I look forward to post-ideology...

[melon]

I have not fully realized how the post 9-11 environment has affected me until enough time has passed. Some random observations that I assume will offend some people's egos here, but, please, take it as me thinking out loud (which is what I am really doing):

- Anti-American sentiment is going to levels worthy of "The Onion." Yes, we blew up our own buildings and brought down our own planes, so we could own all the world's oil and establish a "Gap" in every Islamic temple. Never mind, of course, that America has been researching hydrogen fuel cell technology that would make us probably no longer need foreign oil in another decade...so I'm sure we would get yelled at for that as well.

- Leftism has proved completely ineffectual in dealing with terrorism, which has always looked disdainfully upon intellectualism and pacifism--bulwarks of leftism. Something indeed tells me that intellectualism and pacifism will not dismantle Al-Qaeda, no more than intellectualism and pacifism will not dismantle the Christian Coalition. In fact, it only seemingly fuels the fanaticism further. I guess as long as Al-Qaeda doesn't strike anything else but America--since they "clearly" deserve it, according to Canadian opinion polls--then America should just shut up and take it?

- I have a sick admiration for both Reagan and Dubya, but I think that the latter has taken the cake for me. The manners in which he can slip in archetypical conservative ideology for "national security" is worthy of Machiavelli. I mean, attempting to establish the "Homeland Security" (how very "1984" sounding!) Department without a labor union out of "national security" concerns and get away with it is flat out brilliant. I can only wish that the Democrats had mastered such cold and calculated moves thirty years ago.

(More to come...)

Melon

 

[hiphop]

What is the Christian Coalition?

 

[diamond]

Yo Melon-
How is Boston?

DB9

 

[BVS]

I have a sick admiration for both Reagan and Dubya

Is there any other way to have admiration for these two?

What is the Christian Coalition?

It's an extremest organization that has nothing to do with Christianity and has everything to do with casting judgements and trying to force the nation to bend to their rules and regulations that they drew up to replace God.

 

[Lilly]

Is there any other way to have admiration for these two?

yes. actually there is. the way the bush administration handled the days surrounding 9/11 was impeccable.

It's an extremest organization that has nothing to do with Christianity and has everything to do with casting judgements and trying to force the nation to bend to their rules and regulations that they drew up to replace God.

it holds fundamental Christian beliefs, and although i disagree with how they interpret and execute these beliefs, it's theirs.

please be careful when asserting your opinions.


this is the Christian Coalition's website:

http://www.cc.org/

 

[melon]

Yo Melon-
How is Boston?

DB9

Boston is fun.

Melon

 

[melon]

it holds fundamental Christian beliefs, and although i disagree with how they interpret and execute these beliefs, it's theirs.

please be careful when asserting your opinions.

See? More leftist intellectual pacificism. But what does the Christian Coalition say to those who "interpret and execute" beliefs different from theirs? Condemns them to hell and tries to force its will on America in the form of state and some federal legislative activism.

The question I pose, ultimately, is why should I extend respect and understanding to people or groups who clearly refuse to extend the same courtesy? And, in terms of violent groups, why the hell should we remotely even be diplomatic with them?

I was pondering the nature of Palestine the other day, and I came to the realization that the West Bank / Gaza Strip are being led by a "former" terrorist organization, the PLO. Now perhaps we see why Israel has difficulty dealing with this entity as is? I could perhaps see similar conflict if the IRA got autonomy in Northern Ireland.

Just random ponderings. I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions. It seems like a good day for a semiotical debate...

Melon

 

[BVS]

yes. actually there is. the way the bush administration handled the days surrounding 9/11 was impeccable.

Impeccable? No. Now I do admit the way his administration handled the aftermath of 9/11 was very respectful, but by no means impeccable. There's a lot of debate as to what could have been done to prevent this, that there was evidence that the FBI and CIA "had warning". And the fact that there is this debate, for we will never know the extent of information gathered, leaves his administration with many flaws on how the handled 9/11.

it holds fundamental Christian beliefs, and although i disagree with how they interpret and execute these beliefs, it's theirs.

I know an extensive amount about the CC. I have a dear friend who is a lobbyist and very active in this organization. And yes it holds fundamental Christian beliefs, but that's where it stops. Yes it believes in God and Jesus Christ, but then so does a majority of the U.S.(this is a Judeo-Christian culture) but the actions are far from Christ like. It is in fact a very extremest group, it's far right, and that's something they are proud of. My view may have come off strong, but a lot of what I said is just fact.

