# badmouthing our president



## habilis (Mar 16, 2003)

is cool these days I guess. I mean the dixie chicks were cool enough to do it in another country showing a complete lack of a spine. However they fail to understand that we like them for being cute little white trash country girls, not politicians. Even our ex presidents have sunk to all new lows by bashing the president in other countries abroad that seek to dissolve the US, and empower the EU. That's the same as bashing your wife to your friends. It's so trashy. Janine, I can respect because she at least has the backbone to go on TV and put herself up for criticism.

Badmouthing our president is cool these days I guess. Has anyone in the anti-war crowd found the time to bash Saddam? I submit to you that they haven't. In fact what they do is embolden him and raise him up on a pedestal, encouraging his defiance, encouraging him to NOT take exile, and in the end, this will cost thousands of more innocents their lives. Saddam himself, in the book "Saddams Bombmaker" calls the people of the peace movement "Usefull Idiots".

The armchair anti-war people need to know who they're really in bed with, and the hidden truth about what their actions cause.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 16, 2003)

What's with this "cute little white trash country girls" thing?  It would seem that you've just joined the badmouthing bandwagon.

Since when has criticism become an "evil"  thing?  Unless I'm mistaken this country was settled by disgruntled europeans who were unable to criticize their leaders.  Are you advocating that we turn into a 16th century european empire where only one religion is tolerated and freedom of speech isn't?  

Please understand that nobody wants Saddam in power and also remember that the reason he is in power is because "daddy" Bush failed to have him removed after the Gulf War.  My perception of Iraq and Saddam has definitely changed.  He's a tyrant in a secularly ruled Muslim land.  His ruthlessness in eliminating all political opposition has definitely led to his ability to remain in power as long as he has.  

There is an ethnic group in eastern Turkey and northern Iraq called the Kurds.  They are landless and stateless, kind of like the Roma in Eastern Europe.  The "prez" was going to sell the Turks the right to basically annhiliate both the Turkish Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds in exchange for a few billion dollars and the right to invade Iraq from Turkey.  

But hey, what is a little ethnic cleansing amongst Nato Allies, at least the Turks weren't part of "old" Europe.  

Not only will the prez' war have a negative impact on the Kurds it will also negatively impact the lives of millions of Iraqis. The Bush Admin. is screaming about WMD in Iraq but who is standing up for all the Iraqis injured in the Gulf War from the depleted uranium weapons used by the US?  We know they cause a great deal of harm, Iraqi hospitals are filled with the living dead.  Why don't we stand up against their use?  Is it more "moral" that we use chemical weapons to take out Saddam?

I hope you are truly friends with Toast.  It was the French who were responsible for the American liberation from the British.  It shames me to see how poorly we are treating such a staunch ally.   Now more than ever we need "un voix de raison".  

If idiots are defined by their belief that human life is to be valued above all else, then yes they are useful.


----------



## toast (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *I hope you are truly friends with Toast.  It was the French who were responsible for the American liberation from the British.  It shames me to see how poorly we are treating such a staunch ally.   Now more than ever we need "un voix de raison".  *



I have no fiends on this forum


----------



## RacerX (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *badmouthing our president is cool these days I guess.*



I guess you lived under a rock or something during the Clinton years. Many of Bush's supporters have said far worse about Clinton.

 

I'd be willing to bet money that you were guilty of doing it too. You seem like that type of hot-headed Republican. Considering that you don't show your fellow forum members respect when they differ with you on political issues, why would you show a Democratic President (or democratically elected President) any more respect.

But hey, you could show us all how to be respectful. You could even start by removing disrespectful and offensive parts of your post. Not your political views, just the parts were you categorize and belittle other people, their views and their life style.

We could start stopping the _badmouthing_ of everyone (including our president) with this very thread. Are you up to it?


----------



## voice- (Mar 16, 2003)

Look, I have yet to hear one good thing about Saddam in this conflict. Yes, he should be removed, yes, he should be disarmed, yes, he is ruthless, yes he is a threat. Nobody thinks otherwise.

What people critisize is the way USA/UK wants to handle this situation. You're basically telling him:
"We're gonna attack you, please hand over your weapons first"
Well, actually, UN wants him to hand over his weapons while US wants to attack...outcome is the same, it would be foolish of him to surrender his weapons right before a war. And that's the critisizm in it all, there WILL be a war, Bush is making that rather clear.

Saddam woudl not co-operate with the weapons inspectors if he didn't fear war, how about this scenario?
You line up for invasion outside of Iraq and arm yourselves, then send the inspectors in. Instead of saying "We'll attack in 2 weeks, surrender your weapons now, please", send another message. "The minute you're NOT co-operating any more we're launching this attack. No sooner, no later"

Seems to me to be a much better way of handeling the situation


----------



## edX (Mar 16, 2003)

best sign i saw at the protests yesterday - "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot"

but then again, i was badmouthing Bush long before he was president.


----------



## toast (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *"Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot"*



Very, very, very good. Thumbs up !


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 16, 2003)

Hmm...I just moved from Texas 3 years ago...I _told_ people not to vote for him. Heh

But I have to say - none of us are missing that particular idiot


----------



## substrate (Mar 16, 2003)

Well, as a Canadian, and one who has bashed Bush no less, I would like to offer my apologies.

<http://www.22minutes.com/realwrapper.php?target=apology_256.rm>


----------



## evildan (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> ...Even our ex presidents have sunk to all new lows by bashing the president in other countries abroad that seek to dissolve the US, and empower the EU. That's the same as bashing your wife to your friends. It's so trashy. Janine, I can respect because she at least has the backbone to go on TV and put herself up for criticism.



I've read a lot of strange and one-sided ignorant things on the net, but this is one takes the cake.

It is not only our right to "bash" the president, it's our responsibility. Criticism, much like the criticism I'm giving you habilis, is often mistakenly taken as disrespect, when in fact it's not. It's simply an opposite opinion, stated in public.

We empower the president of the United States. He/She is a reflection of us, not the other way around. If we don't agree with what the president is doing, guess what, we have a duty, as Americans, to speak out. Period.



> Badmouthing our president is cool these days I guess. Has anyone in the anti-war crowd found the time to bash Saddam? I submit to you that they haven't.



Well here's one thing you're right about. Anti-War people probably have not taken the time from their anti-war protests to insult a man who is second only to Hitler in world popularity.

But don't worry, I'm sure the "anti-war" people will get on that, because that's the most important issue facing America right now, right?

"Bashing" leaders from another country serves no political purpose whatsoever. If I'm "Pro-Bush" is it my civil duty to make fun out of Saddam? How is breeding that kind of hate "better" then what Saddam is doing?



> The armchair anti-war people need to know who they're really in bed with, and the hidden truth about what their actions cause.



The word "armchair" implies that they are not doing anything... when in fact they are. In case you haven't noticed, countries across the world, are in opposition to the war. An majority of your fellow American citizens are against going to war.

America is a minority in the world for the first time since World War II. (and we were then because we were the only country against the war).

And please be so kind as to tell me the "hidden truth my actions are causing." You speak as though you know something the rest of the world doesn't. If so, I submit the request of your knowhow for the betterment of mankind.

Lastly, a rare support for celebrities...
You know the last time I checked the "Dixie Chicks" were all American citizens, subject to serving the country, just as the ex-presidents *already* have. Considering that fact alone, gives them every right and privilege you and I have. If they want to speak out *for* or *against* the war, they have every right to do so. I am not obligated to listen to them, nor you me.


----------



## dixonbm (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> * I hope you are truly friends with Toast. It was the French who were responsible for the American liberation from the British. It shames me to see how poorly we are treating such a staunch ally. Now more than ever we need "un voix de raison". *




Those Frenchmen who helped America defeat the British in the revolutionary war helped America for the same reason America aided Vietnam in the Vietnam War.  France didn't care about America other than the fact American Independence would splinter British colonial power in America since France had lost the French and Indian War.  

Also let us not forget the government in France at the time was an absolute monarchy.  France today is quite different having been through numerous changes in government since the time of American Independence.

Countries become allies only when it is in their best interest to be allies.  Countries stand for certain principles and ideas because it is in their best interest.  A country does what it must to maintain and/or increase its power and influence. 

Let us not fool ourselves with misconceptions that our governments/countries stand for anything other than themselves and perhaps the people they represent/control.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> France today is quite different having been through numerous changes in government since the time of American Independence.


You certainly meant 'numerous changes in _regime_', am I right ?


----------



## marz (Mar 17, 2003)

"Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?"
- Blaise Pascal


----------



## fryke (Mar 17, 2003)

About badmouthing the president of the United States of America... We're not doing it, actually. He's doing it. Just turn on the TV and listen to him. "Good", "Evil". The day the twin towers fell, he said he was going to war against terrorism. There wasn't any reflection on the sources for the attack. There wasn't any sign of 'keeping options open'. This man was going to war. He has made that clear and he told us many times that he WANTED it to be clear.

