President Bush - about bush

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 22:48:19

Cal, your argument is Might makes Right. Nothing the American Empire can do is wrong.

Thats all fine and dandy, you can have that opinion.

If you look at history, though, you will see that every great empire was at it's greatest point, most vulnerable. When an empire has extended it's reach to the furthest possible extent the technology of the age allowed, it found itself most exposed to it's enemies.

If you look at history, you will find that every empire in history succeeded only as long as it could loot and pillage those it expanded it's borders into. Even the empires that had the most prosperus and peaceful civilian home life had brutal and murdurous foreign encounters.

I understand you support an Imperilist America. That is your right.

I believe that as America undertakes the vassalization of the world, it further deteriorates the true security at home. It creates more enemies, thins our military and capital, decentralizes our focus, opens paths for corruption.

Every time we move closer towards Impirialism, we bring closer the date of our downfall.

Wisdom is the ability to understand past patterns and understand what is to come in the future by recognizing those patterns in current events.

Most people here understand where you are coming from, because most people here were taught the same thing you were in grade school about the World, History, and America's role.

Those that are in disagreement with you, I believe, have come across information that they cannot ignore that seems to dispute what we were taught in grade school. Though it is more comforting and easy to accept what we were taught before, one has to choose over comfort or the truth.

The price of Freedom is Vigilance. It is our responsability as members of a Democratic Republic to watch our government, to mistrust them, to understand that power is corrupting and point out corruption and demand change where ever we find it. We cannot make these judgements unless we are informed.

And we cannot be truely informed unless we open our minds to the possability that much of what we have been taught is a one sided story. We must have the courage to accept the truth.

What disturbs me about your apperant ignorance and your regurgitation of your party line politics is that your wacko warmongering is not a fringe minoritry, but sadly the american majority. People are, in general stupid. They will believe whatever you tell them/

It saddens me to know that it might take a few generations of 9/11s and Pearl Harbors for jug headed america to get on the same page with the progessives of the rest of the world. To truely understand the suffering and pain war and imperilism cause. To know what the true price is for our amorale Imperialist tendancies.

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 23:18:46

a.) I do have quite a bit of perspective on war. I realize that as a young American man, if my nation needs me to serve in the armed forces, I will be expected to drop what I'm involved in and fight. There probably won't be draft, but I would enlist just the same, because it is the honorable thing to do. At the same time, I know that I will be part of the most feared, disciplined, and trained fighting force in the history of the world, and I will not be fighting a war in vain. As a young man, I think I have more to fear about a war than you do, a man with two children.

A lot of men have had the same perspective going into war that you have, and come out the other side with starkly different opinions about war.

Wisdom would be to learn from those in the past.

But dont worry, you believe exactly what the propaganda machine wants you to believe about war. It's an honorable service to your county, a privlidge in fact. Leave the psky politics and humanitarian issues to others, just hand me a gun and point me at some (gooks/camel jockies/commies/etc.)

For your service and belief in your country you will be rewarded with a life of horrable memories, a few diseases (if caused by the military,these diseases will be denied until treatment is long past a possable solution), the worst healthcare the government can supply, psychological trauma, and perhaps if your lucky, a medal or two.

I have 1 child. I am within the drafting age range, if just barely.

Don't you dare generalize me with images of war being like a Playstation game, or a flashy movie. We will fight this war with people just like me, not you, and we will be successful at it. I have to live with the thought of war day to day, and I realize the sacrifices and risks involved in fighting ANY war. Don't presume that you can sum up my feelings in a quick stereotype.

Yes yes, you you you.

I understand you have YOUR life and YOUR future to deal with. War will be so inconvenient.

If you must be forced into a murder machine, would you not want to be totally sure that your cause is just? Does justice cross your mind at all? Or does justice only work one way, from the strong to the weak. Are you content in being a supporter of such inequity?

Living in New York at the time, how could you watch those buildings come down, and not feel some kind of hatred and contempt for the people who did this to us? How can you not wish to erradicate the people who helped them do this to us?

See, right there.. your beginning to understand the enemy's motivation. Some people in this world have to live with a 9/11 every day. Some people see no alternative to violence but violence.

Do we wish to emulate our enemies, and further propogate violence in the world? If we do, are we any better?

There is a difference between Justice and Revenge.

WE WILL NOT change our ways to appease the radical actions of these terrorists, and we will not see our way of life destroyed so that the Arabs can have their way.

Was that a racist remark? Are you perhaps showing your true colors here?

