I'm so glad I already voted (sent in my absentee ballot) so any and all debates mean nothing to me anymore - I've already made my decision
To the Victor, the spoils...
[OT] Is USA and The World safer now due to Bush?
-
djadonis206
- Posts: 6490
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA.
Yes, it all seems very ironic seeing that so many people fled Europe for "religious" purposes... then came here and immediately formed witch hunts: first against "witches" then against "communists" now against "arabs".Does the words "in god we trust" ring a bell?
They advertise religion on their money.
So when do we figure out how to teach the masses not to trust their animal instincts, any way?
-
blakbeltjonez
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:16 pm
- Location: Florida
for a good read, those so inclined should check out Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". factual, funny but not in an over-the-top Micheal Moore kind of way. it's a mind blower.
anyways, greetings from sunny Florida, what with the new paperless touch screen voting machines in a lot of places i'm sure we'll get things all f@cked up again Nov. 2nd..... not much has changed in 4 years except now we won't have those annoying ballots to go through if there needs to be a recount.
don't bother voting, we already done got the winner in the bag.
anyways, greetings from sunny Florida, what with the new paperless touch screen voting machines in a lot of places i'm sure we'll get things all f@cked up again Nov. 2nd..... not much has changed in 4 years except now we won't have those annoying ballots to go through if there needs to be a recount.
don't bother voting, we already done got the winner in the bag.
Look I think we can all agree that the majority of the conflict in the Middle East revolves around the oil-energy business. I just wish at least a few of you would admit that Islamic fundamentalism is not some type of "boogie man" that was some how made up out of thin air by the neo-cons. It just sounds rediculous. I can understand your political views when you say war is not the answer I believe education is the answer. I think that both sides of the conflict need to be educated. Americans need to be educated and deadly aware of our non sustainable energy consumption of non renewable natural resources, I think that our glutenous consumption habits have the potential to be our demise. Islamic fundamentalist's need a Modern reformation of their religion that includes acceptance of all peoples, including women as equals, gays, minorities, all religions (yes even the Jews) as well accepting opposing political points of view. All of this change begins with children learning at school. Education is key.
I agree, education is the key.
It's interesting looking at Rumi and the Sufi tradition that Islam has produced some great thinkers/lovers/artists ... as has Christianity and Judaisim for that matter.
Christians' tried to teach the Native American Indians how to be civilized and democratic, but when you look back at it, it was a genocide. Why we think this attempt at gun-barrel persuasion will be any different is beyond me.
It's interesting looking at Rumi and the Sufi tradition that Islam has produced some great thinkers/lovers/artists ... as has Christianity and Judaisim for that matter.
Christians' tried to teach the Native American Indians how to be civilized and democratic, but when you look back at it, it was a genocide. Why we think this attempt at gun-barrel persuasion will be any different is beyond me.
I will gladly admit that, the dificulty is in weighing the threat against the response.sps1 wrote:admit that Islamic fundamentalism is not some type of "boogie man" that was some how made up out of thin air by the neo-cons.
as an example (from the guardian article about Power of Nightmares) is al-Qaida a massive global force for destruction?:
the Home Office's statistics for arrests and convictions of suspected terrorists since September 11 2001. Of the 664 people detained up to the end of last month, only 17 have been found guilty. Of these, the majority were Irish Republicans, Sikh militants or members of other groups with no connection to Islamist terrorism. Nobody has been convicted who is a proven member of al-Qaida.
I am not saying that Islamic fundamentalism is imaginary, just that it has a lot less power to harm me than is suggested by my government. Invoking Al-Quida is a lot easier than alluding to a shadowy group of 20 or more small disorganised groups sharing a violent outlook but disparate philiosopies.
In fact the name al-Quaida was not even used by Osama and his gang... as it was simply taken from one of his papers when US authorities needed a 'named' organisation to use existing search and seizure laws (pre 2001)
Osamas gang were formed to combat the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan in the 80's and were part funded by US money for many years via ISI, read more on msnbc or here. So for many years the right wing Islamists and the Right wing Christians worked hand in hand for common goals.
