Page 7 of 9 [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Do You think President Bush is a nutter?
Yes 26%  26%  [ 20 ]
Yes 26%  26%  [ 20 ]
No, but he is not good for the world. 12%  12%  [ 9 ]
No, but he is not good for the world. 12%  12%  [ 9 ]
No, he is a good guy. 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
No, he is a good guy. 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
Don't Know 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Don't Know 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 76

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

14 Oct 2005, 12:21 am

irishmic

You truly never know what future historians well say, in 1 year they may say what you said, or in 20 years they might say the total opposite of what you said. That is always up to interpretation of the historians.

Even You might change what You think of Bush in 20 years, being a political science major.

You Truly Never Know.



jb814
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: Glasgow Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 5:23 am

I think irishmic has a few valid points. Kissinger wins no awards with me. GW has a tendancy not only to appoint his friends, but to sack scientists who tell him things he doesn't want to hear and replace them with people happy with "faith-based initiatives". Lilguy, Al-Jazeera is not the only source of information for the "other side", and most people there are just as open minded within their heritage as you are in yours. Saddam was bad but it doesn't follow that having removed him we have any right tomeddle in Iraq. The perception among many in Asia and the middle East is that we (the West, thanks to TB) are happy to use the facilities of countries with a record as bad as, if not worse than Saddams, to defeat a minor embarrassment to the Bush family. We happily support those regimes because they are friendly to us. If the perception there were that the west had the interests of the people and their right to self determination at heart there would be no effective method of recruiting insurgents. Instead we happily award contracts to our own companies, sell off oil-fields and use the provision of water/electricity and other vital services to blackmail the populace.
eamonn (and myself) talked about Northern Ireland, what a farce and total breakdown in communication that place is. 800 hundred years of oppression and we still don't understand. The troops went in to prevent Protestant violence against Catholics from getting out of hand, but because of the sympathies of many of the troops it didn't really turn out that way. People were demanding such things as 1 man 1 vote, access to decent housing, the end to police harrassment, civil rights in a nutshell. They are still looking for those rights. People read headlines, not history and that leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, all reasonable attempts at talks were dismissed or vetoed by the Loyalists. Even now when Loyalist violence is more likely (because someone moves a march route by a couple of hundred feet) access to power sharing is being barred.
Have a look at the Constitution being imposed on Iraq and tell me there are adequate safeguards for Sunni muslims, that co-operation is encouraged, or that minority rights are protected. IMHO we are replacing one catastrophe with another. The lessons are never learned and we keep up the "I want" approach.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

14 Oct 2005, 5:39 am

That is why we need to get the United Nations more involved in Iraq. So that all sides are protected then. All the sides have enough power to go around in Iraq.

Just to blame Bush on everything that goes wrong, I think is getting real old.

We like to play the blame game to much I think. We need to move forward I think. That is the debate that what we need to do is to start talking about it. We need to move the debate forward.

Maybe even get the United Nations involved in Northern Ireland too if need be.

That is how I see it.



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2005, 5:48 am

irishmic wrote:
As a person with a degree in political science, I'd like to applaud the person who wrote, or implied that Dr. Kissenger is unbiased. Probably the first time I have ever heard that.

Kissenger is as conservative as they come, and NewsWeek is a corporate rag.
If you want to quote someone who does not have a bias, then I suggest you go out and find one first.

Bush lied to Congress about the reasons for entering the war.
Did News Week say that. Look at how hard they rode Clinton for lying to Congress, and how hard they are riding George W.

George W. will go into the history books sure,
but as one of America's worst presidents, not as one of the best.

In a post 9/11 America he appointed someone who knew absolutely nothing about disaster relief, or distribution in time of a disaster to the head of FEMA
He has appointed his personal lawyer, who has absolutely zero background in constitutional law, as his choice for the Supreme Court while saying, "She is the most qualified candidate I can find." Georgie's first Educational Secretary's chief accomplishment was lying about the high school drop out rate in Texas high schools. A charge that he was indicted for. His daughters continue to demonstrate the highest of fundamentalist Christian values by driving their automobiles under the influence of alcohol.

