Why Bush, Why??????? - 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 09-18-2002, 08:22 AM   #31
The Fly
 
bono_luvva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 82
Local Time: 01:15 AM
if everything turns out ok then bush will just start a war with a different country...
__________________

__________________
bono_luvva is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 11:27 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Yes, and I have corrected my toast comment. I disagree with the term murder. The correct terms are "casualty of war" and unfortunatley "collateral damage". Murder is what their leader has done to their own population. Please, do not call the men and women who serve this country by putting their lives on the line murderes.


I disagree too - with the term "collateral damage." These are people's lives we're talking about - not buildings that happened to get in the way and be destroyed. To dismiss that as just "collateral damage" is to dehumanise those people and claim their lives are unimportant and expendable. If the US bombs Iraq tens of thousands of innocent people will die. I'm sure people like to make themselves feel better about those deaths by distancing themselves from the reality, and dismissing it as "collateral damage" but that shows a complete and utter disregard for human life. The life of a person in Iraq is worth the same as the life of a person in the United States and I'm sure most people would hate to hear American citizens referred to as collateral damage so please don't use that term to refer to the Iraqi people either.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Saddam is not going to line his troops up out in the open this time. They will be in the cities, next to schools, mosques, and hospitals and he will dare us to conduct another air campaign.


Saddam hasn't dared the United States to do anything - the US will bomb Iraq from the skies because that way it can almost guarantee the safety of US troops, no matter what the cost to the Iraqi people. You think there are any circumstances under which Bush would fight a war on the ground, which entailed less risk to innocent Iraqis, but more risk to the United States? Not a chance.

Quote:
Brace yourself because if this goes down it will be worse than Desert Storm. Unfortunatley, the world is faced with a difficult decision.


I know it'll be worse than Desert Storm, as horrifying as it is to imagine that. That's exactly why I don't simply "brace myself" for the start of bombing raids - I get involved in campaigning against them ever beginning.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 02:55 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Just a few points here. When the Police in your community are called on to use deadly force to stop a criminal, people in your community may get caught in the crossfire. No one dismisses this, but this fact cannot stop one from acting in order to prevent greater loss of life down the road. All lives are equal, but 100,000 lives do have priority over 10,000 as sad is that sounds. To not be able to act at all for the fear of the deaths of innocent civilians would mean that Hitler would rule the planet.

Our soldiers do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties including puting their lives at great risk. Also, ground operations can increase civilian casualties over airstrikes because the circumstances of and environment in which combat could erupt in an urban environment do not lend themselves to the lengthy well researched, thought out, and precision targeting that is involved with most airstrikes with modern US technology! This is in total contrast to a war like World War II where precision targeting from the air really did not exist. If we had bombed Baghdad with World War II technology back in the 1991 Gulf War, we would have killed millions of people. Now thanks to heavy defense spending and the resultant increase in technology, precision targeting while not 100% perfect, has saved perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives when the US goes to war.

It should also be noted that nearly half of Iraq's military losses came during the 4 day ground war, contrary to popular belief that the 1991 Gulf War was just an air war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 05:31 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

I disagree too - with the term "collateral damage." These are people's lives we're talking about - not buildings that happened to get in the way and be destroyed. To dismiss that as just "collateral damage" is to dehumanise those people and claim their lives are unimportant and expendable. [/B]
Well, call it what you will. You are wrong to call it murder. Their leader is the person making thier lives expendable not our military. I did use the word "unfortunately" before the words "collateral damage". It is better than calling the soldiers who protect my country murderers.

The problem here is that we do not dehumanize people and claim their lives as expendable. However, it seems like it would be okay to allow this man to continue to violate UN Resolutions and Peace agreements again and again. It is okay for him to potentially develop a Nuke. This is a man who tryed to bring the whole region into the war by lobbing bombs at Israel during Desert Storm. Talk about "dehumanizing" people. If you remember Israel was not even involved in the war. Do you think he would not think twice about lobbing a Nuke/Biological weapon this time?

