Ok, we get it already. You hate Bush.

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: maluckey
The so-called global media voted the man you despise, Hitler, Man Of the Year, in 1939 for his forward thinking gun control policies. The forward thinking media, panders to the masses, because they are the ones paying the subsciption rates, and that is a dangerous thing.

Utopian policies of appeasement and goodwill only work when both parties are in agreement, and repect the other sides point of view. The Palestinians have honored what they said they would do, which is to drive out or kill all Jews in Israel. The terrorist cells target whomever stands in their way to percieved freedom of hate. I take it as a compliment that they hate the United States so much. That must mean that we stand against their goals of opression and terror towards thier own people (as evidenced by their brutal and supressive regimes), and their attitudes towards their neighbors.

Do your own research, and stop listening to the politically controlled press, and then, and only then will you get the true picture of what's really going on.

I've done my research. I just don't do it at far-right paranoid underground fringe sites from where you get your fiction.

I do not believe in your "utopian policies of appeasement and goodwill" due to the faith I have that it will be reciprocated, or that I naively believe that only peace and prosperity will come of it. I believe in it because it is the right thing to do, and ultimately history will show a good example being set. I believe in it because it shows accountability and responsiblity.

At the very least, I don't believe in preemptive attacks against other countries under the guise of defending our country, with is impossible to determine.

We do not have the right to, even if our millitary enables it.

 

[maluckey]

State one fiction that I have posted. You can't.

Goodwill towards man has gotten what country to the top of the heap? None....

I agree that humanity should treat each other better. I also agree that might does not always equal right. You MUST weigh the gains versus losses in what you propose, or victory could be very hollow indeed.

I disagree however, that anyone or any country hasn't the right to attack another if it feels threatened. Sometimes might is the only thing that keeps your neighbor in-check. Nobody would disagree that had Germany been invaded after it's war machine buildup began under Hitler in the mid-thirties (contrary to the Versailles Treaty), the war would have been quite different. There might not have been over ten million innocent lives lost. It also might have been different had Stalin and Chamberlain not been naive enough to believe that Germany's non-agression treaty was worth the paper on which is was printed. Additionally, Stalin allowed German combat pilots to be trained in Russia (contrary to treaty). Ironic that the same pilots came back to repay the favor, only this time, with 500 pound bombs as a thank you! So much for goodness and trust.

Pre-emptive strikes can minimize death and misery, if done with a humane approach.

Would you let Saddam control the oil reserves of the world? We could have let him have Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia, etc. That would have crippled most of the free world. Would you not take out a leader that gasses his own people, brutally opresses women, stores weapons in the schools, and openly applauds the death of 3000 Americans in New York (as reported by Al-Jazeera, CNN, and Fox news)? At what point would you do something? When your family is killed by a sniper, or blown up in the sky for nothing more than being American? I see that many haven't fully weighed the consequences of non-action, versus action. Few people do. Not attacking (either by economics, or militarily), someone that threatens you is the same as appeasement, or surrender. It reinforces the behavior of the country or person that challenges you. Not everyone worships a god, let alone a Christian God, and to assume they do is a grave mistake. Even Ghandi intimated the use of force towards the British, when he stated (I paraphrase) that there wasn't anything that thousands of British could do to stay in India, if many millions of Indians did not want them there.

 

[UCSDHappyAsian]

once again, i think Bush is doin a good job... and im still voting for him

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: maluckey
State one fiction that I have posted. You can't.

Goodwill towards man has gotten what country to the top of the heap? None....

I agree that humanity should treat each other better. I also agree that might does not always equal right. You MUST weigh the gains versus losses in what you propose, or victory could be very hollow indeed.

I disagree however, that anyone or any country hasn't the right to attack another if it feels threatened. Sometimes might is the only thing that keeps your neighbor in-check. Nobody would disagree that had Germany been invaded after it's war machine buildup began under Hitler in the mid-thirties (contrary to the Versailles Treaty), the war would have been quite different. There might not have been over ten million innocent lives lost. It also might have been different had Stalin and Chamberlain not been naive enough to believe that Germany's non-agression treaty was worth the paper on which is was printed. Additionally, Stalin allowed German combat pilots to be trained in Russia (contrary to treaty). Ironic that the same pilots came back to repay the favor, only this time, with 500 pound bombs as a thank you! So much for goodness and trust.

