Bush Speech - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2004, 10:40 PM   #31
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:09 PM
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 href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 01:32 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:09 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 03:31 AM   #33
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jamila
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
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 03:47 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:09 PM
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 .
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:42 AM   #35
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,397
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jamila
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.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 09-28-2004, 10:51 PM   #36
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
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.
__________________
dlihcraw is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 10:55 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:09 PM
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:01 PM   #38
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


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 is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:08 PM   #39
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
The world gets CNN, we are well aware of American woes.
__________________
dlihcraw is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:10 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:09 PM
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:23 PM   #41
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
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 is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:26 PM   #42
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
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 is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:32 PM   #43
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
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.
__________________
dlihcraw is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:41 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:09 PM
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 12:07 AM   #45
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 199
Local Time: 04:09 AM
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 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com