Maybe we should wait and let Israel do it themselves. Do you think the entire Arab world would sit back while Israel eliminates the threat on their own?

The United States would not have to act if the United Nations would enforce its own resolutions surrounding Iraq, period.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
If the US bombs Iraq tens of thousands of innocent people will die. I'm sure people like to make themselves feel better about those deaths by distancing themselves from the reality, and dismissing it as "collateral damage" but that shows a complete and utter disregard for human life. The life of a person in Iraq is worth the same as the life of a person in the United States and I'm sure most people would hate to hear American citizens referred to as collateral damage so please don't use that term to refer to the Iraqi people either.[/B]
I really resent this statement. Honestly, if you think a soldier takes pleasure in the use of deadly force there is no point in discussing this. I know of no person other than the truly sick people in this world who take pleasure in killing. You called it murder. As for hating to hear American Citizens call it "collateral damage" I am sure murder will fly much better.

No one said their life is not worth the same. It seems by the actions of their own leaders they feel otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Saddam hasn't dared the United States to do anything - the US will bomb Iraq from the skies because that way it can almost guarantee the safety of US troops, no matter what the cost to the Iraqi people. You think there are any circumstances under which Bush would fight a war on the ground, which entailed less risk to innocent Iraqis, but more risk to the United States? Not a chance.[/B]
OK. You are not listening to what I said.

to quote myself:
"They WILL be in the cities, next to schools, mosques, and hospitals and he WILL dare us to conduct another air campaign."


Saddam had his troops out in the open last time. They will not be this time. They will be placed next to churches, schools, mosques in the event of a war this time. This WILL increase the civilian casualties because he is trying to eliminate the effectiveness of the air campaign. When I said he will "DARE US" I was referring to this strategy. I never said he "IS" daring us.

As for any circumstances at a ground war... We had a ground war last time after about 45 days of bombing I believe. Was it effective at protecting the lives of people who put their lives on the line for my country yes. It is absolutely sound strategy to bomb them. Is it horrifying that this time more civilians will be a risk, absolutely. The problem is we are dealing with a coward who would rather see innocent people risked by placing his troups in highly poulated civilian areas.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
I know it'll be worse than Desert Storm, as horrifying as it is to imagine that. That's exactly why I don't simply "brace myself" for the start of bombing raids - I get involved in campaigning against them ever beginning. [/B]
This is where we differ. If the United Nations does not enforce the cease fire agreement then the United Nations is a useless organization. Their agreements and decisions will mean absolutely nothing in this world. If that is true, then there is no hope for peace in this world.

You said in your last statement it is not personal. I hope that is still so. I am not "bracing myself" either. I have called my congressman and senators and emailed them in support of the president of my country. The nice thing is that you and I can differ on things and still do our part. Although it seems like things are working with the strategy of my president.

The fact remains that President Bush, no matter how much people do not like him, has gotten the UN to act. Through diplomacy Egypt and Saudi Arabia have pledged to support UN action if it is deamed to go through. It is FACT that Saddam seems to be backing down and is moving towards inspections. It is a FACT that we are not at war, yet and I hope the UN can continue to apply the pressure.

Sounds like things are going great.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 07:56 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Quote:
Originally posted by OzAurora
For any of you who are Bush lovers than I think I better warn you that you probably should not read any further. In this post you are going to hear my true feelings towards this guy- and it aint nice, yes all of my opinions will probably be flawed by your standards if you like him, but I dont care, no amount of persuasive rhetoric will make me change my mind-call my thoughts here subjective or whatever you like- just dont rant and rave pro-bush crap, this is a thread for those who oppose this mans beliefs to discuss why it is that he is the way that he is. So after saying that I would just like to know why this man wnats to single handedly try and start or lay the foundations down for what could be WW III, a war based on escalating the already established conflicts between christian and muslim, why does he believe that he can do this- no one apart from Blair adheres to his campaign- I for one certainly dont, I see him as an arrogant war monger trying to finsih off what his Daddy started. I realise three things for certain,

The war machine fuels the American economy

There is oil in Iraq

Sadam is a product of the Reagan adminstration's own doing- remember the Iran/Iraq war- one of their own 'puppets' who they now want to bomb the crapper out of- how hypocritical, just look back to Vietnam guys, it probably wont work or it will esculate out of and beyond control...

