CaptainQuark
93 93/93
If it was a good looking girl in a skimpy bikini, you'll have to post the link again! 
Do Mac users support GW Bush?
- Thread starter reed
- Start date
Mobius Rex
Registered
Yeah, it IS quite satisfying........now, if they'd just make
some of these featuring Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the whole rabies infected pack of those hounds from Hell, I'd be occupied for days at a time!
chemistry_geek
Registered
fryke said:
While I personally don't like the existence Camp X-Ray AKA "Gitmo" as I believe it to be location of human rights violations, I understand the necessity for it. By calling the detainees "enemy combatants", the U.S. government is attempting to deny these people, as long as politically possible both domestically and abroad, the rights set forth by the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. so fervently defends for its troops internationally. The objective for denying these people "prisoner of war" status and rights is to isolate them completely from the outside world, instill fear and hopelessness as a means for breaking them psychologically to provide possible information about the inner workings of terrorist networks. With more open borders between nations for commerce, the terrorists are fighting against the "Western Infadels" in a manner analogous to the American Indian. The indians didn't fight according to the "established rules of war" in Europe at that time, and now that laws are in place to protect human rights, crafted by word-smiths, AKA "Lawyers", the U.S. government changed the language of the captured to extract as much information as possible from the detainees until the whole world is pressuring the U.S. for due process of law for these people.
Calling the U.S. "bullies on the playground" is I think, a bit strong and out of context. As a U.S. citizen, I know that the general public is not "pro-war" as is the phonetically and grammatically challenged gun-slinging cowboy who is currently occupying the Presidential Office. Note that I did not refer to "W" as the President. No one here wants to send their sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters to war. I am sincerely concerned that "W" does not comprehend the scope of his (in)decisions and actions, and that this established and continued activity will only propagate negativity, resentment, and hostility towards the U.S.
For clarity of my argument, I think that "W" means well for most major events that require action/intervention, but I am concerned about his inability to execute language properly. If I recall correctly, languistic ability is directly related to thinking ability, memory, span, etc... Listening to "W" speak, one would never have thought that he graduated from Yale University, an Ivy League school. While I know that "W" has some redeaming qualities, I think that his talents lie elsewhere and not with the Presidency of the United States. I'm not trying to slam him as a human being or politically, but clearly his talents lie in some other arena. I would have the same opinion of a democrat or independent occupying the executive office or other high-ranking government office if he or she displayed these qualities.
reed said:
France sells the nuke reactors to Iraq and you have riots all over your county Started by a bunch of immigrants in France. Who say they want to be citizens of France. What does Jock do nothing but let them riot. Then in typical French snobbery you shoot down Bush you should start with you own country first.
chemistry_geek: I agree that calling the USA "the bully in the playground" might be a bit off and, well, over-over-simplified, but it also hits a point, I think.
hawki18: And you. (I like how telling someone to start with their _own_ problems is always the first step to hearing the same message a second later...)
hawki18: And you.
(I like how telling someone to start with their _own_ problems is always the first step to hearing the same message a second later...)
bbloke
Registered
chemistry_geek: I agree with a lot of the sentiments you expressed.
With regards to Guantanamo Bay, I feel that another couple of reasons for the strange labelling of the inmates is so that they do not fall within the usual categories... that is, I believe they aim to be able to do whatever they want to them without "interference," plus... well... they don't really have the evidence to support their suspicions! I believe there are over 460 inmates, and only 10 have been charged. It is sometimes said that the inmates are dangerous fighters or terrorists, and yet many have been detained on flimsy evidence (often just hearsay), rather than being "caught in the act" or something. One really needs to ask: if the evidence is so weak, or non-existent, should they really still be there? These people have been detained for years without charge, without proper access to the outside world, and there are allegations of abuse. This would all cause outrage if practiced on home soil against American citizens, with regards to normal crimes. Also, if not criminals but POWs, then surely they would have to be released and treated well (not tortured etc.) and, importantly, when exactly will the "war on terror" ever be won? Conveniently: never. A perpetual state of fear/alert/war allows a government to clamp down on civil liberties, increase defense spending, and practice all sorts of "preemptive" (hmmm) measures abroad. In short, they get away with things a less fearful public would hopefully never agree to.
One also has to wonder what purpose exactly it serves to incarcerate a 15 year old boy (Mohammed El Gharani) at Guantanamo Bay. He has already tried to kill himself twice. No doubt he is a devious terrorist who is trying to wage a propaganda war.