The people you say are badmouthing him are only seeing what he's saying ever since: He's a dangerous man and he's going to be in a war until either he's dead or another person is the president of the USA.

So. Yes. There's gonna be a war. Yes, war is a bad thing. Yes, the US are preparing to bring war to many places all over the world.

Let that go through your head one more time: The US are bringing war to places all over the world.

Now think again how it comes that people are 'badmouthing our president'. He's the president of one country, albeit a big one. The world is not behind Mr. Bush on everything.

The Bush administration is going too far. And either way, they'll have to learn it.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by evildan*
> 
> Originally posted by habilis
> ...Even our ex presidents have sunk to all new lows by bashing the president in other countries abroad that seek to dissolve the US, and empower the EU...
> ...



I think his point was that former US presidents generally don't bash the current US president, it's a courtesy thing.  He was sorta agreeing with you by saying that at least the Dixie Chick had some nads.

BTW, why is what the Dixie Chick said "her right and responsibility", but what habilis said "ignorant".  He's entitled to his opinion to right?


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Source: Idle Worm

PS: This is *humour* about Bush being badmouthed, that's why I post it.


----------



## evildan (Mar 17, 2003)

binaryDigit, 

habilis is in indeed entitled to his opinion, his request that "bashing the president" is somehow anti-american is what I found to be ignorant. (again, just another opinion).



> I think his point was that former US presidents generally don't bash the current US president, it's a courtesy thing.  He was sorta agreeing with you by saying that at least the Dixie Chick had some nads.



Yeah, I got that... but I don't think we were in agreement. The former presidents typically don't speak out against the current president, in day-to-day policies, however, if you check your history book, you'll see that their voice is a bit more prominent in a "pre-war" state as we are now. (either speaking out for or against). I think the former presidents (Clinton and Carter of course) are speaking in opposition as a way of representing the bulk of the population that agrees we shouldn't go to war. A more prominent tradition, and one that I follow, is that if America does go to war, we all support the effort, while in progress. Not conceding of course the premise that we are not in a state of war any longer then we have to.

And let me be the first in this thread to state the obvious. Going to war is going to mean dead Americans. Your brothers, sisters, friends, cousins and relatives will be directly effected by this war. You can't avoid that. And it should be considered. Bush, up until this point has shown nothing but an arrogant unblinded point-of-view that America will somehow just go to war, fight and win.  

This is not true. It's never been true. But we're going to war anyway.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 17, 2003)

I only read / skimmed the first page, and I'm already sick of the dripping sarcasm.  Instead of lashing back at your opposition with some snide sarcastic remark, take a breath, listen to what they're really trying to say, and try to _convince_ others of your position.  And this goes for all sides.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 17, 2003)

After taking some of my own advice (taking a breath,) I'd like to lighten up a little myself.    If you interpreted my last post as preaching at all, please know that's not what I'm trying to do... I just want everybody to treat everybody else with due respect.


----------



## substrate (Mar 17, 2003)

binaryDigit, hablis is entitled to say anything he wants, so are the Dixie Chicks, but that doesn't mean there is any responsibility to believe what they say. I agree with the Dixie Chick's statements. A lot of people didn't and considered it ignorant. Because of that some radio stations are boycotting them. Fine. Both sides acted fully within their rights.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by substrate _
> *binaryDigit, hablis is entitled to say anything he wants, so are the Dixie Chicks, but that doesn't mean there is any responsibility to believe what they say. I agree with the Dixie Chick's statements. A lot of people didn't and considered it ignorant. Because of that some radio stations are boycotting them. Fine. Both sides acted fully within their rights. *



My point wasn't that people should "believe" what he has to say, it's just that he was pretty much attacked for his opinion.  Which is funny because people were badmouthing him for badmouthing others.  Classic pot->kettle->black.  Sorta like saying "HEY, she's entitled to her opinion, so SHUT UP you ignorant fool!" 

Situations like this always reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert sayings (actually it's Dogbert that says it):

"It's obvious that you're intolerant of my intolerance".


----------



## evildan (Mar 17, 2003)

> binaryDigit, hablis is entitled to say anything he wants, so are the Dixie Chicks



I don't mean to poke fun, maybe I'm just in a wierd mood, but this line as a stand alone statement is kind of funny. 

We're actually talking about war and the Dixie Chicks. Regardless of your stance on this issue, you have to find humor in that.


----------



## doemel (Mar 17, 2003)

A band like the Dixie Chicks is not an official voice of the US. Period. In my opinion most people should be allowed to badmouth a government without consequences. I'm not saying it's always a smart thing to do but as long as they are not representatives of any government they can say anything they want. If, on the other hand, someone is in a government position they better choose their word more carefully. To give an example: Recently, a Canadian politician made a sort of a public statement that she hated Americans, also calling them "stupid bastards". Now, as much as I agree with her as far as the American govt. goes, I don't think she should have said that openly. In fact, this kind of public bashing is pretty stupid for a politician because it could be the end of his/her political carreer.
In that sense: Badmouth whoever you want but be prepared to be judged by you statements.

And again, criticising someone is not badmouthing someone. And I think all your ex-presidents know that difference, even when they're abroad.


----------



## habilis (Mar 17, 2003)

Wow, it was interesting to see some of twists and turns this post has taken. My basic point was that if your gonna trash talk somebody, you better be able to back it up with fact. The Dixie Chicks, go to another country, trash talk the president, then dodge the questions because evidently, they can't articulate their point. Thats cowardly. And calling somebody stupid is what poeple do who can't articulate.

I'm wondering what it's like to be on the Bush hating side. I mean honestly, are you going to be happy if our economy rebounds? That would mean a gauranteed re-election. Are you going to be happy if the war goes quick (2 weeks or less - and it WILL) with almost 0 casualties on either side and our economy is boosted further? That would mean re-election as well. Are you going to be happy when you see the Iraqi's getting huge bails of food with U.S.A. stamped on it? That must infuriate you, and what a wierd way to be; angry at positivity. Are you going be bitter if there is no new terror attacks? Are you going to be bitter when the Iraqi economy rebounds and the people are free again with no starving children? And what about when we leave Iraq better then we found it, like Afganistan, and we leave without taking millions of barrels of raw crude oil with us? And we leave no occupying force behind (and we won't). Will you be mad to see the Iraqi's happy and prospering agian? Oh, and what about the arrests of the leaders of al Queada? That must bug you too that we're only weeks away from bagging Osama. Just look at the position your hatred for conservatism has put you in. Look, I know you guys don't hate the U.S. so much, it's conservatives and their seeing of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral that you hate. I know what side I want to be on... Happy, Positive, Upbeat, full of Hope.

It's a shame, we really should have been united in this. Certain European countries are going to look really bad in the history books for being on the wrong side of this.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *... Are you going be bitter if there is no new terror attacks? Are you going to be bitter when the Iraqi economy rebounds and the people are free again with no starving children? And what about when we leave Iraq better then we found it, like Afganistan, ... And we leave no occupying force behind (and we won't). *



I think that expecting no more terror attacks is a bit unrealistic isn't it?  AAMOF we may likely see an increase as any action against Iraq, no matter how "justified" will be viewed in a negative light by most of the Muslim world.  And while an action against Iraq may prevent and major attacks from occuring, it certainly can not stop smaller ones.

And no starving children?  We have starving children here in the US that we have a hard time dealing with.  Again, unrealistic.  Things should be better overall though.

And finally, no peace keeping force.  Not really a peace keeping force issue, but the question becomes how do we leave the govt when we leave.  The biggest problems in all these mucking about with foreign govts is trying to make sure you leave something that is better than what was there.  And not better for a year or two, but better long term.  That will be the key to a "successful" mission in the long run.   Being able to pull out your peace keepers quickly is all fine and dandy, but lets hope they have a clear idea for how to handle things from that point on.

I know you just brought some of them up as generalities, but since you did bring them up, I felt compelled to respond


----------



## evildan (Mar 17, 2003)

habilis, your point of view really amazes me. You speak as if war is a good thing.



> Happy, Positive, Upbeat, full of Hope.



I'm sorry but war is none of these things. You speak as if going to war is going to mean an automatic victory, and acceptance by the people of Iraq, an increase in the economy, the end of starvation in Iraq, and the undisputed respect of the entire world. Also your beliefs that the war will be quick (2 weeks I believe you said), painless and provide all of these added benefits. 

As if war is this great thing. habilis, people are going to die. And for what? So we can have a better economy? Does that sound logical?

No thanks, I'll pay the $.50/gal more in gas if it prevents the death of even one more American.