 

[STING2]

While some of the blame for not preventing 9/11 belongs with the Bush Administration, the vast majority of it belongs to the previous Clinton administration that had 8 years to deal with all these problems and is partly responsible for the capabilities of the CIA and FBI when Bush first took office only 7 months before the attacks. Bush may of had 7 months, all be it, its difficult to change anything in the first 6 months of a new administration. But Clinton had 8 years!

 

[Anthony]

I am truly concerned with the growing tension concentrated on accusations of 'growing anti-Americanism'. I am, at best, baffled by such notices.

Whats more baffling, is how as the stakes get higher, people's temperaments also rise. This isn't whats baffling, what's baffling is the nature of the temperaments and who the people who have them are. We have people in Germany upset and anxious over this continuing chapter on the war on Terrorism, when they shouldn't be. From the very beginning, I have been of the opinion that this was NOT a war that involved everybody. For instance, Germany wasn't attacked. Hell, Britain wasn't attacked, and yet for some reason there is a logic going round that says that Europe should go along with this without hesitation.

When people say 'Anti-Americanism', its usually a term given to anyone who will NOT go along with Bush on this one, and that is inexcusable. Its a growing nuisance to see Shroeder having to actually fear visiting the US 'in five year's time', as a British reporter joked, simply because he was being more outspoken than most Europeans are in their disagreement with this problem.

Now, I've already talked about my opposition to attacking Iraq, my point is no one should be accused of 'Anti-Americanism' simply because they disagree with the current course of action. The term 'Anti-Americanism', has been used far too liberally, in my opinion. The only true 'Anti-Americanism' I've seen so far is 9/11.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Germany was not physically attacked, nor was Britain. But there were attacks planned for both countries that were foiled. In addition planning for many attacks to place in Germany. Also given the interdependent nature of international economics and trade, an attack on the USA is an attack on Germany and the UK. In terms of Economics and trade, its getting to the point that Germany and the UK are as much apart of the USA as Mississippi is. Thats the reality of globalism. Of course lets not forget that the USA, UK, and Germany are all apart of the NATO alliance in which an attack on one, is an attack on all. This small rift between the USA and Germany will pass. Are interdependent relationship economically and culturally is to strong for little rifts.

 

[pax]

The term 'Anti-Americanism', has been used far too liberally, in my opinion. The only true 'Anti-Americanism' I've seen so far is 9/11.

Ant.

Anthony, that's one of FYM's greatest hits. Thank you.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I am truly concerned with the growing tension concentrated on accusations of 'growing anti-Americanism'. I am, at best, baffled by such notices.

Whats more baffling, is how as the stakes get higher, people's temperaments also rise. This isn't whats baffling, what's baffling is the nature of the temperaments and who the people who have them are. We have people in Germany upset and anxious over this continuing chapter on the war on Terrorism, when they shouldn't be. From the very beginning, I have been of the opinion that this was NOT a war that involved everybody. For instance, Germany wasn't attacked. Hell, Britain wasn't attacked, and yet for some reason there is a logic going round that says that Europe should go along with this without hesitation.

When people say 'Anti-Americanism', its usually a term given to anyone who will NOT go along with Bush on this one, and that is inexcusable. Its a growing nuisance to see Shroeder having to actually fear visiting the US 'in five year's time', as a British reporter joked, simply because he was being more outspoken than most Europeans are in their disagreement with this problem.

Now, I've already talked about my opposition to attacking Iraq, my point is no one should be accused of 'Anti-Americanism' simply because they disagree with the current course of action. The term 'Anti-Americanism', has been used far too liberally, in my opinion. The only true 'Anti-Americanism' I've seen so far is 9/11.

Ant.

Agreed.

I remember friends of mine and I were accused of being "anti-American" after 9/11 simply because we did not support Bush and his decision to attack Afghanistan. That bugged me. That and when some people told me that if I didn't like our president or if I didn't like what our country was doing or how we were acting with regards to the decision to attack Afghanistan, I could "shut up and leave". I guess freedom of speech didn't mean squat to some of the people I had encountered.

If someone supported Bush's decisions, fine. I don't understand why they do, but if they do, that's their opinion.

