President Bush - about bush

Phobos · 2002-12-06 23:27:02

So who is the worst tyrant? Saddam or the U.S. ?

Saddam.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-06 23:45:14

Saddam.

The US made Saddam.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-07 00:18:53

Does that mean that the Ietolla is worse than Saddam? Speaking of which, if we're done with Iraq, we should try our hand at Iran, which has to my knowledge stayed out of the conversation...

I don't want to comment, for fear of having a brick thrown through my living room window. ???

AltToWar · 2002-12-07 06:05:13

So who is the worst tyrant? Saddam or the U.S. ?
Saddam.

Are you sure?

Would you care to stack up the number of Intentional Murder of Defenseless Civialians?

Would you like to compare the numbers of civalians killed over just this past decade by starvation and lack of sanitation and medical supplies caused by sanctions or direct interference with relief workers and supplies?

Would you like to compare the use of radioactive munitions on foreign domestic and civilian targets? Which country has covered up the fact that their own veterans have become ill because of exposure to these munitions? Did you know there is an epidemic of Lukimia in Iraqi Children?

Which country has declared itself exempt from the International war crimes court?

Which country, contrary to the geneva convention, intentionally destroyed targets nessicary for civilian life, including water and waste treatment plants, power plants, and electricity infrastructure.

Which country makes no effort to deny the fact that they do indeed have a massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and neucular agents. Which country is the only country to deploy an atomic bomb on a foreign civilian target? Which country has had Cabinet level ministers express that the will not rule out the possability of using nukes in the upcoming war?

Both Saddam and Bush are the product of dubius elections.
Both Saddam and Bush have declared holy wars on eachothers nations. (crusade vs jihad)

here's a quote from 60 minutes:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

this is a quote that has been repeated in the arabian media countless times.

When the american secitary of state says that the death of 500,000 iraqi children is a reasonal price to pay to promote a middle east US political agenda, how can we honestly think of the United States as a benevolent defender of human rights? How can we not question our own humanity? Why are we suprised when we find so much hatred for the US across the world?

soph · 2002-12-07 07:48:53

oh please. saddam has a big enough war chest to feed his people. why not point to his dozen palaces, which he built, and his endless statues of himself. he continues to let his people starve when he indulges in his money. why cant his "muslim brothers" give him food? their bond is only as good as the green.

and its called collateral damage, it happens in any war. are you going to say we murdered people in WW2 because there were civilian casualties? yes, nagasaki was wrong, but hiroshima was necessary to end the war. say what you will, but it took years off the war, and casualties too. soldiers are people too.

the iranian people want change. its the government thats causing us problems. the people are moving towards a democratic, more secular government, but the hard-line government, hates america.

AltToWar · 2002-12-07 08:58:54

oh please. saddam has a big enough war chest to feed his people.

You cannot eat dollar bills.

Iraq must import it's food. It does not have the agricultural ability to feed itself.

why cant his "muslim brothers" give him food?

No import or exports are allowed into Iraq.

There has been an 'Oil for Food' exception, and if you would like to discuss how this has not been effective staving off hunger, I could argue the point well. Before you blame Iraq for abusing the oil for food deal, please research this first.

and its called collateral damage, it happens in any war.

the iranian people want change. its the government thats causing us problems.

When one military attacks another military, it is a war.

When one military intentionally targets and attacks another country's civilian population, it is Murder.

Please explain to me how one goes about Freeing a population from a dictator they have no control over by targeting and killing civialians is just and moral.

In Nicuragua we supported the slaughter of civialians in an attempt to terrorise the civilian population to the point where they ousted their own government.

The rationale behind the US enforced UN sanctions on Iraq have the same goals.

the people are moving towards a democratic, more secular government, but the hard-line government, hates america.

Do they hate americans, or do they hate american foreign policy?

Are they truely babbling idiots blinded by hate, or do they have legitimate concerns?