Culture based problems with definition here, Modern ... they are by default modern in all definitions.sps1 wrote: Islamic fundamentalist's need a Modern reformation of their religion that includes acceptance of all peoples, including women as equals, gays, minorities, all religions
Acceptance, a major issue for all religions. In the US not being a Christian may be seen as a bad thing by the majority, in Israel the majority may see being Muslim as a bad thing.
Other modes of living can be valid, further to that should be accepted as being valid by different modes.
The Jihadist view was born out what they saw as an influx of 'western' culture which (they thought) was de-valuing and elimating their culture, which has produced some of the crowning peaks of human experience (and a few crazy people to be sure)
Telling such people to have respect for other cultures, religions, sexualitys and women will not work when in their eyes the US is religously aggressive, intollerant of their culture (er .. see your post!) and dangerously clueless about sexual morality. That's a viewpoint, it's just that we dont agree with it. In fact, that viewpoint exists in all countries and cultures I'm sorry to say. Or is the whole US supporting gay marriage now?
it's interesting to read your posts, but i think everybody more or less agrees on all the points mentionned here.
so (and this is a real question): isn't there any pro-republican forum where it would be less pointless to try to convince ppl about all these subjects?
i think it would less of a loss of time (though the discussion would probably be harsher).
so (and this is a real question): isn't there any pro-republican forum where it would be less pointless to try to convince ppl about all these subjects?
i think it would less of a loss of time (though the discussion would probably be harsher).
Hahaha mr sped thinks im a bag that goes in womens poonanny just because hes got some major control and anger problems.well I will go and vote for my next tyrant and yes I would love to have a big planto make everyone happy but being that there are people like you that have to try to bring everyone down and try to get pisssed because your country sux and mine doesnt (with the exception of our un elected leader) so anyway what Im saying is shut the fuck up get over and go make some music becuase thats the best way for anyone in this forum to make a difference. So good night to you Mr cocklickMcsped.
Angstrom:
I never mentioned al-Qaida, I specifically wrote Islamic Fundamentalist aka Jihadists. If there are a Billion Muslims and 98% of them are peaceful and tolerant families, that still leaves 2% as radicals. 2% of a billion= 20 million. Do you see any problem with 20 million radicals? Is this number conservative?
"Acceptance, a major issue for all religions. In the US not being a Christian may be seen as a bad thing by the majority, in Israel the majority may see being Muslim as a bad thing."
You splice hairs on the words acceptance and modern. I live in San Francisco California USA and we accept all races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, politics, ect... Most "modern" Americans do. Those who do not are associated with the fringe right and are ridiculed by the rest of the country. I think we have a pretty good handle on the whole acceptance issue. So to compare Americans acceptance of diversity with the likes of the Taliban is completely bogus. It is interesting to see you try to defend oppressive and bigoted fringe groups(i.e. Islamic Fundamentalists) by saying that western culture is to blame. You are wrong. Western culture has matured to the point of wide acceptance for all peoples that can live side by side and within law and order. The fact that there is even a debate on Gay marriage in the US proves that point. The idea of a gay marriage debate in any Muslim controlled country is almost laughable and that is including the modern muslim countries such as Turkey and Morocco. Your position to take both sides of the arguement on human rights makes little sense.
I never mentioned al-Qaida, I specifically wrote Islamic Fundamentalist aka Jihadists. If there are a Billion Muslims and 98% of them are peaceful and tolerant families, that still leaves 2% as radicals. 2% of a billion= 20 million. Do you see any problem with 20 million radicals? Is this number conservative?
"Acceptance, a major issue for all religions. In the US not being a Christian may be seen as a bad thing by the majority, in Israel the majority may see being Muslim as a bad thing."
You splice hairs on the words acceptance and modern. I live in San Francisco California USA and we accept all races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, politics, ect... Most "modern" Americans do. Those who do not are associated with the fringe right and are ridiculed by the rest of the country. I think we have a pretty good handle on the whole acceptance issue. So to compare Americans acceptance of diversity with the likes of the Taliban is completely bogus. It is interesting to see you try to defend oppressive and bigoted fringe groups(i.e. Islamic Fundamentalists) by saying that western culture is to blame. You are wrong. Western culture has matured to the point of wide acceptance for all peoples that can live side by side and within law and order. The fact that there is even a debate on Gay marriage in the US proves that point. The idea of a gay marriage debate in any Muslim controlled country is almost laughable and that is including the modern muslim countries such as Turkey and Morocco. Your position to take both sides of the arguement on human rights makes little sense.
