Bush Speech

[Angela Harlem]

Hmmm. I agree to an extent Jamila, but our A_Wanderer is actually becoming an American. Yep. He is inserting z's into his words instead of s's. Like in realisation. Etc. You heard it here first.

/deadpan.

Seroiusly though, there are truths in what you say, but not being a resident of a place does not automatically lead to ignorance. I wonder if the Anti Bush is also deemed equally naive by you? I'd somehow think not, but I might be assuming too much.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Its a false flag operation I tell you, I am really an Al Qaeda plant using the top political minds of the internet to reveal the weakness of the west and its so called music Mwhoahhaha!

Word spell check is unfriendly even when one is copying a joke from another source.

I am supporting US Foreign policy, I am not making my judgement on his domestic policy - what right do I have to tell you that you are better or worse off because of his tax cuts and whatever he has done to social programs. If you are worse off then vote against him, I have my vote in the Australian election and I am voting Liberal because 1 - my vote doesn't matter and 2 - I could not in good concience support somebody like Latham (Beazley or Rudd on the other hand ) with some policies I disagree with. How many people on this forum would be genuinely interested in talking about Howard and Latham? I have this strange feeling that the leader of the free world is a more universal talking point.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer does not live in the USA and so he is not REALLY aware of how our standard of living is INCREASINGLY GOING DOWN UNDER GEORGE BUSH and how this President is MAKING THE USA MORE VUNERABLE TO ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK by his aggressive foreign policies.

...

If anyone knows the ill effects of the Bush administration's short-sighted policies, it's the American people.

I don't agree with lots of awanderer's political ideas but i don't think that living outside the USA does mean that you can't be well informed. I know quite some US citizens who aren't as good informed on the current administrations (short-sighted) policies like awanderer is

 

[A_Wanderer]

I do take exception to people assuming that I am uninformed or short-sighted in regards to this administratons policies simply because I support the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would oppose any move against North Korea (the uses of hard power and soft power should be balanced, different situations demand different applications, in Iraq one could remove the dictator and remove the threat to stability with minimal casualties, North Korea on the other hand can allready kill millions at a moments notice, if it goes nuclear so will South Korea and Japan - 4 nuclear powers in the N-Asian region and another 2 on the subcontinent means that the risk of a full blown nuclear exchange is raised immensely - billions would be at risk, that is not a situation where one can be cavelier about using millitary force - diplomacy and positive engagement are the only real solutions) and most definitely do not like having Saudi Arabia and Pakistan each sitting on a knife edge two seas of disaster, a coup in Pakistan would be very, very dangerous). I hold a different opinion but I think that there should be enough mutual respect to acknowledge that no issue is cut and dry and there are different legitimate sides. It was by broadening my own knowledge by reading foreign affairs journals and learning about the history of Islamic terrorism (with the US AND Soviet support for it) that I have come to my conclusions (Rejecting Chomsky and Monbiot) . Some posts may boil it down to an overly simplistic statement (best defence is a good offence) and for that I am sorry, I just like illustrating the point. You all hate terrorism at least as much as I, but what would you do about the problem? When it comes to answers all that I hear is discussion about "root causes" (all of which are obviously Americas fault because America and Israel are the cause of all the worlds ills) and the issue of fundamentalist Islam is ignored completely. The Patriot act will not solve the problem of terrorism, no laws can prevent mass murder conducted by groups that cannot be dettered only direct action can. Make liberty a fundamental human right, if it can be done peacefully through economic cooperation and political reforms then that is wonderful, if it must be done with multilateral peacekeeping operations then great do that and if there is a situation where a dictator has murdered millions and is still killing and peaceful means to remove him have failed and direct intervention can solve the problem then such an option must be considered.

I may not come in here with hatred for political leaders or Michael Moores fancy talking points but I will defend my position, it may be the unpopular view around here but I am not entirely convinced that it's the wrong one.

I know the policies, I just happen to agree with some of them - for my own reasons which are not dissimilar to most other peoples.

You haven't personally offended me though, you guys are allright .

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Thank you, indra, for your contributions to this thread.

With all respect to our Interferencers from other countries, I must say that it really would be inappropriate for me to talk about another country's President or PM and their policies as if I knew more about them than the people from that country.

