Can Bush be right after all?

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Okay, let's see what I can dow ith this:

1. Oh, I can name you plenty of other tyrants. All over the world. How many of them were installed by America?

According to dictionary.com a tyrant is:
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
Hmm. #3 sounds like a certian ruler of a first world country, to a certain extent.

2. Who has trhe most WMDs in the world? I'll give you thre guesses, and one of them ain't France.

3. Crimes against humanity. Wait...doesn't America commit these?
I mean, look at Gitmo. Or Iran. Or Iraq prior to Gulf War I. Or Uzbeckistan.

4. Same as above. As wel as trying to opress gays, lefties, and introducing PATRIOT.

1. Your an idiot if you really think that #3 sounds like Bush. also don't dwell on the past as you are currently doing because America was much more different back then than it is right now. and thats because we are a democracy and can change our attitude.

2. Germany just kidding. but anyways those nukes are what saved our a*s during the Cold War. also unlike Saddam they were in actually responsible hands that wouldn't actually fire any unless threatened.

3. America's crimes against humanity were in the past (although one has occured recently). they were comitted by past administrations that had different personallities. but Saddam has been in power for 50 years and still has the same attitude of mass killing the opposition.

4. see above. i don't see whats wrong with having patriotism in your nation, though,

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

no what he means is that someone said that countries that are used to having no rights are not any good for democracy. if i remember europe was a monarch with citizens having little right except for the wealthy. but today they are democracies.

 

[blackheart]

Look at Japan and Germany. It took decades, but they're democratic. I believe its possible, but it will take a while (and possibly a completely different president and approach).

 

[nonconformist]

1. Your an idiot if you really think that #3 sounds like Bush. also don't dwell on the past as you are currently doing because America was much more different back then than it is right now. and thats because we are a democracy and can change our attitude.

Thank you sir. Please at least use correct grammar if trying to criticise someone's intelligence. It makes for a better impression.
Bush is opressive, Patriot, wanting to change the constitution for examples.
And America hasn't changed. Ol' Donny was there with Saddam, and as much as many countries the USA currently supports that are opressive.

2. Germany just kidding. but anyways those nukes are what saved our a*s during the Cold War. also unlike Saddam they were in actually responsible hands that wouldn't actually fire any unless threatened.

What caused the cold war?
Who sold dear old Mr. Hussein anthrax?

3. America's crimes against humanity were in the past (although one has occured recently). they were comitted by past administrations that had different personallities. but Saddam has been in power for 50 years and still has the same attitude of mass killing the opposition.

Give Klaus Barbie a nice lil retirement patch in France, it was all in the past!
(I do know Barbie is dead btw).
Hey, Stalin's crimes were all in the past-let's put up statues of him!
Comparing Saddam and Hitler is like comparing apples and pears.

4. see above. i don't see whats wrong with having patriotism in your nation, though,

So basically removing rights that are in your very own constitution defined as "inalienable" is patritic? Go UK!
*throws away little Union Jack flag and goes to round up foreigners*

 

[sourboy]

What if she and the neocons are right after all? Maybe their attempt to force the ME to become democratic is the right thing to do, and is possible. What if one day, because of their efforts, the ME is peaceful, democratic and free, and future historians view Bush and his team as great visionaries, with the courage and conviction to carry on with their idealistic agenda, even in the face of global condemnation?Do we on the Left reject their goals in the ME because we've looked at it objectively and come to the conclusion that theyre wrong, or do we automatically reject the message, because we hate the messengers?

There are no perfect people, only perfect intentions. Everyone wants peace in the Middle East, but the issue is how the Bush Administration went about seeking it.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Thank you sir. Please at least use correct grammar if trying to criticise someone's intelligence. It makes for a better impression.
Bush is opressive, Patriot, wanting to change the constitution for examples.
And America hasn't changed. Ol' Donny was there with Saddam, and as much as many countries the USA currently supports that are opressive.

Sorry for my grammar but on the internet i rarely ever use good grammer but only in school

First of all tell me how is Bush opressive?
how is being patriotic make him a tyrann? does that mean if i'm patriotic toward the US i'm a tyrann?
did he want to change the government to ensure him more power?

What caused the cold war?
Who sold dear old Mr. Hussein anthrax?

nukes caused but what prevented World War III breaking out?