For me, I'm still waiting for Georgie to utter a sentence of five words or longer during a press conference without slurring his words.

Yes, Georgie is a nutter, and so is anyone who continues to not see it.
Irishmic,

Perhaps you might want to read the Newsweek article before you decide what it says.



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2005, 5:53 am

jb814 wrote:
I think irishmic has a few valid points. Kissinger wins no awards with me. GW has a tendancy not only to appoint his friends, but to sack scientists who tell him things he doesn't want to hear and replace them with people happy with "faith-based initiatives". Lilguy, Al-Jazeera is not the only source of information for the "other side", and most people there are just as open minded within their heritage as you are in yours. Saddam was bad but it doesn't follow that having removed him we have any right tomeddle in Iraq. The perception among many in Asia and the middle East is that we (the West, thanks to TB) are happy to use the facilities of countries with a record as bad as, if not worse than Saddams, to defeat a minor embarrassment to the Bush family. We happily support those regimes because they are friendly to us. If the perception there were that the west had the interests of the people and their right to self determination at heart there would be no effective method of recruiting insurgents. Instead we happily award contracts to our own companies, sell off oil-fields and use the provision of water/electricity and other vital services to blackmail the populace.
eamonn (and myself) talked about Northern Ireland, what a farce and total breakdown in communication that place is. 800 hundred years of oppression and we still don't understand. The troops went in to prevent Protestant violence against Catholics from getting out of hand, but because of the sympathies of many of the troops it didn't really turn out that way. People were demanding such things as 1 man 1 vote, access to decent housing, the end to police harrassment, civil rights in a nutshell. They are still looking for those rights. People read headlines, not history and that leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, all reasonable attempts at talks were dismissed or vetoed by the Loyalists. Even now when Loyalist violence is more likely (because someone moves a march route by a couple of hundred feet) access to power sharing is being barred.
Have a look at the Constitution being imposed on Iraq and tell me there are adequate safeguards for Sunni muslims, that co-operation is encouraged, or that minority rights are protected. IMHO we are replacing one catastrophe with another. The lessons are never learned and we keep up the "I want" approach.
While there are some good sociological comparisons to be drawn between the situation in Northern Ireland and that of Iraq, there are also some differences. To start with, Ireland has never been a threat to world security as Iraq, throughou the latter part of the Hussein regime, had been.



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2005, 6:01 am

irishmic wrote:
Kissenger is as conservative as they come, and NewsWeek is a corporate rag.
The evaluation of Kissinger is based on what? The fact that he served Republican presidents? If he had served Democratic preisdents would that, ipso facto, make him as liberal as they come? What actions make him worthy of your statement?

Being owned by a private corporation makes a news magazine bad? Government owned news magazines, then, are the only ones that can be trusted? Makes you miss Pravda, huh.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 6:13 am

Litguy, stop having an arguments with a strawman, Kissinger and newsweek is indeed well known as right-wing and i dont blindly follow Al-Jazeera and irishmic probably isnt into pravda. Newsweek has more in common with pravda than most publications seeing as they are government approved and blatantly pro-Bush. Iraq hasnt been a threat to world security for a long time as they were too weak, though its now a threat thanks to Bush and co.