That's what were talking about, an economy, not lives, but dollars and cents. 

And one more thing on this one, war does NOT automatically mean a growing economy. The Gulf War did not help the economy. The last war to help the economy was World War II. Vietnam started to help the economy, but I believe -- if memory serves me -- because it dragged on for so long it became more of a burden to the economy then anything else.

The reason war doesn't translate into a proportional increase in the economy is because there are less "working class" people in America. (The population that sees the most increase in jobs during war time).

World War II produced more jobs, because the people who had to leave the country (mostly men) left vacant jobs for women and men that could not serve. Those jobs (mainly factory jobs), were prominent also because the government needed military hardware produced to aide in the war effort.

Sadly some of those jobs were left vacant due to high casualties.

Modern warfare is fought differently. Less typically less ground-troop movement, more missiles and smart bombs, etc. The effects of war are less prominent at the point of war. Impact of war is no longer defined as deaths. With the advent of chemical warfare, even our general population is at risk to exposure.

Don't be so quick to believe the propaganda. Until the war happens, we won't know the effect is will have on Amercia and the rest of the world.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

ignorant people like to insult bush.  sad but true.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

_**_

This would be a direct answer to your insult directed against many people of this board.

The truth is, Bush's policies may lead to a socio-ecnomical disaster very soon. This could be discussed here, if you minded calming down and stop yelling Frenchmen and anti-war people are either anti-semitics or hippies.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *It seems ignorant people also like to support him, in some cases.
> 
> This would be a direct answer to your insult directed against many people of this board.*



Well he did say "ignorant people like to *insult* bush".  Emphassis on insult, which is not the same as saying that "ignorant people like to criticize/disagree with bush".  A small but important difference.  Makes the difference between meaning "anyone who would stoop to personal insults is ignorant" vs "anyone who disagrees with bush is ignorant".

toast, you can help keep this whole thread from degenerating like the other one as well.  Many of the same things that I said to kanecorp apply to you as well.  If you want to have an intelligent discourse, then keep your remarks intelligent, regardless of how non intelligent you think the other posts may be. (man, I feel like my 2nd grade teacher)


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

kanecorp, you have been warned about attacking others. one more insult to anyone and you're thru with this discussion and all others on this site. understand?

btw - i am neither ignorant nor a hippie.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

BinaryDigit, you may feel like your 2nd grade teacher, you're right. I've taken note of your post, believe me. Anyway, I wasn't planning to answer more flame comments after this last one.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *kanecorp, you have been warned about attacking others. one more insult to anyone and you're thru with this discussion and all others on this site. understand?
> 
> btw - i am neither ignorant nor a hippie.  *



oh no! A hippie threatening me...doesn't that go against what you believe in...
And how dare i get upset when my leader is unsulted.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> I'm wondering what it's like to be on the Bush hating side. I mean honestly, are you going to be happy if our economy rebounds? That would mean a gauranteed re-election. Are you going to be happy if the war goes quick (2 weeks or less - and it WILL) with almost 0 casualties on either side and our economy is boosted further? That would mean re-election as well. Are you going to be happy when you see the Iraqi's getting huge bails of food with U.S.A. stamped on it? That must infuriate you, and what a wierd way to be; angry at positivity. Are you going be bitter if there is no new terror attacks? Are you going to be bitter when the Iraqi economy rebounds and the people are free again with no starving children? And what about when we leave Iraq better then we found it, like Afganistan, and we leave without taking millions of barrels of raw crude oil with us? And we leave no occupying force behind (and we won't). Will you be mad to see the Iraqi's happy and prospering agian? Oh, and what about the arrests of the leaders of al Queada? That must bug you too that we're only weeks away from bagging Osama.



i wish i had your crystal ball and could see the future so clearly. it sounds a lot like what the supporters of the civil war, the ww's and vietnam all had to say. it was the attitude the USSR took when invading afgahnistan. it's a really rose colored way to look at war. it defends one against the harsh realities that ARE war. Ever talk to a vet that was expeosed to agent orange? ever talked to a vietnam vet who watched his best friends die in the name of 'liberation'? have you ever talked to anyone who has had to live with knowing they killed others? have you ever seen pictures of real people dying? of bodies that were exposed to chemical warfare? in short, do you have any concept of war and death outside of movies, tv and video games? and when is the last time there was a war that only lasted 2 weeks? skirmishs and border disputes last 2 weeks. war lasts much longer, it's effects/affects last for a lifetime for those involved.


> Just look at the position your hatred for conservatism has put you in. Look, I know you guys don't hate the U.S. so much, it's conservatives and their seeing of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral that you hate.



i have no hate for conservatives nor conservativism. i hate LBJ ( a liberal democrat) for vietnam as much as i hate bush for what he is doing to our country right now. i'm just glad you're able to see the war/world in black and white right now, because i'm sure when somebody close to you dies, it won't look that way any longer.



> I know what side I want to be on... Happy, Positive, Upbeat, full of Hope.
> 
> It's a shame, we really should have been united in this. Certain European countries are going to look really bad in the history books for being on the wrong side of this.



not once has history ever treated the first agressors with any respect. and history shows us that most of them are the ones who lose. i find this all very scary coming from a man who announced to us all that macs suck and then found out how much he missed them after just a brief while. i just wish that people didn't have to die for you to learn this lesson as well.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *** *



Even I haven't been insulted _this_ deep... 

Anyway, does anyone know how I can watch FOX or CNN (or equivalent) on my iMac ? Or how I can connect to US radios ? French radios will also transmit Bush's speech, but I'd like it in English, please, and I don't have TV... Can anyone help ?


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *oh no! A hippie threatening me...doesn't that go against what you believe in...
> And how dare i get upset when my leader is unsulted. *



lol  

i suppose you think you've insulted me again. lucky for you i consider it a compliment, even if i'm not one. 

you can get upset and present your arguement without calling other people names. this is not something i just made up today. it has been site policy for some time now. like everybody else here, myself included, you play by the rules or you don't play at all.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *lol
> 
> i suppose you think you've insulted me again. lucky for you i consider it a compliment, even if i'm not one.
> ...



no i sure hope i didn't insult you.
Just like i wouldn't be insulted if someone called me an American.  I'm not insulted, cause thats what i am, its just a fact.
By me calling you a hippie, its not an insult, and just what you are.  I"m sorry if you take offence or think that i want to me rude.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _by habilis _
> The Dixie Chicks, go to another country, trash talk the president, then dodge the questions because evidently, they can't articulate their point. Thats cowardly. And calling somebody stupid is what poeple do who can't articulate.



I live in a free country who's citizens are not required to provide justification for how they feel in order to have or speak those feelings. The fact that you seem to think that your feelings are in any way superior to thiers means that you do not stand for what makes this country great. 

If only that was you last comment...



> I'm wondering what it's like to be on the Bush hating side. I mean honestly, are you going to be happy if our economy rebounds?



It should have never taken this hit to begin with. I would be very happy with a rebound. I would be very happy if Bush would be half the man his father was and did something to help fix the problem. Bush serves only those who can fund his interests. The fate of the common man is not his concern. In the words of his father, Bush is practicing _VooDoo-_economics. This war is smoke-and-mirrors to keep our minds off the economy. We (the United States) don't need this war for any reason. We (the United States) are in no way threatened by Iraq. And if we (the United States) were actually willing to act in a noble venture, we would be centering our efforts on North Korea.



> Are you going to be happy if the war goes quick (2 weeks or less - and it WILL) with almost 0 casualties on either side and our economy is boosted further?



Of course I would, but I don't think that is how it is going to happen. Why try to stop the war? Because we are destroying years of work. We had a _New World Order_ under the original Bush. We were the ones that stood up shoulder to shoulder with other countries of the world to stop those who invaded smaller countries for personal gain. Now we are the invaders.




> Are you going to be happy when you see the Iraqi's getting huge bails of food with U.S.A. stamped on it? That must infuriate you, and what a wierd way to be; angry at positivity.



Why do you think we would be angry at a positive result? It is all the negative results that we are upset with. We are becoming a rogue nation blind with military power (because we don't have any economic power at the moment). None of that had to come to pass. After this is over, _USA stamps_ on food aren't going to keep the rest of the world from seeing us as power drunk. We are creating more fear than any of the _evil_ states we are going after.



> Are you going be bitter if there is no new terror attacks?



There should never have been a first attack! The Clinton administration had al Qaeda and the middle east as the main priorities. What did the Bush administration do when they entered office? Dismissed them as _Clinton's projects_. All the work that had been done on al Qaeda up to that point was dropped... completely! 3000+ people died because Bush didn't want to follow in Clinton's foot steps. Bush has their blood on his hands. He turned his back when the Clinton administration try to warn the incoming Bush administration of the dangers.



