know the details of that low interesrt loan, and I doubt you do either since we must rely on a biased press for most of our information. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some shady dealing there, but I'm not ready to condemn him without solid evidence of illegal acts.

DS, at least your post was thoughtful and reasoned. Again, for the record, I'm not a Bush fan. But I get a little tired of some of these petty ultra liberals that have to get on any soapbox and hurl unsubstiated insults at any 'conservative'.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by ewallace
We didn't take control over Iraq's oil in the first war, and I have no reason to believe that we would this time. If oil was really the case, we would just go in and kick Venezuela's butt too.

Agreed. Heck, if oil was the issue, we'd have just kept Kuwait- we already had it.

[MightyB]

The League of... I mean the UN has passed 17 resolutions against Iraq in 12 years. They haven't followed through on 1. Everyone goes on how Billy C was so great, but at least GW contacts the UN before he decides upon a course of action. People are real pi$$y towards US political interests in Iraq after a war, but what they don't realize is that France, Germany, and Russia have bigger illegal interests in Iraqi oil that they are exploiting right now. France and Germany are illegaly selling dual purpose technology to Iraq for oil interests, same goes for Russia. They don't want us to expose their dirty little secrets-- Dirty being the key word as in dirty bomb. Where do you think Iraq's nuclear and chemical technology comes from?

I can't understand Korea. They seem to be the ones pushing for war. I can't wait until we unify that sh_t hole.

[dnc101]

ght,
I didn't say we don't have interests there. That is a different thing than taking over or taking their oil. Our biggest interest in that whole region is to help stabilize it. And yes, stability helps keep prices down and proffits up for everyone, including Kuwaities and Iraquis. Sadaam's regime is about the only looser here, along with possibly the French, Germans and Russians who've been illegally trading with Iraq.

[Braden]

You guys are saying "US-friendly" as if it's some kind of insult.

Contrary to popular belief, all value systems are not equal. Some value systems really suck; some people are really evil.

"US-friendly" means, among other things, the cessation of the genocide of the kurdish and shiite peoples in Iraq.

Is the "US-friendly" perfect? No. And noone and nothing will ever be. Is "US-friendly" the best option we've got going? Suggest a better one, I'm all ears; the whole world is all ears.

[KC Elbows]

""US-friendly" means, among other things, the cessation of the genocide of the kurdish and shiite peoples in Iraq."

So we're gonna put a Shah in place?

[Braden]

Are you asking seriously, or being facetious? :)

[Ford Prefect]

Has another Shiite even tried to take a leadership role since what happenned to the last one? I doubt anybody would be too willing after that.

[Braden]

They wouldn't put a Shiite or Kurd in power, they'd just put a Suni in power who will tolerate the Shiites and Kurds.

[David Jamieson]

first..a link:

http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/1112/020.html

secondly, I recommend that anyone who thinks oil is not the motivation of the Bush administration and for that matter all involved (all western UN countries) both "friend" or "foe", read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin.

You have to understand that the western world runs on ptroleum products.

Venezuala can be worked out a lot quicker than the middle east situation. IN South america it's about ROI for the workers who are producing the petroleum products.

Not unlike an auto plant strike occuring nation wide.

The entire lifestyle of the Western world is undeniably in a state of total dependence on petroleum products.

It's not really about greed either, it's about power in it's ultimate percieved form and pushing the geopolitical agenda of a very small group.

In the west we take everything for granted and for the most part are asleep on the real issues of the world today. Entire transportion systems across North America would shut down completely if not for oil. Trucks, PLanes, trains and automobiles.

If you control the oil, you control everything that is dependent upon it.

With any luck, human kind will make the leap to higher technologies in the near future and we can look forward to an end toall the fussin and a feudin and move into a brave new world.

Otherwise, be prepared for bad things to continue to happen.

cheers

[MightyB]

Darn commies...


Evil US--- Oil oil oil--- bad US --- GW devil --- oil oil oil --- we want nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons --- blah blah blah --- America bad --- yada yada yada --- bad bad bad --- oil oil oil --- blah blah blah blah blah --- alah --- America evil --- blah blah blah...

My head hurts.

[@PLUGO]

pops head out from behind desk...


we would just go in and kick Venezuela's butt too.

Well the US did seem OVERLY eager to open up relations with the "new" president the day after the 3 day COUP...

talk about supporting "democracy"

1983... Reagan is convinced to remove Iraq from the US's likely terrorist list... By Donald Rumsfeild who then goes to Iraq to open diplomatic relations...
The US wasn't so upset by IRAQ "gassing his own people." An event that has also been refuted in an op-ed piece in the WASHINGTON POST just over a week ago.

ducks back under...

[@PLUGO]

They wouldn't put a Shiite or Kurd in power, they'd just put a Suni in power who will tolerate the Shiites and Kurds.

I remember reading an announcement naming the General who would run the "temporary" occuping government similar to one put in place in post WWII Japan...

[Robbie]

Originally posted by GeneChing
I'll never forget the cover of Conspiracy Report that had Bush Sr. standing menacingly inside the CIA logo. It still scares me. For another scare check this out (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm) WARNING - if you look at this site, no doubt the home security/patriot act agents will be confiscating your computer soon.

Gene,
That site has been debunked. It looks really interesting until you check out any of the other pictures that they didn't include. By the way, I think the terrorists were idiots for flying into the side that just got remodeled. Made a good test for our systems and did minimum damage. Had they hit any other side the damage would have been a few times worse.

[David Jamieson]

Evil US--- Oil oil oil--- bad US --- GW devil --- oil oil oil --- we want nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons --- blah blah blah --- America bad --- yada yada yada --- bad bad bad --- oil oil oil --- blah blah blah blah blah --- alah --- America evil --- blah blah blah...

mighty b, everyone's head is hurting about it. It's a rock and a hard place.

here's a scenario to think about:

you are the head of a country.
your country depends on your leadership to ensure that everyone gets at least a little bit of a fair shake and at least a fairly comfortable lifestyle.

you understand that in order to provide this, through the will of the people as a nation that certain needs must be met.

someone else comes along and threatens to cut off what you need. If they are successful, you will have a country that becomes poor, with a not so good lifestyle (most of the world is like this) when compared to what there is now.

what do you do to get that thing that keeps the wheels turning in your country?

hmmmmmn...what do..you do???

You also have to consider that you may have to commit shameful acts. How do you sell a nation on the idea that if they want to keep their lifestyle then people elsewhere must make sacrifices?

The U.S aren't the only ones who practice geopolitics like this. But the US does have huge amounts of money and power invested. Many other countries do the same things. And they do hear about it in their media. It's not all about the U.S afterall. It's about the world order and the imminent threats to the lifestyle of the bourgois in the first world countries.

anyway, food for thought..."fight the power man" :D

cheers

[yenhoi]

Just for the record the United States has a long history of generally ignoring the United Nations as much as possible.

I dont see why going to war vs another nation in order to take its natural resources is a evil cause. For those of you that think oil is THE motivating factor for the Bush Administration to pursue these courses - you sure are on to something! I bet the guys who make these decisions probably got together and asked "What is the hardest way possible to make oil more accessible to us and our friends, and cheaper, any ideas?!" Get real. Look at the big picture. There are many spoils to Iraq besides oil and women.

Afghanistan was about what? Opium fields? To install airbases on chinas ass? Maybe a comittee decided it was the hardest way to get more dirt?

Yes, it is very sad that the US is the most powerful and most prosperous right now. And, yes, its very sad that we are using our power and prosperity to ensure that we get even more powerful and more prosperous. And, yes, its very very sad that we are doing all this at the expense of other countries, nations, peoples, and cultures, instead of our own. And, yes, its very very ver sad for the rest of you that when we decided to play this game 100 years ago, that we decided to win.

See ya'all on the flip side, winners get cool t-shirts.

:eek:

[Braden]

Kung Lek -

You're 100% right. The war is entirely about promoting a certain group's geopolitical agenda.

However, what I don't understand is why you see that as a bad thing.

Everyone has geopolitical agendas. Of note here, specifically, Saddam certainly does.

From my previous post - it's NOT the case that all things are equal. Social relativism is a crock of ****. You can't excuse Saddam's geopolitical agenda under the pretext of respecting his culture. What he does is wrong. Period.

So we're going to go in there and promote our geopolitical agenda. Which includes things like not committing genocide. You know what? That's good. Period.

Are there problems that go along with it? Goodness me, yes. There's problems that go along with _everything_. That's why us humans have been blessed with a faculty called judgement - to choose the best solution to a given problem.

There is a problem here. We're picking the best solution.

Again, I challenge you: if you have a better one, let's hear it.

[David Jamieson]

However, what I don't understand is why you see that as a bad thing.

I don't think I said it was a bad thing.

You have to understand that generally I am a pragmatist and a realist at heart.

I fully understand that choices must be made by all to conserve their own agendas.

I fully understand that people are gonna die because of this.
I don't even see this reality as a necessarily "bad" thing.

It just -is-.

cheers

[Braden]

Then what's your problem with Bush? And what's your problem with the war?

[David Jamieson]

Then what's your problem with Bush? And what's your problem with the war?

Problem? Hmmm. Well from a political viewpoint I don't care much for Bush for pretty much one reason alone. that reason is:

For his first 100 days in office he was on vacation for 47 of those days.
He didn't come onto the stage until 911 and all of a sudden he's a hero? Can you say Harry Truman? (Speaking of electoral votes over popular votes to get a president in the whitehouse.)

Secondly, word on the street is, war is bad, but there it is. Truly, I hope it doesn't come to my doorstep. But if it does, I will do my best to defend my own personal patch of "homeland".

That's life I guess.

cheers

[Braden]

Yeah, war is bad. Sometimes it's just less bad than the alternatives.

I don't understand why 911 makes you have a problem with Bush. Would you have a problem with Gore if the situation was reversed?

[myosimka]

dnc101, If Bush met with Enron and refused them bailout assistance then why won't they divulge that fact. Your assumptions about the subject of a meeting doesn't make it a fact(And no they haven't.)

Radhnoti, we can agree to disagree all over the palce and that's cool. I read the text of a Gallup poll and it doesn't use the wording you quoted, I don't know where you got it but it's ceratinly possible it was leading. Problem with most polls and most stats for that matter. For example, if 42% of Enron's political donations were to democrats what was the other 58%? (You can't think it was the Green party) Yes, they played both sides but it's clear where there primary loyalties lied. As to the comment about the BJ, I certainly have a problem with perjury and certainly do not defend those actions. But the story was national news well before he perjured himself. So I still stand by the proposition that we are now looking at a backwards standard on disclosure. The Executive Branch is clearly under a greater onus to disclose facts about personal lives than it is to disclose meetings that relate to policy. Actually that has always been true so long as the executive branch and congressional oversight committees are run by different parties. 1974 would have been a much duller year politically if it had been a Republican congress. And again, not defending the Democratic Party. I certainly believe they'd behave the same way if in the other shoes.

Also, I didn't use the term fiasco so I don't think that the Republican win constituted a fiasco despite issues in reference to an election commissioner related to a candidate. Florida was a disgrace and I believe that a democratic election of the president is the way to go but I never thought his win under the current system constituted a "fiasco". And rebellion by less populated states? Maybe 200 years ago. You really believe Arkansas citizens would attempt to secede over elimination of the electoral college? Even if the Senate remained in place? Hyperbole is fine but let's acknowledge it's hyperbole. Agian, it's all about sides. Prior to the election it looked like it might go the other way (Bush wins popular and loses election) and I heard tons of Republicans clamoring about the unfairness of the electoral system and its antiquated nature. I'm cool with the situation the way that it turned out but I just wish the man would stop operating as if he had the mandate of the people. He doesn't. The bad news is that his refusal to acknowledge this fact is resulting in a further polarization of the parties and less compromise. Wouldn't have thought this country could get more partisan but it is.

[David Jamieson]

Braden -

I don't really argue on hypotheticals.

Only what is there.

For the record, I don't think saddam and osama and the rest of those dudes are bright shiny people either. It's a dirty business this running the world. :D

cheers

[Braden]

My point wasn't to argue a hypothetical, it was to illustrate the flaw in your position (at least, as stated).

