Bush Speech
- Thread starter A_Wanderer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
A country's constitution is specific to itself. Where the American constitution reads “the freedom of all people,” it means all American residents. The principle of freedom in democracy is ambiguous and generally is taken to mean simply that the people of any given democratic country are free to pursue their own beliefs within respect for other's beliefs.
I suggest you read anything on democracy to understand this point. It's quite different from the form of government you only seem familiar with, national-socialism!
I suggest you read anything on democracy to understand this point. It's quite different from the form of government you only seem familiar with, national-socialism!
A_Wanderer said:
Terrorism is not specifically an Islamic phenomenon. Ah, that bombing, in ah, Oklahoma, who was responsible again? They weren’t Islamic. Ah. Oh, yeah! They were Christian fundamentalists! Oh shit. You know what this means? Now the western world, based exclusively on Christian beliefs, must destroy itself!
What about Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, too?
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
No I would not.
Lets take a little scorecard of values here.
**Liberal Democracy**
>Liberty for all citizens, YES
>Equal rights for women, YES
>Freedom of expression, YES
>Freedom to elect leaders, YES
>Sexual freedoms, YES
>Seperation of the powers, YES
>Seperation of church and state, YES
>Freedom of worship, YES
Islamism
>Liberty for all citizens, NO
>Equal rights for women, NO
>Freedom of expression, NO
>Freedom to elect leaders, NO
>Sexual freedoms, NO
>Seperation of the powers, NO
>Seperation of church and state, NO
>Freedom of worship, NO
The liberal democracy is not strictly western in nature, many different countries with different cultures have embraced this political model which embraces free market capitalism and individuality as a means of operation. It contrasts sharply with Islamism which is a despotic system, it robs individuality and demands subservance to the Clerics. If one deviates from the "true path" dictated by the religious authority then punishment is harsh.
What you are advocating is that the political system of the Taliban is equally as valid as the liberal democracy one finds in Japan, United States, Canada, Turkey and All of Europe.
Freedom and democracy are much better at encouraging peace because the individual is allowed to make their own choices, the biggest foes of the 20th Century Communism and Fascism were authoritarian in nature, Islamism is no different, it is a political ideology operating in a globalised world - it is a dangerous ideology because of the intention of extermination of those that stand in its way.
What ever crushes individuality is despotism, nomatter what name it is called - (John Stuart Mill)
Lets take a little scorecard of values here.
**Liberal Democracy**
>Liberty for all citizens, YES
>Equal rights for women, YES
>Freedom of expression, YES
>Freedom to elect leaders, YES
>Sexual freedoms, YES
>Seperation of the powers, YES
>Seperation of church and state, YES
>Freedom of worship, YES
Islamism
>Liberty for all citizens, NO
>Equal rights for women, NO
>Freedom of expression, NO
>Freedom to elect leaders, NO
>Sexual freedoms, NO
>Seperation of the powers, NO
>Seperation of church and state, NO
>Freedom of worship, NO
The liberal democracy is not strictly western in nature, many different countries with different cultures have embraced this political model which embraces free market capitalism and individuality as a means of operation. It contrasts sharply with Islamism which is a despotic system, it robs individuality and demands subservance to the Clerics. If one deviates from the "true path" dictated by the religious authority then punishment is harsh.
What you are advocating is that the political system of the Taliban is equally as valid as the liberal democracy one finds in Japan, United States, Canada, Turkey and All of Europe.
Freedom and democracy are much better at encouraging peace because the individual is allowed to make their own choices, the biggest foes of the 20th Century Communism and Fascism were authoritarian in nature, Islamism is no different, it is a political ideology operating in a globalised world - it is a dangerous ideology because of the intention of extermination of those that stand in its way.
What ever crushes individuality is despotism, nomatter what name it is called - (John Stuart Mill)
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Well your right terrorism is not strictly Islamic - I never said that it was but when was the last time you saw Buddhists ramming jet liners into skyscrapers, taoist suicide bombers or Mormons cutting childrens eyes out, raping them and killing them?
You sir are providing nothing to this debate other than accuse the pursuit of global freedom to be on par with Nazi atrocities and continue to excuse the most brutal of crimes in the name of moral relativism.
I tire of this frivilous argument, I have debated the point time and time again, regulars who have engaged in proper debate understand my position much better than you, you seem to be a hate filled individual intent on reducing the quality of debate - for which reasons I do not know,
Oh btw, you violated Goodwins law numerous times in this conversation - if you persist in doing so I may report some to a mod.
