Bush State Of The Union mashup

nihpuad · 30-11-06 00:22:37

killik wrote:

...it is still bad form to make childish statements concerning someone who has opposing views even if the other person would do it. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

I humbly apologize if it seemed to you I was engaging in that sort of tit-for-tat behavior. Truly, that was not my intent; I was only trying to use language that was evocative and hopefully entertaining (at least one person laughed, after all ) to address a subject that's otherwise pretty grim.

But I think Blissed is right: This conversation has reached the point where no further light is to be had from continuing it. So I will bow and leave the field. You may have the last word if you must; in any case, I won't respond further on this subject.

aven frey · 30-11-06 01:19:39

I liked your posts daulphinb, they were clever and made me laugh!
I always believed that crime (terrorism included) is more then often a consequence of poverty and yes if we were nicer and fairer there would be less crime.

jwhite · 30-11-06 01:52:10

There are lots of bad people/governments/totalitarian regimes in the world. There are many acts of official murder/genocide/ethnic cleansings committed by the above. The US Government does not feel compelled to intervene in more than a fraction. Realpolitik. So, just because the US wants/creates a certain situation does not automatically make it right. After World War II, after 9/11 in Afghanistan, the US could claim a certain moral authority for its actions. Said authority does not extend to random bad guys. Nor does it extend to non-random bad guys we used to support. The progressive rationale for Iraq has gone Al-Qaeda (not even our own intelligence agencies believed that), WMD (international monitors never found evidence of anything more than wistful thinking), remaking a democratic Middle East (ahhh, .... , no comment), stay the course ( which would make whatever policy changes occur cut and run, I suppose), and peace with honor (where is Hank K. now that we need him again?).

No amount of sophistry makes a bad policy a good one. No amount of wishful thinking will justify 3000 American and who knows how many Iraqi live. To call the administration on this says nothing about going after the real bad guys who still want to kill us. To speculate on how to repair the damage is not irresponsible. To openly debate the issue is, dare I say, a patriotic act. How will we repair what we have done? How will we aspire to regain a moral authority that I think the ideals of America deserve? Rather than support the insupportable, where do the solutions lie? Respect for others and a desire for security and economic justice is not an unreasonable starting point. We can be responsible for our own acts, not everyone elses'. We are, at best, imperfect- some would call us sinners. It would seem a good thing to extend the courtesies and ideals we use in these exchanges in the world at large. (Brought it all home there, folks.) At best, perhaps it's reciprocated. At worst, we've made the effort to be better humans.

Last edited by jwhite (30-11-06 01:53:55)

msnevil · 30-11-06 04:13:26

I find it enlightening that more conservatives are coming to this forum. It provides a necessary balancing of both political and social views. (Though I don't truly believe in the false dichotomy between left-right. Though most people do believe in these generalized associations. Each one thinking thier side is common sense, and the other side is clearly wrong.)

Of course, I hate to see this or other threads go into a "flame" battle between two ideologies. Like it so happens at a lot of other forums.(Hence the "roll the eyes" moniker.)

Recently, I think everybody has been insensitive to the opposing sides, And character assassination has been over done. Could we please stick to "issues" and leave the Ad Hominem attacks aside. Also the Bandwagoning type of Arguments gets old after awhile. (Exp. I like this person because he stated something I like.)

Must we force a general "appeal for common practice" with everything, or can we just "agree to disagree".

msnevil · 30-11-06 04:50:02

Respectfully, Max I think your are oversimplifying the issue. Yes, poverty can cause Crime. But lets not forget greed, pride, power, and the other human virtues that plague us all.

You can be nice all you want with a dictator like Hitler. But when push comes to shove. Sometimes for peace, War becomes a necessary evil.

Though No doubt, War should not be caused by false premises. Like The 1898 Spanish American war, Vietnam, Bay of pigs, etc. Iraq was a war started for power, and the desire to maintain that power. I have no doubt that Bush has a neo-imperialist agenda. And is wasting our time in Iraq, when we should be focused on the countries that truly caused 9-11.