That 911 happened and that you have a conception that Bush is percieved as a hero has _nothing_ to do with Bush. To have a problem with him because of this doesn't make any sense. My hope was that you would consider Gore being in office and realize that none of these variables would be any different, thus realizing your problem with Bush has nothing to do with him.

[KC Elbows]

Braden, I was just being facetious. Bringing up our sterling past record in preventing lot os death in other countries. Hopefully, we'll do better.

[David Jamieson]

it is hypothetical to position that this would have happened with Gore in the Whitehouse.

Who knows what the variables would have been in that case.

There is no flaw in my view regarding my political views of Bush. He is a rich (wealthy financially) man, who has little talent for world politics and has bumbled and stumbled his way through his entire term.

He has alienated long standing allies of the US with his incredibly moronic comments in just about every area. And can you tell me what has Bush contributed to the country to make it a better place?

It's almost back in the McCarthy era! hahahaha. Isn't it also funny that he sees these religious leaders as a threat and uses many an opportunity to "thank god", and "god bless us all" and so on.

Well, I guess that makes him a hypocrite but what else is new with the reigning politicians in their day.

It seems that you have a problem with me having a problem with Bush because in my views he is not a very intelligent person according to his own actions. But I hold the same views of several other so called world leaders, so don't sweat it.

cheers

[Braden]

"it is hypothetical to position that this would have happened with Gore in the Whitehouse."

Yes, it is. And I'm not interested in discussing it. I was interested in using it as a logical attack on your position. Despite your disapproval, it is one of only three fundamental discussion tactics one might learn in a course on informal logic.

"Who knows what the variables would have been in that case."

If you believe that Bush caused 911, feel free to state that.

"There is no flaw in my view regarding my political views of Bush."

I was showing you the flaw, not asking if there was one. Obviously you didn't think there was a flaw, or you wouldn't hold that position.

"is a rich man"

Being rich is bad now? You only believe in presidents coming from a certain SE class? Goodness...

"who has little talent for world politics and has bumbled and stumbled his way through his entire term."

"with his incredibly moronic comments in just about every area. "

Are you going to substantiate that, or are ad hominems fair play here?

"He has alienated long standing allies of the US..."

The long-standing allies of the US? You must mean the Canadians, Australians, and British. However, all three of those countries have publically said they'll support Bush even if the UN doesn't. That's pretty strong endorsement... especially if they've been alienated! :p

"And can you tell me what has Bush contributed to the country to make it a better place?"

By being the only president since Reagan to legitimately pursue a conservative agenda? Even if you're not a conservative, you have to respect someone with a real position, rather than someone just playing politics.

"It's almost back in the McCarthy era!"

You mean where people are being attacked for their political affiliations and SE class? Yes... yes it has almost gone back to that.

"uses many an opportunity to "thank god", and "god bless us all" and so on."

I don't like his religious language either. But this is hardly a cut-and-dry issue. He is the elected representative of the american people, who happen to mostly like that kind of talk.

"Well, I guess that makes him a hypocrite but what else is new with the reigning politicians in their day."

No it doesn't make him a hypocrite, because his problem isn't with religion. His problem is with religious beliefs which promote the violent persecutions of other religious beliefs.

"It seems that you have a problem with me having a problem with Bush"

No, I'm simply challenging you to hold views which aren't simple character attacks.

[David Jamieson]

I was interested in using it as a logical attack on your position. Despite your disapproval, it is one of only three fundamental discussion tactics one might learn in a course on informal logic.

I would disagree on that. As for whether or not W was a causality behind the attacks, well, only so much so as he is the leader of the country who the "terrorists" have a beef with over foreign policies that affect their own peace and well being. IE: a standing army right on their door step and close to their holy places. I wonder how long the states would pout up with a foreign national military on their doorstep...oh yeah bay of pigs.. I guess they wouldn't would they.


I was showing you the flaw, not asking if there was one. Obviously you didn't think there was a flaw, or you wouldn't hold that position

YOu were pointing out only what you perceived to be a flaw. My entire position was not held in a singular statement. It still isn't.



Being rich is bad now? You only believe in presidents coming from a certain SE class? Goodness...

and you are ok with the rich being self serving? I don't have a problem with someone who is rich, I have a problem with someone who is rich because of oil and using his wealth to gain political power an ultimately shape the policies that will make it easier to get richer and more powerful. There is something fundamentally wrong with that from my point of view.


The long-standing allies of the US? You must mean the Canadians, Australians, and British. However, all three of those countries have publically said they'll support Bush even if the UN doesn't. That's pretty strong endorsement... especially if they've been alienated!

Well, you are absolutely incorrect there Braden. The prime minister of the country I live in has publicly stated that we will not be dragged into anyone elses war without the unanimous consent of the united nations. He has also spoken freely and publically in regards to the idea of the US taking unilateral action.

We all know which side of the bread tony blair butters and I don't know a friggin thing about australian politics. Germany and France however are a little more on the table and are against the stances of the US WH administration.


By being the only president since Reagan to legitimately pursue a conservative agenda? Even if you're not a conservative, you have to respect someone with a real position, rather than someone just playing politics.

exactly what is the "conservative agenda"?, I think it's more like a G.O.P agenda and has little to do with conservatism. again, this is my personal view and perspective.



I don't like his religious language either. But this is hardly a cut-and-dry issue. He is the elected representative of the american people, who happen to mostly like that kind of talk.

Really? I would have to disagree with that. there is a fundamental need for the seperation of Church and State and the US for the most part is down with that. This is pandering to the Christian right if you ask me, of which Bush is known as a huge supporter, once again, alienating a large portion of his own populace. Moronic to bring it into play from my viewpoint.


No it doesn't make him a hypocrite, because his problem isn't with religion. His problem is with religious beliefs which promote the violent persecutions of other religious beliefs.

Sophism Braden.
What "religion" promotes persecution of other religious beliefs? This is simply a complete misunderstanding on the behalf of those who would believe that of any particular religion. There are hundreds of groups that claim to be religious in their moral infrastructure but by their actions demonstrate that their agendas have little to do with religious belief.


No, I'm simply challenging you to hold views which aren't simple character attacks.

Disagreeing with the actions of a man who would bring war for the interests that are directly connected with his own business. Disagreeing with the man who would send people to their death to fulfill those interests is hardly a character attack. It's a downright refutation of everything he stands for politically and on the world stage.

cheers

[JusticeZero]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
But Wasn't it the Supreme court that called a stop to the recounting (tossing out a fair number of as yet to be counted ballots) and as a result declared BUSH the president? Er, they basically said "The LAW says that the recount has to be fair and done within a certain time period. Asking a small selection of specific hand-picked counties to use no official method but good faith to recount ballots after the legal time limit has expired is silly. Furthermore, we don't really want to see the near-centenarian right wing ultra-authoritarian Speaker to go in like he probably should if we invalidate the vote, hence, the numbers stay."
Oh, and independent attempts to recount the Florida ballots reportedly still result in a Bush majority.

I'd also like to add that the anti-war people need to get some new arguments, because the ones they parrot are really weak.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by JusticeZero
I'd also like to add that the anti-war people need to get some new arguments, because the ones they parrot are really weak.

There is one thing I would like to see done by all US-Citizens that approve/support of the War.

Head down to your local recruiting station and sign up for Combat or Support role.

I am sure that the amount of supporters for the war effort will dwindle rapidly.

In this way we would see who is really serious about the war.
It is easy to support things for which YOU don't have to put your life on the line.

If I agreed to the war I would sign up as part of my nations contingent to the U.N. Troops.

Just my viewpoint naturally.

[JusticeZero]

One other thing:
Why is it that people keep being angry about Bush trying to dot all his I's and cross all his T's and attack Iraq with as little civilian death as is reasonably possible, given that I don't recall a huge uproar of dissent back when Bill was tossing cluster bombs on peasant villages without UN approval on a regular basis??

[@PLUGO]

I'd also like to add that the anti-war people need to get some new arguments, because the ones they parrot are really weak.

You've gotta explain that much better...
What arguments? Parroted how? weak in what way?



"with his incredibly moronic comments in just about every area. "
Are you going to substantiate that, or are ad hominems fair play here?


Just a few... randomly picked...

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

"Sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures ... I still haven't figured it out completely." - Bush when asked for details about his dealings with Harken Energy Corp., of which he was on the audit committee. G.W. Bush's father was in office in 1990 when he sold his Harken stock and the SEC did not pursue a case. -July 8th, 2002

"Do you have blacks too?" - Bush ignorantly asked Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported by the reputable German publication Der Spiegel. Rumor has it, Condoleza Rice interupted the president and explained in brief the African history in Brazil.

"Washington is unfortunately the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature," - G.W. Bush responding to suggestions he had warnings of September 11th before the attacks. Washington D.C., May 17th, 2002

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - G.W. Bush as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23rd, 2002

"I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go,"- G.W. Bush to British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, April 5th, 2002

''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—Rome, July 22, 2001

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."—Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." — George W. Bush, June 14, 2001. Speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead." - Washington, D.C., May 11, 2001

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically." —George W. Bush, who meant to say "misunderestimated"

"They misunderestimated me."—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."—Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

:D :D sighhhh . . . :D :D


oh and if you're curious about how GORE might have handled 9/11... go here. (http://www.e-sheep.com/spiders/)

[yenhoi]

The french and germans are more against their pocket book being hurt then they are about being against the Bush Administration.



:eek:

[Braden]

"As for whether or not W was a causality behind the attacks, well, only so much so as he is the leader of the country who the 'terrorists' have a beef with over foreign policies that affect their own peace and well being.

As you noted yourself, he was not long in office before 911. Do you believe these offensive foreign policies were put in place, offended the 'terrorist' who then organized a complicated training network and attack plan, then executed it in just a couple of months? Or do you think perhaps the american power for eight years before that date had something to do with it...

"YOu were pointing out only what you perceived to be a flaw. My entire position was not held in a singular statement. It still isn't."

You're quite right. Which is why I noted specifically it was a flaw _only as you stated your position_. I can't, of course, imagine nor reply to the arguments you may have only in your mind.

"and you are ok with the rich being self serving?"

As opposed to the poor? :confused:

I'm glad we established that you believe being rich is bad though.

"Well, you are absolutely incorrect there Braden. The prime minister of the country I live in has publicly stated that we will not be dragged into anyone elses war without the unanimous consent of the united nations. He has also spoken freely and publically in regards to the idea of the US taking unilateral action."

I'm a Canadian. I live in Ottawa. BTW, our troops have allready shipped out. We've allready bargained with other countries for heavy transport planes to carry our armor. If we're not supporting them, we're doing a hell of a job pretending to.

"We all know which side of the bread tony blair butters..."

What's that supposed to mean? Do you have a complaint with him other than that he supports what you don't?

"Germany and France however are a little more on the table and are against the stances of the US WH administration."

Yes they are. They're not the americans long-standing allies though. The Canadians, Brits, and Aussies are. Our joint spy network is: US, Canada, UK, Aussieland. We have faught alongside in every war: US, Canada, UK, Aussieland. Neither Germany nor France are on that list. American establishment isn't keen on France because they're socialist. Germany - you can probably guess.

But you're quite right, the people consistently politically opposed to america are again opposed to them. This just isn't what you said.

"exactly what is the 'conservative agenda'?"

Specifically I mean conservative fiscal policy. Do you want me to expound on that?

"there is a fundamental need for the seperation of Church and State and the US for the most part is down with that."

As an aside, I agree they give lip-service to seperation but aren't functionally very good at it. That's an entirely different topic though - as I never argued in the first place about seperation.

"This is pandering to the Christian right if you ask me, of which Bush is known as a huge supporter, once again, alienating a large portion of his own populace."

Going to war is pandering to the Christian right? I haven't heard this one here yet. Please... I'd love to hear it. Do they buy more oil?

Is being Christian bad too?

"What 'religion' promotes persecution of other religious beliefs?"

As a rather obvious and pertinent example - Islam, at least as it is practiced by a very large number of it's adherants.

"Disagreeing with the actions of a man who would bring war for the interests that are directly connected with his own business."