You sir are providing nothing to this debate other than accuse the pursuit of global freedom to be on par with Nazi atrocities and continue to excuse the most brutal of crimes in the name of moral relativism.
I tire of this frivilous argument, I have debated the point time and time again, regulars who have engaged in proper debate understand my position much better than you, you seem to be a hate filled individual intent on reducing the quality of debate - for which reasons I do not know,
Oh btw, you violated Goodwins law numerous times in this conversation - if you persist in doing so I may report some to a mod.
Last edited:
Equality is only a principle in democracy, and while a country may outline it as a fundamental right, it is not always given to every citizens, much like your first negative for “Islamism”! Want proof? Ask aboriginals, blacks, Asians, and any other visible minority! So far, one for one. Next, the equality of sexes. Well, even in Canada and the United States are men paid considerably more than woman for the same amount of work. Two for two. Third, freedom of expression, this one is a little tricky. Remember the recent Republican convention in New York City and the treatment protestors received? If not, remember the WTO in Seattle, or the Million Man March in Washington, DC? Three for three. Next, the right to elect their own leaders, I think the last American election says enough here. Four for four. Next, freedoms, that seems somewhat redundant to what has already been said so I’ll just dismiss it. Bye. Five for five. Next, the separation of church and state, did you know there is a chapel in the American house of government, and President Bush often refers to God (not to mention the infamous “In God We Trust” on the American dollar bill)! Ok, so far, six for six. Next, worship, ah, apparently not. Look at your hate rhetoric, how can the right to free worship exist in a democratic society when the rights of bigots like yourself come first?! Making the total seven for seven. Man, come to think about it, we all suck. Destroy the world! The human race is a incurable disease!
I’m saying that counter-terrorist measures like the pre-emptive strike only increase the occurrence of terrorism around the world. How is a foreigner supposed to value western principles when they seem only to contradict the most basic of all human principles? Lying, deceit, violence. There is no quality in your debating style and nothing but hate in your message. You are a ethnocentrist, a racist and a swindler. Dodge my attacks all you want because you can’t properly respond. You change the subject of our conversation as often as you change your opinion. I am well aware of your fractured beliefs and all my criticisms apply. You, sir, are a perverted political animal, who belongs in a Zoo-pora!
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
How am I a bigot?
A_Wanderer said:
Look up the definition of bigot, and look up you opinions about Islam(ism). Nuff said.
You generalize. Then, you claim not to generalize. Why can’t you realize you’re a bigot?
Islamism, as I have pointed out, includes the entire array of Islamic principles and people.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Where is the hate rhetoric, I am of the opinion that all people are born with infinite potential - the natural state of man is free.
I said that a LOT of the Islamic world must be brought out of the dark ages. What I was saying is that many parts of the Islamic world barbaric practices like honour killings persist - I did not say all of the Islamic world hence no generalization.
I am trying to be level and you are getting shrill.
I said that a LOT of the Islamic world must be brought out of the dark ages. What I was saying is that many parts of the Islamic world barbaric practices like honour killings persist - I did not say all of the Islamic world hence no generalization.
I am trying to be level and you are getting shrill.
Last edited:
Level? You tilt back and forth! "Islamism" has to be your word of the day, but what does "Islamism" mean? Does it mean Iran and Afghanistan, but not Turkey? Or Saudi Arabia and Syria, but not Pakistan? Does it mean those that comply with the western will, or those that practise their own wills?
In American, there is not consistency among the primary values of the country. Some states are Republican, some are Democrat; some allow gay marriage, some do not allow gay marriage; some welcome minorities, some do not welcome minorities. What to do?
In American, there is not consistency among the primary values of the country. Some states are Republican, some are Democrat; some allow gay marriage, some do not allow gay marriage; some welcome minorities, some do not welcome minorities. What to do?
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Iraq is an interesting case. Now you have Shiite majority who were supressed and the Baathists (predominantly Sunni). A crumbling dictatorship that in all probability possessed WMD was not the ideal situation, in the event of a collapse the only force in the region that could fill the power vacuum would be Iran and if they made a move against Iraq and annexed the Basra oil fields and then supressed the Sunnis and Kurds you would be in trouble, the Gulf States would be at risk and then global economies could be threatened.
If one can introduce an Arab/Persian Muslim democracy into the Middle East it raises the prospects of reforms immensly. Iran is allready looking shakey as it have a very strong reformist element who are fed up with theocracy. Countries like Egypt and Jordan would have to increase liberalisation measures as the populus would look to Iraq as a shining example of what their lives could be like if they had good governance.