Of course, Some people blame Bush for 9-11. (Demolition explosive's in the Twin towers, the tomahawk missle shot at the pentagon, Isreal Mossad Video of Celebration when the towers fell down, Etc.)

Of course, Is a smart Bomb killing 50 innocent iraqi's any worse. Then a suicide Bomber killing 50 innocent iraqi's. Its all a matter of perspective and who you think the good guys are.

max wrote:

I liked your posts daulphinb, they were clever and made me laugh!
I always believed that crime (terrorism included) is more then often a consequence of poverty and yes if we were nicer and fairer there would be less crime.

aven frey · 30-11-06 06:27:49

msnevil wrote:

. But lets not forget greed, pride, power, and the other human virtues that plague us all.

Yes they cause poverty.

blissed · 01-12-06 01:05:00

http://www.holylemon.com/BushImitation.html

killik · 01-12-06 05:29:52

msnevil wrote:

Though No doubt, War should not be caused by false premises. Like The 1898 Spanish American war, Vietnam, Bay of pigs, etc. Iraq was a war started for power, and the desire to maintain that power. I have no doubt that Bush has a neo-imperialist agenda. And is wasting our time in Iraq, when we should be focused on the countries that truly caused 9-11.

And that is the problem. No countries were behind 9/11. Fanatical groups were that base themselves among ordinary citizens of other countries. We are not fighting against a Germany or a Japan, we are fighting against extremists who base themselves in countries with either weak leadership so they cannot be effectively removed (like Pakistan) or in countries that have iron fisted dictators that, while they may not actively support them, they turn a blind eye towards them as long as their goals benefit the leader (like Iraq).

Wasting our time in Iraq?

Perhaps you were not aware that 1993 WTC attack architect Ramzi Yousef -- nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- landed in America on an Iraqi passport.

Or that Indiana-born, Iraqi-bred Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative who built the 1993 bomb that killed 6 and injured 1,040 fled to Iraq. Documents show that he received a house and salary from Saddam's regime.

Or that the Clinton State Department designated Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism as eraly as 1993.

Or that Saddam was well known to have publicly supported the Palestinian Liberation Front and paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 and then increased to $25,000. Between the $15,000 boost in these bonuses on March 11 2002, and the March 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 such killers wounded 1,209 people and murdered 223 more, including at least 8 Americans.

I have more but I think these make my point.

nihpuad · 01-12-06 06:51:59

Oh, well... out of the frying pan, into... the next frying pan over, I suppose!

msnevil wrote:

max wrote:
I liked your posts daulphinb, they were clever and made me laugh!
I always believed that crime (terrorism included) is more then often a consequence of poverty and yes if we were nicer and fairer there would be less crime.
Respectfully, Max I think your are oversimplifying the issue.

Respectfully (really; I don't mean that in the dismissive sense it's sometimes used), she's only oversimplifying if you think she said poverty was the only cause of crime. But I didn't hear her say that. In fact...

msnevil wrote:

Yes, poverty can cause Crime. But lets not forget greed, pride, power, and the other human virtues that plague us all.

...I don't think what she said is in material conflict with what you said.

msnevil wrote:

You can be nice all you want with a dictator like Hitler. But when push comes to shove. Sometimes for peace, War becomes a necessary evil.

Here's what I don't understand about this whole debate: Why does it always come down to Hitler? Why is it that when I say "we'd have fewer enemies if we paid attention to how other people feel" or Max says "if we were nicer and fairer there would be less crime," the answer is always "what, you'd be nice to Hitler?" Nobody advocates being nice to Hitler or bin Laden... but what if we could create a world in which fewer people followed the next Hitler or bin Laden? Why does that hope always get spun as coddling the bad guys? I don't want to coddle the bad guys at all, but I'd rather limit their pool of recruits than kill their followers after they're recruited.