You mean the oil business?

Now that he's the largest single supporter of non-oil solutions in the world, I thought that conspiracy theory was kind of out-the-window.

"Disagreeing with the man who would send people to their death to fulfill those interests is hardly a character attack."

Kurds and Shiites would disagree. Do you disagree with us attacking Germany in WWII as well? Was it 'ok' what happened there because we should respect their cultural dignity, and besides we had foreign interests in that area? If not, why is it ok now? I'm not trying to be offensive, I really wanna know.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by yenhoi
The french and germans are more against their pocket book being hurt then they are about being against the Bush Administration.

:eek:

TRUE.

They got enough economic problems without needing to pay for a war that won't benefit them much.

Wars are always about economics and usually the attacker is trying to enrich themselves somehow.

Wars are costly and no sensible person will get into one if there is no form of kick-back.

[Serpent]

"Misunderestimated."

:D :D :D

[dezhen2001]

i just got that! LMAO! :D

dawood

[yenhoi]

Actually Laughing cow I was talking about the money Iraq owes France mainly, german, china, and others, for mostly legal trade and services, and also some "not-so-legal" trade and services.

Why would France or Germany be forced to pay for any such war? What does it have to do with them? No one is saying they gotta help. It would be nice tho, and favors arent forgotten in world politics. And dont you be concerned with the end cut the other europeans (france and germany too..) are going to negociate for themselves, for whatever support they do end up giving in the end.

Its my bet that this war will be much more profitable for those countries in the end then you say.

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

Fighting any war is a drain on the economy. You loose Workers as the need to be sent to the front-line, etc.

Not every Country has a Army like the USA does, most have a small core and rely on conscription and draft to fill the ranks.

Have you had a look at how much the forecast is for the costs of the Iraq War to the US, it runs in the Billions of Dollars.

Where does that money come from, your taxes that are levied on companies and individual people.

This is what I am talking about.

Look at what happened in Kosovo, the US moved in and than turned around and send a bill to the EU for fighting there.

[yenhoi]

The EU agreed to pick up the bill before the United States even flew the first "we are mean and powerfull do what we say or else" demonstration flights in Italy 1 years before the first bomb flew.

France and Germany are not going to send people to the front lines, most likely - and they will be sure to get their political and whatever else kick backs before they give whatever 'support' they do end up giving.

Have you had a look at how much the forecast is for the costs of the Iraq War to the US, it runs in the Billions of Dollars.

Sure. Just wait 20 years, I bet the profits from this war far outweigh the cost. On all levels.

:eek:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by yenhoi

Sure. Just wait 20 years, I bet the profits from this war far outweigh the cost. On all levels.


Can your economy wait that long for the profits.

From over here it looks as if the Iraq War can push the economy either way at the moment.

My guess would be downward as the Iraq war will proove more costly than anticipated.

[yenhoi]

From over here it looks as if the Iraq War can push the economy either way at the moment.

I wouldent say the Iraq war is the end all say all concerning the US economy - but your right, the US economy does kinda seem on edge at the moment, and a war on the other side of the globe obviously has many risks involved.

:eek:

[David Jamieson]

ok, let's continue :D



As you noted yourself, he was not long in office before 911. Do you believe these offensive foreign policies were put in place, offended the 'terrorist' who then organized a complicated training network and attack plan, then executed it in just a couple of months? Or do you think perhaps the american power for eight years before that date had something to do with it...

The policies at play were put into place by the republican party as led by Reagan and Bushes own father. George senior. The democratic administration was rolling back on the hardball playing in the middle east and in fact Clintons white house had made significant inroads towards peace in the middle east and the release of military power of the US in the region.

Sure weren't as many mad bombers during the Clinton administration now were there.



You're quite right. Which is why I noted specifically it was a flaw _only as you stated your position_. I can't, of course, imagine nor reply to the arguments you may have only in your mind.

Nor can I you. Hence, this thread.



As opposed to the poor?

yes, we are all aware of the self serving agendas of the poor Braden :rolleyes:


I'm glad we established that you believe being rich is bad though.

I did not make that statement at all? In fact I said quite the opposite and this establishment you have made is out of context to that statement.



I'm a Canadian. I live in Ottawa. BTW, our troops have allready shipped out. We've allready bargained with other countries for heavy transport planes to carry our armor. If we're not supporting them, we're doing a hell of a job pretending to.

Everyone must make provisions in times like these. We have not "already shipped out" We are in a current state of readiness should the UN decide to pass the resolution allowing for tactical strikes in the middle east. We wouldn't be able to do that from a few thousand kilometres away now would we. Timing is everything after all.


What's that supposed to mean? Do you have a complaint with him other than that he supports what you don't?

Of course I don't support him and his administration. I thought that was obvious.



Yes they are. They're not the americans long-standing allies though. The Canadians, Brits, and Aussies are. Our joint spy network is: US, Canada, UK, Aussieland. We have faught alongside in every war: US, Canada, UK, Aussieland. Neither Germany nor France are on that list. American establishment isn't keen on France because they're socialist. Germany - you can probably guess.

Canada's "spy network" is laughable. We spend most of our dollars tracking dope dealers. CSIS is a relatively new organization and has little to do with the gathering of human intelligence at the levels that the old cold war players do.


But you're quite right, the people consistently politically opposed to america are again opposed to them. This just isn't what you said.

Is there something wrong with being opposed to the US political agendas and policies of the Bush administration and the Republican ideals?



Specifically I mean conservative fiscal policy. Do you want me to expound on that?

fiscal policy? Do you know how much a war costs? Not just dollars.



As an aside, I agree they give lip-service to seperation but aren't functionally very good at it. That's an entirely different topic though - as I never argued in the first place about seperation.

really, I think in retrospect regarding the seperation of church and state that the US constitution is a model document and one of the singular pieces of brilliance that each and every citizen of the US has the right to be extremely proud of.


Going to war is pandering to the Christian right? I haven't heard this one here yet. Please... I'd love to hear it. Do they buy more oil?
I didn't say that going to war is pandering to the Christian right. I said and implied that George W Bush panders to the Christian right.


Is being Christian bad too?

Absolutely not. It's a fine belief system and I very much enjoy being in the company of Christians.



As a rather obvious and pertinent example - Islam, at least as it is practiced by a very large number of it's adherants.

Again, this is sophism Braden. How do you practice hate in a religion...I mean other than Levays little doodad thing and the kkk? Islam is not a religion of intolerance by any stretch. In fact, for hundreds of years the islamic peoples were by far the most tolerant of others religious practices. Even now. In fact, in many cases they go beyond toleration and actually practice full acceptance. I'll reiterate, to kill in the name of god is an error in thinking from the get go.



You mean the oil business?

Uh yeah. What business dd you think I was talking about? His baseball team?


Now that he's the largest single supporter of non-oil solutions in the world, I thought that conspiracy theory was kind of out-the-window.

Now that is laughable! Let me say this about that. Bwahahaha. Total and utterly refutable on so manmy levels I don't know where to begin.



Kurds and Shiites would disagree. Do you disagree with us attacking Germany in WWII as well? Was it 'ok' what happened there because we should respect their cultural dignity, and besides we had foreign interests in that area? If not, why is it ok now? I'm not trying to be offensive, I really wanna know.

If I remember correctly, the Americans did not "attack" the germans in ww1 or ww2. tHey did lend some support in the early years but came late to the show. They did contribute greatly though in the end. Their primary war in ww2 was the pacific theatre though.
If you are speaking of "us" as canadians, then the reason we were there is because at that time we were subjects of the British Empire and it was our duty to queen and country.

When Hitler moved into Austria not a peep was heard because Austria was part of Germany before the treaty at Versaille and the Austrians wante to be part of Germany. When Czechoslovakia was taken over it was signed off on by their dottering president at the time. The brown didn't hit the fan until Poland was attacked. Prior to that, did you knwo that Neville Chamberlain (Britains then PM) had signed an agreement with Adolf to ensure an anglo aryan empire and...AND "A new world order that would bring peace in our time".

Saddam has indeed apparenty commited atrocities. Did the US send help to the Kurds when Saddam Gassed them? Or were they still in the good with Hussein's regime because of the look the other way policy so long as we still get oil?

Again, this is sophism Braden. the first Gulf war was intended to clean up the indescretions of the policies of the reagan era where that republican government handed all kinds of neat ways to kill others to saddam. Who do you think is the largest manufacturer and supplier of anthrax, vx, enriched uranium, chemical weapons, bio weapons and wmds in general. I think that would be the US of A my friend. You don't see them disarming do you?

cheers

:rolleyes:

[Laughing Cow]

When Hitler moved into Austria not a peep was heard because Austria was part of Germany before the treaty at Versaille and the Austrians wante to be part of Germany.

Ahem, Austria being part of Germany before 1919.
Lets see WW I started with the assination of an Austrian-Hungarian Monarch, and Austira was than annexed by Germany.

Austrians and Germans(Prussians) were always at logger-heads, Austrians never wanted to be part of Germany but were UNABLE to resist them when they came into Austria at the beginning of WW II because THEY felt that Austria should be part of them.

Next you telling me that Kuwait wanted to be part of Iraq during the Gulf war. ;)

Just some facts.

[David Jamieson]

lc- read your history book regarding austrias compliance to german occupation in ww2 and the reasons why and what the rest of the world did when it happened.

as for Kuwait, there is an even better story behind that one.

In actuality, prior to ww1, Kuwait was part of what is now Iraq. again, feel free to look that up.

The Kuwaiti invasion by Iraq was for two reasons.

1.the kuwaitis were running their oil lines under the ground and into the fields that were inside of Iraqi territory.

2.the assertion that they should stop it was unheard and that is when the hussein regime brought up the original inclusion of the kuwaiti country according to it's prior manifestation as part of persia.

Let's not forget that those wells that did go under and into Iraqi territory were destroyed on the way out. Also, no wmd were used in that incursion although there was a lot of hype about because the US knew that they had supplied the Iraqi government with the ways and means of producing those weapons. To serve their interests in the defeat of the Iranians after the deposing of the Shah of Iran. Even moreso than the Russian activities in the region.

Again, it was a poilitical hotbed and the reasons everyone was there was more oil than the oppression of the kuwaiti people. I mean c'mon, do other countries receive that kind of assistance on the the whole "invasion" issue? I think not. It's totally about who gets the oil.

If anyone thinks this is some "axis of evil" bs then think again as you cruise to work alone in your suv :D

I would be more comfortable with the countries involved in just upping the truth. IE: If you people want to continue with your previous lifestyle, then we have to invade and occupy Iraq. Straight up, just say it! Not all this obfuscation and total BS that they are feeding us to make us think they are doing something ethically and morally right...please:rolleyes:

cheers

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
lc- read your history book regarding austrias compliance to german occupation in ww2 and the reasons why and what the rest of the world did when it happened.


I did and I don't think that there is anything a non-austrian can teach me about what the austrians felt like.

Ever heard the story of ALL the road & streetsigns disappearing when the German Troops came in.
Slowed them down a few days.

Yep, those Austrians really welcomed them.
I can see the Ausitran army(greatly reduced after WW I) fighting the german war machine.

Have fun and don't read too many History books.

cheers.

[David Jamieson]

In a strict sense, Austria was not a participant in World War II because it did not formally exist when the war began with the invasion of Poland in September 1939. On an individual level, however, some 800,000 Austrians were drafted into the army (the German Wehrmacht), and another 150,000 served in the Waffen SS, an elite Nazi military unit. Austrians were integrated into German units, and no specifically Austrian military brigades were formed.

Austrians loyally supported Germany through the early years of World War II. The early German military victories and Austria's geographic location beyond the reach of Allied bombers shielded the Austrian population from the full impact of the war. Only after the German defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad in early 1943, when the course of the war increasingly turned against Germany, did popular support for the war and for the Anschluss begin to erode.

This is from the book I'm reading, which one do you have?

cheers

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Kung Lek


This is from the book I'm reading, which one do you have?

cheers

Can you read German, if not forget it.

History is NOT researched by reading Books written by people that were not there, but by going there and speaking to people that actually lived through it.

There are stll many survivors of the WW II living there that will give you a different viewpoint than that is written down and accepted as history.