Do you think somthing very similar is being said in terrorists training camps across the world?

we will not see our way of life destroyed so that the America can have their way.

does that sound familiar?

The funny thing about hate is, if you continue to let hate rule your actions, you will find one day you have turned into the very thing you dispised.

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 23:40:21

3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing.
*Well, I differentiate the Iraq situation from Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda is anti-West [not just anti-U.S.], and has also declared a religious war on the West. Just this morning on the news was information from many European nations, Australia, some central European nations, some Asian islands, and also North America, about Al-Qaeda terrorist cells that have been discovered and broken up.
I don't doubt that some U.S. foreign policy has helped to fuel the hatred; however, on the other hand, if U.S. foreign policy had always been rather nonexistant or as non-offensive as possible, I still believe Al-Qaeda would exist and seek to destroy the West. They are rabid religious fanatics who believe, and put into practice the belief, that all nonbelievers of their faith are evil and should be killed.
Al-Qaeda doesn't leave us a choice; we must fight that terrorist organization because they seek to destroy our culture and our ways of living.
We must stamp out Al-Qaeda. No matter how U.S. foreign policy may have enabled bin Laden and his cohorts in the past, they do present a very "clear and present danger." They must be dealt with; either that, or sit back and let them have their way [I don't think so!]. And the U.S. needs to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not repeat them. I wish to god our leaders would've heeded the warnings of our Founding Fathers, to KEEP OUT of the affairs of foreign nations.
--Cindy

I think we are on the same page.

My point is that Revenge is not Justice.

We must bring Al Quida to justice. That does not give us an open mandate to bomb any nation we feel like. That does not give us the right to violate international law.

Al Quida was a product of american foreign policy. It would seem prudent to evaluate our foreign policy and see if we can prevent such things from backfiring to us in the future.

We must stop, right now, immediately, our support for terrorists, paramilitarties, gorillas, dictators, and tirants in the name of global stability.

If we do stop, It is my opinion that fewer terrorists groups will rise up and threaten the US.

AltToWar · 2002-12-19 00:14:26

when you learn to read what somebody says, and understand the meaning, instead of what you want to see, you will get a lot more respect. having a big mouth will get you nowhere.
im a 4.0 gpa student too. ive got a 187 iq. i dont feel the need to brag about it. you want to go to war against a country that hasnt harmed us. whats so different about our bullying against iraq than terrorists blowing up our buildings? unless bush actually tries a diplomatic solution, truly tries, then there is no difference. we may be justified in going to war with iraq, when, and only when, we find the evidence bush has claimed is there. we havent found it yet.
Soph, what have I said all along? I've told you all, very clearly (and you can look at my earliest posts and see this) that we should only fight this war IF the UN weapons inspectors find a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. If there isn't, we won't fight this war.
Has Bush gone willy-nilly fighting battles in the region? NO! He prepares his case in front of the world, with all of his cards on the table, and waits to find evidence. The fact is, he HASN'T gone to war yet! He's waiting for a good reason to, just like everyone else. Don't say he's a blood-thirsty tyrant when he uses diplomacy first to correct problems! Sure, he could have nuke Baghdad 4 months ago, but did he? NO!
And I wasn't bragging about my grades, I was just saying that I'm not a "John Deere" American with 12 shotguns and a fierce hatred for all who aren't just like him.
when did i ever say that i wasnt willing to die for my country? never. i am the most patriotic person in my family.
Thank you for clarifying that. I apologize if I offended you.

As soon as we get 4 aircraft carriers and 150,000 ground troops in the area, we will be going to war.

It will not matter what has or has not been done in the UN.
It will not matter if saddam is or is not found in 'Material Breach'.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-19 00:19:16

Cal, you do realize that the 2002 elections had a very small margin of victory for Bush, right? You do also realize that Democrats got more votes, right? Polls suggest that unilaterialism is frowned upon by most Americans. The only reason the Republicans won were two reasons. First, Democrats played obstructionist for the first two years Bush was in office; this means that Republicans are going to have higher turn out. The second reason is the war. Democrats were too stupid to come out against the war, so when voters looked out there, they obviously didn't see a different message. It was the same from both sides.

Republicans, ?We hate communist dictators, and will do anything in our power to stop terrorism.?
Democrats, ?We... uh... hate communist dictators... and, uh... will do anything in our power to stop terrorism.?
Voters, ?Uh... Democrats? Republicans? Which is which??

The 2002 elections were totally demoralizing to Democratic constituents. And rightly so. They had no balls, and deserved no votes.