Why does Bush feel that he can over ride the wishes and concerns of both the UN and practically every 'western' country in the world- does this man have a plank of wood between his head??? is he a sadist and gets great pleasure from killing, maming, seeing countries struggle into economic dissaray and having countless people the world over despise both him and his policies........

Now to the issue of Sadam- sure I can congress that he is a mad-man, but in all honesty from where I stand both he and Bush dont really share to many disparities at the moment, it is kinda like who is the lesser evil?????? and really if Sadam wants to make chemical weapons, how on earth is he going to do this, where on earth is he going to get the weapons grade plutonium from???? anyway this could go on for ages but I just want to let you know that I despise Bush and everything that he stands for why does he think that he can act as a supreme, benevolent dictator to the world???? I wish he would go an nuke himself and all of his propaganda bullshit up instead


If you ever wonder why conservatives criticize liberals as children, look no further! It's a wonder to me that 99% of this trash comes from the Europeans and Australians. I guess you can't help it since the vast majority of your politicians and media are ultra-liberal and you've basically been brainwashed with only one political point of view.

Every point you make in this thread is based on pointless conjecture. To suggest that attacking Iraq will cause WWIII is to assume that the Muslim countries around Saddam will support him in an all out attack on the west (or just the USA). First, the countries around Iraq that could join him in such a war would never support him. There's no way Iran is joining in because of their conflict with Iraq. The Saudis are out of the question because we have decent relations with them and they sell 16% of their oil to us so they are also financially bound to us. Jordan is close allies with the U.S. so they are out of the question as well as Kuwait. So, who exactly is willing to perpetuate such a Muslim vs. Christian war other than terrorist groups, which we are already at war with?

"The war machine fuels the American economy"

Does it every bother you liberals that these phrases are used so often and without regard to logic that they become cliches? While it is true that war-time economies see a boost in certain sectors, we're definitely going to lose a lot of money fighting this war. Make up your minds liberals! Half of your are bitching that the war is too expensive and the other half are bitching that the war will make us money.

Also, it seems like all of you children seem to use the "worst case doomsday scenario" a little too often. Everyone remember all the fear the left was trying to spread in response to our war in Afghanistan? What happened there? WWIII? Nope.
Will Iraq escalate into Vietnam? To even suggest that it would shows that you have no idea what went wrong in Vietnam. Even Bill Clinton is quoted as saying that he would be surprised if the war took longer than a week. Really, there is no comparison between a guerilla war in Vietnam and a potential war in Iraq.

" is he a sadist and gets great pleasure from killing, maming, seeing countries struggle into economic dissaray and having countless people the world over despise both him and his policies........"

How many wars have we fought so far during his administration? One. Let's not forget that the country paused for quite some time before pursuing a war in Afghanistan. He could have just jumped into it, but he didn't. He took his time and built a broad base of support among our allies. He delivered speeches at mosques asking for tolerance towards Muslims and he met with dozens of international leaders. Maybe these comments might be legitimate if there was no 9-11 and we just attacked Afghanistan for fun, but we didn't. Similarly, he didn't have to go to the UN and give this speech. He could have just attacked since he already had a lot of support within congress to do so. Why shouldn't we cave into the pressures of a bunch of socialist pacificists you ask? Are Americans no longer in charge of our own destiny? Has our representative democracy failed us to the point where we need a bunch of nations (who are mostly economically dependent on us) to dictate our foreign policy for us? NO!

"Now to the issue of Sadam- sure I can congress that he is a mad-man, but in all honesty from where I stand both he and Bush dont really share to many disparities at the moment, it is kinda like who is the lesser evil??????"