Take bin Laden: I'm prepared to stipulate that he's a crazy, evil nutjob, and that no amount of niceness would have changed that. But... he's focused his nutjobbery on us (as opposed to, say, Sweden, whose cultural values are probably equally inimicable to fundamentalist Islam) for reasons (i.e., we support the Saudi government, and we based troops in Saudi Arabia). Now, we might decide that those things are important to our national interests, and worth the risk... but if we pretend there are no causes for his attacks beyond his personal evil, we're missing critical information and may therefore make bad decisions. Further, I think bin Laden would have a heck of a lot harder time getting folks to blow them up if their regular lives offered them more to live for.

It's easier for an otherwise decent human beings to be led into suicide bombing if they don't feel the future offers anything but war and oppression anyway, and it's easier for inner city kids to rationalize selling drugs or stealing cars or robbing liquor stores if they don't see any hope for happiness in a "legitimate" life. That doesn't excuse their crimes, of course, and none of the "bleeding heart liberals" I know would ever say it did... but why on Earth does anyone think it's preferable to punish criminals (or kill terrorists) after the fact than to try to prevent them from turning to evil in the first place?

I don't push this point because I want to pick fights, or because I hate conservatives; I push this point because I truly imagine a world in which individuals and nations focus on positive, humane policies that give people and countries fewer reasons to turn to evil. I think that's better than focusing on better ways to punish people after they turn to evil.

Now, if that all sounds way too touchy-feely to suit you, let me try a purely pragmatic spin on it: I work in and industrial company, and we have an aggressive quality-improvement culture. Central to that culture is the idea that when we observe defects, we must gather data and objectively assess the "root cause" of that defect. Note that "root cause" isn't just what happened immediately before the defect occurred, but the deep underlying cause, instead. From a hardheaded business point of view, it's considered much better to mitigate or eliminate the root cause -- and thereby prevent the defect from occurring -- first, and only then focus on ways to fix the defect after it's occurred. And nobody thinks that means we're "soft on defects." It's not a matter of avoiding accountability; it's a matter of focusing accountability where it can do the most good.

Of course, you don't always have the choice, but when you do, it's generally better to prevent problems than fix them. I don't understand why so many people seem to think that's an anti-conservative position.

Sorry... another longwinded post from me. But hey, no namecalling in it!

Last edited by dauphinb2 (01-12-06 06:56:55)

nihpuad · 01-12-06 07:01:51

dauphinb2 wrote:

...in any case, I won't respond further on this subject.

Hmmm... In re-reading, I suppose this makes me look like a hypocrite in light of my recent long post in response to msnevil and Max. I should have been more precise: I meant that I wouldn't respond any further to killik on this subject: It's not that the subject doesn't merit further discussion; it's just that we obviously weren't having a useful communication about it (my fault, no doubt; I don't mean to be pointing fingers).

killik · 01-12-06 07:53:12

dauphinb2 wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about this whole debate: Why does it always come down to Hitler? Why is it that when I say "we'd have fewer enemies if we paid attention to how other people feel" or Max says "if we were nicer and fairer there would be less crime," the answer is always "what, you'd be nice to Hitler?" Nobody advocates being nice to Hitler or bin Laden... but what if we could create a world in which fewer people followed the next Hitler or bin Laden? Why does that hope always get spun as coddling the bad guys? I don't want to coddle the bad guys at all, but I'd rather limit their pool of recruits than kill their followers after they're recruited.