But I'm entitled to my opinion as well.

Angela

 

[Anthony]

. Also given the interdependent nature of international economics and trade, an attack on the USA is an attack on Germany and the UK. In terms of Economics and trade, its getting to the point that Germany and the UK are as much apart of the USA as Mississippi is.

Then, by implication, everytime the IRA ever attacked Britain it was also an attack on the USA. That is clearly not the way it has been seen, now is it? What has been seen is Britain going it alone for decades while IRA attacks have continued mercilessly in their campaign of terror. I never saw a British Prime Minister go on about how it was 'our war'. I'm not drawing attention to the fact that Britain wasn't helped, I am drawing attention to the fact that it was a British problem and it was always addressed as such.

According to yout theory, everytime there is an incident, everytime there is an attack on a country, it involves others. I regret to observe that THIS observation is only made when it suits the relevant parties. I never saw any American forces invading IRA-friendly parts of Northern Ireland.

In the theory proposed by yourself, everyime the USA is attacked, its an attack on Germany and the UK. Is the reverse the same to you? When there's an attack on Germany or the UK, is that also an attack on the USA? I think you will find that the theory doesn't work that way, and that disproportionate aspect of the whole scenario is what is clearly wrong in logic; its all fine to say that attacking the US is attacking the UK, but when is the reverse ever considered?

In terms of Economics and Trade, President Bush has always made it quite clear that it is AMERICAN interests that take preference in global matters. His backing out of the Kyoto Protocol was mainly because of his interest in how it would affect the American Economy, was it not? The whole increase on the tariffs incident as seen earlier on this year showed how 'interdependent' we all are. Clearly not so 'interdependent' that American interests don't need to prevail. Well, I admire the other side of the coin as well. In my case, I want European interests to prevail, and I don't see how a war is going to make our economies healthier - I'd rather just see the US go to war and weaken their own economy, rather than have other countries weaken their economy for no apparent reason to them.

No, I am not saying that I wish the American Economy ill will, I am merely showing the times. We are clearly NOT that interdependent when it suits certain people at the top, and I do hold some resentment to the notion that we are only totally interdepent, connected and 'culturally linked' when it suits the politicians.

The truth is we're not. And Bush's war is not Europe's war, either.

Ant.

 

[kobayashi]

I guess as long as Al-Qaeda doesn't strike anything else but America--since they "clearly" deserve it, according to Canadian opinion polls--then America should just shut up and take it?

melon, where did you read about this poll?

 

[STING2]

Anthony,

I'm sorry but this is not my theory but rather a fact supported by the majority of economist, business people, political scientist and others. I studied this at University just like many of my friends, and it rather obvious.

The IRA problem has been of a concern to the USA, foreigners were also killed in IRA attacks! By your logic because my sister lives and works for a British company in Dublin Ireland, your saying that she is no longer American! Bull honkey! To the degree that IRA attacks effected the United Kingdoms economy, that is how it effected the USA. It seems to me that you are in ignorance of the level of trade that occurs between Europe and the USA, or the number of foreigners from both countries that work in the others, and the effect that has on the economy. By your logic you could say that the only people effect by the strike in New York City are people living in New York City. Bull Honkey!

American forces never invaded IRA friendly parts of Ireland because there was never a need for that. The British Army never needed in help in dealing with its situation in Northern Ireland! If the IRA defeated British forces in battle and were about to invade and take over England, you bet your ass US troops would be there in a snap. But its not clear to me how much the IRA effected the overall UK economy or its trade with the world. It never rose to a serious enough level that the UK could not handle it itself or that it seriously worsened the economy of the UK.

"When there is an attack on Germany or the UK its an attack on the United States"? Jeez, have you never heard of the NATO Alliance?

I disagree with some of Bush's tarrifs but they are a TINY fraction of total interational trade with the USA. The USA is more open to international trade than any country on the planet! We have a trade deficit of 400 BILLION dollars! Billions of dollars cross international borders all the time. Business is constantly taking place without regards for national borders. German companies based in the USA are effected by economic conditions here just like American companies based in Germany are effected by anything that Germans go through. If the IRA blow up a McDonalds in Belfast that does effect America. I could list a thousand examples of interdepedence but I don't have the time. Look around you its everywhere. More later!