What is the difference between Bush and Saddam Hussein?

Hussein:
-Used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurds in his OWN country (the most widespread use of such a weapon ever). In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.
-Launched a war against Iran killing nearly a million people.
-Builds mosques in his honor on every birthday using billions of dollars he could be using to feed his people.
-Only taking advantage of half the amount of UN aid (in the U.N. oil-for-food program), which amounts to a 4 billion dollar loss of aid that his people can't use.
-Destruction of over 3,000 Kurdish villages. The Iraqi government's campaign of forced deportations of Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern Iraq has created approximately 900,000 internally displaced citizens throughout the country.
-the violent suppression of the 1991 uprising that led to 30,000 or more mostly civilian deaths
- the draining of the southern marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed Hussein's southern flank of thousands of Iraqi Shiites
-execution of thousands of political prisoners
-Invasion of Kuwait in 1990
-Following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi authorities killed more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians, held foreign diplomats hostage, unleashed environmental crimes on a colossal scale, looted Kuwaiti property, rained missiles down on Israeli civilians and committed war crimes against American soldiers. The fate of more than 600 missing Kuwaiti citizens remains unknown.

Bush:
You fill in the blank here and try to make it match what I listed above. Clearly you've done a lot of thinking about this comparison, so I'm looking forward to your list.

"and really if Sadam wants to make chemical weapons, how on earth is he going to do this, where on earth is he going to get the weapons grade plutonium from???"

Where is Saddam going to get a nuke or chemical weapons!? Are you freaking serious!? Come on!

According to UNSCOM findings, Iraq has produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin (produces liver cancer) and clostridium (gas gangrene). Iraq
has admitted to arming ballistic missiles with botulinum, anthrax, and aflatoxin. Saddam said the VX nerve project was a failure. He has now admitted producing four tons of VX nerve agent. Over 600 tons of VX precursors are not accounted for. These could make 200 tons of VX. One drop of VX is enough to kill dozens.

Since the end of the Cold War, a murky nuclear black market has emerged in and around the former Soviet Union. Facilities in the new republics where weapons-grade nuclear materials are stored are poorly guarded and there have reportedly been many cases of smuggling of nuclear materials to unknown buyers outside Russia, usually by transnational criminal organizations.

Let me say again how much I hate ultra-liberals. Let me count the ways.....Your baseless generalizations, thoughtless analogies and general stupidity is almost endearing....almost. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars & FizzingWhizzbees deliver no surprise once again.


MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 08:02 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Oh My Goodness!!!!!!!!

Did someone just use FACTS to make a point?????


hehe!!!!!!!

I do not hate anyone liberals ect. But I love people who use facts to make their points!


Peace to all
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 10:08 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Well said garibaldo.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 12:05 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Sorry this is going to be a very short reply, I don't have much time online but just wanted to respond very briefly to these points:

Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
If you ever wonder why conservatives criticize liberals as children, look no further! It's a wonder to me that 99% of this trash comes from the Europeans and Australians. I guess you can't help it since the vast majority of your politicians and media are ultra-liberal and you've basically been brainwashed with only one political point of view.


I'm not sure how much you know about European politics, but to describe Europe as having "ultra-liberal" politics is simply incorrect. There's been a massive increase in the power of the centre-right in European politics lately. France is a prime example - Chirac won the election, but his opponent was the extreme right Jean Marie Le Pen - it was hardly a triumph for the left that Jospin was defeated in the first round. Berlusconi is in power in Italy and I don't think anyone would dream of calling him a liberal! In Germany the centre-left Schroeder isn't doing particularly well in his bid for re-election, and Spain isn't exactly known as a stronghold of the left either. Even in Britain Tony Blair is showing his right-wing colours by backing war with Iraq. Perhaps someone from Australia would like to chip in with some more info, but last time I checked, John Howard was hardly a left wing politician either.