The reason Hitler is a perfect example to bring up is because we have an accurate history record of how many times he was either ignored ("he is no threat to us, he only wants to kill jews and he is overseas") or appeased (Neville Chamberlain the classic example). Granted Saddam was in no way equal with Hitler....yet. However in his time as a ruler he had:

1. Threatened Israel with destruction (much like Ahmadinejad)
2. Came so close to building a nuclear reactor that Israel decided it had to go in and destroy it.
3. Invaded Kuwait and started the gulf war as well as throw a few attacks against Israel.
4. Set up rape and torture rooms mostly overseen by his sons.
5. Gassed hundreds of thousands of kurds, his own men, women and children.
6. Was friends with Arafat.
7. Supported Palestinian terrorists.
8. Repeatedly ignored the no fly zone set up in Iraq
9. Had bribed dozens of diplomats in the oil for food scandal
10. Kept his people in poverty while he had at least 4 palaces
11. No free press
12. No elections

So should we have just sat back and waited until he could amass enough power like Hitler, or should we step in now and prevent that from happening especially given the occurence of 9/11 and all the reports pointing to him having WMD. The U.S had a perfectly legitimate right to remove him, not just because of the WMD (which would have been enough) but because he constantly violated the U.N. mandates. No sane person wants a war, but only a fool would think that by giving a bully what he wants that will stop him from taking more.

Last edited by killik (01-12-06 07:57:13)

Arielle · 01-12-06 07:53:54

I am also constantly amazed when people fail to understand the root cause of a problem and seem to see everything as short term, what is happening 'now' rather than how it got to the state it IS. Afghanistan / Iraq et al are terrible 'now' but I think we really need to look at HOW things got to this terrible messed up state. Might it have anything to do with flying planes over Iraq and dropping bombs on any type of infrastructure every day since the Gulf War? Trade sanctions that made it impossible to even get basic medicines into the country? Standards of living so low we in the West can barely relate?

Its often easy for us to look at these situations and sit back and say 'the world isnt a fair place' when its someone else who is having the sh*t beaten out of them. The same logic NEVER seems to apply to those used to a position of privilege.

msnevil · 01-12-06 08:13:16

Dauphinb2, What you stated has good merit. I do agree that a bit of soul searching would be good for my country. (As is any other country as well.)

As to why Osama is pissed at us. We need not look further then what he stated himself.

Summery:
1) The preceived occupation of Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War, And the resulting death of innocent muslims.
2)The continued existence of US military in Saudi Arabia.
3)The Movie\entertainment industry spreading thier "evil" lifestyle around the world.
4)The spread of Corperations into Muslim lands.
5)The continues oppresion of Muslims around the world by the US government.
6)A few others, I can't remember.

He agree's to peace if we pull out of Islamic lands (Military and corperations), disband the entertainment industry, And We all Convert To his version of Islam.

Of course, Osama's Islamic beliefs are very extreme. And even the Christian\Jew Belief practice tax will not be tolerated. It is either submit to the sword, or die.

And yes, I have always liked your debate style dauphinb2, and yes, You are right. Now that I reread Max's post, I see what you are stating. And I thank you for calling me on it.

And Now, lets see if Killik can stand the heat.

msnevil · 01-12-06 08:36:49

Ok, Killik Since I really don't know you. Is it safe to assume that your conservative minded? Correct?

As for me, If you like Label's. I am a libertarian.

I am well Aware that Iraq has tie's to "terrorists". But your arguement can be shown to be very weak.

If we assume guilty by association. Then why did we not invade Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, And the numerous other Islamic countries tied to terrorism.

Iran has real "WMD's", and we Invade Iraq instead. Turkey has killed its own Native born Kurds. Yet they are our allies in the War of Terrorism. Saudi Arabia kills Any Muslim that converts to another Religion. Yet agian they are our allies in the War of Terrorism. Iran has threatened to destroy Isreal, yet they were out allies during the initial stages of the war with Iraq. Syria occupies Lebanon, yet we never invaded Syria. Isreal occupies Palestine, yet we never invaded Isreal. Jordan killed the native palestinians in thier land. Yet the US remains quiet.

I can go on with Various other US political hypocricy issues. But I won't.