This should be my last post on the subject but I will say this:
Bush vs. Kerry
Almost any leader with a brain should be able to beat Bush. Why have the Democratic Party nominated a loser like Kerry? Out of the millions of people in the country there have to be at least a handful of intelligent men or women that can express true core convictions and make sense to the broad majority of our citizens. I don't think it should be this difficult to change Bush out of office. The republicans already have an incumbent president so of course he is running again in 2004. Why is it that the democrats nominated this jellyfish as the only option? For the record I am an independent who disagrees with both sides on many issues. I wish though that I had a strong viable alternative for President. The truth is that none of us know what John Kerry will do once he gets in. He panders to everybody so much that it's stupid. It almost seems the democrats want to lose this election by nominating such a spineless man of senatorial political nuance. John Kerry is hollow, I saw him standing alongside Clinton and it made him seem small and insignificant. We can all agree on the problems with Bush but why is Kerry our only alternative??? He's nobody.
Bush vs. Kerry
Almost any leader with a brain should be able to beat Bush. Why have the Democratic Party nominated a loser like Kerry? Out of the millions of people in the country there have to be at least a handful of intelligent men or women that can express true core convictions and make sense to the broad majority of our citizens. I don't think it should be this difficult to change Bush out of office. The republicans already have an incumbent president so of course he is running again in 2004. Why is it that the democrats nominated this jellyfish as the only option? For the record I am an independent who disagrees with both sides on many issues. I wish though that I had a strong viable alternative for President. The truth is that none of us know what John Kerry will do once he gets in. He panders to everybody so much that it's stupid. It almost seems the democrats want to lose this election by nominating such a spineless man of senatorial political nuance. John Kerry is hollow, I saw him standing alongside Clinton and it made him seem small and insignificant. We can all agree on the problems with Bush but why is Kerry our only alternative??? He's nobody.
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
I believe that the 'issues' the coalition is having in Iraq (I suppose I could say 'we'!) has its roots in something that's much older in neoconservatism:
Do you why there is a King of Jordan? or indeed, why there, untill the Nasserist in coup in 1958 was a king of Iraq? Because the British thought that their system of government, which had evolved over at least a thousand years, was suitable for a people and a region that was fundamentally different from Britain, so when they left in the 30's, they decided to honour some old agreements they had with the Sharif Hussein of Mecca (they'd promised him what's basically Saudi Arabia if he helped them against the Ottomans in WWI) and took two of his sons (Abdallah in Jordan, Faisal in Iraq) as well as their troops, all sunni muslims, and inserted them as kings in a constitutional monarchy of a Shia-dominated area. The arrogance, ignorance, and out-and-out stupidity of this is plain to see - and besides that, the history of the Middle East is *very* different from that of Western Europe, so copy/pasting our institutions there and expecting them to work after three weeks is, well, on the dangerous side of optimistic, in my humble ability.
I see bits of the same mentality in the way the Coalition has approached Iraq: we show up in a country where state and regime are more or less one and the same (ie. the institutions and people in them are inseperable) and cut off the head of the nation (the Baath party) so to speak and then replace it with something that is essentially a copy of a Western democracy and expect it to work in a country where the rifle has ruled ever since it was invented. Don't forget that democracy, even though we did have revolutions, had plenty of time to evolve and gain support in our part of the world. Also, since Saddam took power in 1979, every Iraqis chief loyalty has been expected to lie with Saddam, and in the ten years before that, from the Baathist coup in 1968, everything was centered about the Baath party - education, public health care, everything (and after they nationalised the oil supply in '72, there was plenty of money to go around), required party membership.
Also, I think it's telling that the Americans (as I am informed, at least) don't train military interpreters. I'd say a very fundamental thing in a successful peacekeeping mission like this one is to understand the place and the people you're trying to protect! And an understanding of a people starts with the understanding of its language - at least we like to think that at Arabic Language & Culture at the Univerversity of Copenhagen
Although many of us try to help with it and most of us deny, I still think there's a big partially racially founded superiority complex when it comes to European/American-Middle East & North African-relations, something that dates back to la Mission Civilisatrice/"White Man's Burden"; the idea that the 'Christian Liberal Democracy' as we know it is somehow the high point of Political History. At least I'm convinced that this idea thrives in the New American Century Project, the neo-conservative think tank that is well represented in the current American administration. One of its members, Francis Fukuyama, even suggested (although I think he retracted the theory later) that the ending of the Cold War was the end of history, because our model of society had now clearly won!