And quite frankly, to say people have been brainwashed is nothing less than insulting. Many of the people I've talked to here (yes, both left and right of the political spectrum) are well-educated people who research issues throughly before coming to their own conclusions on them - they haven't been brainwashed by anyone.

Quote:
Does it every bother you liberals that these phrases are used so often and without regard to logic that they become cliches? While it is true that war-time economies see a boost in certain sectors, we're definitely going to lose a lot of money fighting this war. Make up your minds liberals! Half of your are bitching that the war is too expensive and the other half are bitching that the war will make us money.


It's not a contradiction at all. The concern is that wars are extremely costly for the state and mean that money raised through taxation must be spent on the military. Many people on the left believe that this money would be better spent on education, or on healthcare, or social security. However, it's also true that wars are good for the economy - WWII is perhaps the best example of this, as many historians actually believe it was only WWII that finally brought the United States out of the depression of the 1930s. Whether you agree with that point or not, you still have to acknowledge that the US economy was much larger and stronger in 1945 than in 1939. There's really no contradiction between arguing against war because of its cost and stating that it benefits the economy.

Quote:
Let me say again how much I hate ultra-liberals. Let me count the ways.....Your baseless generalizations, thoughtless analogies and general stupidity is almost endearing....almost. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars & FizzingWhizzbees deliver no surprise once again.


MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
Point one - I don't think talking about how much you hate people of certain political persuasions really strengthens your argument. Perhaps in future we could keep discussions focused on the issues and avoid resorting to personal insults.

Point two - I'm not a liberal. Thank you.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 12:31 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Fizzing,

Aside from bringing down the price of oil over the long run, could you explain what the economic benifit of the 1991 Gulf War was to George Bush I and the US economy? World War II is sited as helping the economy in the USA and in this particular circumstance it probably did, but the US economy would have grown with or without the war, the economy was already rising out of the Great Depression. Its true that countries go to war to defend their economic interest, but not for economic gain unless their planning on raping or stealing another countries assets as in the case of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 12:48 PM   #40
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
I'm sick of this stuff

even it it were true (and I would say it isn't) then it adds nothing to the rest of your post + I don't see what the political inclination of mods has anything to do with the threads and posts that are in fym

not that many threads are closed and when mods do close threads it usually is because of the way people act instead of the (political) content of the thread at hand

it gets nearly impossible to moderate this forum in any way when you are (for no particular reason) being labelled as a biased leftie every day



everyone going out of his way blaming the mods for the state FYM is in will be reported to the admins
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 04:41 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:15 AM
There is no excuse for the US to do this unilaterally. Period


IF the united states launches a preemptive strike on iraq, we will lsoe any moral ground to tell any nation not to take back any disputed land


Pakistan could occupy all of kashmir and the US wouldn't be able to say anything


Russia could take georgia and the US wouldn't be able to say anything


Israel could just go in and take all of palestine...we wouldn't be able to say anything




The UN is the only method by which this shoudl go. if the UN says no....the Us can't act. if Iraq deifes the UN ...we will get our resolution eventually..if the US defies teh UN....that is a sever blow to the long term health of the UN.

This is the reason the UN exists.


Bush is being a sore loser right now. They wanted weapons inspectors back in...they let them back in and UNTIL they are kicked out...he should just keep his mouth shut...and not send Colin powell to congress today to get a use of force bill. This refelcts badly on the US and the Bush administration. He essentially looks like a war monger.


what the administration is doing is WRONG period. and if The US defies the UN...iraq is the real winner no matter if there is a regime change or not.


Multi lateral support is the ONLY solution to this period.

get the economy back on track...and fight al qaeda.


that is what the focus should be and this iraq deal is a dangerous distraction .
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 04:49 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:15 PM
This will be a post where I claim ignorance again Arun.

Can anyone clear something up for me with hard evidence please?

I know the press is reporting that Iraq is allowing inspectors back in. I am also hearing on the radio news that they are "limiting" inspections to military facilities only. If this is true is this in violation of the UN Reslolutions?