Give Klaus Barbie a nice lil retirement patch in France, it was all in the past!
(I do know Barbie is dead btw).
Hey, Stalin's crimes were all in the past-let's put up statues of him!
Comparing Saddam and Hitler is like comparing apples and pears.

i said only that a country can be forgiven and that is because different people come to power with different attitudes. but a person can never really forgiven with crimes like Saddams. and when did i say that people should be forgiven about there past actually comparing Saddam and Hitler is quite easy. both ruled as dictators, invaded a near-by-country, were oppressive, ordered crimes against humanity, mass-killed specific ethnec origins.

So basically removing rights that are in your very own constitution defined as "inalienable" is patritic? Go UK!
*throws away little Union Jack flag and goes to round up foreigners*

where did bush ever say he wanted to get rid of rights from people because i never heard of that.

 

[DexterJ]

where did bush ever say he wanted to get rid of rights from people because i never heard of that.

I would recommed you watch the Power of Nightmares which was a documentary on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4171213.stm
This link is a viewers response page though there are other links on the site for episode guides (there was three parts).

I would argue that following 9/11 both the US and UK government has used the threat of terrorism to justify taking away basic rights from people.

 

[BasketCase]

That's been argued to death in OT, and neither side got anywhere. Of course, no harm in arguing it to death again--that's how it goes with the Evolution/Creationism threads.

The problem is that basic human rights conflict with each other. Throwing a criminal in prison violates his right to liberty; NOT throwing him in prison violates everybody else's rights to the protection of the law. Shutting up a KKK member violates his freedom of speech; letting him advocate killing all black people endangers black peoples' right to life. Banning abortion violates a woman's liberties; legalizing it violates the child's life.

There's simply no way to give everybody all their rights all the time. Sorry, bud, that's just the way it is. Bush did it his way, and then his work was put up for a vote in 2004. You know the results.

 

[DexterJ]

I'll take that as a no then.
I would seriously recommend watching it though.
Basically my point would be:
the threat posed by al-queide is no more significant than
the threat posed by Nazi Germany and imperialst Japan in WW2,
the threat posed by the USSR in the cold war
the threat posed by the IRA to the UK
the threat posed to Germany by the Red Army Faction
the threat posed to Italy by the Red Brigades
the threat posed to Greece by November 17
the threat posed to Japan by the Japanese Red Army Faction
the threat posed to Spain by the ETA (basque seperatist movement)
etc etc etc. Europe, Isreal and central and southern america has been fighting extremist movements for decades.
all these terrorist organisations have killed large numbers of civilians and commited attrocities in order to further their aims. So why has 9/11 and the aftermath caused such an outcry?
and why do they sudenely require more repressive measure than in the past?

 

[HamaticBabylon]

If History shows that Bush the chimp is right then I for one will not talk about American expansion plans in such a spiteful manner ever again.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

all these terrorist organisations have killed large numbers of civilians and commited attrocities in order to further their aims. So why has 9/11 and the aftermath caused such an outcry?
and why do they sudenely require more repressive measure than in the past?

One, you need to understand the US mindset. This attack caused more death by an external attack on American soil than any attack in the nations history. This broke an invinsibility mindset which sparked the US to action.

Two, this is an international terrorist organization, which has a different focus than say the IRA, PLO or ETA which are/were national or regional.

Three, it is not a government such as the USSR was that could be negotiated with. There were far more repressive measures taken during WWII in the US (camps for all Japanese, just because they were Japanese).

Four, the world is different. The West has economic and military might such that it can worry about more than their own survival or self interest. The West has a chance to spread real freedom to those that will not otherwise experience it.

 

[BasketCase]

Basically my point would be:
the threat posed by al-queide is no more significant than
the threat posed by Nazi Germany and imperialst Japan in WW2,
the threat posed by the USSR in the cold war
the threat posed by the IRA to the UK
the threat posed to Germany by the Red Army Faction
the threat posed to Italy by the Red Brigades
the threat posed to Greece by November 17
the threat posed to Japan by the Japanese Red Army Faction
the threat posed to Spain by the ETA (basque seperatist movement)
etc etc etc. Europe, Isreal and central and southern america has been fighting extremist movements for decades.
all these terrorist organisations have killed large numbers of civilians and commited attrocities in order to further their aims. So why has 9/11 and the aftermath caused such an outcry?