-Paws
Do you why there is a King of Jordan? or indeed, why there, untill the Nasserist in coup in 1958 was a king of Iraq? Because the British thought that their system of government, which had evolved over at least a thousand years, was suitable for a people and a region that was fundamentally different from Britain, so when they left in the 30's, they decided to honour some old agreements they had with the Sharif Hussein of Mecca (they'd promised him what's basically Saudi Arabia if he helped them against the Ottomans in WWI) and took two of his sons (Abdallah in Jordan, Faisal in Iraq) as well as their troops, all sunni muslims, and inserted them as kings in a constitutional monarchy of a Shia-dominated area. The arrogance, ignorance, and out-and-out stupidity of this is plain to see - and besides that, the history of the Middle East is *very* different from that of Western Europe, so copy/pasting our institutions there and expecting them to work after three weeks is, well, on the dangerous side of optimistic, in my humble ability.
I see bits of the same mentality in the way the Coalition has approached Iraq: we show up in a country where state and regime are more or less one and the same (ie. the institutions and people in them are inseperable) and cut off the head of the nation (the Baath party) so to speak and then replace it with something that is essentially a copy of a Western democracy and expect it to work in a country where the rifle has ruled ever since it was invented. Don't forget that democracy, even though we did have revolutions, had plenty of time to evolve and gain support in our part of the world. Also, since Saddam took power in 1979, every Iraqis chief loyalty has been expected to lie with Saddam, and in the ten years before that, from the Baathist coup in 1968, everything was centered about the Baath party - education, public health care, everything (and after they nationalised the oil supply in '72, there was plenty of money to go around), required party membership.
Also, I think it's telling that the Americans (as I am informed, at least) don't train military interpreters. I'd say a very fundamental thing in a successful peacekeeping mission like this one is to understand the place and the people you're trying to protect! And an understanding of a people starts with the understanding of its language - at least we like to think that at Arabic Language & Culture at the Univerversity of Copenhagen
Although many of us try to help with it and most of us deny, I still think there's a big partially racially founded superiority complex when it comes to European/American-Middle East & North African-relations, something that dates back to la Mission Civilisatrice/"White Man's Burden"; the idea that the 'Christian Liberal Democracy' as we know it is somehow the high point of Political History. At least I'm convinced that this idea thrives in the New American Century Project, the neo-conservative think tank that is well represented in the current American administration. One of its members, Francis Fukuyama, even suggested (although I think he retracted the theory later) that the ending of the Cold War was the end of history, because our model of society had now clearly won!
-Paws
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
The al-Qaeda network has an estimated 5000 members world-wide, as I'm informed.sps1 wrote:Angstrom:
I never mentioned al-Qaida, I specifically wrote Islamic Fundamentalist aka Jihadists. If there are a Billion Muslims and 98% of them are peaceful and tolerant families, that still leaves 2% as radicals. 2% of a billion= 20 million. Do you see any problem with 20 million radicals? Is this number conservative?
Yes. Five thousand.
-Paws
well, I't's been a quite interesting discussion on this issue so far - I think proof that users of Live are relatively sane compared to other internet users!
regarding SPS1's contentions against what I wrote earlier, I think you misunderstood me - I wont go into it in depth though as it would become serously boring ... but ...
'defending bigoted cultures'
I am not defending anyone (ahem, they do that themselves), I am certainly not saying that the fundamentalist radicals are right, I am trying to show that the fundamentalist wing aren't likely to change their ways any time soon as their percieved threat hasn't exactly gone away.
They have a greivance and dont like people telling them their greivance would go away if they just lived their lives like we want them to (imagine the Chinese telling the American public to accept their correct way of life), they dont like outsiders telling them what to do, that's their main problem you see.
It's interesting that you think I am defending them and laying the blame at the door of the west, firstly as I dont believe this is the case - secondly my first post links to an explanation of the JOINT complicity of the neo-islamists and neo-conservatives(*) after the cold war. This is exactly the opposite of what you accuse me of.