If you don't think it would be political suicide for Bush to attack Iraq without any evidence, you're in big time denial. And if you think that a majority of Americans want to blow up Iraq [unilaterally, without evidence, or reason beyond Bush's inital ?mandate?; that Iraq is a terrorist state and that Iraq must go], you are also in big time denial.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-19 00:26:28

AltToWar, I think you're incorrect that most Americans want to blow up Iraq. It may be true that most Americans look to war as a valid solution for international problems, but when asked about these things, they tend to side with a more diplomatic approach. I think that conservatism is a sad trend we're seeing lately, but it's mainly due to conservatives overtaking the airwaves and spreading hate, drivel, and outright lies in the form of generalizations.

It is a sobering fact to know that 2/3rd of all Americans do think that Iraq is affilated with bin Laden, though. In fact, it's quite surprising, considering 3/4ths of all Americans wouldn't want to go at it unilaterally.

AltToWar · 2002-12-19 01:12:32

AltToWar, I think you're incorrect that most Americans want to blow up Iraq. It may be true that most Americans look to war as a valid solution for international problems, but when asked about these things, they tend to side with a more diplomatic approach. I think that conservatism is a sad trend we're seeing lately, but it's mainly due to conservatives overtaking the airwaves and spreading hate, drivel, and outright lies in the form of generalizations.
It is a sobering fact to know that 2/3rd of all Americans do think that Iraq is affilated with bin Laden, though. In fact, it's quite surprising, considering 3/4ths of all Americans wouldn't want to go at it unilaterally.

Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of your fellow humans.

I personally know very few people that actively support the war. In fact I can only think of one.

But I live in Brooklyn.

I was raised in tennessee. I have looked rural america in the eye, and let me tell you, it is a scary thing.

soph · 2002-12-19 05:36:44

alt, i wouldnt call america imperialist. economically, maybe. but the very fact that we let conquered countries remain sovereign, with US influence, yes, but still sovereign, puts the lie to that idea of Americas imperialism.

Who was stopping the Soviet Imperialism? That was for more direct and tangible. It's only because the Soviets collapsed that they dont get the same treatment as the US.

soph · 2002-12-19 05:39:19

We could launch missiles to the world powers like Russia and China, and drop thermonuclear devices from bombers 50,000 feet above the target.

i am well aware of our military capabilities...and they could launch them back too. MAD wouldnt have worked otherwise. Russia has enough nukes to kill us too, and china is, at the least, getting there. and i know that you need long distance ICBMS, which Russia has, china might be another story. nobody really knows.

AltToWar · 2002-12-19 17:37:14

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-19 20:56:48

AltToWar, your anti-American sentiment is dispicable. I'm ashamed I share a forum with someone so repulsive!

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-19 22:48:42

Does anyone listen to my arguments? Or do you just sit there and recycle your comments over, and over and over and over... LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING!

If you don't think it would be political suicide for Bush to attack Iraq without any evidence, you're in big time denial. And if you think that a majority of Americans want to blow up Iraq [unilaterally, without evidence, or reason beyond Bush's inital ?mandate?; that Iraq is a terrorist state and that Iraq must go], you are also in big time denial.

I've been saying all along that it would be political suicide to invade without evidence, and that's why I support the UN putting weapons inspectors into Iraq. In reference to this quote, I kept saying, in MANY posts, that the US has the power to annihilate the world, and could crush Iraq if we wanted to, BUT WE DON'T! Bush is building his case and trying to either disprove or prove that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Just because we move troops into the region doesn't mean we're going to war! It's all a whizz-bang lights show to keep Saddam out of any funny-business while the UN inspectors are there.

AltToWar, I think you're incorrect that most Americans want to blow up Iraq. It may be true that most Americans look to war as a valid solution for international problems, but when asked about these things, they tend to side with a more diplomatic approach. I think that conservatism is a sad trend we're seeing lately, but it's mainly due to conservatives overtaking the airwaves and spreading hate, drivel, and outright lies in the form of generalizations.

Why is conservatism a sad trend? It's not a trend, its a hard-set traditional core of values. Liberalism is more of the trend, considering that it only formidably reared its ugly head here in the 1960's.

I think you're a little jelous of Rush Limbaugh, Josh! Does it annoy you that someone with a conservative viewpoint can use the media to change people's minds? I care to disagree. The conservatives aren't taking over the airwaves; it's the same as its always been. Conservatives like myself still have to watch the dribble of Phil Donnahue, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, etc...