Arun, I agree this situation has much at stake for the world. The UN is in jeopardy of losing a lot of respect in this instance. I think that is bad as well.

As for the president seeking aproval of our congress....I believe he must do this even if the UN Approves action. Sounds like he is making sure all is in line. As for attacking Iraq without UN approval, he MUST make his case to the US. Notice his approval went up when he went to the UN. I honestly believe the US Citizenship believes we need UN approval. I may be wrong though.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 05:29 PM   #43
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 01:15 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

"I'm not sure how much you know about European politics, but to describe Europe as having "ultra-liberal" politics is simply incorrect. There's been a massive increase in the power of the centre-right in European politics lately. France is a prime example - Chirac won the election, but his opponent was the extreme right Jean Marie Le Pen - it was hardly a triumph for the left that Jospin was defeated in the first round. Berlusconi is in power in Italy and I don't think anyone would dream of calling him a liberal! In Germany the centre-left Schroeder isn't doing particularly well in his bid for re-election, and Spain isn't exactly known as a stronghold of the left either. Even in Britain Tony Blair is showing his right-wing colours by backing war with Iraq. Perhaps someone from Australia would like to chip in with some more info, but last time I checked, John Howard was hardly a left wing politician either.

And quite frankly, to say people have been brainwashed is nothing less than insulting. Many of the people I've talked to here (yes, both left and right of the political spectrum) are well-educated people who research issues throughly before coming to their own conclusions on them - they haven't been brainwashed by anyone."

Let's face it. Much of this swing to the right is as a result of the racism against Muslims in these countries, which these ultra-right candidates espouse. If it wasn't for these concerns about immigrations, there would be NO swing to the right. This issue has received a lot of attention in the press recently, but it does not mean that Europe is truly swinging to the right or that they embrace traditional right-wing philosophies. Tony Blair may support our war on Iraq, but is he pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-tax cut, etc etc. NO! Just because you can find some issues where he supports the right doesn't mean he represents our side of the political spectrum. You forgot to mention the Social Democrats electing Prime Minister Goran Persson (very left-wing) by a land-slide in Sweden. In Germany, the major "right-wing" candidate (Ronald Schill) is a xenophobic psycho. He advocates an end to immigration, the internment of foreigners with infectious diseases, and the "voluntary" castration of sex offenders. The say that this is Europe's representation of the right-wing is sad to say the least. People in the states don't elect Republicans because they promise to completely close the borders in our country. They don't preach this sort of hate towards Muslims. They don't want to detain all foreigners with diseases. I'm sure some of you are anxious to start shouting "OH OH! But the Republicans wanted to cut off further immigration after 9-11 and many want to seal the Mexican border!". Well, that's only true of a FEW extremists and that's nothing compared to the policies of Ronald Schill. Most Republicans want to stop ILLEGAL immigration, not LEGAL immigration. Schill's has recently alienated many of the voters making his share of the vote 5% or less. The fact that the term "right-wing" is used to present both these racist politicians in Europe and the Republicans in America is probably why most Europeans hate Republicans. It's the fault of your own media for not making the distinction between these two groups.

Again, the fact that 90% of the ultra-left is represented by Europeans (UK, Netherlands, etc) is no coincidence. You can't make the arguement that just because you've read up on an issue that you're not biased or brainwashed. You don't approach the issue as a robot, you'll approach it as a human who has been encultured in a society that embraces left-wings values. This means that you may research an issue like a potential war on Iraq, but you're not going to make a great effort to seek out traditional right-wing points of view and you'll perhaps even ignore some of the facts (see my previous arguement).



"It's not a contradiction at all. The concern is that wars are extremely costly for the state and mean that money raised through taxation must be spent on the military. Many people on the left believe that this money would be better spent on education, or on healthcare, or social security. However, it's also true that wars are good for the economy - WWII is perhaps the best example of this, as many historians actually believe it was only WWII that finally brought the United States out of the depression of the 1930s. Whether you agree with that point or not, you still have to acknowledge that the US economy was much larger and stronger in 1945 than in 1939. There's really no contradiction between arguing against war because of its cost and stating that it benefits the economy."