20 million radicals
I would hope that is an over estimate, there are 1.6 muslims in the UK which would = 300,000 UK based Jihadists. just one of them could travel to a resevoir in Wales with some Sarin and kill about a fifth of the UK population. How well guarded do you think Welsh resevoirs are? Not at all, so I am betting the UK government are with me in this hope.
concluding thought on that thread: I think I have not as much to fear from jihadists in general as the mediated "War on Terror" would like me to believe. I am probably more likely to die by standing on a rake.
* Regarding noisetonepause's thesis; colonial attitudes through time.
I totally agree - it's not a new issue I think ... and us British are absolute bastards at it.
in fact I was In Morroco a few years ago and a local started seriously harrassing me about the Crusades (me being from the UK), I thought he was insane.
It was only after being in a few other non-western cultures that I realised how far back some cultures hold a grudge. EG in southern India they were still holding a BIG grudge against the northern invaders (Aryans) from pushing the Dravidians into the south ... THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO! This seems mad to us who dont really remember the Crimean War, never mind the Norman invasion a mere one thousand years ago.
We still hold a grudge against those damn vikings though.
give us back our nuns you bastards!
regarding SPS1's contentions against what I wrote earlier, I think you misunderstood me - I wont go into it in depth though as it would become serously boring ... but ...
'defending bigoted cultures'
I am not defending anyone (ahem, they do that themselves), I am certainly not saying that the fundamentalist radicals are right, I am trying to show that the fundamentalist wing aren't likely to change their ways any time soon as their percieved threat hasn't exactly gone away.
They have a greivance and dont like people telling them their greivance would go away if they just lived their lives like we want them to (imagine the Chinese telling the American public to accept their correct way of life), they dont like outsiders telling them what to do, that's their main problem you see.
It's interesting that you think I am defending them and laying the blame at the door of the west, firstly as I dont believe this is the case - secondly my first post links to an explanation of the JOINT complicity of the neo-islamists and neo-conservatives(*) after the cold war. This is exactly the opposite of what you accuse me of.
20 million radicals
I would hope that is an over estimate, there are 1.6 muslims in the UK which would = 300,000 UK based Jihadists. just one of them could travel to a resevoir in Wales with some Sarin and kill about a fifth of the UK population. How well guarded do you think Welsh resevoirs are? Not at all, so I am betting the UK government are with me in this hope.
concluding thought on that thread: I think I have not as much to fear from jihadists in general as the mediated "War on Terror" would like me to believe. I am probably more likely to die by standing on a rake.
* Regarding noisetonepause's thesis; colonial attitudes through time.
I totally agree - it's not a new issue I think ... and us British are absolute bastards at it.
in fact I was In Morroco a few years ago and a local started seriously harrassing me about the Crusades (me being from the UK), I thought he was insane.
It was only after being in a few other non-western cultures that I realised how far back some cultures hold a grudge. EG in southern India they were still holding a BIG grudge against the northern invaders (Aryans) from pushing the Dravidians into the south ... THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO! This seems mad to us who dont really remember the Crimean War, never mind the Norman invasion a mere one thousand years ago.
We still hold a grudge against those damn vikings though.
give us back our nuns you bastards!
Once again al-Qaida is not the subject. They are only a small fraction of the extreme Muslim movement. So hopefully you don't misinterpret me.noisetonepause wrote:The al-Qaeda network has an estimated 5000 members world-wide, as I'm informed.sps1 wrote:Angstrom:
I never mentioned al-Qaida, I specifically wrote Islamic Fundamentalist aka Jihadists. If there are a Billion Muslims and 98% of them are peaceful and tolerant families, that still leaves 2% as radicals. 2% of a billion= 20 million. Do you see any problem with 20 million radicals? Is this number conservative?
Yes. Five thousand.
-Paws
Angstrom, chance are that in the UK the percentage of Islamic radicals is far lower per population block than is the case throughout the rest of the world. Islamic Fundamentalism breeds mostly in poorer countries or from within dicatorships, western nations breed a much more academic form of Jihad and at a much smaller scale. All fundamentalism is wrong from all sides, no sane person can argue against that.