A_Wanderer does not live in the USA and so he is not REALLY aware of how our standard of living is INCREASINGLY GOING DOWN UNDER GEORGE BUSH and how this President is MAKING THE USA MORE VUNERABLE TO ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK by his aggressive foreign policies.

It is easy to agree with a policy when you are not reaping the ill effects of that policy ( like increased isolation in the world community). I simply ask our Interferencers from other countries to listen more to the concerns of the U.S. posters regarding George Bush's policies.

If anyone knows the ill effects of the Bush administration's short-sighted policies, it's the American people.

I say this with all respect for everyone here.

eh hem... American citizen here.

standard of living... a.o.k. with me

war on terror... a.o.k. with me

taking it to them before they take it to us... a.o.k. with em

patriot act... a.o.k. with me

not going to any more funerals for people who merely showed up to work... a.o.k. with me

perhaps when your morning commute to work is slowed by an abundent number of hurses on the road, your perspective on things changes a bit. or maybe not.

 

[dlihcraw]

If you want to make the current American presidential race more exciting, visit www.michaelmoore.com and review why he isn't submitting “Fahrenheit 9/11” for consideration of an Oscar. Michael Moore has the right idea and only needs the necessary support to make his plan happen. I emailed him to give my support, I suggest all those who are unhappy with the current administration do the same.

I am a Canadian and my country did not go to war in Iraq, but this does not dismiss the impact President Bush’s policies have had on the world. The threat of terrorism has only gained strength since the start of the war; misguided reasons for entering the war have only solidified the belief of terrorists that western nations are consuming eastern cultures for profit. Halliburton was awarded a major contact in Iraq, generating billions of dollars in revenue from what has now been exposed as improper use of the funds given to the company by the American people to rebuild Iraq. Similarly, the contract of individual rights upheld in the constitutions of all true democracies has been misused. The Iraqi people have not been given freedom; rather, they have only been given increased terror. The principle of liberty has been promised to the Iraqi people, but only in an illusionary sense. Change is needed.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I suggest that you visit the thread of Iraqi torture videos, check the casualties inflicted by the regime itself on an annual basis and then add those killed because of the blanket sanctions - bearing in mind oil for food was ultimately innefective as it was manipulated by the regime. Perhaps then you may understand how absurd the statement that and liberty for Iraqi's delivered by the war will be "illusionary" seems to me.

Sincerly
A Wanderer.

 

[dlihcraw]

eh hem... American citizen here.

standard of living... a.o.k. with me

war on terror... a.o.k. with me

taking it to them before they take it to us... a.o.k. with em

patriot act... a.o.k. with me

not going to any more funerals for people who merely showed up to work... a.o.k. with me

perhaps when your morning commute to work is slowed by an abundent number of hurses on the road, your perspective on things changes a bit. or maybe not.

A biased perception should not be employed. Iranian workers went to work without the thought of death before the United States government supplied Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with weapons. Afghani workers, who thought they’d be able to go to work peacefully after the defeat of the USSR in their country, could not because the American government supplied the Taliban and Osama bin Laden with weapons. To solve the moral relativism that exists in the war on “terror”, objective principles must first be established. Objective principles include considering all relevant perspectives.

 

[dlihcraw]

The world gets CNN, we are well aware of American woes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It was the Pakistani ISI that was instrumental in supporting the Taliban in the early 1990's during which time there was a Civil War raging. It was not happy funland when the Soviet Union withdrew - it was many factions all armed to the teeth who wound up overthrowing the Soviet backed communist government.

The US was not the principle player in supplying Saddam Hussein. If you look at arms sales to Iraq it is dominated by the USSR, France and China.

I agree that there is a double standard, people seem to grill the US over past dealings while neatly ignoring the Cold War context for said operations. Today we are dealing with the-fascist terrorism, it is apocalyptic in nature and no matter how much Michael Moore/Chomsky moral relativism you try to introduce the basic situation boils down to having an enemy that has the recources and the intent to exterminate all kafirs and apostates. They will not sit down for peace talks, they cannot be reasoned with - kill them and eliminate the ideology with liberty, the only remedy for such unmitigated evil.