There's not much comparison between a war with Iraq and WWII. True, they are both wars, but can you really claim that this simple fact makes these two events equivalent? Of course not considering all the variables. People here aren't going to start buying war bonds, consumer confidence is always stifled around war-time and our wars are much more costly now.

"Point one - I don't think talking about how much you hate people of certain political persuasions really strengthens your argument. Perhaps in future we could keep discussions focused on the issues and avoid resorting to personal insults. "

Point one - I believe I just made a whole discussion of this issue based on the facts. To say that this last comment contradicts that shows that you ignored the rest of my post. What's wrong with speaking the truth anyways? This isn't a chicken\egg arguement. I dislike ultra-liberals because of your arguement, not simply because you don't have the same political leanings as a conservative.

"Point two - I'm not a liberal. Thank you. "

Point two - Yes you are.


From Salome:

"I'm sick of this stuff even it it were true (and I would say it isn't) then it adds nothing to the rest of your post + I don't see what the political inclination of mods has anything to do with the threads and posts that are in fym not that many threads are closed and when mods do close threads it usually is because of the way people act instead of the (political) content of the thread at hand it gets nearly impossible to moderate this forum in any way when you are (for no particular reason) being labelled as a biased leftie every day everyone going out of his way blaming the mods for the state FYM is in will be reported to the admins."

Ahahaha...your post is a laughable contradiction. First you claim that the closing of threads and silencing of opinions is not biased, then you say that you will report criticisms of your bias to the admins (Elvis is also ultra-liberal) if it continues. If this isn't the most obvious case of repression of free-speech and one side of the political spectrum, I don't know what is. Also, you guys are partly reponsible for the way FYM is today. All of the moderators of this forum are liberals. Most of your are very, very far to the left (i.e. Salome, Anthony, paxetaurora and Lilly) and you all actively contribute to political threads so don't pretend like you're are objective watchers who don't have a role in this. You should ask yourself how it came to be this way? There are several conservatives on this board who are willing to balance this out. Also, my posts have been "censored" several times. This is disgraceful.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 06:48 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Arun,

There is a UN ceacefire agreement that Iraq is in open violation of. The UN is required to enforce that by resuming offensive operations that were put on hold in 1991. If the rest of the UN is ready to defy its own resolution, the USA will have to go it alone to enforce it.

The old inspection regime failed to do what the ceacefire agreement called for. A new UN inspection regime would be needed to insure that the ceacefire agreement conditions are met. If these ceacefire agreements are not met, then the inspection regime has to have a large military force behind it to force open or search anywhere it needs to. Either way, large numbers of US troops will have to go to Iraq to either change the regime or perhaps be apart of the only possibly effective inpection regime, one that is backed up with force. No more BS where were not allowed to check this place for the next 3 hours while they take things out the back in trucks. What a load of DUNG! Its either going to be inspections anywhere anytime, backed up with military to enforce it, or regime change. Simply letting the inspectors the way it was 4 years ago to inspect only military bases is a joke. I can't believe there are people here that believe that is sufficiant.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 08:36 PM   #45
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 12:15 PM
Good on you Garibaldo- your a right wing kind of person, would you like a medal for this????? you are free to have your views and opinions- I dont agree with them and just because I dont does not mean that I am an un-educated person who is fed a diet of lefty policies etc, etc and when you say 'liberal; I have to remember that this word means something quite different here in Australia- the political party who run our country at the moment are the 'liberal' party and they are extremely right orientated and John Howard our PM is the most conservative leader that our country has had in decades so anyway I will get back to you soon with a detailed post- you say you want to see facts and 'hard evidence'=- well I will see what I can do, but then I wonder why bother- you will always believe what you want to believe and vice versa- guess its what makes the world go around
__________________

__________________
OzAurora 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 08:15 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