Our president said the reason Al Queda attacked the trade towers was because:

"They hate freedom"

Could someone please tell me what the #### that means? How could any intelligent individual swallow such obvious dogmatic bullshit as that?

As for Iraq and friends, the reason we have to bomb them is because they are:

"The Axis of Evil"

You see, when you declare an opposing party "Evil," you have shut down your brain.

By declaring an opposition Evil, you remove all forms of critical thinking as to their motivations and intentions. You eliminate all hope of peaceful negotiation because you have prejudged and are unwilling to hear or understand the other parties greeviences.

soph · 2002-12-07 10:00:27

the embargo doesnt apply to everyone.

and i never said the us was god. al qaeda hating freedom does make sense. they dont want people being exposed to the western culture, and losing their muslim values. they believe that the free world corrupts the spiritual and moral values expressed in islam. it is rather ironic that 2 of the hijackers went to a strip club nights before 9/11.

AltToWar · 2002-12-07 10:07:48

the embargo doesnt apply to everyone.
and i never said the us was god. al qaeda hating freedom does make sense. they dont want people being exposed to the western culture, and losing their muslim values. they believe that the free world corrupts the spiritual and moral values expressed in islam. it is rather ironic that 2 of the hijackers went to a strip club nights before 9/11.

And you get this information on their motivations from where?

soph · 2002-12-07 10:44:02

words and actions are enough to judge a person, are they not?

PaganToris · 2002-12-07 10:55:02

Well sometimes u can judge a person but im sure we all have not herd the Count yer chickens B4 they hatch right but i really never follow that rule most of the time i can usualy judge a person by the way they act!

AltToWar · 2002-12-07 13:13:15

words and actions are enough to judge a person, are they not?

You cannot understand someones intentions by summarily dismissing them as evil and refusing to dialog with them.

Lets go with your assumption that we can judge their intentions by their actions though.

They "Hate Freedom", right?

Did they fly the airplanes into the statue of liberty?

no

They dont want to be influnced by western culture, correct?

Did they fly airplanes into Hollywood or media outlets?

no

The 2 targets they chose were the pentagon and the World Trade Towers.

The Pentagon is a symbol of the american military.

The trade towers were a symbol of american influence on the global economy.

Perhaps one might conclude by these actions that the inentions of these terrorists were to draw attention to americas Military and Economic affairs in Arabia.

If you actually listen to the words of those that plea for american mercy, you will hear that they wish:

1: America to stop it's military occupation of arabian nations.
2: America to stop militarily backing corrupt regiemes.
3: America to stop financialy exploiting arabian countries.
4: America to stop financing Isreal in it's violence with arabs.
5: Amarica to stop selling weapons to Israel while it engages in violence towards arabs.

I abhor the actions of the terrorists. I dislike all violence.

We should bring the purps to justice, not carpet bomb poor and struggling civialians.

In addition we must honestly examine why there is so much animosity towards america. To simply say "they are evil" is to close ones mind to all contrary points of view.

soph · 2002-12-07 13:21:49

1: America to stop it's military occupation of arabian nations.
2: America to stop militarily backing corrupt regiemes.
3: America to stop financialy exploiting arabian countries.
4: America to stop financing Isreal in it's violence with arabs.
5: Amarica to stop selling weapons to Israel while it engages in violence towards arabs.

whew.
1. lets not forget that saudi arabia and kuwait have asked for our help, as have the afghanis in the northern alliance. theyre not pushing us out either.

2. thats a good point

3. Bah. If the arab nations charged any more for oil, they know wed have a fire under our arses to get fuel cells or electric cars faster. and they produce less than they can to shoot up demand and price. they hold oil over us, not the other way around.