I don't care. They're terrorists. Obviously I'd love to kill them all, but given a choice between:

A: eliminating only two or three of the bad guys on your list
B: eliminating none of them

....I'll take A in a cold minute.

 

[Gif Warrior]

Thank you BasketCase. That is the way I feel.

 

[nonconformist]

Sorry for my grammar but on the internet i rarely ever use good grammer but only in school

First of all tell me how is Bush opressive?
how is being patriotic make him a tyrann? does that mean if i'm patriotic toward the US i'm a tyrann?
did he want to change the government to ensure him more power?

Bush is opressive, as he supports the removal of rights fromcertai groups based on false assumptions.

nukes caused but what prevented World War III breaking out?

Wait....so nukes caused, but also prevented the cold war becoming hot? So basically, they cancel,a nd no nukes would have been just as well?

i said only that a country can be forgiven and that is because different people come to power with different attitudes. but a person can never really forgiven with crimes like Saddams. and when did i say that people should be forgiven about there past actually comparing Saddam and Hitler is quite easy. both ruled as dictators, invaded a near-by-country, were oppressive, ordered crimes against humanity, mass-killed specific ethnec origins.

They are actualyl very different.
Let's see:
a) Germany under Hitler was quite isolated, whereas Saddam was sold much weaponry by America.
b) I assume wheb you say "invade", you talk about Kuwait? Little known fact: the American government had actually talked to Saddam prior, and supported, in principle, and excursion in to Kuwait.
c)Saddam had no real agenda other than staying in power.

where did bush ever say he wanted to get rid of rights from people because i never heard of that.

Oh, you know, li'l things like Gitmo (Concentration camp), PATRIOT, that sorta thing.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

There are no perfect people, only perfect intentions. Everyone wants peace in the Middle East, but the issue is how the Bush Administration went about seeking it.

Well I dont think the goal was peace in the ME, I think the stated goal (now that no WMDs were found) was democracy in the ME, at any price. Peace would materialize as the region democratized. As the buildup to the attack on Iran gets under way, its interesting to see that once again we're talking about WMD production in Iran. If we were to actually invade and again find no evidence of a nuclear program, then we would be talking about how we freed the Iranian people. My theory here is that the Bush administration might be accidentally doing the right thing in the long term. Ok, the neocons want to completely dominate the ME and make it safe for Israel and Western oil companies. Its concievable that when this neocon period is finally over and all the wars have been fought, that the ME might actually become democratic and that even though it was done for the wrong reasons, and at great cost in lives and resources, in the future historians will gloss over the lies and misinformation and ulterior motives, and focus on the (possible) result: A democratic Middle East. The West dominated and carved up Africa not for altruistic reasons, but for political and financial gain. In the process we transmitted our civilization to the continent and brought large portions of it out of the Stone Age and into modernity. Africa is no paradise today as a result, but I doubt residents of any African big cities would prefer going back to being nomadic hunter gatherers. So what Im saying is that something similar might be going on today in the ME. We might be bringing them into the modern world as a byproduct of our greed, and that this might end up being a good thing, when all is said and done.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Bush is opressive, as he supports the removal of rights fromcertai groups based on false assumptions.

still he never said that he wanted to take rights like the 4 Freedoms away. and hardly does he want to take other rights.

Wait....so nukes caused, but also prevented the cold war becoming hot? So basically, they cancel,a nd no nukes would have been just as well?

sorry i meant to say what prevented World War III?

They are actualyl very different.
Let's see:
a) Germany under Hitler was quite isolated, whereas Saddam was sold much weaponry by America.
b) I assume wheb you say "invade", you talk about Kuwait? Little known fact: the American government had actually talked to Saddam prior, and supported, in principle, and excursion in to Kuwait.
c)Saddam had no real agenda other than staying in power.

a) yeah Hitler was isolationist because he invaded almost every country in western europe along with some in eastern europe
b) by the time he had invaded Kuwait we had cut off diplomatic ties with Saddam
c) yeah and that agenda includes mass killing any group that doesn't support him just like Hitler did.