But let me reassure you, While I disagree with Politicians. I support the troops 110%. And hope the politicians would let them win the Iraq war, and send our boys home. Especially my brother-in-law.

killik wrote:

And that is the problem. No countries were behind 9/11. Fanatical groups were that base themselves among ordinary citizens of other countries. We are not fighting against a Germany or a Japan, we are fighting against extremists who base themselves in countries with either weak leadership so they cannot be effectively removed (like Pakistan) or in countries that have iron fisted dictators that, while they may not actively support them, they turn a blind eye towards them as long as their goals benefit the leader (like Iraq).
Wasting our time in Iraq?
Perhaps you were not aware that 1993 WTC attack architect Ramzi Yousef -- nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- landed in America on an Iraqi passport.
Or that Indiana-born, Iraqi-bred Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative who built the 1993 bomb that killed 6 and injured 1,040 fled to Iraq. Documents show that he received a house and salary from Saddam's regime.
Or that the Clinton State Department designated Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism as eraly as 1993.
Or that Saddam was well known to have publicly supported the Palestinian Liberation Front and paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 and then increased to $25,000. Between the $15,000 boost in these bonuses on March 11 2002, and the March 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 such killers wounded 1,209 people and murdered 223 more, including at least 8 Americans.
I have more but I think these make my point.

msnevil · 01-12-06 08:53:20

killik wrote:

The reason Hitler is a perfect example to bring up is because we have an accurate history record of how many times he was either ignored ("he is no threat to us, he only wants to kill jews and he is overseas") or appeased (Neville Chamberlain the classic example). Granted Saddam was in no way equal with Hitler....yet. However in his time as a ruler he had:

1. Threatened Israel with destruction (much like Ahmadinejad)
Much like the US did to Iran and North Korea.
2. Came so close to building a nuclear reactor that Israel decided it had to go in and destroy it.
With parts supplied from the USA and France.
3. Invaded Kuwait and started the gulf war as well as throw a few attacks against Israel.
Like We invaded nicaragua.
4. Set up rape and torture rooms mostly overseen by his sons.
US set up secret Torture sites in Eastern Europe.
5. Gassed hundreds of thousands of kurds, his own men, women and children.
Branch Davidians.
6. Was friends with Arafat.
As we were.
7. Supported Palestinian terrorists.
AS we were, By giving money to the Arafat's Palestinian Army.
8. Repeatedly ignored the no fly zone set up in Iraq
Like We ignore Canada's Artic Borders in our search for oil.
9. Had bribed dozens of diplomats in the oil for food scandal
US companies were involved as well.
10. Kept his people in poverty while he had at least 4 palaces
As we keep immigrants in poverty.
11. No free press
Fed attacks on the New york post, Imprisoned journalist who refused to divulge her confidants.
12. No elections
Well, we could state "stolen" elections.

killik · 01-12-06 09:35:04

msnevil wrote:

4. Set up rape and torture rooms mostly overseen by his sons.
US set up secret Torture sites in Eastern Europe.
12. No elections
Well, we could state "stolen" elections.

I was going to respond to your posts with more detailed analysis until I read through them and saw the kind of "truths" you seem to believe in. Although all of them are either ficticious or just plain nonsensical, the two I picked out are the most common and disturbing. The very old and tiresome lie of President Bush stealing the election is a very often repeated refrain among the far left Bush haters. They deride any gains President Bush makes as a fraud yet never offer any proof to the contrary, just rhetoric.

As to the latter statement, do you have any idea how repulsive and idiotic a statement you made by comparing our government with that of Saddam's? Like torture is a natural part of our society? Like our government regularly kills people who dissent? The other misinformations (especially the claim of Israel occupying the Palestinians), I could live with and would enjoy showing you how all of these statements are wrong. However this last statement is beyond the pale and truthfully sickens me. I am just stunned that you (and others) can make this comparison. Anyone who can equate Saddam and our government on the same moral equivilance is not someone who can have a rational debate and will never understand what America is truly about. I pity you.

polarchill · 01-12-06 09:40:26

killik wrote:

As to the latter statement, do you have any idea how repulsive and idiotic a statement you made by comparing our government with that of Saddam's? Like torture is a natural part of our society?