AltToWar · 2002-12-19 23:32:28

Some quotes to consider, and draw your own conclutions as to how they relate to modern times:

The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy.
- ADOLPH HITLER (1889-1945), Mein Kampf, 1925-27.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
- Adolf Hitler

What luck for the rulers that men do not think.
- ADOLPH HITLER

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
- Adolf Hitler

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
- Adolf Hitler

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
- Adolf Hitler

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
- Adolf Hitler

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-19 23:57:42

I've been saying all along that it would be political suicide to invade without evidence, and that's why I support the UN putting weapons inspectors into Iraq.

Um, you've been saying all along that the US could blow up anyone in the world. Sure, they could, but they wouldn't. You yourself point out that nuclear weapons are a deterence, yet you ignorantly, and in the same thread no less, pretend that we can do anything we want. If that were the case nuclear weapons would not be a deterence.

In reference to this quote, I kept saying, in MANY posts, that the US has the power to annihilate the world, and could crush Iraq if we wanted to, BUT WE DON'T!

Uhh, Russia has the power to annihilate the world, but they don't. China has the power to annihilate the world, but they don't. Blah blah. This honestly is a non-issue. You must get past it, okay?

It's actually quite funny that the US's ?biggest enemies? spend less than 1% of 1% of our budget combined. The US's ?biggest enemies,? are very poor states, you know.

Bush is building his case and trying to either disprove or prove that Iraq has nuclear weapons.

Um, he has to. He doesn't have the mandate to attack. Especially now that he took matters back to the UN. Shall we go and pull out the resolutions in question and disect them line by line?

He certainly hasn't been able to prove that Iraq has WMDs. In fact, like I've pointed out in this very thread (and you somehow managed to avoid), he has been lying all along about WMDs. He initally started spouting complete misinformation, going so far as to convince Tony Blair to [laughably] use it as ?evidence.?

Just because we move troops into the region doesn't mean we're going to war!

Who said we're going to war? I thought we were arguing about Bush's initial feelings about the situation, and the stuff he was spewing in the beginning? I'm pretty confident that Democrats avoided a war, by forcing Bush to take the issues back to the UN, and to get inspectors back in the region. I think you have a pretty pathetic short term memory if you don't think Bush was selling a different product before.

Why is conservatism a sad trend?

Because it's based in a world of lies and distortions. It caters to black and white issues, simple sets of ideas which tend to sell better but lack any real substance.

Look at trickle down economics, for example. Perhaps the biggest lie ever perpetrated by politicans. Indeed, Reagan's budget director claimed himself that it was all a performance, and the theory itself was totally invalid. (This, of course, should come to no surprise to anyone, since we'd been practicing semi-Keynesian economics for some fifty years before that, and trickle down went against everything we knew.)

It's not a trend, its a hard-set traditional core of values.

Conservatives have values? Did you miss the friendly dictator cards?

Liberalism is more of the trend, considering that it only formidably reared its ugly head here in the 1960's.

I don't see it as a trend. It's been around for quite awhile; longer than you imagine. It's a good verses evil sort of thing. The problem is that before, liberal ideas were just common sense (be nice to your neighbor stuff), whereas conservative ideas tend to be more extreme, and require generalizations, if not outright lies to keep them alive.

I think you're a little jelous of Rush Limbaugh, Josh!

No, I'm not jealous of Rush at all. If anything, I'm disturbed he has so many listeners. Fortunately, I can rest assured, at least somewhat, that he's merely preaching to the chior.

Does it annoy you that someone with a conservative viewpoint can use the media to change people's minds?

Actually, it does somewhat. Mainly due to the fact that he doesn't change peoples minds with anything remotely resembling fact, but rather distorts things into empty generalizations, if not outright lies.

The conservatives aren't taking over the airwaves; it's the same as its always been.

Maybe conservatives have been on the airwaves for awhile. That's probably true. What's not true, I would wager, though, is that people weren't listening and actually believing the garbage these conservatives spew.

http://g.msn.com/0nwenus0/A3/21]Rush vs. Reality

soph · 2002-12-20 05:55:15

caltech, if it werent for liberals, blacks and whites would still be segregated. the majority senate leader is openly racist. whos got the ugly head?

im personally independent...i like whoevers best for the country in my view. all parties have downfalls...speding $200 million on an investigation on wheter clinton had sex is dumb. the democrats letting bush and cheneys shady business ties, very shady ties, which are much more relevant to their jobs, is very telling.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-21 01:26:02

I've been doing some research on the military spending issue. From my State of the World Atlas, 1997 I've found the following:

The US spends 33.8% of the world's share of military spending. Russia spends 7.9%, and China about 6%.