Lets face it all dicators are alike

Oh, you know, li'l things like Gitmo (Concentration camp), PATRIOT, that sorta thing.

well if these people are the ones that are trying to kill you, then i think its fair not to give them rights.

 

[Ramius75]

Well I dont think the goal was peace in the ME, I think the stated goal (now that no WMDs were found) was democracy in the ME, at any price. Peace would materialize as the region democratized. As the buildup to the attack on Iran gets under way, its interesting to see that once again we're talking about WMD production in Iran. If we were to actually invade and again find no evidence of a nuclear program, then we would be talking about how we freed the Iranian people. My theory here is that the Bush administration might be accidentally doing the right thing in the long term. Ok, the neocons want to completely dominate the ME and make it safe for Israel and Western oil companies. Its concievable that when this neocon period is finally over and all the wars have been fought, that the ME might actually become democratic and that even though it was done for the wrong reasons, and at great cost in lives and resources, in the future historians will gloss over the lies and misinformation and ulterior motives, and focus on the (possible) result: A democratic Middle East. The West dominated and carved up Africa not for altruistic reasons, but for political and financial gain. In the process we transmitted our civilization to the continent and brought large portions of it out of the Stone Age and into modernity. Africa is no paradise today as a result, but I doubt residents of any African big cities would prefer going back to being nomadic hunter gatherers. So what Im saying is that something similar might be going on today in the ME. We might be bringing them into the modern world as a byproduct of our greed, and that this might end up being a good thing, when all is said and done.

Well, we are assuming that the ME countries cannot archieve democracy by itself which is totally quite arrogant and ignorant. The BUSH administration is wrong and never will. yes the future historian might brand him as right, but for all those people living right now and we are the one writing the history in near future, we cannot forget this WRONG. this whole act on attacking iraq, based on WMD or any other reason, like spreading "democracy" is totally wong ! we are talking about lifes loss. In ten of thousand, how are we suppose to tell those families who lost their love one in Iraq that their sons, husband or childrens are killed just to get a vote ? how can that be correct ? or even right ?

The ME can archieve democracy in their own way and any country that tries to impose their own faith into other country while causing death and mayhem should be criticized and punished.

This is to prevent any further war and further deaths. No one deserved to die even for democracy. Unless he himself wants to fight for it. Since the majority of the people of Iraq didnt asked for it. This whole invasion is a crime, a crime to humanity.

Some democratic muslim countries are Malaysia, Indonesia or Turkey. so there are no reason why the ME countries cannot archieve democracy too. They should be let it progress on their own and walk their own way.

 

[TFIH]

I think its pretty damn funny how liberals and peace niks ***** and whine about how we shouldn't go to Iraq. I have one simple answer for them, because we can. We have the bigger guns, the best army in the world, and the men with the biggest balls to fight. Thats a pretty simple reason of why we did it. Now let's see someone try to stop us from doing whatever else we want to.

 

[Verbose]

I think its pretty damn funny how liberals and peace niks ***** and whine about how we shouldn't go to Iraq. I have one simple answer for them, because we can. We have the bigger guns, the best army in the world, and the men with the biggest balls to fight. Thats a pretty simple reason of why we did it. Now let's see someone try to stop us from doing whatever else we want to.

So basically you're saying you have no idea why the US is in Irax, 'cept somehow it has to do with ball size.

We have the bigger guns, the best army in the world, and the men with the biggest balls to fight. Thats a pretty simple reason of why we did it. Now let's see someone try to stop us from doing whatever else we want to.

Yes, but what is it you want to get out of it? (Apart from having huge balls.)

Your post amounts to one huge resounding "barbaric Yawp!"

 

[TFIH]

No I'm saying we're in Iraq because we want to be and nobody can stop us. My ball comment comes from the fact that no other country was brave enough to step up to the plate and get rid of Saddam. I could care less if you think I'm barbaric because of my simple answer. We went into Iraq because our President ordered us to and now we're kicking theout of a bunch of poor little who think they can stand toe to toe with us. Every firefight we've been in in Iraq our troops have came out on top because we're the best trained and equipped around and we're mopping the floor with these sons of that some of you on this forum claim are defeating our troops which gives me quite a laugh that just proves none of you have been to Iraq.

Moderator Action: Language - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889