The prospects for peace in the region would be increased, no longer could state televsion just blame everything on "The Jews", you could foster genuine understanding and mutual reciognition between Israelies and Arabs.
Liberty and democracy were only put into practice together relatively recent in the history of the world, one should not underestimate the transforming power that they can have on societies. Peace cannot be guaranteed while we play the same old games of propping up dictators for cheap oil, we must secure freedom for all people - then and only then will humanity be able to move forward free from hatred and superstition.
Islamism is not my word of the day. It has been a consitent theme throughout my posting here that it is a danger to the world. It is an expansionist ideology that like communism and fascism alike seeks to crush individuality and reinforce the power of an elite few.
You call me a fascist and yet I am absolutely pro free speech.
You call me a racist but and yet I think that all people are human and equal.
You call me ethnocentric and yet I oppose systems that are threats to diversity.
You are baiting this thread with a hatred that I have never seen here. If you want to be constructive then that is great but right now you are resorting to petty attacks which contribute little to the conversation. I may not like what you say but I believe that you have a right to say it - perhaps if you grappled with that concept you will realize that your baseless accusations to stifle my speech bear more than a passing resemblance to the groups which caused so much grief throughout the 20th Century.
If one can introduce an Arab/Persian Muslim democracy into the Middle East it raises the prospects of reforms immensly. Iran is allready looking shakey as it have a very strong reformist element who are fed up with theocracy. Countries like Egypt and Jordan would have to increase liberalisation measures as the populus would look to Iraq as a shining example of what their lives could be like if they had good governance.
The prospects for peace in the region would be increased, no longer could state televsion just blame everything on "The Jews", you could foster genuine understanding and mutual reciognition between Israelies and Arabs.
Liberty and democracy were only put into practice together relatively recent in the history of the world, one should not underestimate the transforming power that they can have on societies. Peace cannot be guaranteed while we play the same old games of propping up dictators for cheap oil, we must secure freedom for all people - then and only then will humanity be able to move forward free from hatred and superstition.
Islamism is not my word of the day. It has been a consitent theme throughout my posting here that it is a danger to the world. It is an expansionist ideology that like communism and fascism alike seeks to crush individuality and reinforce the power of an elite few.
You call me a fascist and yet I am absolutely pro free speech.
You call me a racist but and yet I think that all people are human and equal.
You call me ethnocentric and yet I oppose systems that are threats to diversity.
You are baiting this thread with a hatred that I have never seen here. If you want to be constructive then that is great but right now you are resorting to petty attacks which contribute little to the conversation. I may not like what you say but I believe that you have a right to say it - perhaps if you grappled with that concept you will realize that your baseless accusations to stifle my speech bear more than a passing resemblance to the groups which caused so much grief throughout the 20th Century.
Last edited:
The CIA, FBI, British government and American government have come out to say no weapons exist, that the information saying such weapons did exist was completely fictitious, Powell and Blair being the two highest ranking authorities to admit this truth. If Saddam had such weapons, why did he not use them in the Gulf War, or the present war? Did he purchase them because he enjoys collecting WMDs, or because he planned to use them? Again, he if planned to use them, why didn’t he use them?! Supposedly, he bought them to use against the American people, and the American people invaded his country! What better opportunity to use his WMDs? The only major weapon that has been found are minor traces of the chemical agent Saddam used against Iran. The only interesting thing about the invasion of Iraq is how the western world came to see it as necessary! Even more interesting, how you still see it as necessary!
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
1) I said liberty and democracy - the liberal democracy. This was a product of the age of enlightenment which drives home the importance of the individual and free will. This political model replaced the autocracies through the industrial revolution. Its influences stretch back into classical concepts but its implementation is much more recent.
2) Saddam Hussein had significant WMD stocks at the close of the Gulf War after the surrender. He revealed more than any foreign intelligence agency suspected. He had to verifiably disarm all banned weapons - the UNSCOM mission was obfuscated by the regime significantly, the most likely reason was that the regime still possessed and was working on weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 the regime made it clear that it was going to be uncoperative with the UN inspectors, in response President Clinton launched operation Desert Fox, an aeriel campaign to pull the regime into line, This was not properly resolved and the inspectors were removed. Since 1998 there were no weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. The sanctions were failing (I dont care what Powell or Rice said earlier in 2002 about them, most analysts agreed that it was not sustainable and was only killing Iraqi civilians). It was too great a risk to leave that regime in place, killing innocent people by the tens of thousands in the current environment. Intervention was right, around 150,000 less people are dead because of it.