When chemistry_geek commented on Native Americans waging unconventional war against the European settlers, it reminded me of a couple of things. The Native Americans learned various practices, such as "scalping," from Europeans. Also, more importantly, the revolutionary colonists who founded the current day USA fought a guerilla campaign, they too did not fight conventionally. No doubt the founding fathers would therefore be seen as terrorists of their day...
With regards to fryke's comment about the US being the "bully of the playground," in some ways it is rather strong, but in other ways it is quite fair, alas. There is a long history of events, but I don't think we need to go into it right now, in order to keep the focus of the thread (i.e. the Bush administration's record). I wish George W. Bush was only a well-meaning-but-incompetent leader with a poor grasp of the English language. I am concerned that it is not as innocent as that, though.
hawki18: It is true that other countries (all, in fact!) have their hands dirty and have their own problems. No one is disputing that here. In fact, you will for instance see those in the UK here complaining about the current government. No country can really claim to have the moral high ground. What is sometimes sensed, however, is that there is more jingoism coming from some Americans, and the USA (being a powerful nation) has the potential to do a lot of harm when it is heavy-handed; that is perhaps why people sometimes focus more on US foreign policy. It is true that France sold the nuclear reactors to Iraq. It is also true that the US was a major supporter of Saddam Hussein's regime (not least because he was enemies with Iran), so, if you want to get into this, you might find the US has a dirtier past than you expect. The US is also by far the greatest exporter of arms:
With regards to Guantanamo Bay, I feel that another couple of reasons for the strange labelling of the inmates is so that they do not fall within the usual categories... that is, I believe they aim to be able to do whatever they want to them without "interference," plus... well... they don't really have the evidence to support their suspicions! I believe there are over 460 inmates, and only 10 have been charged. It is sometimes said that the inmates are dangerous fighters or terrorists, and yet many have been detained on flimsy evidence (often just hearsay), rather than being "caught in the act" or something. One really needs to ask: if the evidence is so weak, or non-existent, should they really still be there? These people have been detained for years without charge, without proper access to the outside world, and there are allegations of abuse. This would all cause outrage if practiced on home soil against American citizens, with regards to normal crimes. Also, if not criminals but POWs, then surely they would have to be released and treated well (not tortured etc.) and, importantly, when exactly will the "war on terror" ever be won? Conveniently: never. A perpetual state of fear/alert/war allows a government to clamp down on civil liberties, increase defense spending, and practice all sorts of "preemptive" (hmmm) measures abroad. In short, they get away with things a less fearful public would hopefully never agree to.
One also has to wonder what purpose exactly it serves to incarcerate a 15 year old boy (Mohammed El Gharani) at Guantanamo Bay. He has already tried to kill himself twice. No doubt he is a devious terrorist who is trying to wage a propaganda war.
When chemistry_geek commented on Native Americans waging unconventional war against the European settlers, it reminded me of a couple of things. The Native Americans learned various practices, such as "scalping," from Europeans. Also, more importantly, the revolutionary colonists who founded the current day USA fought a guerilla campaign, they too did not fight conventionally. No doubt the founding fathers would therefore be seen as terrorists of their day...
With regards to fryke's comment about the US being the "bully of the playground," in some ways it is rather strong, but in other ways it is quite fair, alas. There is a long history of events, but I don't think we need to go into it right now, in order to keep the focus of the thread (i.e. the Bush administration's record). I wish George W. Bush was only a well-meaning-but-incompetent leader with a poor grasp of the English language. I am concerned that it is not as innocent as that, though.