Pre-emptive strikes can minimize death and misery, if done with a humane approach.

For the time being perhaps. But history will write a vastly different story, and those whom we attacked will remember being attacked without a clear and justified purpose. Thats another way America will indirectly spawn terrorism.

Would you let Saddam control the oil reserves of the world? We could have let him have Kuwait, the Saudi Arabia, etc. That wouldhave crippled most of the free world. Would you not take out a leader that gasses his own people, brutally opresses women, stores weapons in the schools, and openly applauds the death of 3000 Americans in New York (as reported by Al-Jazeera, CNN, and Fox news)? At what point would you do something? When your family is killed by a sniper, or blown up in the sky for nothing more than being American? I see that many haven't fully weighed the consequences of non-action, versus action. Few people do. Not attacking (either by economics, or militarily), someone that threatens you is the same as appeasement, or surrender. It reinforces the behavior of the country or person that challenges you. Not everyone worships a god, let alone a Christian God. to assume they do is a grave mistake. Even Ghandi intimated the use of force towards the British, when he stated (I paraphrase) that there wasn't anything that thousands of British could do to stay in India, if many millions of Indians did not want them there.

As an American who's seen so many human rights violations areound the world, I cannot disagree with you that I'm glad our possession of might alone has probably stopped many more tragedies from happening, at least to our country. Ideally I would be happy to see us weld this power properly, and to use only with proper discretion and only at the approval of a large multinational body and only for protection against aggression... Perhaps thats how it was intended but clearly the current regime has misappropriated this might.

One example is the question of intentions from the Iraqi war. Haliburton had already staked a claim to a share of the rebuilding contracts by late April I believe, before the official end to the war.

In the end you know what they say about what absolute power does...

 

[maluckey]

Haliburton was already a government contractor, with outstanding bids. This is why it was so fast, not that they had prior knowledge, or insider trading. Their reputation for gettingthe job done has been untarnished so far.

History does indeed remember well, but to paraphrase a saying........History is written by the victors, not the losers. The United States was built off of conflict, revolution, civil war, and the virtual extermination of the aboriginal populace and it's varied cultures. Make no mistake, The United States is not pristine and bloodless. History glosses over so much, and waters down or glorifies the rest. This nation stands as the ONLY superpower as a result of these dubious accomplishments. Appeasement is not in the United States dictionary. Terms such as Manifest Destiny, and doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine come to mind, to show that we mean business. Now that we have attained status as the Uber-Nation of the world, what shall we do with the immense and nearly unstoppable power that we have? Should we retreat and wither, or use it for the good of mankind? I personally believe a little of both. All things in good measure, to insure proper balance.

As far as the approval of a large multinational body????? What has that gotten the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Czech Republic, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, Colombia, Chile, Russia, North Korea, China, Poland, East Germany, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and let us not forget East Timor. Each of these nations was allowed to be brutalized, and hardly a finger was lifted to help. My faith in the U.N is thin at best. I beleive they should be relegated to the role of civil support, humanitarian aid, and recontruction. They do not have the force, without the United States, whether economically, and certainly not militarily, to do anything at all. Let us remember that the United States is the worlds largest trading partner, and the economic basis for many countries and economies. Many hate our success for these reasons, and blame us for everything that is bad in the world. The ignorant masses of the world world hate those that are better off than they.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I guarantee you there are nearly 50% of the people of this country who agree with the vast majority of what the President does..

In your dreams. Do I hate Bush, no I don't. Do I think he is a good president, again I don't. Do I think Gore would have been better, hard to say but he probably would have been as incompetant. Are the Dems running against him capable of doing a better job? Who knows but I can't imagine them being that much worse. Frankly it doesn't seem like we don't have anyone running for or in office that seems like they are capable of being a good leader.

I was willing to give Bush a chance despite him nominating John Assfsck for AG and sucking up to the Ridiculou..Religious Right, Pandering to the Special Interests like Big Oil and Energy Companies (He all Presidents pander to someone) But when he got up in front of the Nation and Misled us about the imminent threat of Hussien, His alleged ties with Al Queda and linked him to 911 just to fulfill the quest and visions of his Neo Con Handlers that was the straw that broke the Camels Back. I know longer trust what he says.

 

[tallest1]

nm. sorry

 

[Pers]

bush is stupid.