Have fun.

P.s.: Remember is written by people paud to write what the Winner wants future generation to read.

I guess you still believe Nero was all bad.





:D :D

[David Jamieson]

There are stll many survivors of the WW II living there that will give you a different viewpoint than that is written down and accepted as history.

Yeah, I guess it would be just a titch embarassing for them...what with all the evil...oh and the losing the war part.

Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it.

as for books, well pictures also tell a thousand words, as in, have you ever heard of Leni Riefenstahl?

dude, this is documented filmed and radio broadcasts still exist.
Of course I wasn't there and I understand the dynamics of written history, but seriously, do you really think that history is all just a pack of lies? I think that a lot of it is simply accurate journalism. Depends on the sources.

Speaking german certainly means little in context to understanding what happend in ww2. Everyone was involved and everybody saw what went on and many live to tell the tales...or deny them :D

Resistance was minimal. Changing a few street signs is not the best indicator of Austrian resistance during ww2. I would have taken the Roman Catholic Church difussion stance personally. That really started them (austrians) thinking that "hey, this hitler guy is a jerk"! But the RC Church did actually recommend the Anschluss Annexation.

Regarding Nero. He was an atypical roman emperor, no worse or greater than the worst and the greatest. But that Justinian guy...well, he was a b a s t a r d! :D
cheers

[Braden]

:D

"The policies at play were put into place by the republican party as led by Reagan and Bushes own father."

So you don't think the _eight years_ leading up to 9/11 had anything to do with it? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

"The democratic administration was rolling back on the hardball playing in the middle east and in fact Clintons white house had made significant inroads towards peace in the middle east and the release of military power of the US in the region."

Really? How does his illegal bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan work into your model here?

"Sure weren't as many mad bombers during the Clinton administration now were there."

Really? Why did he illegally bomb Sudan and Afganistan?

"yes, we are all aware of the self serving agendas of the poor Braden"

Are you serious!?

Yes, the poor are just as self-serving as everyone else. There's nothing magic about being poor that makes you a wonderfull person. If you want to hear some of my experiences on this topic, just ask.

"I did not make that statement at all? In fact I said quite the opposite and this establishment you have made is out of context to that statement."

You characterized the rich as being more self-serving than other people. You mainted that same characterization in this point. So yes, you did make that statement. You clearly believe the rich are bad. Asserting otherwise while continuing to characterize them as bad doesn't change the characterization.

"Well, you are absolutely incorrect there Braden. The prime minister of the country I live in has publicly stated that we will not be dragged into anyone elses war without the unanimous consent of the united nations. He has also spoken freely and publically in regards to the idea of the US taking unilateral action."

This is from your previous post. Since it's still being disputed, I thought it was better to quote the source. Instead of just offering my opinion in response, I'll offer up this: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/030110/6/r9vq.html and this http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/09/mccallum_030109 both of which, you'll note from the dates, represent the long-standing, and still-maintained Canadian position. Recently, due to 'popular' anti-war sentiment, old Chretien's been playing the politician game a bit by offering up ambiguous statements meant to please everyone. This is discussed in a very recent article here: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/02/02/19649-cp.html

"Canada's 'spy network' is laughable. We spend most of our dollars tracking dope dealers. CSIS is a relatively new organization and has little to do with the gathering of human intelligence at the levels that the old cold war players do."

Whether or not CSIS is laughable doesn't affect that we have a longstanding participation in a joint intellegence gathering communion with the US, Australia, and the UK.

"Is there something wrong with being opposed to the US political agendas and policies of the Bush administration and the Republican ideals?"

No, but you said that Bush's position was so repugnant that even his long-standing allies have turned against them. I simply pointed out you were incorrect. Whether or not it's 'ok' to disagree with Bush doesn't change this.

"fiscal policy? Do you know how much a war costs? Not just dollars."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, nor what it has to do with the bit it replied to.

"I didn't say that going to war is pandering to the Christian right. I said and implied that George W Bush panders to the Christian right."

Ah... so if Bush's career-making position isn't pandering to the Christian Right, how exactly is he doing this? And if, like you say, the Christian Right is a dramatic minority, what could he possibly gain by pandering to them?

"Absolutely not. It's a fine belief system and I very much enjoy being in the company of Christians."

Is being a Christian and a conservative bad?

"How do you practice hate in a religion...I mean other than Levays little doodad thing and the kkk? Islam is not a religion of intolerance by any stretch."

So it's not intolerant to pray to God for help in defeating the filthy animal, the Jew?

"Now that is laughable! Let me say this about that. Bwahahaha. Total and utterly refutable on so manmy levels I don't know where to begin."

Well I'll wait until you pick one so I can reply to it. With so many, it should be easy. :)

"If I remember correctly, the Americans did not 'attack' the germans in ww1 or ww2."

Uh... what!? So the hundreds of thousands of americans who died in europe during WWII... you figure it was a bad tourist season or something?

You admit later on they faught Germany, but you neglected to actually answer what I asked - do you disagree with that too?

" Did the US send help to the Kurds when Saddam Gassed them? Or were they still in the good with Hussein's regime because of the look the other way policy so long as we still get oil?"

So why aren't we looking the other way now? As allready discussed in this thread, the oil companies are doing better than ever.

"I think that would be the US of A my friend. You don't see them disarming do you?"

No, why should they? If the american government was trying to kill all the people in washington state through upstate new york, I'd have a different opinion. But they're not. Remember all that stuff about not everyone's geopolitical stance is equal. Again it applies.

[Laughing Cow]

Kung Lek.

You are an idiot.

I got Austrian Friends whose Grandparents died in the Death-camps due speaking out against the regime.

And NO they were neither Jewish, Gay or part of any other persecuted group.
There was very little personal freedom and every child HAD to join the Hitler Youth.
Not all the Troops that joined the German forces did so willingly.

Ever wondered who were the other 5 million people killed in the Death-Camps were that made up the total of 11 millions killed.

So take your Books & Videos and crawl back up your hole.

[Braden]

tsssss... burn! :D

[Laughing Cow]

KL.

If you are ever interested in the TRUE history I can also stories told me about "gassing's" happening in Russian Concentration Camps and similar.

Hint:
Trucks filled with Prisoners in closed containers that leave no exhaust fumes(no exhaust visible) at subzero (Celsius) temperatures when they exit the camp.

I have heard some of those personally from survivors.

Have fun and don't believe anything you read in Books.

[Radhnoti]

myosimka,

I do believe that the elimination of the electoral college would result in a revolt. Why? A straight democratic election would have the candidates ONLY worrying about high density population areas. The high population areas would receive BIG-TIME pork (even more than now! ;) ) and would be the only place to which politicians would need to pander/campaign.

Here's a map of how the electoral voting went:

http://www.2001inaugural.com/2000-election-map.html

In short, the only places that would matter politically would be (mostly) the places that were democratic blue on the electoral votes map in 2000. In other words, the largest portion of the country (red on election night 2000) would go almost unrepresented.

Ever heard that old redishly-necked saying, "The South and West...excluding the coast and NM...is gonna rise again?" Um...well, it went something like that. :D

The electoral college was put in place for a reason, NO SMALLER STATES WOULD HAVE JOINED THE UNION IF IT INTENDED TO RUN AS A DEMOCRACY. Doing so would be similar to signing yourself into indentured servitude and allowing your "master" to decide when your time is up. Ok, that last line was probably hyperbole.

I also agree that polls are hopelessly skewed, which way depends on who's phrasing the questions. Which is (in my opinion) a reason to like this President who states his beliefs and sticks with them...not relying on the latest polling data.

"Sure weren't as many mad bombers during the Clinton administration now were there." "...it is hypothetical to position that this would have happened with Gore in the Whitehouse."
- Kung Lek

K.L. , I can't believe that you mean to imply that the terrorists of 9-11 wouldn't have attacked ...and hadn't had their plan and training in place during the Clinton administration.

"...Clintons white house had made significant inroads towards peace in the middle east and the release of military power of the US in the region." - Kung Lek

That's interesting, most analysts I've heard pontificate on this point say Clinton hurt our interests in the region by appearing weak and unwilling to commit U.S. forces...other than missles or bombs dropped from high altitude. Not that he didn't bluster and blow...sort of similar to the U.N.'s style of diplomacy.

"And, yes, its very very ver sad for the rest of you that when we decided to play this game 100 years ago, that we decided to win.
See ya'all on the flip side, winners get cool t-shirts." - yenhoi

:D That was one of the coolest things I've ever read.

[dnc101]

Boy, leave a hot topic to do something foolish, like work, and all this..., a lot of catching up to do. Think I'll just answer what was directed at me for now.


Originally posted by myosimka
dnc101, If Bush met with Enron and refused them bailout assistance then why won't they divulge that fact. Your assumptions about the subject of a meeting doesn't make it a fact(And no they haven't.)

Well, if there was no meeting, what are all the libs here whining about? You guys can't have it both ways. And I didn't assume anything. That meeting was reported ad infinitum by the main stream press, though you generally had to dig deep towards the end to get to the part where GW said no.

[FatherDog]

I'm very uncomfortable with the extent to which GWB panders, or appears to pander, to the Christian right. I have no particular problem with Christians, but I'm not one, and I don't want political decisions made on the basis of any religion.

I believe that oil, and profits for oil companies, is a major factor in this war. Only a fool would claim that oil isn't a factor, although the extent to which it is a factor can be debated.

I believe that 911 and other terrorist acts have been used as an excuse by the current administration to grant unprecedented and quite frightening powers to law enforcement agencies.

But none of this has anything to do with whether or not toppling Saddam from power is justified.

If Churchill had had economic interests in Germany that would have been served by war, would it have been any less right to go to war against Hitler?

Stalin killed many more than Hitler. Was it wrong to go to war against Hitler merely because Stalin existed?

Whatever your beliefs about GWB's hypocrisy or abilities as a statesman, the removal of Hussein from power is likely to be a good thing for his people., and for the world.

'Nuff said, from my standpoint.

[Serpent]

Bush can't speak without mentioning god. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state?

A lot of Americans are just as much religious fundamentalists as those against whom they claim to stand.

[Braden]

FatherDog barks in an appropriate and satisfying manner.

Um... also, wood nymphs sprinkle his path with bowling balls while he dances and prowls in the sequined moonlight with leftover heads of lettuce.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Braden
FatherDog barks in an appropriate and satisfying manner.

Um... also, wood nymphs sprinkle his path with bowling balls while he dances and prowls in the sequined moonlight with leftover heads of lettuce.

Have you been drinking again?

[Braden]

No dude.

My liver doesn't work.

So, however drunk I get, I'll be that drunk for the rest of my life.

So I gotta pace myself. I've scheduled becoming plastered out of my gourd for 60. I figure that's a good goal. I'm only mildly tipsy right now, cause I had a drink last month and a couple more a few years back.

[Serpent]

Sounds like a plan.

[Braden]

If you must know, it was from this: http://www.madsci.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~lynn/jardin/SCG/

So though I may never see you again, I wish you the warmest clam chowder, the finest of embalmings, and the best in stainless steel cadaver pans that money can buy.

[Serpent]

Well, your beautiful bulgarian bricks stack like the thousand eyes of Estonian potatos, peering amid fuzzy dreams of corrugated cardboard.

[yenhoi]

"Your Cerebral Hematoma requires me to congratulate you on your ability to compute the Lesbian Integral of a macaroon."


Radhnoti: is that an amen?

:D

[yenhoi]

"You are as truthful as a Communist in the streets of Milan"

[Serpent]

Originally posted by yenhoi
"Your Cerebral Hematoma requires me to congratulate you on your ability to compute the Lesbian Integral of a macaroon."



Now that is a beauty!

:D

[David Jamieson]

LC-

You may think what you like of me, but the facts is the facts.
I have to use the term sophistry again here in regards to the whole debate about world war 2.

First, I never said Hitler was a good guy. And I never stated that there wasn't any resistance, just very little in Austria.

You took a stance of covering your ears and singing lalalalala, because of one piece of information you hold dear because of your family ties. Let me tell you that the facts are a rich tapestry of information, the anschluss happened and Austria participated at a national level unprecedented. Live with it dude.