hawki18: It is true that other countries (all, in fact!) have their hands dirty and have their own problems. No one is disputing that here. In fact, you will for instance see those in the UK here complaining about the current government. No country can really claim to have the moral high ground. What is sometimes sensed, however, is that there is more jingoism coming from some Americans, and the USA (being a powerful nation) has the potential to do a lot of harm when it is heavy-handed; that is perhaps why people sometimes focus more on US foreign policy. It is true that France sold the nuclear reactors to Iraq. It is also true that the US was a major supporter of Saddam Hussein's regime (not least because he was enemies with Iran), so, if you want to get into this, you might find the US has a dirtier past than you expect. The US is also by far the greatest exporter of arms:
- US: $18,555m
- Russia: $4,600m
- France: $4,400m
- UK: $1,900m
- Germany: $900m
- Canada: $900m
- China: $700m
bbloke
Registered
Thanks.rhisiart said:
These figures were from 2004, as I didn't have more up to date ones to hand, but they should give a general idea. I'm sure the league table won't invert over the course of one year! Agreed, though, it's rather depressing to see how much Western countries make from the sales of arms, especially as sales are often made to oppressive regimes and areas of conflict.rhisiart said:
reed
Registered
chemistry geek
While I know that "W" has some redeaming qualities, I think that his talents lie elsewhere and not with the Presidency of the United States. I'm not trying to slam him as a human being or politically, but clearly his talents lie in some other arena. I would have the same opinion of a democrat or independent occupying the executive office or other high-ranking government office if he or she displayed these qualities.[/QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying but I have to throw this in concerning GWB's "talents lie in some other arena."
Where do you think it is possible that he has talents in another area?
1.University? Dad got him into Yale. He can't even speak English correctly
2. Air Force? AWOL and got out of Vietnam PDQ (like Cheney). Thanks dad.
3. Businessman. Wrong again. Three companies he ran in Texas went flop under his management.
4.Governor. Okay for the death penalty. Murder rate has risen in Texas. Nice try. Otherwise....what did he do in the Lone Star State?
5. Barkeep. Nope. He's off the booze.
6. Preacher? Maybe. "I speak to God"
7. Stand-up comic? Well, he "writes" his own material. Good for starters.
8. Librarian? Doesn't read books.
9. Cowboy. Niet. Can't ride a horse. 4 wheel drive only. Shucks!
10.Advertizing? Well, you have to have some original ideas. But cheating the public may get his foot in the door.
11. As George Carlin once said: "Anybody can become the President of the United States. That's the problem."
So, leave GWB where he is. Our leader. Our light. This the only job he was cut out for.
While I know that "W" has some redeaming qualities, I think that his talents lie elsewhere and not with the Presidency of the United States. I'm not trying to slam him as a human being or politically, but clearly his talents lie in some other arena. I would have the same opinion of a democrat or independent occupying the executive office or other high-ranking government office if he or she displayed these qualities.[/QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying but I have to throw this in concerning GWB's "talents lie in some other arena."
Where do you think it is possible that he has talents in another area?
1.University? Dad got him into Yale. He can't even speak English correctly
2. Air Force? AWOL and got out of Vietnam PDQ (like Cheney). Thanks dad.
3. Businessman. Wrong again. Three companies he ran in Texas went flop under his management.
4.Governor. Okay for the death penalty. Murder rate has risen in Texas. Nice try. Otherwise....what did he do in the Lone Star State?
5. Barkeep. Nope. He's off the booze.
6. Preacher? Maybe. "I speak to God"
7. Stand-up comic? Well, he "writes" his own material. Good for starters.
8. Librarian? Doesn't read books.
9. Cowboy. Niet. Can't ride a horse. 4 wheel drive only. Shucks!
10.Advertizing? Well, you have to have some original ideas. But cheating the public may get his foot in the door.
11. As George Carlin once said: "Anybody can become the President of the United States. That's the problem."
So, leave GWB where he is. Our leader. Our light. This the only job he was cut out for.
ApeintheShell
Registered
I voted for and support President George W. Bush and respect him as a person and man of faith.
Many people in the United States of America are just pissed off because they feel their rights are being taken away. One of these rights is gay marriage.
They see the Christian communities involvement in certain issues as a threat and blame everything associated with the Bush Administration on them regardless of the issues. Everyone here talks about being open and embracing each others beliefs but when it comes to Christians ideas and beliefs they are up in arms.
To comment on all Holy Books are the same, http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/texttest.html, here is an interesting read about the subject.
Here are some other reasons why Americans are pissed off: higher gas prices, higher taxes, unemployment rate, illegal immigration, gay marriage, christian texts and symbols taken down, and many other things.
As much as a I appreciate the help from people in other countries with my mac; I don't think their opinions matter on whether they support our President or not.
Many people in the United States of America are just pissed off because they feel their rights are being taken away. One of these rights is gay marriage.
They see the Christian communities involvement in certain issues as a threat and blame everything associated with the Bush Administration on them regardless of the issues. Everyone here talks about being open and embracing each others beliefs but when it comes to Christians ideas and beliefs they are up in arms.
To comment on all Holy Books are the same, http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/texttest.html, here is an interesting read about the subject.