 

[anitram]

kobe, there was a poll (I believe conducted by EKOS) sometime in early September (around the 4th or 5th) which stated that something like 84% of Canadians feel the USA was "completely or partially responsible for 9/11". It was big news on CNN, and I remember their anchors practically rolling their eyes over it.

In any case, I agree 100% with everything Anthony said.

 

[Anthony]

Military help wasn't needed because it was never asked for. As I said in my post again and again, Britian kept it its own problem as it rightly did.

. By your logic you could say that the only people effect by the strike in New York City are people living in New York City. Bull Honkey!

With all due respect, that is NOT my logic and I do believe you are being pendantic. In return, all I can offer is an equally facetious answer. My logic never referred to when a person is no longer an 'American', as your rather irrelevent example mentioning your sister illustrated, my logic never refuted the fact that there are British expatriots in America, and American expatriots in Britain. I never even negated the considerable number of Europeans living in America, as the reverse is also true - my conclusion is that these matters are all relative.

I do of course respect the interdependency of foreign markets and trade, you are not the only one who has studied economics. However, your view is saying that because there is economic reliance, there must be political and cultural alliance; this clearly isn't so.

Now, it seems to me that you are the one in ignorance if you are stating that everytime there has ever been a war in history, people have fought for a cause simply because a number of their nationals live in the country fighting the war. By your logic, Russia will fight against the US because of its oil interests in Iraq. Absurd? Of course it is. As is the notion that just because we have Brits living in the US, we need to go to war with someone. Economics is another matter altogether, different from 'logic'. Are you saying that the US will economically boycott Germany because of its lack of support, as well as other countries? Of course it won't. You and I both know that politics follows the scent of economics. Peace will be made when its economically convenient to do so, as will war.

You have still, however, not answered my question; how is going to war with Iraq good for the European economy? Well?

"When there is an attack on Germany or the UK its an attack on the United States"? Jeez, have you never heard of the NATO Alliance?

Yes, I've heard of it. I've also heard of America and other countries going it alone. I've also heard of the UN, and how certain Presidents openly mock it and practically belittle it when they see that they may find it difficult to make them go their way. I've also heard of how an American President has indeed practically vowed to go it alone, with or without the consent of the UN, or the other countries that may or may not be included in NATO.

My point? NATO doesn't speak for everybody in real life. The written paper doesn't mean troops on the front line, does it? You're quoting NATO when it is convenient to do so, but accepting the cold hard fact that countries will act in their self-interest when they have to is probably a more realistic assertion. In fact, it may be better to remind Bush of NATO and the UN, he certainly seems to have forgotten.

I do not negate that there is interdependence on ALL matters. My point was, and still is, that interdependence is not enough. It is ONLY enough for the politicians who desire more support. At the moment we talk about the importance of interdependence, I'm wondering what your reaction will be when I, in protest of another tariff increase in a few month's time, talk to you of interdependence then?

And I don't accept the argument that the effect was marginal. It wasn't. It was calculated and the tariff increase certainly cost a number of jobs.

Ant.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

As a somewhat knowlegable westerner...

This is opinion only, based on things Ive learned, observed, and otherwise made descicions on. In regards to the question of the public poll taken. Should the US just shut up and take the sept 11th attacks? No, they should not. Are they at fault? Yes, but only partially. Who else is at fault? The rest of the western world.

Did we, the western world, do anything to deserve the attacks? for all the atrocities which we have committed in the past? For the loose ends left untied? For all the pain, suffering, death, and destruction we've caused, be it in asia, middle east, or africa? Yes, we did. Should it have ever been allowed to come to this? No. The fact is, the USA is the scapegoat for the rest of the west because they have the biggest army and they do all the dirty work. Some group of radicals of indiscriminate race, nationality, and religion, decide they want to avenge these atrocities, and they do it by blowing up a building. Just so happens in its in the US. Should it have happened to the US? No, it shouldnt have happened to anyone, the loss of innocent life is not acceptable. But was there reason for the attacks to have been made? Yes. Could it have happened to the rest of the western countries? Yes, it could have, and perhaps should have, the british and french caused all the problems in africa and my middle eastern history is a bit sketchy, but the british in the middle east as well if memory serves. But again, the USA is the biggest power in the west, therefore they are made into the enemy, and attacked. The fact of the matter though, is that it should not have been allowed to come to this. Instead of turning our noses up and ignoring them, we should have helped these people, put in governments that work, assisted them instead of charging them assloads of money for technology they didnt need and were uneducated to use. Help them with food, help them with water, help them with medicine... Would it be so much of a loss if we were to help someone else instead of basking in our massive condos and homes, doing whatever we damn well please while someone starves to death every 7 seconds? No, it really wouldnt hurt us that much.