> Oh, and what about the arrests of the leaders of al Queada? That must bug you too that we're only weeks away from bagging Osama. Just look at the position your hatred for conservatism has put you in.



Look at the price to get Bush to finally take action. 



> Look, I know you guys don't hate the U.S. so much, it's conservatives and their seeing of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral that you hate. I know what side I want to be on... Happy, Positive, Upbeat, full of Hope.



Happy? Positive? Upbeat? Are you kidding? Conservatives are the most angry people I've seen. The constant attacks are not the characteristics of someone who is _Upbeat_. The fearing for your daughter is not a sign of being _Positive_ and _full of Hope_.

Let me ask you a question (I think I asked before): why didn't we have as much panic after Oklahoma City? Why didn't we start wars and getting people to buy supplies for emergencies? What was different? And the first World Trade Center bombings, why didn't those spark the same type of panic? Was it because they used trucks and not planes? Why didn't security on rental trucks increase to the same point that it has for airlines?

Stop taking what they are feeding you for 24 hours. Look into what is actually happening with open eyes. Think about the future you are helping to create for your daughter. Just for one day. People whom you love are really in the balance here.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

I have self-cleaned [**] my own sayings, aiming at making this place more enjoyable. I hope some more intelligent discussion like we have had many times here before will continue.

BTW, I'm on AIM: brat270783. Could we all possibly join on the macosxcom iChat room or on the macosx.com URC ? Tell me,


----------



## lurk (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> Anyway, does anyone know how I can watch FOX or CNN (or equivalent) on my iMac ? Or how I can connect to US radios ?



Try www.mpr.org I think they will be streaming the broadcast.

-Eric


----------



## habilis (Mar 17, 2003)

Racer, it not possible that I can be concerned greatly for my daughters safety and be positive and upbeat at the same time about where our president is going to take us in the future? About conservatives being "The most angry people" you've seen, you must not be friends with too many conservatives because that's pure myth and you've fallen for it. And I'm not attacking. I'm defending.

Ed, of course I've seen the real brutalities of war and it turns my stomach. War in its purest state, which is simple ruthless bloody murder, is the worst thing in the world, the scurge of mankind. Thats why we have to remove the people in the world that create it.

And tell me that this following person sounds "stupid" 
He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Then earned a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.

guess who


----------



## Ugg (Mar 17, 2003)

Toast, FOX and CNN are very right leaning.  FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch.  

Definitely try www.npr.org.  If you are lucky, Cokie Roberts will give the post-speech commentary, she is wonderful.  You should have heard her on the night of our most recent presidential election.  

You might also try the list of radio stations in iTunes.  It looks like there might be a couple under the "public" category that might carry the speech.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

I'm on NPR.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Wow... There's gonna be *massive* badmouthing tomorrow... And not ony n this board... 

See you all after I get some sleep  !


----------



## Zeno (Mar 17, 2003)

I'm listening to his speech (he gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq).

How can more than 50% americans follow this piece of SH*T and his war???

He wants to fight against bombs and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and what he does?.... he uses bombs and weapons of mass destruction to solve that problem. 

How can a human being be so DUMB ??????

And he does this not to assure security or to fight terrorism but only because he wants the petrol and he wants to increase his power.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Anyway, does anyone know how I can watch FOX or CNN (or equivalent) on my iMac ? Or how I can connect to US radios ? French radios will also transmit Bush's speech, but I'd like it in English, please, and I don't have TV... Can anyone help ?  *



From the USA WhiteHouse site.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

zeno - you're entitled to your opinion, but please refrain from profanity while expressing it. perhaps you should read the site rules before posting further.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _by habilis:_
> Racer, it not possible that I can be concerned greatly for my daughters safety and be positive and upbeat at the same time about where our president is going to take us in the future?


<best Yoda impression>
_Fear is the path to the Dark Side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate... hate leads to suffering.

I sense much fear in you._
</Yoda impression>

Ask yourself this question (seeing as you didn't address my response to your points): would you have had any need to fear (or have concern) for your daughter's safety had Bush not come to power? Gore would have continued Clinton's endeavors to hunt down al Qaeda and move the middle east peace process forward. Gore wouldn't have sent us into an uncontrolled free fall economy and would have retained the surplus as a safety net (instead of throwing it away when we needed it most).

You say that we have something against _Conservatives_, but the only way anyone would be _happy_ with our nation today would be to close their eyes to the reality of what is happening in order to support their ideological beliefs.

Theme for the 2004 elections: *Are you better off now than four years ago? Do you feel safer?*



> About conservatives being "The most angry people" you've seen, you must not be friends with too many conservatives because that's pure myth and you've fallen for it. And I'm not attacking. I'm defending.



Your statement show that even though I do have many conservative friends and family members, you have already made up your mind. But that is a good thing because it makes you my perfect example. You, my friend, and your posts on this subject are all I need to show that the _myth_ is real...

*The myth is you.*


----------



## mr. k (Mar 17, 2003)

Sounds like you have QUITE an opinion there.  Your right, he did give Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq, his son's also.  But from a certain point of view, it seems like a  just timeframe considering the 10 plus years Saddam Hussein has had to abide by the UN resolutions passed around the time of daddy Bush.  
And yes, over 50% of the American people do follow George Bush.  I believe the last time I saw an independent poll the approval rating was around 61%.
And how are you supposed to fight against bombs and weapons of mass destruction when after 12 years of diplomatic negotiations you still don't accomplish anything?  With the lives of american soldiers?  Or a well thought out, well orchestrated attack?
As for how a human being can be so dumb, in your sentence "dumb" is an adjective.  It is a word you used to describe someone.  That makes it nothing more then an opinion, your opinion.  Mabye the dumb one isn't Bush at all, do you know something I don't know that gives you the facts to prove that Bush is actually 





> 6. Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision.


 ?
  -American Heritage Dictionary, meaning of the word dumb.

I don't wanna get down on you here, but I don;'t like the way your post came over.  It was just un backed disrespect of Mr. Bush.  I don't completely agree with the impending war on Iraq, but I think it addresses some key points.  Hussein has not obeyed UN delegations, and should be punished for it, although the US, Spain, Great Britan and Australia should not be the only nations to carry out an international sentence.  But the said nations absolutely have the right to defend their peoples and country.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *Toast, FOX and CNN are very right leaning.*



I'll agree that Fox does lean politically right. However, CNN is right leaning? Sorry to disagree but where do you get this information? IMHO a lot of political minding people in the USA thinks that CNN leans to the left spectrum of USA politics.


----------



## habilis (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *Toast, FOX and CNN are very right leaning.  FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch.*
> 
> CNN is totally liberal. I can't believe I just heard that statement. You're right about Fox though. And it's about time there's a media venue that's not liberally biased. It's the only one out there that gives you the whole truth. that's also why it's now #1 and CNN is in the doghouse.  Fox had the backbone to call homicide bombers what they really are - killers and murderers. They're not afraid of offending terrorist killers - *that's refreshing*. And the anchors have the backbone to wear an American flag lapel pin. Being politically correct is really gettin old, the attempted guilt trips are gettin old, the watered down left-winged non-offensive mundane news media is gettin old, and it's popularity is waning. There's an ebb and flow to these things. The country(America) is leaning more to the right at the moment.
> ...


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

sounds like CNN must be pretty middle of the road if both sides think they are for the other.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ugg (Mar 17, 2003)

Originally posted by Habilis
"Fox had the backbone to call homicide bombers what they really are - killers and murderers. They're not afraid of offending terrorist killers - that's refreshing."

Did I miss something?  Are you claiming the so called liberal press considered them to be overprivileged youth who were brain washed by their extremist religious upbringing in countries where oil and the privilege of birthright means more than anything else?  Hmmmmmm........

I don't think that anyone is afraid of offending terrorist killers.  I follow the news pretty closely but I don't remember this claim of yours.

BTW, there is no such thing as a liberal press in the US anymore, there are only liberal leaning reporters who are asked to tone down their stories for fear of offending the medium's advertisers.


----------



## habilis (Mar 17, 2003)

Ugg, sorry I was a little vague on that. Let me elaborate on my point;

CNN calles them *Suicide* Bombers, glorifying their cause and taking justice and attention away from the victim, as if there was no victim, it was just a suicide. Fox calls them *Homicide* Bombers, calling them the killers and murderers they really are.

It's no accident that Israel doen't carry CNN anymore and there's been many boycotts on that network there. The Israelis are totally offended by CNN.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

maybe if the US would start paying more attention to the world and less to israel, we would all be in better shape. i find it hard to support a country in which an american girl was killed yesterday for standing in the way of the destruction of people's homes. israel is no less and no more to blame for the troubles in that part of the world than their neighbors. it's long since time we stopped played protector and started making them face the consequences of their actions as we do others in the region. peace will nver come so long as any of them are allowed to terrorize the others.