 

[dlihcraw]

Actually, unless Soviet gunships could be taken down, removal of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan was impossible. Thanks to the American government, Stinger missiles made it possible to take down Soviet gunships. If you know anything about the history of the USSR and present day Russia, they do not back down easily in fights. World War II and the spread of communism into Eastern Europe are perfect examples of Russian determination. Present day Chechnya presents Russia with the same obstacle Pakistani fighters did in Afghanistan, namely a higher body count in obtaining their will. Only a formidable opponent can remove the iron curtain.

A civil war resulted because promised American support in restructuring Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal never materialized. The absence of American support in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviets is often cited among Afghani terrorists (i.e. Osama bin Laden) as one of the principle reasons for their cause.

(The American government also supplied lots o’ information on potential targets and Soviet troop movement!)

 

[dlihcraw]

The Red Scare materialized in America. Stalin acted defensively in marching into Eastern Europe. He feared an American-led attack on the USSR. Cold War context aside, a nation cannot praise itself and penalize another for identical actions.

 

[dlihcraw]

How can you say they will not sit down for peace talks when it is obvious you won't sit down yourself? Iraq proved the western enemy does not have WMD, unless you include Iran and North Korea as enemies. There two countries are not included as enemies outside of rhetoric because it would be inconvenient politically, militarily and economically to attack them. You are ignorant and biased. Why did WWII occur? Because resentful politicians did not want to uphold the democratic principle of fair justice in the aftermath of WWI. In came Hitler, in comes you.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Nobody is saying that actions taken by the US during the Cold War were just, they were cases where the ends justified the means, like any war.

The cold war is over, the paradigms of anticipation and cost-benefit go out the window when you are dealing with an opponent motivated by pure religious hatred. They will use issues to motivate those to their cause but in the end they are all about dhimmitude and extermination. If one were to create a two-state solution in the Israeli Arab conflict the terrorists would not stop. Hamas has made it abundantly clear that they will drive the Jews into the sea or cause another Shoah. Terrorism is not the enemy - that is just a means of warfare, the enemy is Islamism, theo-fascism must end and to do so will require a massive drive to bring a lot of the Islamic world out from the dark ages.

Now I do not take kindly to being called ignorant and biased and then being compared to Hitler. I belive strongly in liberty and in some circumstances it can be brought about with millitary force. It is the status quo in the world that has unleased Islamism upon the world and I sure as hell do not believe that leaving the situation of despots and opressed people is the optimal state of affairs. One cannot burst in and make such statements, stick to the topic - if you wish to change it then place forth a question or proposition - do not assume that I can understand your intent from a few strung together sentences.

Here is a statement of mine from the above post. I have heard more than a few unkind words about my character, I hope this may clarify to you why one could support the Iraq war in the name of liberty - but I guess that would make me a neo-conservative.

Make liberty a fundamental human right, if it can be done peacefully through economic cooperation and political reforms then that is wonderful, if it must be done with multilateral peacekeeping operations then great do that and if there is a situation where a dictator has murdered millions and is still killing and peaceful means to remove him have failed and direct intervention can solve the problem then such an option must be considered.

 

[dlihcraw]

Hammas will not accept a two-state solution because the state of Israel was imposed upon the area after WWII by the United Nations. The Jews had been displaced across the world for millenniums, and the Palestinians had been settled in the region for sometime. An analogy would be putting the United States under aboriginal control. Technically speaking, the aboriginals are originally from the area and should rightfully be in control. However, since their presence and control in the United States has all but disappeared, Americans have claimed the area for themselves.

Would Americans ever accept a two-state solution in the United States?

As for calling you Hitler, I stand by the statement. Dismissing an argument is easy if one avoids rejecting its merit and instead insists that it was poorly “strung together!” Well, I think your neo-nazi feeling reveal themselves:

"They will not sit down for peace talks, they cannot be reasoned with - kill them and eliminate the ideology with liberty, the only remedy for such unmitigated evil."

First of all, like Hitler, you made the dilemma moral, avoiding reference to the true empirical causes, more specifically hypocritical western polities. Secondly, you presented only one possible solution to “your problem” - elimination of the infidels, as Hitler did with his “irrational” Jew. The truth, all Jews past, present and future will be more rational than Hitler. My use of the word “infidels” is interesting. Essentially, by saying terrorists cannot be reasoned with, you mean they are infidels, or people who have not been enlightened. The terrorists, in their attacks against the western world, refer to us as infidels.

Your perversion of “liberty” is disgusting.