Whining about Canada blaming the us and saying yeah well you get what you get? Think of it like this, we're not ignorant people, we know that we all have a blame in this. If the survey asks 'is the us to blame or partially to blame' the answer is yes, an unfortunate half-truth. Again, we're all to blame for it. Dont get off on canada for "hating you" so much and putting all the blame squarely on your shoulders. A narrow question like that can be interpreted in too many ways, and its a damn shame that you haveto blame everyone else, dont pretend like we've betrayed you. Like I said, we're not stupid people, the US could march all over canada and we couldnt do a damn thing about it. Partially to blame, yes, just like the survey indicates. Are we to blame as well even though that wasnt part of the question? yes. Europe? you bet. Stop the canadian bashing just because you need to feel better about yourself. Everyone loves polite, helpful, pacifist canada... except the US. I have hypothesis on this, but itll just get me flamed ;P


What happened was horrible, yes. Thats about all that needs to be said on the matter. Its too late to change it now. But it was a wake up call, and we all need to get off our asses and start trying to fix the problem instead of whining about it and sitting around pretending like its all better and has gone away. Until you do in fact get off your ass and try to make a difference, I dont really think you have the right to go pointing fingers at everyone but yourself. Difference between me and US bashers, I blame myself too. Dont sit around and say ohhh well canada said this boo hoo my feelings are hurt. If you dont like it, do something to help fix it. As a canadian I find it highly offensive that this somehow becomes an issue of canada versus the US, when its really the US not liking the truth. I reiterate the same point AGAIN, all of the western world is at fault, not just you, so dont blame us for answering a survey with a really vague question..


Man, Im gonna look like an idiot if that survey information wasnt quoted properly...


One last thing... we dont do enough to help each other out... instead of fighting amongst ourselves, again, lets get off our collective asses and get the job done. And there are better ways to it then genocide.

 

[STING2]

I never said that countries go to war solely because they have foreign nationals are on someone else's soil. I was pointing that out as a tiny fraction of the many examples of the interdependent world we live in. You already understand this well enough, great. I'm sorry I mis-understood your other post before that and responded that way.

The reason for Europe to act in the middle east are in fact a little greater than the USA. Europe imports more of its oil from Opec nations than the USA does. Currently Canada just recently surpassed Saudi Arabia as the #1 supplier to the USA of oil! But of course the threat of long term increase in Global oil prices in the region means that it is in everyone's interest to act. The UN approved military actions in 1991 contributed to a lower price of oil throughout the 1990s because of the greater stability brought to the Persian Gulf Region by the 1991 Gulf War to push Iraq out of Kuwait and diminish Saddam's military capability. Everyone benefits when the price of oil goes down. Everyone uses and pays for the use of energy everyday. When that cost is lower or not obstructive, that contributes greatly to economic growth. Europe also is a target of terrorist and Al-quada throughout the world. I know your going to see its because of Europe's alignment to the USA and by simply not aligning with the USA your going to be safe from any type of terrorism. To me thats wishful thinking like I have never seen it before. Terrorist see the large amount of business and western culture that crosses between both Europe and America. They see America as the center of that, but it is because of our cross cultural and business ties in addition to Foreign Policy that middle east terrorist consider Europe to be a target. So based on both Economics and Security, Europe has an interest in forcing Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions which Iraq has failed to do!

The US and other countries already have the consent of the UN to act through the 1991 UN ceacefire agreement which Iraq is in open violation of.

I'm in total opposition to George Bush's tarriffs. In my view when looking at the country as a whole, it is marginal. NEVER of course marginal to the people who lose their jobs. But the USA despite those tariffs is more open to international trade than any other country on the Planet. Thats part of the reason the USA suffers an international trade deficit.

Perhaps my sisters(an American) work in expanding the operations of the British company she works for will be able to pick up a few of the British citizens made unemployed by recent tarrifs! The British are lucky to have her! She is the best at what she does!