3) Hold your opinions, go nuts. Just expect other people to be allowed to hold different views and be capable of accomidating that without leveling baseless emotional charges at them.
2) Saddam Hussein had significant WMD stocks at the close of the Gulf War after the surrender. He revealed more than any foreign intelligence agency suspected. He had to verifiably disarm all banned weapons - the UNSCOM mission was obfuscated by the regime significantly, the most likely reason was that the regime still possessed and was working on weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 the regime made it clear that it was going to be uncoperative with the UN inspectors, in response President Clinton launched operation Desert Fox, an aeriel campaign to pull the regime into line, This was not properly resolved and the inspectors were removed. Since 1998 there were no weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. The sanctions were failing (I dont care what Powell or Rice said earlier in 2002 about them, most analysts agreed that it was not sustainable and was only killing Iraqi civilians). It was too great a risk to leave that regime in place, killing innocent people by the tens of thousands in the current environment. Intervention was right, around 150,000 less people are dead because of it.
3) Hold your opinions, go nuts. Just expect other people to be allowed to hold different views and be capable of accomidating that without leveling baseless emotional charges at them.
According to you, free speech is essential unless it perpetuates Islam(ism). According to you, all people are equal unless they are Neanderthalic wrongdoing Islam(isms)ic people. Again, I ask, “What does ‘Islamism’ mean? Does it mean Iran and Afghanistan, but not Turkey? Or Saudi Arabia and Syria, but not Pakistan? Does it mean those that comply with the western will, or those that practise their own wills? And, “In American, there is not consistency among the primary values of the country. Some states are Republican, some are Democrat; some allow gay marriage, some do not allow gay marriage; some welcome minorities, some do not welcome minorities. What to do?” Your use of subjective morality does not apply to reality.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Questions.
1) Do you consider all other cultural practices a right?
2) Do you consider clitorectomies as a cultural practice to be right?
3) Do you believe that religious sanctioned murder of women through honour killings is right?
4) Do you believe that religious sanctioned genocide is right?
5) Is it rational to think that all people deserve a good quality of life.
6) Do you think that it is allright for women to be treated worse than animals because the society deems that to be so.
Answer these questions and I will talk more.
1) Do you consider all other cultural practices a right?
2) Do you consider clitorectomies as a cultural practice to be right?
3) Do you believe that religious sanctioned murder of women through honour killings is right?
4) Do you believe that religious sanctioned genocide is right?
5) Is it rational to think that all people deserve a good quality of life.
6) Do you think that it is allright for women to be treated worse than animals because the society deems that to be so.
Answer these questions and I will talk more.
Saddam had chemical and biological weapons with limited range. In the time of the Gulf War, he had no significant air force or navy services; his only means of using such weapons was with the SCUD missile, which could barely reach Israel. After the Gulf War, all such weapons were taken away. Where was the threat leading into the invasion of Iraq?
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I hold dear people are free to hold any belief unless it hurts others. Islamism is a belief that inflicts suffering upon those living under it therefore it should not be tollerated. You cannot speak for libery if you support despotism, simple as that now answer the questions, if you can.
Last edited:
Religiously sanctioned murders of all kinds are extremely rare. International intervention through the use of pre-emptive strikes is not necessary. Any such situation must be handled at the state level. Canada does not support capital punishment. Should Canada invade the Untied States of American and make them comply with such a belief? The western world cannot determine which cultures show appropriate values; similarly, eastern cultures cannot determine which cultures show appropriate values. Cultures must work together, not against each other. Our good life is not necessarily a Muslim's good life, or especially a Buddhist's good life. Each determine their own good life.
A_Wanderer said:
To the terrorists I say:
I hold all people are free to practise any belief they want unless it hurts others'. Westernism is a belief that inflicts suffering upon those living under it; therefore, it should not be tollerated. You cannot speak for libery if you do not support religion.
Fun, eh?
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
No, you are wrong.
You do not determine your life if you are living in fear for your life at the hands of a dictatorship. You are not living a good life if your husband beats you up to keep you submissive.
We are all human beings, we must all be afforded fundamental human rights - you advocate letting abuse slide because the society tollerates it. I say that that is wrong and counterproductive.
You do not determine your life if you are living in fear for your life at the hands of a dictatorship. You are not living a good life if your husband beats you up to keep you submissive.
We are all human beings, we must all be afforded fundamental human rights - you advocate letting abuse slide because the society tollerates it. I say that that is wrong and counterproductive.
- Status
Similar threads