----------



## habilis (Mar 17, 2003)

The craziest things can happen to you if you crawl underneath a bulldozer. But seriosly, I heard it reported that the driver didn't see or hear her. And if he had, we don't negotiate with terrorists, even if you are American. 

I bet there's a lot of Human Shields out there tonight getting second thoughts.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

so now standing in the way of destruction is terrorism? i suppose all the peace protests were acts of terrorism as well by that reasoning. next my disagreeing with Bush will be seen as terrorism. is there anything short of killing _for_ america that isn't to be considered terrorism?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> The craziest things can happen to you if you crawl underneath a bulldozer. But seriosly, I heard it reported that the driver didn't see or hear her. And if he had, we don't negotiate with terrorists, even if you are American.



She was waring a brightly colored top. She was not just run over, they backed up over her too.

Listen to yourself. You're calling her a terrorist? Have you lost all sense of reality. Are you truly that blinded by anger and hatred? 

She never did anything to you and you have insulted her memory. I guess your ideas of what is _right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral_ are warped by your blind following of one ideological position. This is what leads to fascism. 

Pretend that was your daughter...  she was someone's daughter to be sure. Would you want someone saying such things about her.


----------



## doemel (Mar 17, 2003)

_IMHO a lot of political minding people in the USA thinks that CNN leans to the left spectrum of USA politics._

I don't know what CNN was like 5 years ago but they are sure as hell not leaning to the left at the moment. They might be more subtle than FOX and the like but just try to read between the lines for a moment and you'll figure it out. Why is it that I either get a headache or totally p***ed off after watching CNN for more than 15 minutes?
It's big business, how can it be impartial?


_And if he had, we don't negotiate with terrorists, even if you are American._

Before you say anything like that against one of your fellow Americans I suggest you do some reading on pre-WW2 Europe, notably the rise of fascism. You might rethink such statements after that.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

*Open question:* Have the hardline people in this country reached a point where they have such hatred for the views of those that don't agree with them that they feel that those other people's lives are now not of any value?

*Follow up question:* How is this any different from the people of Germany in the 1930's that felt that the people they didn't like got what they had coming to them?

When differences in opinion make any group not value human life, that is when the line between _right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral_ has been crossed. From what I just saw in this thread, has a group of my fellow citizens crossed over. Do you really know which side you are on?


----------



## doemel (Mar 17, 2003)

Here's another question to all Americans participating in this discussion:
How much non-American history is actually taught in American schools?
*Disclaimer: This is a serious question, not a flame or insult!*


----------



## habilis (Mar 17, 2003)

Wow racer, I'm impressed at how rightous you are. And if I strapped myself to the grounds where a peace rally was to be staged, and I was trampled to death, I'm sure you would defend my honor right?

No, you would laugh at how much of an idiot I was! Anybody that crawls under a bulldozer to save a freekin house has got their wires crossed. 

Your logic then would indicate that you think Homicide bombers need to be defended, and their honors upheld, and their cause glorified right?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> How much non-American history is actually taught in American schools?



As I recall (and I'm really bad with dates) most things before... oh, say 1776 were non-American.

The real question is how much non-North American/European history is taught... not very much would be the correct answer.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> Wow racer, I'm impressed at how rightous you are. And if I strapped myself to the grounds where a peace rally was to be staged, and I was trampled to death, I'm sure you would defend my honor right?



Actually I would. I have served this country and sworn an oath to protect it's citizens and the laws that govern it. I may not work in that capacity any more, but the oath means as much to me today as it did then.



> No, you would laugh at how much of an idiot I was!



Beyond the bulldozer issue, why do you think I would act in such a manner?



> Your logic then would indicate that you think Homicide bombers need to be defended, and their honors upheld, and their cause glorified right?



That isn't my logic, but I guess we would have to assume that as you are the one making it up, that it must be yours. I have to say that you are turning out to be one scary individual.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _by habilis:_
> Look, I know you guys don't hate the U.S. so much, it's conservatives and their seeing of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral that you hate. I know what side I want to be on... Happy, Positive, Upbeat, full of Hope.



Would you please re-read your last few posts in this thread. I'm sorry but you are not someone I would classify as _Happy_... or _Positive_... or _Upbeat_... or even _full of Hope_.

In fact if we apply a strict _black and white_ view of what you have said here, you tend to fall on the _wrong_, _evil_, and _immoral_ side on this basic issue of human kindness.

I would really rather think of you as a relatively good person, but the ethics which you are displaying paint quite a different picture.


----------



## mdnky (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by doemel _
> *How much non-American history is actually taught in American schools?*



In high school I took more than most for History, only 1 year was US History (AP my Sophmore year).  World Civ as a Freshman, Asian/Middle Eastern Studies as a Junior, and European History AP my Senior year.

The requirements when I was in HS was 2 credits, World Civ being one.

Me personally, I liked History and it was an easy subject.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

Has anyone ever even attempted such a thing?  Laying down their life to prevent a peace protest?  Personally, I just can't see it happening but if it did, I think the peace protesters would find a way to protect you, because isn't that the whole point, Habilis, to prevent needless death?


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

Michael Moore, director of Bowling for Columbine and author of Stupid White Men, wrote a letter to GW yesterday.  You can find it here 

I don't like the guy myself, but he has some good things to say.


----------



## edX (Mar 18, 2003)

i'm pretty sure nobody has ever been killed while peacefully protesting a peace protest. unfortunately peace protesters themselves seem to be pretty easy game. like fishing at the trout farm. line 'em up and either beat them down or shoot them. "Four dead in O-hi-O".


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

Habilis, you say that we should call the terrorists  homicide bombers and I agree with you.  The perpetrators of crimes against humanity should be labeled for what they are.  Cold-blooded killers.  Just because they are fundamentalist religious nuts who feel that the way to heaven is paved with the dead bodies of the infidel.....  Who was I talking about???? Oh, that's right, the terrorists, or, was this thread about the president of the United States?  Hmmmmmm................

So, your truth in advertising only works with the bad guys.  Anybody who stands up for the native people of Israel is immediately branded a phreakin idiot, it's too bad that your vision is so myopic.


----------



## toast (Mar 18, 2003)

_CNN/FOX debate_

Well, the political side didn't matter much for me, as I needed the Bush intervention and not its commentaries, which I could have on French radios.
It is obvious that, from my European point of view, I share doemel's views: 99% American media lean right. Very rarely extreme-right, but right, definitely.
What an American can call 'left-wing' is more 'center-right' here, studies of American political cleavages shows it well (I'm thinking of Herbert Kitschelt's work, for those interested).

_Ugg_

You've got a coll new signature !  There is an accent on the 'a' however: "Ne perdez pas votre vie *à* la gagner."
I've got a new signature too .

_Michael Moore_

I just read Moore's letter. As usual, the whole is written in moron-style, but contains undeniable elements of truth. He should have come to this forum and read this thread. I'm sure he would not have called pro-war people "passionate people" but "American version of Israeli hawks".

_Hawks_

Because yes ! The *minority* (statiscally speaking, that's a minority, yes) of pro-war people is acting like Israeli extreme-right supporters and leaders. First it's a question of national security, then it ends up with bomb shells. What a desperate situation: Sharon and Bush have the same IQ and got the same idea: 'bomb them, or they will bomb us'. This criminal logic has proven wrong in Israel since 1946, but some White House administratives still think it can work with them. What a pity.

_Osama speech ?_

There's nothing rational to add, anyway, war is declared, I may quote books and studies, forget it: the USA will be throwing bombs on Iraq soon ! Now I'm just waiting for Bin Laden's intervention from his cave: "Hello guys, thanks for feeding my troops with enough hatred and resentment over you. Could you send bigger bombs on children please ? My pilots are losing their patience you know." I just hope I don't have to wait for 2:00AM to hear his speech .

_George Walker_

After all, this thread is about him. Now he doesn't need to be badmouthed. He's entered the Great Hall of Fame of Bloodthirsty Chiefs of States. Be glad you did not [irony]really[/irony] elected, so you can still complain and say you didn't vote for him...

_Signature_

Let the body bags' dance begin. Let the USA people buy gas masks, open their doors with a handgun in left hand, take the plane with a parachute, open their letters with anthrax-proof suits and walk in the streets with a Geiger counter just to be sure. This war is a continuation of a psycho the American people already live in; and this psycho is the beginning of the end.