 

[melon]

While some of the blame for not preventing 9/11 belongs with the Bush Administration, the vast majority of it belongs to the previous Clinton administration that had 8 years to deal with all these problems and is partly responsible for the capabilities of the CIA and FBI when Bush first took office only 7 months before the attacks. Bush may of had 7 months, all be it, its difficult to change anything in the first 6 months of a new administration. But Clinton had 8 years!

Yes, yes. Everything is Clinton's fault, and every problem that Bush has had should be placed on him, right? And, lo and behold, where was our Republican Congress during this time? But THAT'S right...we had a moral crusade to launch! Let's get that "liberal" Clinton and his cock sucking whore and send them off to impeachment hell. I think you probably know enough about our government to know that Congress has about more power than the President by design. In fact, digging back into history, Clinton *did* make some attempts to dive into terrorism and even the corporate scandals...but our Republican Congress was against it, riding high on its fake internet economic wealth.

And where was Bush? Giving $40 million to the Taliban in April 2001 to encourage their battle against the heroin trade in Afghanistan...which they had already won a long time ago. Such vigilance on Dubya's part! If only he had read the Clinton-era intelligence reports...which he discarded, because they were "Clinton" documents, whom every good Republican knows that he's the antichrist incarnate.

My point is that Dubya was just as blindsided as anyone, and to use 9/11 as a political blame game against the Democratic Party is complete folly. Let's just face it...the U.S., both Democratic and Republican, blew it.

Melon

 

[melon]

In the end, I think what is bothering me is that I'm upset with the extremism. We have:

1) Extremist Islamic terrorists who, taking upon example of such fantastic nations like Iran, have decided that the U.S. is, indeed, Satan incarnate, coupled with contorted Crusades-era ideology that made war martyrs instantly go to Heaven. See the problems with that picture...

2) Extremist American Christians who really do see this as a Holy War against those heathen "A-rabs," with a President who seems to actually believe this. Hence, his comprehensive "war against terror," full of such cute terms as "Axis of Evil." Note the omission of the word, "terrorism." Since Bush sees God on his side and bin Laden sees Allah on his side, we have certainly seen the meeting of the fanatics.

3) Extreme leftists, who wish to take this as an opportunity to rail against everything American, just for the sake of it being American.

4) Extreme conservatives, who wish to repaint history in that everything America has done is right, except those periods with those "communist" Democratic presidents.

And completely forgotten in all of this is "the truth," which no one is concerned with, and all I see is everyone repeating the same exact mistakes of our ancestors, with a President who can't communicate his way out of anything. "There's black people in Brazil?"

I think, perhaps, this is a great time to just turn off my brain and just sit back over the next few decades, just chuckling at the idiosyncrasies of life. The one lesson I did learn from 9/11 was that the truth is irrelevant to modern society.

Melon

 

[STING2]

By nature, the Presidency of the United States is really more of a foreign Policy position. The President can invade and take over another country without the consent of congress as long as it is done quickly, ie. Panama. The Presidents powers are constrained comparitivily on domestic issues but not on Political Military issues. The President has his finger on the button, not Congress. The President is the commander in chief, and could have ordered a Special forces operation in 1998 to sieze and kill Bin Laden rather than depending on Cruise Missiles to hit tents out in the desert. Clinton as commander and chief had 8 years to get Bin Ladin, so I find blaming Bush for what he did in only 7 months to be a joke in light of that. I only brought up these points because Bush was unfairly criticized. Many of the actions taken by Clinton during his two terms were things that the Commander and chief has the sole authority to do, so bringing up the Republican Congress is a moot point usually except in regards to domestic issues. But I'm not pleased at all how the Republicans in congress often behaved themselves. But their not the commander and chief and don't make the decisions on covert CIA operations or special forces operations, those decisions are for the President to make. The decision by Clinton to pull back 3/4 of our troops from Somalia while doubling the military role there was his decision alone, not congress. The decision not to send tanks to Somalia, against the recommendation of the military to aid in the hunt for warlords, was his decision not Congress. This had terrible results for the mission in Somalia. Attempting to conduct a military operation without required equipment and force was foolish.

Congress does play a larger role when it comes to the military budget, but the President can defeat a party that has the majority in congress by uniting his own and dividing the opposition. The Rupublicans majority in the house was tiny. But when comes to military actions abroad, it is the President, Commander in Chief that has by far the most power.