Here are some other reasons why Americans are pissed off: higher gas prices, higher taxes, unemployment rate, illegal immigration, gay marriage, christian texts and symbols taken down, and many other things.
As much as a I appreciate the help from people in other countries with my mac; I don't think their opinions matter on whether they support our President or not.
Mobius Rex
Registered
Well, of course! And I think that a very good case can be made that BUSH SUPPORTERS, as well, are DANGEROUS IDIOTS!
A valid question might be, "Are Bush supporters of lower intelligence than Bush opposers?".
bbloke said:
It alarms me, too. Every news day there's a new emergency; a new reason why murmurs of dissent would immediately destroy this country. It wears thin when you realize that GW is paying off his campaign supporters with these wartime contracts -- or when you see he and his staff go through the effort to make a video presentation to laugh off the lack of WMDs located in Iraq (the immediate threat cited as reason to lead so many soldiers and civilians to their deaths).
There's an expression that says a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. I wonder to what party the mugger belongs.
reed
Registered
hawki18 said:
I'm from New York. And a patriot.Where do you see the superiority deal? Cause GWB and Dick Cheney wanted a war in Iraq based on lies and the Frenchies said "not with us?" I don't give a hoot about Chirac and politics in general but they were correct to be not lead into such a stupid adventure. They were there for the 1st Gulf War by the way.One that was politically correct.
They are heavily engaged in Afganhistan against the Talibans.... the seat of terrorism. In fact the Frenchies have been fighting terrorism long before 9/11 and the London Transport attacks. London use to be the European HQ for terrorists.And we didn't see the handwriting on the wall.
Don't mix apples with oranges.
bbloke
Registered
Well said, g/re/p... both times!
Our leaders affect other countries too... particularly when they invade them! This is really not about whether or not people take issue with one particular branch of Christianity (it is not fair to equate Christianity to Protestant Fundamentalism). Not at all. This is about a range of issues which affect people worldwide, and people around the world have every right to hold views on issues which affect them!
Whoa, that sounds rather arrogant. I can fully understand someone saying that, ultimately, it is up to the citizens of a country to choose their own leader, but saying other peoples' opinions absolutely do not matter is rather astonishing. I despair when people effectively put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to others; this is not the way the world becomes a better place.ApeintheShell said:
Our leaders affect other countries too... particularly when they invade them! This is really not about whether or not people take issue with one particular branch of Christianity (it is not fair to equate Christianity to Protestant Fundamentalism). Not at all. This is about a range of issues which affect people worldwide, and people around the world have every right to hold views on issues which affect them!
Hmmm, this too sounds very arrogant (ironically!). It also seems to imply a major lack of understanding of history...hawki18 said:
Rhisiart
Registered
Tony Blair was only able to take Britain to war in Iraq by winning a vote in the British Parliament (with roughly 650 politicians voting).
However, most of Tony's political party (Labour), which hold a majority of parliamentary seats, were against the war and threatened to vote against Britain’s involvement. Furthermore, 3,000,000 Britons marched in London and other British cities, pleading with Blair not to invade Iraq.
Tony's own advisors said going to war was a very bad idea and the Attorney General thought that it would be illegal. Even GWB on the eve of the vote rang Blair to say that America would understand if Britain decided to pull out.
So what did Tony do with all this advice? On his own volition, at the eleventh hour, he approached as many Labour MPs as he could and told them that the government would collapse if it lost the vote and that they could lose their seats in Parliament. That scared the crap out of most of them, so they switched their vote to support Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
They complained that Iraq was a dictatorship. Yet, it was a Blair dictatorship that took Britain to war!
However, most of Tony's political party (Labour), which hold a majority of parliamentary seats, were against the war and threatened to vote against Britain’s involvement. Furthermore, 3,000,000 Britons marched in London and other British cities, pleading with Blair not to invade Iraq.
Tony's own advisors said going to war was a very bad idea and the Attorney General thought that it would be illegal. Even GWB on the eve of the vote rang Blair to say that America would understand if Britain decided to pull out.
So what did Tony do with all this advice? On his own volition, at the eleventh hour, he approached as many Labour MPs as he could and told them that the government would collapse if it lost the vote and that they could lose their seats in Parliament. That scared the crap out of most of them, so they switched their vote to support Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
They complained that Iraq was a dictatorship. Yet, it was a Blair dictatorship that took Britain to war!