4 and 5. stop blowing up innocent people. israel defends itself, and while i dont always agree with the means, theyve never launched a pre-emptive war. how many times have multiple arab nations teamed up against israel, and were only beaten back by the superior tactics of israeli officers? the arabs were given soviet weapons, so you cant blame US equipment. israel acts in self-defense, not in aggression. after every peace agreement, terrorist activity goes up. what does that tell you? let alone what theyve said about pushing israel into the sea. if america didnt back israel, the arab nations would have wiped it off the map by now. superior tactics or not, the arabs have huge numerical superiority. dont blame america for the arab's intolerance of other cultures.

AltToWar · 2002-12-07 15:18:51

1. lets not forget that saudi arabia and kuwait have asked for our help, as have the afghanis in the northern alliance. theyre not pushing us out either.

The Saudi family is not much well liked by their own people today.

In fact I have read intelligent speculation that the instability of the Saudi regime is one of the major motivations in the US seeking out a new oil reserve and center for their military in the middle east.

The point being, the US being in Saudia Arabia might be well and dandy with the government, it's going over like a turd in a hottub with the people of saudi arabia.

Saudi Arabia has both Mecca and Medina, islams 2 most holy sites. To some muslims, having christian, jew and atheist american military men there is like having Iraq set up a military base in the Vatican.

Many in arabia suspect some dirty back-room dealings going on between the Saud family and the US.

As for the northern alliance, in Afghanistan they were hated by a majority of afghanis more than the taliban.

The taliban made it clear many time that it would release Osama Bin Laden to the US if the US simply provided some evidence.

2. thats a good point

see above

3. Bah. If the arab nations charged any more for oil, they know wed have a fire under our arses to get fuel cells or electric cars faster. and they produce less than they can to shoot up demand and price. they hold oil over us, not the other way around.

By arab nations, do you mean the impoverished citizens who dont see a dime of that oil money, or the regimes in contol of those countries?

4 and 5. stop blowing up innocent people. israel defends itself, and while i dont always agree with the means, theyve ...

Right or wrong, you have a western backed army with american tanks, helecopters, jets and training running over a defensless arab state.

I dont think either side in this conflict is in the right.

Though I do not agree with it, I can see and understand the arab-palistinian perspective.

For much of the arabian world, Palistine is for them that the Holocost was for the western world. They are very impassioned about this subject.

It's easy to say that the palistinians are racists as a western citizen, but much of our media and foreign policy does not seem to be exactly unbiased.

Further western violence will only exacerbate the problem. The Israel/Palistine issue should be solved before we take on any other acts. To not do so will present America as a war bent, trigger happy nation pressing it's own racism and classism on a poor population.

AltToWar · 2002-12-07 15:28:19

Re-reading some of the older posts on this thread I have discovered that on this issue clark and I seem to be on the same side.

I feel so dirty now...

soph · 2002-12-07 15:31:13

like i said, terrorism picks up whenever peace seems to be close. and the obsession with palestine ("holocaust") is caused by rulers, like those of saudi arabia, who want to deflect hate of the government from themselves, to the west and israel...its an easy target. i doubt the saudi princes care about palestine, but it makes them look good to open terrorism schools.

and if they loved their muslim brothers so much, why doesnt jordan take the palestinians in. in accordance with the UN mandate, jordan is the islamic state created at the same time as israel, a fact that is often ignored. in fact, the west bank was controlled by jordan, but nobody complained when they took away palestinian sovereignty. now, jordan is trying to push the palestinians out, because of the disorder hezbellah causes.

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-07 17:24:42

3. Bah. If the arab nations charged any more for oil, they know wed have a fire under our arses to get fuel cells or electric cars faster. and they produce less than they can to shoot up demand and price. they hold oil over us, not the other way around.

You have a point, but there is something that should be kept in mind. Middle Eastern oil supplies a significant percentage of US fuel consumption (the last figure I read put it around 40%, certainly significant). They can hurt us.
However, their entire national econmies are based on selling the oil, the vast bulk of it going to the US. We could get our oil from other places if we needed to, they'd have a much harder time finding markets if we stopped dealing with them. They would certainly have to lower prices to stay in business.
Of course fuel cells hold a lot of promise even with relatively cheap foreign oil. The sooner we can tell the Saudi's to "perch and twirl" the better off we'll be, in my oh-so-humble opinion.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-07 18:54:04

[...] clark and I seem to be on the same side.
I feel so dirty now...