Braden-
In my view, you are not seeing things as they truly are. Fatherdog pretty much paraphrases what I have said and you agree with it. I agree with it too.
You are certainly allowed to have positive views of the Bush administration. I am merely pointing out that from where I sit there is not a lot that is positive about it. It is not visionary in any sense of the word, it is reactionary in scope.

Saddam = Bad, Absolute power = Bad. The same applies to the western leaders. If you want to be suppressed, fine. I don't want to be supressed and I will state that the Bush administration has stepped out of bounds on personal freedoms a few times and don't think it won't continue. His administration is creating second class citizenry out of the semitic peoples who have lived in the US all their lives. Your views on Islam are uneducated and fall right into the rhetoric that is pushed into you by your myopic media. Whatever, is all I can say to that. If you can find me a passage in Q'uran that expressly states that hatred of jews is OK, I will buy you a coke and rescind all I have said. All you have is the statements of yourself and your views. Which I might add are simply not true in regards to Islam. You keep on hating on them if you like. If that's your thing.

I did not say that the Clinton administration was a gleaming example of how a democratic nation should be run either. So, you may argue on with clever diatribes based on half facts, again, this is sophistry.

Can you explain the scope of these "illegal" bombings? when and where and outcome?

Me thinks you want to argue for the sake of it, and I am ok with that too. After all, what's a public forum for? :)


Design Sifu-

That comic strip was really well done. Thanks for posting that, always a treat to view some good strip art.

cheers

[Radhnoti]

Found this after about 2 seconds with a google search:

"...what has animated adherents of the Koran for 1,300 years is the doctrine of JIHAD (holy war): "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends" (Sura 5:50). "Allah does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither made war on your religion nor driven you from your homes.... But he forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you ... or abetted others who do so" (Sura 60:8-9). From this passage comes the necessity on the part of Arabs to describe Jews as "aggressors." The Koran's imperative on dealing with "aggressors"? "Kill them wherever you find them" (Sura 2:190)." Source: freeman.org

So...I guess you COULD say it doesn't directly point to the Jewish people (or the allies of Israel), but it certainly is interpreted that way quite often. I'll understand if you choose to just grant me half-credit, and would like my 8 ounces of Coke sent USPS Priority Mail, please. :)

Note...I'm not saying that verses from most holy texts can't be misinterpreted or taken out of context. Just that these lines are quite often given as Islamic religious reason for the hatred of the Jewish state.

[David Jamieson]

[60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.

[60:9] GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

Note, that in 5:51 it clearly doesn't refer to all of the jews and christians. Only to "certain".

Rhadnoti, I suggest that you would use a source that actually uses the transliterated version of the Q'uran to English as opposed to the Freeman.org interpretation of what is said.

(The above are the actual versions of Sura 60:8 and 9. and Sura 5:51)

No cola for you my friend :)

cheers

[David Jamieson]

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.

Just as an addendum, this is the passage that indicates who the "certain" are.

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

as another addendum, this clearly does not say "kill them where you find them" rad.

anyway, food for thought.

I would like to say that I am not a religious scholar. But I can read. What I do read, I take at face value for what it is. I understand that it is in "interpretation" where gross error occurs, not always of course, but nevertheless...

cheers

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
You may think what you like of me, ...

I disagree with almost everything you've said here, but...

Saddam = Bad, Absolute power = Bad. The same applies to the western leaders. If you want to be suppressed, fine. I don't want to be supressed and I will state that the Bush administration has stepped out of bounds on personal freedoms a few times and don't think it won't continue.

Here is not only a point of agreement, but one of the most important points in this whole debate. All governments have a tendency to aquire more power and control. It's the nature of the beast, and liberal or conservative, good or evil, makes no difference. That is why the founders of the US Constitution put in so many checks and ballances. Any time there is a major crises we are in danger of having our freedoms striped away by a government acting out of what at the time is seen as necessity. But the anti terrorist legislation will still be on the books when (and if) the war on terror is won, and can be used against us. If you think different, consider the infamous temporary war measure we know as the Income Tax, still with us.

We've all heard the saying 'Divide and conquer'. That works both intentionally and unintentionally. I like a good political debate, but there are some points we need to not let get lost in the rhetoric. And this is one of them. Lib or redneck, or just bewildered, we need to watch for and oppose anything that violates our core freedoms. We may debate those freedoms or their limmits (your right to swing your fist ends where?). But we should all stand together in defense of those freedoms, or we'll lose them.

[patriot]

Help me out with the following points commonly raised against the US/Bush:

Nuclear weapons:
a. N. Korea - why a different set of standards
b. Israel - the UN resolution applies to the whole mideast region and the nuclear program in Israel has been condemned by the UN. Why is Iraq being singled out?
c. Pakistan/India have nuclear weapons and are threatening against each other. Pakistan has been buddy-buddy lately with the US because of Afghansitan. It is ruled by an army general dictator. Sanctions against Pakistan were lifted right after 911.
d. All the major powers have much more better nuclear weapon capabilities. If it is OK for them to possess WMD, why can't Iraq?
e. US is the biggest nuclear power. It is the only country that had actually dropped the atomic bombs - twice - killing many thousands of innocent civilians. It has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear bombs if necessary. I don't hear Iraq or any other countries making such threats.

[FatherDog]

I wasn't going to post anything else on this thread, but now I have to thank Braden for the Surrealist Compliment Generator. I had the old one bookmarked for years, but I lost track of it when it moved.

So, thanks. :D

[yenhoi]

a.different part of the world, different countries, different peoples, different cultures involved, entirely different set of political agendas in that region.

b.Iraq lost the gulf war, Israel did not.

c.yes, exactly, is this a question? As soon as Pakistan and India set off their bombs, economic sanctions, similar to the ones N. Korea will suffer were imposed. When the governments of Pakistan and India made polical concessions to the west, they in turn 'got theirs'..

d.Maintaining status quo. Its what the powerfull do, or else they arent 'the powerfull' any more.

e. The majority of the U.S. gov's official case against Iraq rests on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, and history of use. Iraq is also the country with countless UN violations, not the United States.

[Braden]

Kung Lek

"Fatherdog pretty much paraphrases what I have said and you agree with it."

How so? His conclusion was in support of the war and Bush's actions in it. Your conclusion is against it. His position, just like mine all along, was that foreign interests and political affiliations don't change the necessity of having to go to war. I've reitterated that in every post and you've replyed disagreeing. Your posts are filled with partisan comments about the rich, the Christian Right, etc; his completely lacked them.

"Saddam = Bad, Absolute power = Bad. The same applies to the western leaders."

Once again my position has been all along that all geopolitical interests are not the same. It does not follow that western leaders are as bad as Saddam simply because they're in power. And certainly, if that is your position, you shouldn't have any particular problem with Bush; as your position would apply equally to Gore or anyone else. Maybe you can suggest why you think Bush = Saddam. Do you believe Bush is trying to kill everyone from washington state to upstate new york? I haven't heard about this in the news...

"Your views on Islam are uneducated and fall right into the rhetoric that is pushed into you by your myopic media."

Really? See below.

"If you can find me a passage in Q'uran that expressly states that hatred of jews is OK, I will buy you a coke and rescind all I have said."

Here ya go:

[the cow 2:54] And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[the women 4:89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[4:91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.

[the dinner table 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[5:64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[the immunity 9:30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

I prefer Cream Soda. :)

" You keep on hating on them if you like."

I certainly don't hate Islamic people. I encourage you to recall I specified immediately that I meant _as it was practiced by many people_. I know many moslems who are wonderfull people, and of course there have been some great moslem scholars, etc.

"Can you explain the scope of these 'illegal' bombings? when and where and outcome?"

Maybe you should become familiar with them if you're going to comment on the Clinton administration. That he's a war criminal should be pretty pertinent here. By illegal I mean he never even bothered going to the UN about them, he just attacked. The official 'excuse' is that this was a judicial action, not a military one - so I guess the Clinton administration believed bombing runs are a reasonable action of the courts, which then no longer needed to try anyone to punish them, and whose law applied across the world. Hrmm... would better just to admit you're a war criminal, I'd say. BTW, the Sudan target was a civilian pharmaceutical factory! :eek:

Here's a CNN piece on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/ Very interesting to compare (and I mean compare, not contrast) Clinton's statements then to the very statements Bush is now being attacked for.

Here's a more detailed piece:
http://www.defencejournal.com/sept98/usairstrikes.htm

[Braden]

FatherDog - I'm glad you like it man. ;) I'm a huge fan of surrealism... though you can guess, not the more political forms!

[patriot]

"The majority of the U.S. gov's official case against Iraq rests on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, and history of use. Iraq is also the country with countless UN violations, not the United States."

- Are you saying US has no chemical and biological weapons stockpiled?
- US as indicated is the only nation that has ever used the atomic bombs, twice.
- US has veto power in the UN - how can any resolution be passed against it? Note that the US has avoided participation in the International Criminal Court.

[Braden]

The problem isn't HAVING weapons. It's what you're going to use them for.

The quote you replied to, my emphasis: "The majority of the U.S. gov's official case against Iraq rests on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, and history of use. Iraq is also the country with countless UN violations, not the United States."

[Radhnoti]

Also, Iraq agreed...as a condition for our cessation of military action...NOT to pursue such weaponry. As with the N. Korea situation, I see it as cause/effect.

Kung Lek, you, sir, are a coke miser. I even agreed to a measly 8 ounces! ;) I DID say:
"Note...I'm not saying that verses from most holy texts can't be misinterpreted or taken out of context. Just that these lines are quite often given as Islamic religious reason for the hatred of the Jewish state."

Surely you don't contest that my/Braden's interpretations of the Q'uran (which I always spelled Koran...which goes to show how much I know about this topic...are you using pinyin or wade-giles? :D ) is commonly spouted by Islamic clerics (who probably have studied the Q'uran more than either of us) who declare Jihad upon Israel and her allies so regularly.
The world would be a much safer and happier place if all followers of Islam chose to use your interpretation. Let's hope that happens, but make ourselves ready as though it will not.

dnc101- "Lib or redneck, or just bewildered, we need to watch for and oppose anything that violates our core freedoms."

That gets another "amen" outta me.

[dezhen2001]

using 3 different translations to get more clearly the meaning:

002.053
YUSUFALI: And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.
PICKTHAL: And when We gave unto Moses the Scripture and the criterion (of right and wrong), that ye might be led aright.
SHAKIR: And when We gave Musa the Book and the distinction that you might walk aright.

002.054
YUSUFALI: And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill (the guilty) yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

Now, does it actually say KILL YOURSELVES? Remember this is Moses talking to the people who were following the calf. Remember Moses is just a man so can also make mistakes with what he says... hence the "turned to you mercifully" part... to the people AND Moses. Even Muhammed gets told off, to prove he is not anything other than a man.

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

how come you can find that quote and not read the verses after? Trying to pick holes in something limits what you see.

004.088
SHAKIR: What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.

004.089
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

004.090
SHAKIR: Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

004.091
You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

004.093
And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.

Read the context - its about hypocrites from the Muslim communities own ranks - nothing about Jews at all, like the other verses you quoted before.

now... the word Believer is a strange word... it denotes someone who believes in God. So... hmmm... could it be possible that includes jews and christians as well? Of course the hadith tell us all otherwise, but they were created 200 years after Muhammed died, so how factual can they be on what he actually said?

005.062
Many of them dost thou see, racing each other in sin and rancour, and their eating of things forbidden. Evil indeed are the things that they do.

005.066
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

How can you not read these and see the context? Many of them... not ALL! There are some ont he right course... read the verses before and after jeez!

The verse you quoted is talking about those who are rebellious, just like many of the verses u quoted above were tlaking about Muslim hypocrites. So in every people there are some good and some bad. Even Quran tells that MOST muslims will be bad and have gone from the right path - even the followers of Muhamme d- most have strayed.