_Epitath_

No empire can hold on exclusive use of force, said Erri de Luca (Italian writer). Without justice, and esp. international justice, times of hatred and nonsense action is inaugurated. This war over Iraq responds to nothing, it is an act of violence of the strongest on the weakest. By this attack, Western countries are losing the right to defend themselves against those who will soon take their revenge. We are weaker than what stats and presidents say. We are immensely weak. We should take this omnipotency mask off our face.
Or assume its consequences. Not in my name.


----------



## evildan (Mar 18, 2003)

LOL... habilis, I just figured out who you are! Why don't you use your real screen name?


----------



## habilis (Mar 18, 2003)

Evil what are you talking about? Are you trying to make fun of me? are you talking about my old AOL(AIM)screen name from 1991? If you are, take a look at what my last name is and you'll see where that came from. Otherwise the handle "Habilis" stemmed from the first tool-using homonid called Homo Habilis, just before Homo Erectus. Habilis is also the name of my electronic music experiment. I use only electronic equipment to make it, synths and sequencers, hence Habilis=Tool User. Go here if you want to download my music: http://www.bonkdown.com/habilis.html Or maybe you're talking about when I used to be a hacker and went by the alias sinkwh0le or sinkstyle. Either way, nothing's really that funny.


----------



## evildan (Mar 18, 2003)

habilis, 

I must be mistaken. I had an online friend with a very similar name, who not only shared your opinions but had a very similar writing style.

I used to debate with him all the time.
I was not trying to make fun of you, in fact, this is more of a compliment, since he was such a good friend of mine.

I lost touch with him a few years back, but I would have bet anything it was you. I was under a different screen name also.

back to the debate...


----------



## habilis (Mar 18, 2003)

This thread is a microcosm of our modern world.

And even though there are MAJOR clashes of philosophy, I can appreciate you people greatly in the fact that you all *stand for something*. Give yourselves a pat on the back. 

Look how beautiful it is that we can indulge in pure freedom and speak our minds. It's this very freedom that, as unfortunate as it is, is under assualt by radical Islam. Radical Islam has been on the rise for the last 30 years and if we leave these people alone, appease them, don't stand up to the bully on the world block, it just grows stronger.

10 years from now, maybe 20, if these radicals are left unchecked, as many people would have it, you can be assured that we would one day wake up to a few smoldering U.S. citys.

This really is a struggle that will take decades, like the rebulding of Japan and Germany. And if  America has to be called "imperialists" to get this historic job done, I'll take that over a mushroom cloud. If we have to leave behind us a culture of Life, rather then the culture of Death that currently permates the middle east, then so be that. and Amen to that.

This is key in the fact that containment of Saddam is irrelevant, because he will pass these weapons on to the radicals in time, where they can smuggle them into the U.S. and be detonated. 

If you gotta go to war, go to war with the USA. America is the best thing that ever happened to the world and the best thing that can happen to your country if you go to war with us. Look back and see.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

When did the Supreme Court appoint you president? Paternalistic and xenophobic attitudes like yours are what created WWI and WWII.  Are we destined to repeat the past?


----------



## toast (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *America is the best thing that ever happened to the world and the best thing that can happen to your country if you go to war with us. Look back and see. *



I've been looking back my chair and still can't see what 'good' you are talking about.

Behind me I can see some of my books. Here are the titles of those concerning America:

- André Glucksmann, _Dostoievski in Manhattan_
- Tocqueville, _Of Democracy in America_
- _Dictionary of Twentieth Century Geopolitics and Geostrategy Issues_
- Theodor Adorno, _The Authoritarian Personality_
- Moisei Ostrogorski, _Democracy and Political Parties_
- Noam Chomsky, _9/11 - Autopsy of Terrorism_, _two Hours of Lucidity: Interview with Denis Robert and Veronika Zaracowicz_, _Manufacturing Consent_ (video)
- Howard Zinn, _A People's History of America_
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, _The Grand Chessboard_

I don't see this glazing 'good' you are talking about. Maybe you could give me some hints please.


----------



## toast (Mar 18, 2003)

A bit of humor humor can't do any harm: iBush 1.4, Oval Office simulator


----------



## habilis (Mar 18, 2003)

Ugg, by god I hope we do repeat the past: The vast majority of us here in America think the obliteration of Communism and Nazism was a good thing, A repeat of that would be great don't you think? or no...

Toast. I have no desire to read socialist propaganda just as I'm sure you have no desire to read a pile of publications I can recommend to you. but I'll allow you to recommend one of those, your favorite, what is it? I'll read it no matter how much it hurts.


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

_Toast. I have no desire to read socialist propaganda _

what time do you live in? 50's of the last century? the witch hunt for communists has been over for quite a while now, you can stop calling people commies.


----------



## habilis (Mar 18, 2003)

doemel, what world do YOU live in that you think it's gone?

What do you think is REALLY at the heart of the anti-America anti-war anti-Bush sentiment?

The cancer of Socialsm is only in a dormant stage right now.


----------



## edX (Mar 18, 2003)

one of the things about this whole war on terrorism that scares the bejeezers out of many of us americans is that it is potentially another excuse for a new witch hunt. unknown enemies make potential enemies of everyone. especially when your own president is spouting rhetoric like "you're either with us or against us." at what point do i become an enemy of the state because i disagree with it? at what point does this become a step backwards to the days of the 'red scare'? at what point am i labeled the enemy because i believe more in humanity than nationalism? 

and if any of that happens, are any of you who believe that freedom should be protected at all costs going to come to my aid? are you going to stand up for my rights or are you simply going to feel safer knowing that one less different opinion has been silenced? 

btw - propaganda comes in all flavors.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

Habilis, I haven't mad myself clear.  I'm not discussing the end result of WWI and WWII, but rather how they came to be.  The Germans in trying to solidify and extend their new country  (Germany didn't come into existence as a country until 1871) during WWI overextended their reach and lost.  They were then penalized beyond belief and left impoverished by the treaty of Versailles.  This once proud land of Wagner and Humboldt became the breeding ground of disenchantment in central Europe.  Had the treaty of Versailles been less about penalizing and more about humane treatment.  Hitler probably wouldn't have come to power.  Hitler like GW came to power on a platform of restoring Germany to its rightful place in the world.  He was all bluster and guts and as we all know to well full of nascent german nationalism.  

Even though he was a scrawny little Austrian and not to offend any Austrians but Adolf's formative years were spent in Austria, not Germany, he was a very commanding presence.  Even contemporary jewish accounts of his early years are full of awe of this little man.  

He convinced the Germans that the only way for them to regain the glory of the German nation was to eliminate those who opposed it, those who ridiculed it and those too weak to oppose it.  
He succeeded.  

I am not saying that GW and Hitler are one and the same nor am I saying that the situations are the same.  You, Habilis, are saying that we should learn from the past so am I.  I just don't think that we should follow in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, Suharto and all the other despots this world has known.  We supported all three of the above in the beginning.  We even supported Saddam in the 80s. 

But as with so many Americans you seem to think that the only way to achieve lasting to change is by destroying the existing structures and then rebuilding from scratch.  I don't think we need to do it that way.


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

something slightly OT:
did you guys realize that many of us are discussing about related issues in several threads at the same time? i spent half my day reading/posting instead of working


----------



## toast (Mar 18, 2003)

So that's a list of socialist books...

1) André Glucksmann is an apolitic philosopher. 
2) Tocqueville supported aristocracy at his time.  
3) Dictionary of Twentieth Century Geopolitics and Geostrategy Issues is hardly a political book. 
4) Theodor Adorno was more right-wing but his works are completely apolitic.
5) Moisei Ostrogorski is completely apolitic too.
6) Noam Chomsky is left-wing
7) Howard Zinn is left-wing. 
8) Zbigniew Brzezinski is hardly left wing 

That's two leftists out of 8 authors. May I add socialism wasn't a structured political tendency when Ostrogorski and Tocqueville lived, which makes it very hard for them to be socialists 

I'm still waiting for the list of books you were 'looking back and seeing' when you wrote your post.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

My personal recommendation would be de Toqueville.  Although he is a snooty French aristocrat, he has a lot of very valid things to say about the US that stand true today.  I believe that he even made it as far as Cleveland during his travels.  

This recommendation comes strictly from my readings of American History.  Sometimes the views of someone on the outside looking in are more valuable than those of an insider.  This is not always the case but in de Toqueville's case it definitely is.


----------



## edX (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by doemel _
> *something slightly OT:
> did you guys realize that many of us are discussing about related issues in several threads at the same time? i spent half my day reading/posting instead of working  *



doemel - i'm guessing that you don't realize that some of us are not only debating these things in different threads, but also at another forum site. at least one of the threads there has the same name as one here. although it just got shut down for name calling as we briefly had to do with one yesterday as well.

but i'll have to admit, i'm running out of much new to add. i'm starting to feel like i've said my 'peace' and need to rest until more develops.