There are far bigger threats out there than Iraq was (including the US) but they arent as oil rich or in as weak a military position as Iraq and also Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush senior assasinated, there is a whole load of unsavoury reasons why the US went to war with Iraq and world security was way down on the list imo.



jb814
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: Glasgow Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 6:41 am

Whether the Irish are a threat to international security depends on the papers you read. There are some here who would tell you otherwise. According to some the IRA run training camps for Marxists the world over. My favourite recent example is the nonsense surrounding the FARC/ IRA meetings. As when when Bobby Sands declared Troscud on the British Government, there is no requirement to look behind appearance. Mr Sands called on ancient tradition to have his case heard fairly, he was ignored and became a much bigger thorn in the side of the government when he died, many people in the Uk still think he was just sulking. There have been very strong links between the Irish and the other Americas for centuries and there are strong Irish connections between all sorts of other countries, depending on how you want to portray the Irish, all you have to do is be selective about the history or what people are saying. There are links between Anarchist groups in Ireland and the Zapatistas, etc, etc. The main thing now is that the Irish are perceived to be "like us", with an accessible culture. The problem of the middle East is that people set them up as different and vent their prejudices. Do you think the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is unconnected to the way we interfere in the Middle East?
This has been a rant rather than anything, but there are some things that are applicable, so I'm not going to edit.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 6:45 am

Litguy wrote:
While there are some good sociological comparisons to be drawn between the situation in Northern Ireland and that of Iraq, there are also some differences. To start with, Ireland has never been a threat to world security as Iraq, throughou the latter part of the Hussein regime, had been.


I have already pointed out what i think as to Iraq being a world security threat but jb's point is valid. Lessons from the past from 'superpowers' dont seem to be learned properly. Every side including the sunnis need to be involved or there will never be real peace in Iraq. Your leaders need to start being more diplomatic and start showing more concern for lives that they have in the past or the 'third' world will never be truly at peace with the US as well.



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2005, 10:29 am

eamonn wrote:
and also Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush senior assasinated
And, you don't think that that is a threat to world security?



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2005, 10:32 am

eamonn wrote:
[ Every side including the sunnis need to be involved or there will never be real peace in Iraq.
Agreed. As I have said, there are no haloes to shine. It is just not as one sided as you want to insist.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 3:38 pm

Litguy wrote:
And, you don't think that that is a threat to world security?


He was a threat to Bush senior, not for a long time though. Actually it probably would be a threat to world security because some republicans are nutty enough to start another world war over it.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 3:44 pm

Litguy wrote:
Agreed. As I have said, there are no haloes to shine. It is just not as one sided as you want to insist.


Actually as someone that isnt American or Muslim, i believe i am more even about things. I think you are being more one-sided than me, such is the nature of debates though. I would back the US if they go to war with Iran if they fail to back down over nuclear power, while also realising the hypocrasy of it and i think they should be handsomely compensated for it but i still dont like the idea of any country in that region having nuclear power because there will always be the oppurtunity and capacity to turn that into bombs.



jb814
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: Glasgow Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 5:10 pm

Don't know if John Pilger is known in the US, but he is a respected (if feared) investigative journalist in the UK. Her is one of his commentaries on the media.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e10615.htm
Robert Fisk of the Independant also contibutes.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_b ... 319160.ece



Last edited by jb814 on 14 Oct 2005, 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

14 Oct 2005, 5:23 pm

Scary stuff. Cant say im surprised though. Anglo-American governments are the masters of cloke and dagger killings and propaganda. We get a little freedom here and get fed propaganda and most of us believe it all like sheep because the alternative is too scary for us to believe or even to try to contemplate . Sounds a bit like organised religion actually.



Litguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 649
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2005, 9:41 pm

jb814 wrote:
Don't know if John Pilger is known in the US, but he is a respected (if feared) investigative journalist in the UK. Her is one of his commentaries on the media.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e10615.htm
Robert Fisk of the Independant also contibutes.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_b ... 319160.ece
What is interesting here, of course, is that not just Bush and Blair were selling the weapons of mass destruction deal. The FBI, the CIA, the UN, essentially the full United States Senate and House of Representatives, Bill Clinton, and I'm sure others around the world, were agreed that Hussein housed WMD's. The only question was what to do about it and when. So, if a lie was being sold, it was being sold with unbelievable success.

Not to say that that would be impossible.