009.030
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

009.031
They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides God, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

009.032
They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.

So again, this is talking about the difference between islam, judaism and christianity. Also surat al-taubah is talking about the hypocrites from the Muslim ranks who were sent by the jewish, christian and pagan tribes (not ALL jews and christians), to infiltrate and try to bring down the new muslim community. The name of the verse means to repend and dispense things.

now ive gone well over what i wanted to post in this... but jeez - do u really think all muslims nowadays know the Quran inside out? How many christians know the bible? How many look deeply in to the books ot find out what they really mean instead of trusting others opinion and heresay?

Most of the muslims i have met (BORN muslims) can recite Quran ONLY. i know more about the message than they do and i have only been muslim for less than 6 months! Instead, just like it says above about what has happened with judaism and christianity they use Hadith which have no concrete logical and factual evidence for authenticity and follow scholars like that mad hook handed guy in London who sprouts his own ego infested, deluded political garbage.

Human nature is great huh?

Now, i dont care if you like islam or not - Quran tells us "there is no compulsion in religion" so people can believe whatever they want. And before u start arguing about religious tax or whatever read what is in Quran about it - if you are interested. Hadith contradicts each other and some even go against what is in Quran - yet people follow these manmade things over the book of God!

if you just want to put something down without studying it, then go ahead and i hope you enjoy filling your ego:mad:

dawood

[dezhen2001]

ps. i can guarantee that most if not all the problems with islam nowadays (to do with corruption, womans rights, "shariah" law, jihad, the world being all muslim etc.) are not in Quran but from Hadith and other innovations after Muhammed was gone.

if you go to study islam in an islamic country 1 year is on Quran, 4 years on hadith. whats more important?

i can even find you verses in Quran that warn us against following these Hadith (which means like a story or tale), yet i dont understand why they are followed as most make no sense.

i am being rather outspoken because i dont have the cultural upbringing most muslims have (which are related to Hadith).

dawood

[Braden]

dezhen - You know you don't have to defend the Quran to me, and surely not Radhnoti. Neither of us are "putting the Quran down."

As you know yourself, there are some moslems who interpret the Quran to mean they should hate Jews; including moslem spiritual leaders. Indeed, there are also christians who interpret their tradition to mean they should hate Jews.

This is all we were pointing out.

It doesn't change the fact that there are also many moslems (and many christians!) who interpret their tradition to embrace all peoples in compassion and love.

[dezhen2001]

yup agreed. but when someone quotes verses out of context to prove a point THAT is what i am defending.

i would never take anything out of the bible without studying it for a long time first. And even once i have learned more about Quran i intent to study the bible and if possible Torah as well - without bias so i can learn more.

i have never met a religious scholar who can explain things to me without mentioning these hadith.

if you are interested in what i am talking baout with regards to quran and hadith then check out this discussion i had on an islamic forum: here (http://www.islam.com/all-replies.asp?id=170788&ct=1&mn=170788)

if not, no worries.

dawood

[Braden]

I agree completely dezhen. I wasn't intending to offer my own interpretation of the Quran. I was simply showing the sections which have been used by some moslems to justify hatred of Jews, as Kung Lek asked.

[dezhen2001]

"Your views on Islam are uneducated and fall right into the rhetoric that is pushed into you by your myopic media."

Really? See below.

"If you can find me a passage in Q'uran that expressly states that hatred of jews is OK, I will buy you a coke and rescind all I have said."

Here ya go: what does that tell us? :(

At no point does ANY of those verses you quoted say anything about it being OK to kill ANYONE, unless it is in war or defence. Even then it tells us if they stop, then we stop.

dawood

[Braden]

Dezhen - I'm entirely uninterested in depating Quran interpretation with you: because I don't have a stance on the issue to compare to yours!

We agree that many moslems, including spiritual leaders, including state leaders, interpret their faith to mean hating Jews.

We agree that they're [mis]reading that from the Quran. (Presumably, those parts I quoted).

This is all I have said. If you're reading any more than this from my comments, I apologize sincerely and reiterate: I truly meant nothing more than the above.

[@PLUGO]

let me just express my admiration of your thoughtful and thought provoking posts...

especially amidst a seemingly antagonistic atmosphere...

[KC Elbows]

Yeah, all hail Dezhen. You are a tribute to the collective-gestalt.:)

[dezhen2001]

im not going to argue with you either, i was just showing how context is important. You ar enot Muslim so its not THAT important for you to understand Quran. its a shame others dont though :(

Again, no problems, we all learn from each other and it even helps me, as a muslim to read and understand Quran more - specificall the parts everyone has problems with.

i am just trying to understand where all this hatred for christians and jews actually comes from - even hatred between different 'sects' in islam. Which the Quran clearly tells us about and that we shouldnt hate each other.

i cant think of anything except human nature.

Actually being tied down and not being able to climb out of the box is what stops people and societies from growing. its a big problem. As we can see from ALL sides.

dawood

[Braden]

Dezhen

I agree completely, and apologize again if I caused you offense.

Design Sifu

Lessons in antagonism:

Quotes from my posts on the topic: "I apologize sincerely", "I agree completely", "It doesn't change the fact that there are also many moslems who interpret their tradition to embrace all peoples in compassion and love."

Quotes from Radhnoti's post on the topic: "The world would be a much safer and happier place if all followers of Islam chose to use your interpretation."

Now...

Quotes from Kung Lek's post on the topic: "you are not seeing things as they truly are", "If you want to be suppressed, fine", "Your views on Islam are uneducated and fall right into the rhetoric that is pushed into you by your myopic media", " You keep on hating on them if you like. If that's your thing.", "So, you may argue on with clever diatribes based on half facts, again, this is sophistry", "Me thinks you want to argue for the sake of it."

Dezhen should indeed be congratulated for heartfelt and educational posts and for standing up for his beliefs.

Moderators, however, shouldn't step into threads and insult people simply because they hold different views.

[dezhen2001]

Design Sifu and KC: awww gee ;)

Not really thought provoking - just things i have found out for myself the more i have looked inside the Quran. The words pretty much speak for themselves when you see the context and think about them.

ive only been muslim for less than 6 months so hardly know anything about islam - i also dont have the cultural upbringing which influences things.

Some of the strongest worded parts of Quran (but not emphasised sadly) tell us to question everything so we can understand, as ignorance is not an excuse when we have eyes, ears, and a voice to ask questions. So basically im just following my orders :p

KC: does that make me the had of the simbiont this time instead of the @ass? :D

dawood

[Braden]

Dezhen - I understand your position completely. I also get attacked regularly for my religious beliefs, both on this board (you may recall a thread where I was trying to explain why Christianity doesn't advocate ****phobia and sexism?) and elsewhere.

My biggest frustration is not the people making these attacks though, but those people calling themselves Christians who do not try to understand their faith, and thus are the source of the attacks.

I understand you feel the same way, and that you're interested only in informing people and improving your own knowledge.

[dezhen2001]

the interesting thing about Quran is that it TELLS US to investigate and understand what it means, and then apply it to OUR life. This is why i cant understand why so much faith is put in scholars INSTEAD of God.

But again, i havent been brought up in a place that has 1400 years of culture on top of (and form before) Muhammed was alive, so im not exactly mainstream here :)

with regards to antagonism:

002.192
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

lets just leave it at that :)

dawood

[KC Elbows]

Dezhen,
Head, ass, what's the dif?:D

Braden,
Moderators don't get payed, and are also members of the boards they moderate. So Kung Lek has strong opinions. Perhaps he wouldn't see you the way he does in those statements if you hadn't done things like accuse him of saying Bush was pandering to the religious right in the war, supported by a statement that KL didn't like Bush making religious remarks in speaches to pander to the religious right, a statement that was not in relation to the war, and a statement that you are well read enough and familiar enough with KL's writing style to see what he meant. I honestly don't believe it possible that, reading the entire post that the quote came from, you missed the correct context. Instead, you used it to get cheeky, and you took it out of context, and then used the moment when we were congratulating Dezhen on being the person he is to further your argument just that much more.

I know I've stubbornly argued here in the past, and so I've tried to back off from that. Perhaps you wouldn't get so sick of the other view of the situation if you didn't interject yourself into every conversation about it. I know that's worked better for me.

Kung Lek has his right to his opinion, and to voice it here. He hasn't deleted your posts, or thrown his weight around. He's vented on this a lot less until recently than you or I, and everyone deserves their chance to vent on this stressful situation.

Undoubtedly I'm talking out of turn, but I don't care. I like Kung Lek, and he's done nothing wrong as a moderator here. So he got grumpy with you. You were cheeky with him, you ran that risk.

[Braden]

dezhen

"This is why i cant understand why so much faith is put in scholars INSTEAD of God."

What's interesting here is that people talk about "high Christianity" (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox) and "low Christianity" (the various Protestant faiths).

The two branches hold very different beliefs, but one of the key differences between them is fundamentalism: The "low" churches believe the written word of scripture is the highest law, while the "high" churches emphasize your relationship with God first.

"with regards to antagonism:

002.192
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

lets just leave it at that"

Amen! :D

KC Elbows

That wasn't directed at Kung Lek, but rather at Design Sifu. I apologize for the confusion. I don't have any problems with Kung Lek's opinions. I only offered them up as an illustration of what may or may not constitute an antagonistic environment. Specifically, to contrast them with what was being called (I mean to suggest: incorrectly) antagonistic.

"if you hadn't done things like accuse him saying Bush was using religious issues in the war"

You will note I didn't accuse him of this, I asked him if this is what I meant.

Here's the bit in question:
--------------------------------
Kung Lek: "This is pandering to the Christian right if you ask me, of which Bush is known as a huge supporter, once again, alienating a large portion of his own populace."

Me: "Going to war is pandering to the Christian right?"

Kung Lek: "I didn't say that going to war is pandering to the Christian right. I said and implied that George W Bush panders to the Christian right."

Me: "Ah... so if Bush's career-making position isn't pandering to the Christian Right, how exactly is he doing this? And if, like you say, the Christian Right is a dramatic minority, what could he possibly gain by pandering to them?"
-----------------------------------------------

"supported by a statement that KL didn't like Bush making religious remarks in speaches to pander to the religious right, a statement that was not in relation to the war, and a statement that you are well read enough and familiar enough with KL's writing style to see what he meant. Instead, you used it to get cheeky, and you took it out of context"

Actually, what you're claiming I disagreed with, I actually agreed with.

Here's the bit in question:
---------------------------------
Kung Lek: "Isn't it also funny that he sees these religious leaders as a threat and uses many an opportunity to 'thank god', and 'god bless us all' and so on."

Me: "I don't like his religious language either."

[dezhen2001]

KC: theres more hair on one than the other for sure :D

i still miss those rhyming posts you used to do - its more like you are writing a book than poetry these days :)

dawood

[dezhen2001]

The two branches hold very different beliefs, but one of the key differences between them is fundamentalism: The "low" churches believe the written word of scripture is the highest law, while the "high" churches emphasize your relationship with God first.

interesting... but surely how you apply the understanding of scripture to your life IS your relationship with God? :confused:

dawood

[KC Elbows]

"No, I asked him this. He said Bush was only going to war for self-serving political reasons, and his next statement was that he pandered to the Christians. I simply asked if he meant the two statements to be connected. He replied no."

Perhaps you need to look at exactly how you did this. Reread the exchange. He did not simply reply no, you initially chose to appear as though you assumed he meant they were related, which makes it clear that you did not think he meant a relation to be drawn. I am not going to bicker with you on this. Part of the problem was your communication style, and if you don't want to look back and see that, that's fine, but that doesn't make it as clear cut as the above quote.

As for your post to Design Sifu ABOUT KL and moderators, it doesn't matter who it was to, it was you trying to push your side of the argument one step further at an innappropriate time. Debate all you like, I know I can't stop you, but at that point in the thread, the conversation was about Dezhen and his attributes, not you and KL and your silly ass argument. Regardless of what the thread is titled, paying tribute to someone's good qualities takes precedent to that crap, and, as far as I'm concerned, always should.

I'm not gonna debate every sentence of this with you. Your timing sucked ass.

[Braden]

KC -

"it was you trying to push your side of the argument one step further at an innappropriate time."

That post had nothing to do with my argument with Kung Lek. I didn't mention Bush nor the war in it, which is what Kung Lek and I were discussing.

"if you don't want to look back and see that, that's fine"

I have editted my post and quoted the exchange in word for word. Please read it and show me what the problem is.

"Regardless of what the thread is titled, paying tribute to someone's good qualities takes precedent to that crap, and, as far as I'm concerned, always should."

Very true. And insulting people, should always, take last precedent. Which is why I said in my post, I quote: "Dezhen should indeed be congratulated for heartfelt and educational posts and for standing up for his beliefs.

Moderators, however, shouldn't step into threads and insult people simply because they hold different views."

Clearly pointing out that complimenting Dezhen was laudible, but that his attack was not.

Dezhen -

"but surely how you apply the understanding of scripture to your life IS your relationship with God?

Of course. Fundamentalist takes things literally, as opposed to trying to understand the message of the faith and cultivate a relationship with God.

[Radhnoti]

Ok...dezhen, that was probably the most confusing discussion I've ever tried to follow. I knew I was in trouble when "reflect" stated, "You need to learn to be cryptic...". :confused: :)

I may write more after catching up with THIS discussion again...but, let me say that I respect anyone who attempts to follow the tennants of peace, love, humility and faith. I don't really know you, but you seem to be trying to walk that path. Thanks for sharing your ideas and thoughts, and forgive me if I mis-speak and unintentionally insult you.

[@PLUGO]

When I was refering to a seemingly antagonistic atmosphere I was refering to exactly that. I wasn't thinking of you in perticular, though, in my opinion, and mine only some of your posts did contribute... but not yours alone.



Moderators, however, shouldn't step into threads and insult people simply because they hold different views.

Now this vears into several realms of personal perception. And rather than expound on it I'll just offer a WERD UP to KC ELBOWS' take on it . . .

yeah, what he said... or something to that effect.

[KC Elbows]

This quote by Kung Lek:

"This is pandering to the Christian right if you ask me, of which Bush is known as a huge supporter, once again, alienating a large portion of his own populace."


Was preceded by this quote by Kung Lek:

"Isn't it also funny that he sees these religious leaders as a threat and uses many an opportunity to "thank god", and "god bless us all" and so on."

And THAT is where the conversation began. The referrence to religious exhortations placed firmply in non war territory. You lost the context because you did not incorporate the first quote, and apparently missed the fact that KL was mentioning something else he didn't like about Bush. A simple enough mistake, but you had to take it and put your words in his mouth(re: going to war is pandering to the religious right- you are the only one to state this), which, in debate, is not a good way to make friends, and comes off as rediculing, when the context was clear, and you just missed it, and now cannot admit it. And then, you complained about his conduct, blissfully unaware of your own.

And you complained about it during one of the only times this thread was something nice.

[Braden]

Design Sifu - Could you please quote what I said which you found offensive?

[KC Elbows]

Very true. And insulting people, should always, take last precedent. Which is why I said in my post, I quote: "Dezhen should indeed be congratulated for heartfelt and educational posts and for standing up for his beliefs.

Moderators, however, shouldn't step into threads and insult people simply because they hold different views."



And this isn't passive aggressive how? i.e. still bad timing.

I know you're not gonna take your share of the responsibility, but too bad. You got your licks in, that's all that seems to matter.

[Braden]

KC

"The referrence to religious exhortations placed firmply in non war territory. You lost the context because you did not incorporate the first quote, and apparently missed the fact that KL was mentioning something else he didn't like about Bush."

You're 100% right. We were talking about the war, and Kung Lek said "he sees these religious leaders as a threat", which I took as a comment about the war. I apologize for the confusion; but honestly, when people just riddle their posts with off-topic character attacks, there's going to be some confusion.

"A simple enough mistake, but you had to take it and put your words in his mouth"

Please go back and read again. You will note I quoted him directly.

[Braden]

"And this isn't passive aggressive how?"

Because it's literally exactly my position, and not some clever secret strategy.

"You got your licks in, that's all that seems to matter."

If that's honestly how you feel, go nuts feeling that way. I wish you would quote just a single character attack I have made though.

[Braden]

Tell me when you're done looking though, because I'm going to delete it all.

Design Sifu said it wasn't directed at me, and I'll ignore his passive aggressive way of saying it, and take it as a retraction. In which case, there's no reason anyone needs to paw through this.

[KC Elbows]

That's it.

Here's what you say is a direct quote of Kung Lek:

"Going to war is pandering to the Christian right?"

Now find that quote in one of Kung Lek's posts, direct, with a period instead of a question mark, and ALL that will mean is that you are right, and that you still have crappy timing. But you're not gonna find that direct quote, except in your own post.


You're 100% right. We were talking about the war, and Kung Lek said "he sees these religious leaders as a threat", which I took as a comment about the war. I apologize for the confusion; but honestly, when people just riddle their posts with off-topic character attacks, there's going to be some confusion.



Mom, I broke the vase, but only because Bobby was teasing me.

Does it sound lame to you now?

If it makes it any easier to admit your own faults without having to referrence others, you are a debating monster, and I haven't one one thousandth of your knowledge on religion and philosophy, and probably many other fields. But you're wrong on this one.

[Braden]

"Here's what you say is a direct quote of Kung Lek:"

Um, I said that was a direct quote of MINE. Was that a typo? :confused:

*ignores further character attack; tell me if you actually wanted me to respond*

[dezhen2001]

Ok...dezhen, that was probably the most confusing discussion I've ever tried to follow. I knew I was in trouble when "reflect" stated, "You need to learn to be cryptic...".

you and me both man! To me it seemed that he was basically telling me to shoosh... but after that he mentions that i can find MY truth but others need what they have or something? which just confused me even more :confused: But now - you wonder why so many people are confused and ignorant...?

and you thought KFO was bad! :D

dawood

[KC Elbows]

"A simple enough mistake, but you had to take it and put your words in his mouth"

Please go back and read again. You will note I quoted him directly.


Quoted him directly. The quote in question is


Going to war is pandering to the Christian right?

Which you and I both agree is your own words, although I went the extra step to point out that it was you putting words into Kung Lek's mouth when you had all the information you needed to determine the correct context without putting those words in his mouth.

[Braden]

Dude, see the Me: at the beginning of the line you are quoting? That refers to me, Braden, as in that's a quote of mine. I never once claimed those were his words.

Actually, forget about it.

I shouldn't have even responded to you; my mistake.

I have no interest at all in trying to figure out who is or isn't an *******. If anyone thought I called them an *******, I apologize. I'm retracting from this conversation. Please continue to say whatever you wish about me. I am still going to delete my posts on this thread though, so please PM me or post here when you're finished with them.

[KC Elbows]

What, you want Kung Lek to be accountable, but not you?

Life is so unfair.

[Braden]

No, I just wanted to make it clear I have no interest in this conversation.

If you have a problem with that, I'll leave them.

[@PLUGO]

Braden:

I keep noticing that your use of "QUOTES" seem to have 1 of 3 effects.

1) Set up a witty responce or line of questioning.

2) Bolster your position in the light of 3rd persons.

3) Undermine or in some way deconstruct what someone else is saying.

Now I'm not going to "quote" what you posted that I found offensive for a few reasons...

a) I'm not offended-why be offended by what someone posts on an on-lin forum?

b) My point in bringing up a seemingly antagonistic atmosphere was to applaud dezhen2001, not chastize anyone else.

c) I, at this, point don't see what use it would be.

KC continues to beat me to any major interpersonal points, and in this I'm refering to style of communicating. Thus I have the luxery of ...
a) not having to type as much.
b) not being seen as taking a side.

What really impresses me though, is when someone uses a quote to prove they where incorrect..

outside of THAT let's all try and stear this back to El Presidente!!! (http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/bennyhill.htm) :p

[Braden]

"Braden:

I keep noticing that your use of "QUOTES" seem to have 1 of 3 effects.

1) Set up a witty responce or line of questioning.

2) Bolster your position in the light of 3rd persons.

3) Undermine or in some way deconstruct what someone else is saying."

I apologize. I'll try my best in the future to offer up my own words instead people's quotes, never offer external support of what I'm saying, and never analyze anyone else's claims.

For some reason I was under the impression these were good things. I now stand corrected.

[KC Elbows]

:rolleyes:

DS,
Fair enough. George W. Bush is the great communitator.

[@PLUGO]

Fair enough. George W. Bush is the great communitator.

Yeah but he's often Misunderestimated!!!!

:D :p :D

[KC Elbows]

At least he's not a massagonist.

[@PLUGO]

OK.... but does he have a massagonistherapist that helps him with the stress of "getting to be the one who desides when we go to war"


or something to that effect...

[KC Elbows]

Massagonisthetists are for democrats.

As a christian, george will usually unwind by sharing his problems with a confidant. He learned it from a catholic friend of his. George is often found attending convection. You know, to talk about his sids.

[dezhen2001]

i would rather have a massagetherapist :D

dawood

[@PLUGO]

i would rather have a massagetherapist

You and me BOTH!!!
Actually my girlfriend is on the verge of completing her certification.... But she needs to log more hours of practice.
LUCKY ME LUCKY ME!!!

beats the hell out of being a practice dummy for say... CHIN NA eh?

[KC Elbows]

You are a lucky little cartoon man, DS. No wonder you're always so chipper and ready with the crazy links.

[dezhen2001]

lucky man :D

dawood

[@PLUGO]

On TOPIC? (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war18.html)
:) :p :D ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
On TOPIC? (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war18.html)
;) :p :D :p ;)

Thanks, I enjoyed that.

[yenhoi]

patriot:

e. US is the biggest nuclear power. It is the only country that had actually dropped the atomic bombs - twice - killing many thousands of innocent civilians. It has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear bombs if necessary. I don't hear Iraq or any other countries making such threats.

- Are you saying US has no chemical and biological weapons stockpiled?

No. It is not illegal for the United States to do so.

US as indicated is the only nation that has ever used the atomic bombs, twice.

How many years ago? The United States also used exploding bullets during the conquest of the phillipines, good luck putting Roosevelt on trial for war crimes, and good luck getting Truman too. Saddam Hussein has used chemicial weapons on his enemies, foreign and domestic. Saddam Hussein has used biological weaponds on his enemies, foreign and domestic.

US has veto power in the UN - how can any resolution be passed against it?

So does England, France, China, and Russia. How can resolutions be passed against them? The United Nations is a political body created by western powers. The UN was chartered in the United States and hosted officially in the United States. The United States troops make up the majority of all United nations peacekeepers and workers all over the world on all sorts of different missions. Are you pointing out that the United Nations is run by the most powerful country on earth? Well yes and no, but mostly yes. There is nothing criminal about that, thats good politics.

Note that the US has avoided participation in the International Criminal Court

Note that the United States has a long history of not wanting to be involved or bound by the United Nations. The US didnt even start paying its UN dues until sometime in the 90s.

The United States didnt come into power overnight buddy. Some say might makes right. We all know the winners write history - and to the victors go the spoils.


:eek:

[Budokan]

Well, dunno about that, but I'd sure like to bang his twin drunk f*ck sl*t daughters. Now there's a couple of wetlands I wouldn't mind drilling in...

[KC Elbows]

Budokan, I think you can get them. Just claim they are hiding weapons of mass seduction. When the UN inspectors give up on finding the zipper, the girls are yours.

[Kuen]

Dubya needs a pie in the face.


Rumsfeld with Hussein (http://www.mydd.com/archives/000427.html)

[@PLUGO]

Yeah makes you wonder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html) about or leader's decision making abilities...

[chen zhen]

Regarding the discussion on Islam and hatred towards jews and christians...
I don't know enough about Islam, and I don't know any scriptures that I can quote. But I do know this: When the quran mentions the word jews ( arabic: Yahud) , it is mentioning the specific jews of Mecca and Medina, who turned against the prophet Muhammad, and allied themselves with the rulers of these cities who wanted to kill him. And these jews where actually ethnically ARABS who had converted to Judaism some centuries before. and, some other jews fought side by side with Muhammad against them. When the Quran mentions the jews of antique times, it uses the phrase " The children of Israel", which is also used in the Torah and the Bible. Actually, after the Muslim conquest of north africa, the middle east and a large part of asia, the Jews in these countries had a rennaiscance in their culture, and was was able to practise their religion fully, and had high positions in government, as well as the christians. Jewish sages of muslim countries that i can mention: the spanish Salomo ibn Gabirol, the egyptian Moses Maimonides as well as many others. Actually there is more horrible things that can be read in the other religion's texts, as these things written in the Talmud ( forgive me if i am wrong on this, i read it in an article on the internet ) : The virgin Mary is a *****, jesus is a sorcerer and an adulterer ( sorry for the spelling ), Jesus burns in hell in hot boiling excrements, it is not a sin for a jew to kill a christian, the non-jews are no better than animals, and so on. Excuse me if i am wrong again, as i don't want to start a flame-thread and a religious war.
may peace and tolerance between religions be the winner.;)

[KC Elbows]

The virgin Mary wasn't a wh0re, that was Mary Magdalene.

[dezhen2001]

thankyou for your post chen zhen :)
a lot clearer than what i have posted :p

dawood

[myosimka]

radhnoti, the elimination of an electoral college for the national election does not constitute a shift to pure democracy. That's why I specifically stated that the Senate would still be in place. You choose to believe that would result in open revolt. I disagree. Can't really argue a speculation like that.


dnc, actually I have read through it. Cheney and Bush have steadfastly refused to comment on the subject of those meetings and no transcripts or recordings were ever released. So again I say, your speculation as to the subject of the meeting doesn't make it so. And if they did refuse aid why didn't they initially disclose it? Maybe I missed it, maybe they did. Got a link to a news article?

[chen zhen]

A solution to the Bush problem: send him a box of Pretzels. ;)

[Radhnoti]

myosimka,

Ok, not a pure democracy...which is something I got off on a rant about...you'll note I started out talking about straight democratic ELECTIONS. Sorry for the lack of clarity, but you'd be impressed with my relative clarity on these boards if you ever met me in person. ;)
But, ditching the electoral college would change the votes of less populated states into a non-factor. I do think that would...SHOULD lead to open revolution.
It doesn't matter anyway, the smaller states will never be foolish enough to give up the electoral college. Why would they allow the big city areas a monopoly on choosing the President...who is supposed to represent us all?

As an aside, I guess I'll mention here that Mr. Powell's speech to the U.N. swayed quite a few opinions here in the U.S. The latest (meaningless) polls showed a big jump in support for President Bush. I'll tell you how well he did, NPR called some of his evidence d-amning, and said he made a great case! I've almost never heard Dan Shore and Scott Simon take such a Bush-positive stance. :)

[dnc101]

myosimka, that is a long way to go back for links. I'll just repeat, if it didn't take place why are all the libs whining about it? And there obviously was no bailout as they not only went under, but got their butts investigated. As far as Bush not telling us all about what happened, I've noticed that he doesn't waste a lot of time replying to the petty accusations of the Dems and the media. I'll give him this much credit, that is a smart move. It gives no credence to their ravings and allows them to showcase their own bias and partisanship.

[NYerRoman]

He is NOT cursed. He's a moron. That's all.

BTW...he lost Florida. The Supreme Court had NO jurisdiction
to declare him a winner. They do those type of things in South
America....using courts to win elections. It's called anti-democratic
friends helping friends.

[Marky]

"BTW...he lost Florida." NYerRoman

Bush won Florida, Gore wanted a recount on the premise that the voting technology was old. So how exactly did Bush "lose Florida?" Too bad the Courts called "No Do-Overs", huh?

It's also interesting to point out that during another election (for governor, I assume), Florida had ANOTHER voting problem, this time with new voting equipment. This time, ANOTHER recount was asked for, on the premise that "the people couldn't figure out how to use the new technology properly".

[Liokault]

LOL bush so robbed Florida.

I have been reading about this and he really mad a mug of Gore and Americans in general.

I think his master stroke in Florida was having hundreds of black gore voting guys struck off the register for being fellons. They only had to Have a similar name, birthday or adress as a fellon to be disqualified.

Also during the recount Gore only 66 votes down (from the previouse 500 odd) before bush managed to get the supreme court to stop the recount.

[Marky]

And if Gore had managed to win his home state of Tennessee, he would have won!

In regard to felons not being allowed to vote, I'm going to have to look that one up myself!

[Liokault]

Its not that felons coulnt vote , thats the law. its that Bush knowing most of the black vote would go to Gore got as many black voters named as felons as he could.

The company that was used to go through the voter register and find felons even said that they are going to name loads of non felons with the really loose criteria they were told to work with (80% match was thought to be ok) but were told to shut up and get on with it.

[Radhnoti]

The FL "problem" was found in a traditionally democratic controlled area. Here's what happened when a press recount was done:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2344,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html


No doubt you can find die-hard crazed liberals who will still rabidly insist that, "Bush stole the election!" But, I don't think anyone takes them too seriously...especially since the recount. Here's a quote from CNN...one of the most heavily partisan (as in leaning toward the democrats) news organizations around:
"Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide. "

I guarantee someone will come along now and post some fringe/nut case website "proving" that Bush stole the election.

:rolleyes:

[myosimka]

Radhnoti, I certainly agree that we need to avoid a tyranny of the majority situation and avoid a pure democracy for the reasons that you outlined. By contrast, I feel that needs to be balanced with an understanding that such actions cause an underrepresentation of urban residents. That's why I have always liked the notion of 2 houses, one population based and one region based. But for the national presidential election, I believe that a direct election is the way to go. We can agree to disagree though. I just don't believe that the states would revolt over it. If there weren't riots in November of 2002, I don't think there'd be riots over this. (Please note I do not mean to imply there should have been riots or anything of the sort, but given the frustration level and the sense of disenfranchisement and disconnection from the process that people on both sides of the fence felt as it occurred, in retrospect I am a bit surprised.) But unless it actually happens, we are both just speculating. I see why you think there'd be a revolt, I just disagree. And we can argue speculation all day.

dnc, what 'libs' are complaining about is that there was a meeting that was initially denied and that the minutes of said meeting have never been revealed because it was 'contrary to the national interests'. So if he turned down an appeal for a bailout why not tell us? That could only give him more political clout. And maybe he did, I don't know and neither do you. But then again, I admit that I don't know rather than speculating and stating my speculation as fact. And as to him not responding... so the president shouldn't be accountable to a majority voting pupulation that voted against him? Including a plurality that voted for a single opponent? Sort of thought constituent accountability was included in the notion of representative democracy. Silly me.


Radhnoti, amen. I just hope we get the UN on board. Personally been in favor of military action against Iraq for years, I just don't get to make that call. And by int'l law, neither does the US and I think that is what is presently bothering me. We aren't the world police and the admin is talking like we are. (I'd certainly like to see military action against China too but again not really our right.)

[@PLUGO]

I remeber reading an article that went so far as to list the list that was used. They highlited some dates where people where "covicted" in like 2021 and such.

Oh, and wasn't that company based in TEXAS as well?

funny...:rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

I was off skiing and practicing tai chi on the side of a mountain 2000 miles away for the last four days...and BOY! did I ever miss out a lot here.

I'm gonna read this hyar thread from where I remember last ruminating about something or other and will place my replies following that.

Did I insult someone here? I just caught that in a quick sweep through of the thread.

cheers

[NYerRoman]

Uh, sorry pals but the whole state of Florida was recounted. In end October/beginning November 2001 the European press published it. Do research people. Outside the US press that is controlled.

Now, you also know about the Supreme Court apology that was issued to the American people in February 2001 BUT published in European papers and not in the US. It stated how the justices were sorry about over stepping their bounds (they had NO constitutional right to declare a President...therefore Bush is NOT legally President of the US) and apologized. IT was NOT published in the US.

Do your research people.
Rai (Italian TV reported it).
You could definately find it elsewhere.

Besides, the week of the elections, Bush visited ONE government department as "elected president" then decided to wait for the others. Which department was that???????

The CIA.

The US reported that. Research people.
Stop being so lazy and depending on your local paper.
Read.
Suggestion, Chomsky.

geez.....

[Laughing Cow]

Have to agree with NYerRoman, that foreign papers and news-media often get info that we don't see published in the USA.

Unless I read thew rong US-Newspapers online and watch the wrong news channels.
;)
But to a certain degree this is true for ALL the Countries

Also read the op/ed & Readers Letters written by people NOT of your Country, it can be an eye-opener.

Your duty as a Citizen is to question your Goverment and HOW can you do that if you only got local news and viewpoints to base your opinion on.

I doubt that the News that Saddam & Bush wear the same shoes was widely published within the USA.

[@PLUGO]

eeessshh the same shoes!?!?!

that explains things, Now, improperly ventalated foot ware... THAT's a weapon of Mass distruction!!! :p

[Marky]

"Uh, sorry pals but the whole state of Florida was recounted. In end October/beginning November 2001 the European press published it. Do research people. Outside the US press that is controlled."

Yes, it was recounted. Just not hand counted. That's on the CNN website by the way, it's not some controlled secret of the US government. And bear in mind that ALL countries control their press with extreme detail. The notion that foreign publications such as the European speak the truth and the US does not is absolutely silly. It's MORE LIKELY that NONE OF THEM are speaking the truth, isn't it?

"Now, you also know about the Supreme Court apology that was issued to the American people in February 2001 BUT published in European papers and not in the US. It stated how the justices were sorry about over stepping their bounds (they had NO constitutional right to declare a President...therefore Bush is NOT legally President of the US) and apologized."

When did the Supreme Court declare a president? I remember them telling a baby he couldn't have his "hand recount" bottle, but there was this big election that took place before that, and as is the tradition, THAT is what declared the president (barring government conspiracy, of course).

"Bush is NOT legally President of the US"

You're right, let's have Gore be president. He can throw billions of dollars at Saddam and keep him quiet for a few more years. Maybe Bush is doing the same thing by a different route, but realize that the alternative is no better.

"IT was NOT published in the US."

Does that mean it's true?

Bush is president now, for better or worse. It would be far more mentally stimulating for us to talk about the future. AND don't forget, you can only change a sysytem by working within it, so after we're done talking here maybe one of us will go on to make a difference!

[Laughing Cow]

Marky.

It is not a question if the Non-US media got more accurate data or not.
But in order to form an Opinion you need to consider as many viewpoints and their supporting data as possible.

In many cases foreign correspondents are free to release info that is ofen downplayed in the local media.
Other countries also got Intelligence agencies, analysts and so on.

Also how do you know that the info given to the USA from Missad, British Intel, etc is not already biased and maybe not complete.

You know the old saying:
"You are always the last one to get the News/Data that concern/affect you."

Where I am I heard questions about 9/11 and if the US goverment was involved and suppressing info withn 2 days after it happened.
To be honest for me there are still too many questions oncerning 9/11 unanswered.

Cheers.

[KC Elbows]

"AND don't forget, you can only change a sysytem by working within it..."

Not true. That's just the socially acceptable way to do it. Not always the likeliest.

[Radhnoti]

I find it incredibly unlikely that the U.S. media, would "cover" for Pres. Bush. I do, however, concede that they will lazily accept White House press releases without much research.

Of interest...I think: A polling of journalism students in college revealed their number one reason for wanting to go into the media. To CHANGE the world. Not report, or observe. Change. I agree that it's wise to draw upon as many sources as possible.

[dezhen2001]

agreed - all my journalist friends say the same... but then think about getting a job as a low person in a big corporation that has worldwide power, getting comfortable in your job and so many people 'guiding' you (and controling the press as 'editors'... then what could happen?

The naivity that u can change the world would quickly go out the window due to being scared for your job and people above you controlling what u can do or say.

just some thoughts on the opposite :)

dawood

[NYerRoman]

Marky...wake up.
The freeist press in the world is Finland. Then other Scandinavian countries, then Canada. Netherlands is in there too.

US media is controlled. The Supreme Court decided that George Bush was president after declaring a deadline and a finality to a recount. That's called "saying he's prez".

Read Chomsky. MEDIA CONTROL and UNDERSTANDING POWER.

Look at www.zmag.org
Go under Znet.
There are articles from dissident US professors and political scientists that do not subscribe to US corporate news, i.e. CNN.

Look and you shall find. Stop being such a moron.
baci