----------



## habilis (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> 
> I'm still waiting for the list of books you were 'looking back and seeing' when you wrote your post.



This kind of snooty elitist sarcasm is gettin old Jack. Your percieved intellectual superiority is getting offensive and this is the last time I'm going to respond to it. I almost feel bad for you thinking that you're better than anyone who didn't read  those books.

Ed, I've said my peace too, this is getting tiring.


----------



## edX (Mar 18, 2003)

habilis - i will give you this - offerring to read one of toast's books is more than i would be willing to offer. it was a gesture i had to respect. i agree he could have responded with more dignitity about it, even if it was a bit presumptious of you to assume they were all socialists from the authors names. its a bit like assuming all muslims are our enemies which seems to be a common sentiment among some americans right now (not saying you, but you know who i mean  )

but maybe ugg's suggestion would be worth the effort if you're still inclined.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

edX, I don't envy your job in this forum.  I know you lean the same way I do but you are able to defuse things very well and I commend you for that.  These forums only work if we are all able accept one another's differences.  I know I have just had to stop looking at responses to certain threads or get out my flame thrower and obliterate everyone in sight and that isn't the answer.  Anyway, thanks for allowing us to voice our opinions and your moderations have influenced me greatly and thanks for your approach.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *edX, I don't envy your job in this forum.  I know you lean the same way I do but you are able to defuse things very well and I commend you for that.*


He isn't an admin for nothing.    His decisions have been a great help in keeping the peace around here in the past few days.  I would like to thank him for his tremendous help right now.
::Clap clap::


----------



## edX (Mar 18, 2003)

well thanks. but to be honest - self moderation is still my hardest chore. and in turn, i expect the same from everybody else. i think the best way to think about something before you post it is to think how you would respond if somebody else were saying it to you. i've caught myself more than once realizing that i'm not being as impersonal as i intended. 
i feel that this issue is of great importance for us to have open for those of us who wish to discuss it. i think everyone must be approaching it with some sort of fear in their hearts. there are no easy answers to that fear. some want to be rid of it one way, some another. it's hard to say who is really right. i know what i believe and what seems right to me. and while i can't remember exactly who said it, someone pointed out that all who participate here at least have beliefs, have something to express and give thought to. i agree with that. i also believe it is part of the process that we start from an emotional point of reference and then move forward to more respectful and insightful conversation. i'm sure the events that are yet to come will take us thru this cycle over and over again in the near future. Let's hope we can all do so well as we have done so far.

also, it's often hard not to judge, but in the deepest parts of me, i know i have no right to. i am responsible to, and for, no one but myself.


----------



## toast (Mar 19, 2003)

*habilis*: _This kind of snooty elitist sarcasm is gettin old Jack. Your percieved intellectual superiority is getting offensive and this is the last time I'm going to respond to it. I almost feel bad for you thinking that you're better than anyone who didn't read  those books. _

Sorry if you feel _offended_ by those hardcover things called _books_. They're just here to fill the gaps in our heads about history, about contemporary world problems and about mentalities. Hence, a good lecture could help to understand a bit more what's happening nowadays.

Tocqueville would be a good choice. Being an aristocrat at his time was a far more logical behavior than today, BTW  And even though he was an aristocrat indeed, he had a major message of tolerance in his texts.


----------



## fryke (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Ugg, by god I hope we do repeat the past: The vast majority of us here in America think the obliteration of Communism and Nazism was a good thing, A repeat of that would be great don't you think? or no...*


The actual problem right now is that if you compare the situation to 'Communism' and 'Nazism', it's the USA that form the problem. As I've mentioned several times before, we should move away from trying to solve terrorism by bombing countries that support terrorists and start solving the USA problem first, because for many terrorist activities (including the 9-11 incident), the USA is at the root of the problem. But as long as the US regime doesn't even _see_ that terrorism is the last straw people hang on to when faced with a problem as big as the USA-problem, there's nothing that can be done, I fear, from the inside. And now that the USA ignore the UN and the 'old Europe', it's going to be even more difficult.

I strongly hope that there is an active movement in the USA that sees the USA-problem and is willing to get their hands on it. If Bush fails again (like in Afghanistan), there might be a chance that the next president has a different name. I hope, for the sake of our world, that he'll also have a different background.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 20, 2003)

I don't understand this paranoia of George W. Bush.  Granted, my beliefs as a Christian match up very close with Bush's as well as being a republican, so one could say "I'm on his side."

But, the way people are talking around here is that Bush is secretly plotting world domination or something, which contrasts sharply with (what I believe) is part of what motivates him: the idea that all people should live in freedom; I've heard enough of his speeches, and that's what it sounds like to me.

Maybe I'm just too blind to see the "USA-problem," as fryke stated, but I would place my paranoia on terrorism before I would on Bush.  I've seen terror--I haven't seen the so-called Bush aggression.


----------



## toast (Mar 20, 2003)

I am firmly convinced G.W. Bush has the impression to be involved in a fight for universal freedom, as you state.

But (and this is a big But), the fact is, that this very attentionate feeling combines with... eager economic interests. You know what I'm talking about.

Even though I do not consider G.W. Bush as the complete madman he's supposed to be according to pacifist posters, I still think he and his administration act very much like the Israeli administration - 'hawk' behavior. Which is a form of paranoia in the first place, before it changes into open aggressivity.

Hence, you are right to place your paranoia on terrorism rather than on Bush. I am sure you are very conscient not everyone is able to do that; maybe you could close your eyes a second, imagine you live in Bagdad and try to target your #1 paranoia .

Note: interesting quotes, interesting pictures about Iraq.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 20, 2003)

I've changed my Avatar to a picture of myself from when I was much younger.  I did this because 50% of Iraqis are under the age of 18.  There's a good chance that 50% of the casualties are also going to be under the age of 18, smart bombs or not.  Also, depleted uranium is much more likely to affect the very young, the very old and the very ill.  By using these WMD, GW is committing a large number of Iraqis to a slow and painful death. 

I am not, I repeat, I am not standing up for Saddam.  He has committed too many atrocities on his fellow Iraqis in the name of Iraq.  

GW was not forced to use the weapons that he is choosing to use.   He and his cohorts will be responsible for their deaths.  What does his God, or yours, MD, have to say about that?


----------



## habilis (Mar 20, 2003)

Ugg, we already tried using harsh words, they don't work as good as bullets. 

Ugg, War is ugly, people have actually been known to die.

It's infortunate that you have such little faith in the worlds best and most humanitarian military.


----------



## edX (Mar 20, 2003)

i'll tell you what God has to say - "Thou shalt not kill". i'm pretty sure those words were attributed to him and his wishes. But i just read that in the bible, so i can't be sure i understood exactly what it means.


----------



## edX (Mar 20, 2003)

> humanitarian military



there's a new oxymoron i hadn't heard before.


----------



## habilis (Mar 20, 2003)

Oh yeah, and the reason why the population is so young is because of Saddams agression. And if you look up the statistics for child birth rate, the average ammount of children each women in Iraq has is 4.63, compared to 2.1 in the states, Kuwait, and Israel.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html


----------



## habilis (Mar 20, 2003)

Ed, what I mean is, no other army in the world drops bails of food along with their bombs. You should be proud of that.


----------



## edX (Mar 20, 2003)

dead people don't eat

i will never be proud of killing others. period. 

believe me i hate anyone who has committed the attrocities that saddam has, but that doesn't mean i should be proud of killing as a way to correct the situation.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *There's a good chance that 50% of the casualties are also going to be under the age of 18, smart bombs or not.  Also, depleted uranium is much more likely to affect the very young, the very old and the very ill.  By using these WMD, GW is committing a large number of Iraqis to a slow and painful death...
> GW was not forced to use the weapons that he is choosing to use.   He and his cohorts will be responsible for their deaths.  What does his God, or yours, MD, have to say about that?*


As a disclaimer, I will not pretend to know the intricacies of God's mind;
Isaiah 55:9 - 





> For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.


If we use "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as the only standard to base an entire war off of, I think we are missing the broader context of what the Bible has to say on the matter.  The thought that pops into my mind is that there is justice that needs to be exercised.  My belief is that a greater good will result from the removal of Saddam Hussein and his cronies.

To be honest, I haven't been following the war too closely in regards to the weapons being used, and I don't know what "Uranium Depletion" is.  What I *do* know is that coalition forces are trying very hard to keep civilian casualties to a minimum (the early A.M. "surgical" Baghdad bombings.)

I'm being a little long-winded, but hopefully you all can understand my perspective a little more.  I think I understand how some of you have the perception that you do; I think it would be a very good thing to just get out a little more than I do...

But anyway, that's it for tonight.