 

[dlihcraw]

I was not informed that enlightened liberty came in the form of anal rape and constant arrest.

 

[dlihcraw]

Look outside the United States, alternative solutions to fundamental differences in culture exist. In Canada, the desire for Quebec separation is heard and allowed. In total, three provincial referendums have been held regarding Quebec’s separation from Cananda. Trudeau, a Canadian prime minister, who in a moment of Quebec terrorism, enacted martial law on the entire province has been consistently criticized for his decision. The Cold War, which you seem contempt on resurrecting, was settled on relatively peaceful terms. What about Ghandi? Internally, how about Martin Luther King Jr.? Open your eyes.

Ironically, only the failed attempts at liberty are the ones that utilized force.

 

[dlihcraw]

A right cannot be fundamental if it is enforced!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Where am I calling for elimination of Infidels - I am alluding to the modus opperandi of the Islamist movement, I am not saying that they are Infidels, I am saying that they are religious fanatics who wish to exterminate us all which is the inescapable truth of their ideology. They literally view all those that do not submit to their interperatation of Islam as worthy of death. Jews, Christian, Atheists and Moderate Muslims are all enemies in the eyes of these movements. I have absolutely no problem with people wanting to life their lives and worship freely. I do have a problem when that religious belief translates into violence.

You are attempting to use moral relativism to turn the argument topsy-turvy. I say that Islamist terrorists are a bad thing, that the entire concept of killing those who do not subscribe to their beliefs is wrong and you turn it around and say that I advocate the wholesale slaughter of an entire people.

Take a little look over some of the more recent terrorist atrocities such as Beslan and you may discover the reason that I feel fighting such a sick ideology that is the antithesis of liberty must be the principle goal of all free nations.

Global liberation, the right for people to live their lives free of fear and religious persecution. You may think that Saddam Hussein represented liberty more than any new Iraqi government may but that says more about you than I.

You are a troll, your arguments are essentially leveling charges that I am a fascist who wishes to exterminate all those that I do not agree with. You are wrong, your posts are offensive. I have answered your charges - if you want to flame then flame on, but I am quite sure that those on both sides of the political spectrum on FYM will come to my defence on the issue because they have somewhat better comprehension of what I advocate.

Good Day.

 

[dlihcraw]

Terrorism is not the enemy - that is just a means of warfare, the enemy is Islamism, theo-fascism must end and to do so will require a massive drive to bring a lot of the Islamic world out from the dark ages.

By taking the time to consider your arguments, I'm assuming you have statistical proof that all Islamic people are Neanderthalic wrongdoers. Please share.

 

[dlihcraw]

Where am I calling for elimination of Infidels - I am alluding to the modus opperandi of the Islamist movement, I am not saying that they are Infidels, I am saying that they are religious fanatics who wish to exterminate us all which is the inescapable truth of their ideology.

You did speak in general terms, bi-atch! The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! Abandon the Third Reich and kill yourself!

 

[A_Wanderer]

I said Islamist not Islam

Crutial difference.

Islam is a religion, people worship Islam, I have absolutely no problem with this.

Islamism is a political ideology. One where the imperitives of the state become governed by the Koran. Islamism is the political system that one finds in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The principle goal of Islamist terror organizations is to create a truly global ummah. This would be having a global Islamic superstate in the mould of the Taliban. One would think that this type of poltical thought is in opposite of liberty, but I suppose that that would be wrong.

Now in regards to Global Terrorism I will make it clear. Not all Muslims are terrorists, a lot of Terrorists are Muslim.

There is an important distinction to understand. I am saying that the principle threat from terrorism is found in the Islamist terror organizations. Nationalist movements like ETA or the IRA have political considerations because they have political goals. Islamist organizations have wholesale slaughter on their minds, as witnessed on 9/11 and more recently in Beslan. Muslims will often support Islamist groups because they are the only legitimate alternative to the despotic regimes they suffer under. If all Muslims were free, if Islamic society became more open and advanced, doing away with honour killings and rapes - then the support for Islamist movements would be reduced.

All people deserve to live freely, unfortunately they dont. Peace cannot be guaranteed while despotic systems florish.

***EDIT***
Where did I make a big fuss about the Russians? I simply said that one must consider the broader situation when analyzing Cold War actions.