Waterboarding. The first and last words I'm going to toss at this dead horse.

msnevil · 01-12-06 13:00:09

killik wrote:

I was going to respond to your posts with more detailed analysis until I read through them and saw the kind of "truths" you seem to believe in.

Most of what I posted was a persona masquerade.

"""""Like torture is a natural part of our society? Like our government regularly kills people who dissent?""""

Does it? What happens at Guatamino Bay Cuba. There is no government insight, No Geneva conventions.

How do you know torture is not done? How do you know prisoners are not killed?

There is no oversight, And they can do what ever they darn well please. The only thing we Know is Bush states "Trust me". And only the republican party trusts him. The world hate's him, and the USA citizens by extension. And we become the laughing stock of The Nations.

We state "Come to the land of the Free", and then imprison people without "due process". And you wonder why Britain thinks "Bush" is the greatest enemy to the world?

The_Elfman · 01-12-06 13:07:23

killik wrote:

As to the latter statement, do you have any idea how repulsive and idiotic a statement you made by comparing our government with that of Saddam's? Like torture is a natural part of our society?

Electric chair at the Kentucky State Penitentiary

blissed · 01-12-06 14:25:37

killik your a very attractive girl, but you have to stop making wild assumptions about people. Because someone points out the inconsistencies in our own system doesn't mean they are a fan of Saddam Hussein. He was definitely a nasty man and had to be removed, but if we'd been able to do that in a way that hurt as few people as pos, we may have later on been able to do that to Mugabe and Kim Jong il. (All with the UN blessing) Saddams men used to dip people in acid baths and remove genitals, I don't think we do anything like that. but A lot of people are uneasy now about the nature of Guantanamo bay.

Ha ha does your spell checker highlight Saddam and give you Sadism as an alternative spelling? mine just did. I have a feeling my spell checker is either moving towards self awareness or is self aware already and is trying to find out if I am.

.

jwhite · 01-12-06 22:19:16

I don't think any minds or hearts are being changed in this discussion.

blissed · 01-12-06 22:52:06

I know because I've just posted the definitive post, summarising the main points of the discussion and sorting out all the misunderstandings and loose ends and so now, I agree with you, theres nothing left to say.

.

Last edited by blissed (01-12-06 22:52:26)

jwhite · 02-12-06 00:16:04

The Rabbit rocks

blissed · 02-12-06 00:45:39

nihpuad · 02-12-06 01:08:33

blissed wrote:

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5919 … bitsq2.gif

I think you'll have to move from the Bath bus station to be eligible (unless you mean to change the UK to a presidential form of government).

Actually, even that wouldn't make you eligible unless you're a native born American citizen; that provision of the constitution is probably the only reason we don't have Ahhhhhnuld Schvartz'n'egger as prez!

#51 30-11-06 00:22:37

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#52 30-11-06 01:19:39

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#53 30-11-06 01:52:10

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#54 30-11-06 04:13:26

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#55 30-11-06 04:50:02

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#56 30-11-06 06:27:49

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#57 01-12-06 01:05:00

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#58 01-12-06 05:29:52

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#59 01-12-06 06:51:59

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#60 01-12-06 07:01:51

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#61 01-12-06 07:53:12

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#62 01-12-06 07:53:54

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#63 01-12-06 08:13:16

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#64 01-12-06 08:36:49

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#65 01-12-06 08:53:20

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#66 01-12-06 09:35:04

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#67 01-12-06 09:40:26

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#68 01-12-06 13:00:09

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#69 01-12-06 13:07:23

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#70 01-12-06 14:25:37

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#71 01-12-06 22:19:16

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#72 01-12-06 22:52:06

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#73 02-12-06 00:16:04

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#74 02-12-06 00:45:39

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#75 02-12-06 01:08:33

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

Board footer