 

[Dreadsox]

With all due respect, that is NOT my logic and I do believe you are being pendantic. In return, all I can offer is an equally facetious answer.
Ant.

Awwwwww...mannnnnnnnnnn

Where is my friggin dictionary??????







Dang, working with 4th graders all week long has wrecked my vocabulary.

 

[diamond]

I dunno Melon.
Maybe if Clinton coulda kept his penis "in-check" and his "personal affairs" in order..he would of been more available and attentive to the affairs of our country's saftey and the world's security..while acting as President..what do u think?

Just a thought.
I could b way off base..

DB9

 

[Dreadsox]

Right on Melon

In the end, I think what is bothering me is that I'm upset with the extremism.
Melon

I think I said something along these lines in the thread about 9/11 being overrated.

Quoting myself

Originally posted by Dreadsox

To me, one of the more sickening thing about the events of September 11 is that it was an attrocity committed by human beings against human beings in the name of God and religion. I know this is nothing new in the history of the world. But it seems that as I look through the lens of hindsight of world history there is a lesson that mankind continues to miss.

Fanaticism is dangerous no matter what the form. It twists, warps and distorts judgment. This can be political fanaticism or religious fanaticism. I think one of the messages I get from the story of Christ, is that fanaticism gets in the way of the will of God. I think the story Ghandi and maybe even MLK relates the same message.

Peace to all.

 

[STING2]

Melon,

I'm not trying to blow up Clinton or anything. I was really just defending Bush. There were several military actions by Clinton that I did agree with and supported despite my party's objections, Bosnia and Kosovo. Clinton hit the nail on the head with these interventions, and most republicans were on another planet in regards to their logic on that one. Those were some of the pluses of the Clinton foreign Policy years.

 

[U2Bama]

1. I agree with Melon almost 100% in this thread.

2. I am tired of partisan Republicans blaming Clinton and I am tired of partisan Democrats blaming Bush for 9/11. NEITHER of them caused it. 19 terrorists and unkown backers caused it. 19 fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and their backers carried out the attacks. As Senator Bob Graham (Democrat from Florida) and Senator Richard Shelby (Republican from Alabama) have indicated, there was an overall intelligence failure, not wholly attributable to any administration or domestic political party or reproductive organ. This failure is currently being investigated as to what degree the attacks could have been detected and prevented.

3. Don't think that the 19 terrorists and their backers have some goal of making the world a better place, solving the Third World debt crisis, ending the African AIDS crisis, liberating the space monkeys, or globally restoring human rights. Their beef is with the presence of Jews (Israel), westerners (U.S. & European military and businesses), moderate Muslims, Hindus and other "infidels" in the Arabian peninsula, Palestine, the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia. Their goal is to drive these groups from a large geographical region so that they can rule the area with a theocratic empire.

4. Have a nice day.

~U2Alabama

 

[TylerDurden]

Excellent thread.

I think the next 12 months will be extremely interesting, to put it mildly.

 

[melon]

I dunno Melon.
Maybe if Clinton coulda kept his penis "in-check" and his "personal affairs" in order..he would of been more available and attentive to the affairs of our country's saftey and the world's security..while acting as President..what do u think?

The Republican Party was *never* interested in anything, except ensuring that Clinton would be a failure. In 1993, I already saw hundreds of bumper stickers to "Impeach Clinton." Some vast right-wing conspiracy? In this case, I think it is probably true, as the Republican Congress was looking for *any* excuse to impeach Clinton. Since they couldn't nail him for Whitewater or "Travelgate" (which was silly from the beginning), they just decided to make a moral crusade.

Quite honestly, I think a lot of this hostility came from the fact that the Reagan/Bush era wished to permanently mold America in their image: an uber-capitalist nation with no labor unions, corporate taxes, etc., that would continue to establish American cultural dominance over the world. I mean, they still had "Star Wars" to build, and Clinton came in and stopped it. Overall, they had an agenda to fulfill, whether the American people wanted it or not or whether America could afford it or not, and I feel that this same contingent is taking full advantage of the current Bush Administration, hiding under the guise of increased security of 9/11. No, I don't believe they caused 9/11, but I do believe they are exploiting it for every last advantage to create their view of an American supply-side utopia, not caring who or what they destroy in their path, because "God is on their side."

Melon