This is fun because you are going around calling me a fascist, making very simplistic arguments all the while pretending that I am irrational. To FYMers I present this as case in point of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and wish to say it substantiates my claims in prior threads about such individuals

 

[dlihcraw]

For general knowledge: Christianity does not allow homosexual relationships or the use of contraceptives. However, not all Christians accept these principles. Similarly, Islam preaches Jihad, or Holy War, but not all Muslims accept this principle. In fact, most Muslims don’t accept this principle.

 

[dlihcraw]

In my opinion, the solution to “terrorism” is the admittance that cultural differences exist in the world, and the need for different cultures to work with each other in order to find similarities beyond their differences. War is no option when all other options have yet to be considered.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Am I disagreeing, no.

Islamism represents a vast minority, but it is a very dangerous minority.

Islamists might take exception to understanding cultural differences. They are supremacists who want to see Islam as the only force on the planet, for the rest of time. Perhaps you could spend some time listening to Bin Laden's tapes and the Muslm Brotherhood organizations before you claim to understand their motivations. You are projecting your own pet hates onto their actions.

Play around with moral relativism and lump all blame onto those dumb Americans all you like - it doesnt change the fact that you are still worthy of death in their eyes.

I will never, ever tollerate fundamentalist Islam - but then someone who accepts having women treated worse than dogs must be more enlightened in the principles of universal liberty and equality than I.

I recomend that you read some literature on the subject of Fundamentalist Islam, it can be more enlightening than Michael Moore when considering the poorly named War on Terror, V.S. Naipaul is quite good, as it Alan Dershowitz (Why Terrorism Works and The Case for Israel).

 

[dlihcraw]

Wrong. To say "Islamism" is to say "Americanism" or "Canadianism". The "ism" just means to bring about the fundamental principals of said topic. Yes, crucial difference, but also crude logic. Fundamental principles are more than the tendency to use terrorism as a political weapon. For Islam, it can be the subordination of woman to men.

As for Russia, you made several references, and you also tried to divide equal responsibility for the Cold War among both involved parties. Aside from the communist call for all workers of the world to unite, the majority of responsibility can be passed along to the western world. For example, consider Weber’s Protestant work ethic and its importance in capitalism, the Red Scare, the unease Stalin inexperienced because of his western allies, and McCarthyism.

 

[dlihcraw]

Apparently, the solution to the world's terror problem is to counter "Islamism" with "Westernism"! The justification for this belief is A_Wanderers own testimony! Hypocritical, yes! But logical, well, ah no.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Right, I forgive me - communism was the perfect system until the west started to try and undermine it. I have to go tell my Polish neighbour this news because shit, they made a mistake coming to Australia.

The solution to terrorism is to ensure that women are not treated like cattle. It is to make sure that clerics preach tollerance and understanding and not hatred against kafirs. It is to reform the political situation so that Muslims have the same rights as you or I and the same oppertunities. Is prosperity and freedom westernising them?

By the way, where is the hypocracy in advocating liberty and democracy for all people regardless of creed or race. I would think that hypocracy is saying that I may enjoy freedom because I live in a western country but because someone is born in an Islamic society they do not - freedom for me but not for thee type arguments.

You are trying to play petty word games, if you have never ever heard of Islamism then here is a very good definition for you. It is in common usage, well go look for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

 

[dlihcraw]

I recomend that you read some literature on the subject of Fundamentalist Islam, it can be more enlightening than Michael Moore when considering the poorly named War on Terror, V.S. Naipaul is quite good, as it Alan Dershowitz (Why Terrorism Works and The Case for Israel).

Is this coming from the same guy who begged me to drop "irrelevant" topics? In this conversation, there has been no mention of Michael Moore from my knowledge, and certainly not one from me! Also, you can throw out all the names you want, they don‘t matter. One person's justification for war is not everyone else's. (Oh, and presently in the American political debate scene, books are either pro or against the war, and a book’s title is often the best indication of where it stands in the political debate!)

 

[dlihcraw]

Communism under Marx's intention has never been materialized. The western world did not object to communism because it was inhumane, but because it was in contradiction to democratic and commercial values. Nice try, though! And where was the western world prior to Hitler’s part over of Poland? Boy, you reasoning is so complicated and overlapping! No, wait, it’s just contradictive.

(Russia was not in any position militarily, politically or economically to counter the Nazi movement into Poland.)