----------



## toast (Mar 21, 2003)

*Surgical strikes* already designed the Ame. atacks in 1991. Let's take a look at them:







Iraqi guide, Um Guida, who lost 9 members of her family in the attack, shows the remains of human skin scalded on to the walls of the shelter?s basement. Not visible in this photograph are fingernail marks made by people who attempted to climb them whilst trying to escape the boiling water.

Source: The Fire This Time

The word 'humanitarian' applies when you send means to survive. Not means to die.


----------



## habilis (Mar 21, 2003)

Toast, how about pictures of one or two of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people Saddam has tortured and killed in his torture chambers of the last 2 decades, or did you convieniently forget about that? You got your priorities screwed up. I can't believe you would sink to the level where you need to post graphic images of death here, that's a sleazy tasteless shock tactic.

You might as well go work for Saddam as a state propagandist. In fact, by standing for Saddams right to kill, protecting him, and posting shrill anti-American rhetoric all over, that's exactly what you are. 

Allow me to thank you on behalf of your soon-to-be-room-temperature hero, president Saddam Hussein.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *...
> I can't believe you would sink to the level where you need to post graphic images of death here, that's a sleazy tasteless shock tactic.
> 
> ...



I agree that posting that image was in bad taste.  It adds nothing to the discussion, and even if it did, toast could have simply posted a link to it.  There is no need for displays like that in this type of forum.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *dead people don't eat
> 
> i will never be proud of killing others. period.
> ...


Ed, I just want to say that I am not proud of this war any more than you are.  If I were a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq this minute, I would not be proud of killing people (whoever they may be).

I am, however, proud of our troops and the great job they've done so far.


----------



## toast (Mar 21, 2003)

If I had had some picture of Saddam's atrocities (which I don't, maybe you can help me on this one, habilis), I would have posted it *just beside this one*. It would have made an interesting parallel .

I hope you get my point at this stage. Thinking I'm ignoring Saddam's slaughters is not only insulting (I'm getting used to it), it is very telling of your general opinion about anti-war people.


----------



## habilis (Mar 21, 2003)

Toast, I know you understand the devastation wreaked by Saddam, I know you're not ignoring it. I know you mean well, have good intentions, we both want the same thing - pretty much. I know it's insulting to you to hear us say you're ignoring it, but it's highly insulting to most Americans when we hear you equate us with terrorists. Implying that an American bomb was intentionally dropped on innocent Iraqi's is incredibly offensive. 

America has darkness in its past yes, but that's the past. When it comes to comparing the atrocities of Saddam and his regime to the accidental destruction of some homes and people, there is no comparison in my mind.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 21, 2003)

Quote:

Implying that an American bomb was intentionally dropped on innocent Iraqi's is incredibly offensive.  

How's that saying go?  The road to hell is paved with good intentions?  

It may not have been our intent but innocent Iraqis were killed.  Yes, we all want to see Saddam out of power, but in the end it will be America's and GW's hands that are stained with blood of innocent men, women and children.


----------



## edX (Mar 21, 2003)

there is no such thing as an accidental bomb. somebody made the decision to use it.  the results of what bombs do is pretty well documented. to imply that it's your fault if you get in the way of it is insulting to all who have died of friendly fire, to all who sat in their homes for safety when they had no other alternatives. 

get a grip - there is no 'right' in killing. there is no glory in war. war is not a family value. this doesn't negate the atrocities of saddam. but atrocities are not a justification for creating more atrocities.


----------



## edX (Mar 21, 2003)

you know, the biggest point i get from all our european friends who are so concerned about the bigger implications in this is that americans are very good at pointing fingers, but terribly lack self awareness of how they look when the world's finger is pointing at them. 

no doubt, we resemble that remark.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *you know, the biggest point i get from all our european friends who are so concerned about the bigger implications in this is that americans are very good at pointing fingers, but terribly lack self awareness of how they look when the world's finger is pointing at them.
> 
> no doubt, we resemble that remark. *



Actually I would disagree.  We DO know how we look, we just don't care.  Just like the UK didn't care, and Spain didn't care, and Rome, etc, etc.  Every country has their own agenda, at different points in time any particular country(ies) have the ability to flex their muscles and be more direct in serving their own self interests.  Now is the time for the US.  We can and do manipulate things to "benefit" us, sometimes to the detriment of others (and sometimes ourselves).  While anyone can disagree with our actions, we are hardly unique in what we're doing.


----------



## edX (Mar 21, 2003)

binary - this is far sadder still if it is true. the future has never turned out well for all those before us who took this position.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> * get a grip - there is no 'right' in killing. there is no glory in war. war is not a family value. *



Ed, I know you mean well and I can see your position. Your seem/are an intelligent person but History is not standing with you on this position. Would you have said the same thing to Moses when he came off the mountain and found the golden idle? 

I don't want war just like you and most everybody else here. War in the 21st Century should be the last possible avenue.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *binary - this is far sadder still if it is true. the future has never turned out well for all those before us who took this position.  *



Well yes and no (as far as the future).  Great Britain, though a shell of its former self (no insult intended for any Brits out there) didn't necessarily collapse or get invaded, the "empire" merely "outgrew" itself.  So maybe there is some hope for us.

Actually, those aren't the best examples, since in all cases their aggression tended to lean towards expansionism.  And while there are many differing views on what this war is for/about, I don't think anyone can make an argument for that (at least not in the classic sense).  My point was more to illustrate that we as a species, not any particular race/ethnicity/nationality, behave in pretty much the same predictable patterns.  You can see it from the school yard to the UN, it's really human nature.

I'm not trying to be a downer, or a humanist apologist.  I just don't buy the hoity toity (in my opinion) view that the US is somehow more evil than another other country/peoples.  We happen to be holding the big stick at the moment, nothing more.  Even countries like France held colonial rule over several African countries (amongst others) not that long ago.  Not to mention the Dutch and other countries that are so peace loving now, were not so in recent history.  For any of them to somehow claim that we have now honestly and truely "evolved" to some higher state of humanity is laughable.  Their time has passed.  If their time comes again, you can rest assured that their actions would most likely not be significantly different than ours now, or their own hardly 100 years ago.


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> Ed, I know you mean well and I can see your position. Your seem/are an intelligent person but History is not standing with you on this position. Would you have said the same thing to Moses when he came off the mountain and found the golden idle?



i assume you mean 'idol'. and yea, i probably would have. if God is really the character depicted in the bible, then i spend a lot of time arguing with him. he doesn't even stick to the "thou shalt not kill" rule very well - ordering the israelites to attack this enemy and that. if he'd stick by his word, he wouldn't be on any side in a war and nobody who participated in them would make it to heaven. only those who refuse to participate in violence would have an afterlife. besides, i'm a pagan - a modern day 'idol worshipper'. and no, pacificism is not part of paganism exactly. however we have a certain version of it - "Harm no one shall be the whole of the law".



> I don't want war just like you and most everybody else here. War in the 21st Century should be the last possible avenue.



i agree. and i just don't feel we waited that long. we took the most convient route, not the most reasonable. and striking first is a thing that just doesn't feel right to me. this isn't wwII, this is america STARTING war. this doesn't make us better by any measure.


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

binaryd- i hear you. i guess i'm just an idealist that wants to believe that somehow america can remain better than all that have come before us as superpowers. and i criticize because i believe that is how we might do so. somebody has to be wrong. time will tell who it is.


----------



## fryke (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *you know, the biggest point i get from all our european friends who are so concerned about the bigger implications in this is that americans are very good at pointing fingers, but terribly lack self awareness of how they look when the world's finger is pointing at them.*



Yep.

Read the following paragraph, try to understand how it's meant and see what the problem is I'm seeing.

"This country has weapons of mass destruction and is willing to use them against the will of the UN and the world. The country is fast to bomb the ones it looks down upon as enemies, again against the will of the UN and the world. Therefore, George W. Bush must be removed from his seat and a world-compatible, carefully controlled democracy must be installed."


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *Michael Moore, director of Bowling for Columbine and author of Stupid White Men, wrote a letter to GW yesterday.  You can find it here
> 
> I don't like the guy myself, but he has some good things to say. *



Don't worry Ugg. He messed up in his letter. The ambassadors who went to France (to bilk the King for funds and help) were Benjamin Franklin and John Adams.

I'm sad to say most people would remember that the both of them died on the same day, the Fourth of July. How's that for coincidence.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> *Don't worry Ugg. He messed up in his letter. The ambassadors who went to France (to bilk the King for funds and help) were Benjamin Franklin and John Adams.
> 
> I'm sad to say most people would remember that the both of them died on the same day, the Fourth of July. How's that for coincidence. *



I would suggest that you reread the letter.  He doesn't use the word ambassador.  I didn't know that they both died on the Fouth.  Thanks for the info.


----------