The US spends over $1000 USD per person (keep in mind, our population is 275 million or so), China spends $11-$50 USD per person, and Russia spends $201-$500 per person. To reference this to the rest of the world, Suadia Arabia, Israel, Quatar, Juwait, and Singapore ae the other countries spending over $1000 USD per person.

Changes in military spending from 1985-1997:

The US had the largest cut in the world, at $95 billion, about 26% down. China had the third largest INCREASE at $8.3 billion, about 29% up.

Changes in Number of Full-Time Soldiers 1985-1997:

The US cut somewhere from 10-50% of its full-time soldiers, and kept its share of world armed forces at about 10%. China also cut anywhere from 10-50%, and kept its share of world armed forces at about 20%.
__

As for the senate minority leader being openly racist, I'll admit he took that joke a little too far. That conservative media that Josh hates so much sure tried to cover this up...

And why do you hate conservatism so? What's wrong with having a black/white view on things? It just means that I have a steady, unshaking viewpoint on most issues, and my application of that is usually consistant and far-reaching. What's wrong with traditional values, anyway?

AND you guys are taking this MAD issue too far. I said that if the US wanted to, we could destroy the world MANY times over. But because we have something to lose, we won't do that. Terrorists, however, don't have anything to lose so MAD falls apart at that point.

soph · 2002-12-21 07:59:21

caltech, its easy for countries with less people to spend more per capita. especially when the government has full control of funding.

and look at what you said. the US has 33.8% of the spending, and only 10% of the armed forces. some major money is being lost in that shuffle.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-21 11:05:51

caltech, its easy for countries with less people to spend more per capita. especially when the government has full control of funding.

the converse is true as well. China only spends $11-$50 per person because they have 1.2 billion people. And being totalitarian, as you have claimed, they should also have full control of funding.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-21 11:09:38

And the US doesn't have 10% of the armed forces, they have ten percent of the full-time soldiers. We have to spend more money on maintaining our complex weaponry. China doesn't spend as much because they are primarily ground war people. The US, however, has to spend a pretty penny to keep planes that can take off in Missouri and be on the other side of the world in 12 hours. China doesn't have those toys, and they're on Santa's naughty list this year

soph · 2002-12-21 12:41:47

like i said, all we do is build spare parts. and we dont have to spend much money on those planes until we intend to use them. then the government issues a whole bunch of maintenance contracts to get them ready. usually, they just sit in hangars.

like i said, i think china has a good deal hidden. and much of that $1000 US spends per person, id say about $300 is used for important, necessary, productive purposes.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-21 23:11:47

You're being too intent on my examples, soph. My underlying point was that China's bulk of spending is in the form of soldiers and ground operations, whereas the US spends more on maintaining and building weapons of a higher technological nature. My point is, the US needs to spend a good deal of money to keep our tech-toys combat ready. And that $300 is your guess. I'm sure many different people would give us many different answers.

soph · 2002-12-22 07:39:14

im just basing it on personal experience.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-22 15:50:31

I forgot you're a New York socialite... so much more connected than this "jug-headed redneck" Colorado farmboy! :0

AltToWar · 2002-12-23 16:47:29

http://dubyadubyadubya.com/]http://dubyadubyadubya.com/

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 17:36:32

I can't get streaming video through my 28.8k connection on my P75 machine.

I'm sure it was some poorly rendered talking-head of our president. Was it not?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2002-12-18 22:48:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#302 2002-12-18 23:18:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#303 2002-12-18 23:40:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#304 2002-12-19 00:14:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#305 2002-12-19 00:19:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#306 2002-12-19 00:26:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#307 2002-12-19 01:12:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#308 2002-12-19 05:36:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#309 2002-12-19 05:39:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#310 2002-12-19 17:37:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#311 2002-12-19 20:56:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#312 2002-12-19 22:48:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#313 2002-12-19 23:32:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#314 2002-12-19 23:57:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#315 2002-12-20 05:55:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#316 2002-12-21 01:26:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#317 2002-12-21 07:59:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#318 2002-12-21 11:05:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#319 2002-12-21 11:09:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#320 2002-12-21 12:41:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#321 2002-12-21 23:11:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#322 2002-12-22 07:39:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#323 2002-12-22 15:50:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#324 2002-12-23 16:47:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#325 2002-12-23 17:36:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer