Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31
    Jakko1234 is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valleyman
    It wasn't so much he was saying he directly spoke to God but instead he said something more along the lines that he was doing Gods work. However, these very statements sum up a huge part of what is wrong with the current administration. The presidents religous beliefs can in no way affect U.S foreign and homeland policy. There is now such a large non-Christian portion of the U.S population that I personally see two alternatives; a massive exodus similar to the Calvanist exodus of England and other European nations or there will be a more violent revolution as was the case when the clergy controlled a huge part of the country in pre-revolutionary France.
    Interesting post. I agree that it would be wrong for Bush and his administration to allow their religious beliefs cloud their ability to govern the populace. But I don't think that is really the case, I see it as rather that the media is trying to paint the picture that Bush is a wacked out religious extremist, when as I see it if he were really as extreme in his Christian beliefs as the media tries to make it seem, his beliefs would not allow him to oppress others with beliefs that they do not share with him. I just used "beliefs" a lot in a sentence, I know my High School English teacher would chide me for reusing a word too much in a sentence, but I am tired after work and not very creative right now. I do not think that the non-Christian population is yet large enough or extreme enough to do something as rash as a revolution, nor would I see the reason to. And as I see it, the clergy were a part of the reason for the French Revolution, but the larger portion of blame goes to, in my opinion, an inept king that was out of touch with reality and was forcing the country into deeper debt, and the nobility, who tried to start the revolution to gain greater power, but then lost control of the revolution, which was then taken over by radical middle class believers in Rousseau's teachings. And as to leaving the country, I will admit, no offense meant, that I wouldn't mind if some of the more zealous elements of the left left(pun unintended) for Canada and Europe, where people tend to share similar opinions to some elements of the left.

    P.S.- I get the feeling that we are polar opposites politically, and probably won't find much to agree on about Bush and his administration, aside from the fact that I don't agree with what he's doing now.


    "Let us cross over the river, and rest beneath the shade of the tree." - Last words of Stonewall Jackson

  2. #32
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valleyman
    There is now such a large non-Christian portion of the U.S population that I personally see two alternatives; a massive exodus similar to the Calvanist exodus of England and other European nations or there will be a more violent revolution as was the case when the clergy controlled a huge part of the country in pre-revolutionary France.
    too bad these 2 alternatives are not possible.... where would people from the exodus go ?? and unless someone kill him by surprise, even a revolution can not harm him.... (just need to take a jet and hide in one of the states that support him....)

    and about the clergy in pre-revolutionnary france, it was not part of the main causes that led to the revolution.... (except that the clergy, along with the nobility, didn't pay taxes )

    @jakko : about wmd in irak, the information was false, and the american government knew that and used fishy proofs.... ^^"
    and yes, they are evil, illegal, barbaric weapons, that's why almost every powerful nations have them, and it's right as long as they remain friendly.. (that's a biased definition of illegality here )
    btw, i thought that sadam used weapons given/sold by americans to kill the 4000 people you speak about in 1988.... or maybe i don't remember well ..?


    ps : it's just to clear some things up, but i'm gone now >.>
    /me gives the baby back (sure you don't want it aikido ??? ), and go to sleep
    Last edited by shautieh; 03-05-2006 at 04:20 PM.

  3. #33
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4767428.stm
    I've just died a little inside...............................again.

  4. #34
    Jakko1234 is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Shautieh, the US used at the time concrete proofs, accepted by intelligence agencies all over the world, that were later proven false. There was nothing "fishy" about what the US did, they were mislead, but so were most other agencies in the know, the US was just the one that acted on the intelligence.
    And no, Iraq developed the chemical weapons on their own, that was one of the major contentions against them, that they developed and used their own WMD's without the help of a superpower, which was very scary at the time, and still is.

    And to 98abaile:
    I don't think that the news article you posted is true. Many things that are told of in the news is later proven inaccurate or just plain false(the dolphins being trained to search for mines story comes to mind). If it turns out to be true, I will appologize for questioning it, but I have a hard time believing any story that far-fetched is true, or that any sane person would honestly believe it.

    P.S. - I agree with you about the revolution thing, Shautieh, but I would like to add that the ones who would rise up in revolt(neo hippies and the like) I don't think would fare well in a fight with those who support Bush, since we make up most of the people that actually know how to fight, shoot, ect.
    Last edited by Jakko1234; 03-05-2006 at 04:45 PM.


    "Let us cross over the river, and rest beneath the shade of the tree." - Last words of Stonewall Jackson

  5. #35
    Valleyman is offline Senior Member Well Known
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko1234
    Shautieh, the US used at the time concrete proofs, accepted by intelligence agencies all over the world, that were later proven false. There was nothing "fishy" about what the US did, they were mislead, but so were most other agencies in the know, the US was just the one that acted on the intelligence.
    And no, Iraq developed the chemical weapons on their own, that was one of the major contentions against them, that they developed and used their own WMD's without the help of a superpower, which was very scary at the time, and still is.

    And to 98abaile:
    I don't think that the news article you posted is true. Many things that are told of in the news is later proven inaccurate or just plain false(the dolphins being trained to search for mines story comes to mind). If it turns out to be true, I will appologize for questioning it, but I have a hard time believing any story that far-fetched is true, or that any sane person would honestly believe it.

    P.S. - I agree with you about the revolution thing, Shautieh, but I would like to add that the ones who would rise up in revolt(neo hippies and the like) I don't think would fare well in a fight with those who support Bush, since we make up most of the people that actually know how to fight, shoot, ect.
    The first thing I would like to address is your saying that the nation of Iraq having WMD's would be scary. The U.S has over 10,000 nukes and is the only country to ever actually use them against another nation. Therefore, what right do we have to say whom shall have weapons and who shall not. Is not this very policy an abusive use of U.S might to control the world as it would see fit?

    Also, in another thread you said you where angry about the sterotypes in the movie Cold Mountain but your statement about who can and cannot use weapons is that in itself. Do you mean to suggest that right-wing is directly connected with gun ownership and that left-wing is supposed to only be pacifts. I think not.

    The last thing I want to say is that the political pendulum always swings and it is now in our ballpark. I can only hope that this nation survives the next two years but as I said earlier, exodus or revolution.

  6. #36
    Jakko1234 is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Ok, let me see if I can rebutt this.
    The US does have 10,000 nukes, but half of them are decomissioned and waiting to be destroyed. As far as nukes go, this means almost nothing. Remember, Russia has more that us, but we really don't need all our nukes, what we have now is overkill. We can depopulate the earth with our arsenal, it is true, but so can 16 other countries that have nuclear weapons, or are suspected of having them. We can do little to threaten other countries with our nuclear devices, when theirs can do just as much damage. The old "scorched earth" scenario where no one wins, which keeps people from exploiting nuclear weapons, and one of the reasons for countries to keep nuclear weapons themselves as long as other countries still have nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons as a deterrent against other nuclear weapons, if you will. Also, remember that nuclear devices are not the only type of WMD's. Really, all that a nuclear bomb is, is a very powerful stick of dynamite, you could say. It has much greater damage potential than conventional explosives, but is concentrated in a mid sized area. We never used nuclear weapons on another country, we used atomic weapons, an entirely different kind of weapon, as different as a slingshot is from a crossbow(and I do not agree with our use of atomic weapons, we could have easily blasted an uninhabited island, without having loss of life). Also, US firebombings in Japan killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it is really important to remember that how something is used is just as important as what is used. Chemical and bioogical weapons have the potential to deal death over a larger area, and kill much more people than nuclear weaponry, the only reason that nuclear weaponry is given so much credence is that we are more able to see the results of a nuclear blast. In the hands of a man like Sadaam, the potential for death was unimaginable if he truly had WMD's.

    I appologize for my statement if it offended you, it was a jokingly said statement, only meant to be taken half seriously, since I purposely used blatant stereotypes. You will notice, however, that I made sure to say that "most" of the people that know how to fight support Bush. Why? Because this is true. Most people who shoot guns, hunt, ect. vote republican, and most that are anti-gun vote democrat. Most of the pacifists in the US are left wing, that is a fact. I was merely using a joke to point that out, and my meaning was that only a small minority of the left(such as yourself) would be able to carry out any kind of revolution, and I just don't think you have the manpower, support, or experience needed to do something like this.

    Anyway, we don't see eye to eye on most things, but I enjoy hearing your opinion and what you have to say, and find this mini debate fun. I hope you feel the same way.

    P.S. - I also feel that there will be a civil war in the US within the next 50 years. I see it that society is becoming increasingly liberal, and at some point or another, some people will decide that they have had enough, and fight back. I do not necessarily want this to happen, but see it as the unavoidable outcome of the rift that is widening between mainstream US and more traditional conservative values.


    "Let us cross over the river, and rest beneath the shade of the tree." - Last words of Stonewall Jackson

  7. #37
    child_of_serenity's Avatar
    child_of_serenity is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In the depths of a vast swamp...
    Posts
    2,321

    Default

    I don't that that will happen... my plan for the next 50 years is that there will be a "world government" and we will inhabit Mars.

  8. #38
    Aikido is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4767428.stm
    I've just died a little inside...............................again.
    US GOV FTW!!! thank you abaile, this made my day.

  9. #39
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko1234
    Shautieh, the US used at the time concrete proofs, accepted by intelligence agencies all over the world, that were later proven false. There was nothing "fishy" about what the US did, they were mislead, but so were most other agencies in the know, the US was just the one that acted on the intelligence.
    And no, Iraq developed the chemical weapons on their own, that was one of the major contentions against them, that they developed and used their own WMD's without the help of a superpower, which was very scary at the time, and still is.
    little link about usa/uk plan :
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...593607,00.html
    page 2 : "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
    also, in this memo you see that they were willing to attack irak BEFORE


    also : http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html
    "In September 1988, [...] Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance."
    [...]
    It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of them Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."


    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/isg-o04.shtml
    remember
    Hans Blix, the UNs chief weapons inspector ???he compared the US claims about Iraqi WMD to the hunt for witches during the Middle Ages.... and before the war he said several times that there were no wmd, and guess what, the usa didn't care, they wanted this war. (cf 1st link too)

    "Related to the most sensational charge, the incessant claim that the continued existence of the Hussein regime threatened the US with a nuclear terrorist attack, Kay reported: To date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.
    "The sole physical evidence of WMD material that the 1,200-person army of US inspectors could claim to have found was a single vial of botulinum in the home of an Iraqi scientist."

    i'm hungry.... >.>

  10. #40
    Cricket_Nip is offline Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The other side of the world
    Posts
    76

    Default

    It is true that the US invaded on a pretext, and a flimsy one at that. Many people in the intelligence agencies have been interviewed and the interview was released. In them they stated things such as "fairly sure there were no WMDs" and "little or no chance of a connection with Al-Qaeda". There was one man who reported that Bush literally ordered him to find a link between Bin Laden and his terrorists and Saddam even when the intelligence agency had clearly stated that there was no link to be found.

    To deter any exclamations of "falsified information" and such, I will say that while the producers of politically biased movies such as Fahrenheit 9/11 are misleading and often present partial truths to advance their position, THEY WILL NOT LIE. If they lie, and it is discovered, they lose all credibility. These people make these movies to give a message, and if no one believes that message, then they wasted a lot of time and effort. They really believe in what they say, and really want other people to believe also.

    I am not a supporter of Bush. That should have been evident from my comments. I've listened to his speeches, and they tend to be full of moral superiority and scapegoating. I really believe that he should not have been elected into office (I would have voted for Kerry, but I'm living overseas and am not of voting age yet), but I think that we could have done worse. Even though Bush is obviously misled and doesn't appear to truly grasp everything, he is still a seasoned politician. If it came down to a vote between him and Nader, then I would have voted for Bush. At the very least, Bush would have been able to accomplish something; Nader I can't trust to do more than give rousing but pointless speeches and sit around making a mess of things. So I'm not an aggressive anti-Bush.

    The thing about the War in Iraq is that it ended, a long time ago. The ostensible idea was that Bush would get in, look for the WMDs, arrest Saddam, that asshole, and get out. That was accomplished, a while ago. That American troops are still in Iraq bothers me on many levels. I'm not a pure-blood American, my parents immigrated from China, and as such am not very patriotic, but I just get angry when I read the latest reports of how many soldiers died in Iraq. I just don't see why this is happening. They didn't need to die; if the war had been handled properly, they should have been out a long time ago. I don't want more of my countrymen to die for a reason no one can understand. It's time for the UN to step in and handle Iraq until the elections are over and peace is restored. The situation should be out of American hands by now. I lay the blame on Bush for that. As the original crafter of the policy, he should be doing something. Our boys are being felled by the dozen for a war that's not their own anymore. Pull them out, Bush. If you're not going to, then at least tell us your motives, because conspiracy theories proliferate in the absence of an official statement, and the stability of the country is threatened.

    As I see it, Iraq is becoming a quagmire. Bush can't move anymore, he's committed himself to seeing those elections through and it's killing fine young men. The government is making the exact same mistakes that it made during Vietnam. They invaded without clear aims and goals, and thus were trapped as they could not tell when their goals were accomplished. They are fighting a guerilla enemy that has absolute faith and will fight for a hundred years. "We will fight forever, and you will give up before us" is pretty much the motto of nationalistic guerillas everywhere. I hope this will not turn into another 'Nam, as presidents make promises to get out year after year, as thousands of troops on every side die simply because all of them are to stubborn to stop. Have any of you read David Eddings' Belgariad. There was a line in there that really summed up that kind of situation. One of the characters said about a civil war in his country that:
    "First we fought for honor, and then we fought for revenge, and then because we didn't know how to stop"

    Iraq is going to become like this soon, and the warlike policies of the Bush administration are going to become a habit, and the country is going to collapse. Vietnam almost killed us, and was the root cause of all the hate and general degradation of morals today. Stoptazmo may have survived the nukes, but America sure isn't going to survive a second Vietnam.


    @Isalroc: I am disgusted by your allegation that America should have to suffer another Katrina. That was horrible, although overshadowed by the Pakistan earthquake and other natural disasters. Innocents died, and a whole fucking city was blown to hell. They're only just starting to rebuild. That kind of thing is not funny even as a joke. No one deserves a Katrina. No one deserves a tsunami. No one deserves an earthquake. Hell, even if it was a prison containing Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, Klansmen, and every other asshole throughout history, I wouldn't wish for a Katrina.

    And about the whole rebellion thing: It doesn't matter if the Army, all the gunslingers, and Satan himself was behind Bush. They wouldn't be able to lift a finger, because they would immediately be condemned. The US was slandered during the Vietnam war mostly because of PR disasters like Kent State and the guys who burned themselves. If they use force against a bunch of pacifist protestors seeking a change, even if they're rioting, then the rest of the world is going to come down on them like friggin Jupiter. That's why they invented tear gas and all the other non-lethal crowd control methods. If the world didn't care about the deaths of protestors, suicide demonstrations would have no effect. But they do, and that means that even in the case of a secession and open aggression against the Bush administration, if he starts putting them full of holes, he's fucked. The UN isn't going to listen to reason, they're going to see Bush having his people gunned down for opposing him. Anti-Bush sentiment is running high, and it would take just a few speeches for people to decide that Bush should be destroyed.

    Wise up Bush. A bunch of dead people all over ain't going to help you none.


    W00t. Another damn essay. I just have to put down all my thoughts when political discussion begin. It's one of my weak points. You're welcome to skim through and not read closely. Please don't make any insults because I'm only thirteen. I'm a high school freshman and we talk about this every fucking day in history and language arts.

    EDIT: I just realized I forgot to apologise for any grammatical mistakes I may have made. I didn't read over this before posting (too much homework).
    Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped.

    www.deathball.net/notpron <--- Best online riddle ever
    NotPron Level 36

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162