:0

Auqakah · 2002-12-08 12:05:35

I have an opinion about a possible war with Iraq. Here it is:

No.

Reasons?

The main reason is simple. The reasons for going to war with Iraq must be the right ones, not the wrong ones. And there is only one good reason; and that one is mostly being ignored.

1.

Any war with Iraq will carry too high a price. Israel recently announced plans for a prospective Palestinian state if Palestinian terrorism ceased. The terrorism certainly won't even come close to ceasing, if the US and Britain wage war on Iraq.

2.

It sets a bad pattern to go to war time and time again over money. The issue here isn't oil, or money. Its lives. People are dying under the Iraqi regime. People are being imprisoned. But our leaders talk about future threats, to us? So what? People are dying now; they are more important than any future threat to me, as far as I'm concerned. And making an exception (I.E., not taking issue with China over Tibet, because Tibet isn't important - not many natural resources, after all, and therefore not much money) with Iraq because of its oil is just immoral. Its wrong. People are FAR more important than money.

3.

And we went to war with Iraq once before; we could have finished it then, but the US wanted to pull back. And so, the Allies pulled back. It should have been finished then; it wasn't; so we shouldn't whine about it now, and go back for that reason either.

4.

The rise in terrorism since the US and Britain began this current 'diplomatic' campaign against Iraq. So far, since the beginning of this campaign, there have been two to four fairly large terrorist attacks per month. The war against terrorism promoting more terrorism?? What a shock!

Terrorists solve problems by terrifying people into doing what they want them to do. That is the strategy of the terrorist.

Bush and Blair's strategy is to tell us that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons. What the hell is that if it isn't promoting terror in order to get us to think what they want us to think?

The war on Iraq is desirable to the US and Britain for the exact same reason that the cold war happened - because it suits the US and Britain, and gains the US and Britain more power.

Is that a good reason for a war against Iraq? When China builds its power, and slowly launches itself into space?

Seems rather like attacking the toothless and clawless cat at your feet while the lion sneaks up behind you, to me.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-08 22:41:15

And making an exception (I.E., not taking issue with China over Tibet, because Tibet isn't important - not many natural resources, after all, and therefore not much money) with Iraq because of its oil is just immoral. Its wrong. People are FAR more important than money.

Wow. Been to a college rally lately? The reason we won't intervene in Tibet is because the US isn't "people liberators". Yes, we will liberate the folks in Iraq if we go to war, but right now we just want to neutralize Iraq's threat to the US. Plus, we don't want to upset a world power (not a superpower, mind you, only the US bears that title nowadays), China, over their internal affairs.

As for the oil, if we really wanted it, we'd accuse Kuwait or Saudi Arabia of terrorism and invade them.

clark · 2002-12-09 07:27:07

Cal, you bring up valid points, however, you are doing your position a disservice by not adquetly addressing the issues raised. Your argument is mired by your ad-hoc rationalization of the differences in our applied foregin policy. the rationalizations are weak, and show limited knowledge about what is going on.

You have stated that we should go to Iraq to liberate the people- to help them from oppresion, that it would be a justifiable action on those grounds alone. Yet, when other similar situations, or situations that are far worse in terms of og human rights abuse are brought up, you pussyfoot around with exscuses why we cannot take the same stance. The logic fails.

The exscuse of national security can be used at any instance, and is only valid if a real threat exsists. No real threat exsists- in fact, the new Bush doctrine is at odds with this becuase it is predicated on preemptive action when threat is either perceived or possible.

It's like the cops arresting you outside a store becuase they think you might steal.

The problem with "perceiving" is it ultimetly falls upon the people doing the perceiving- they get to decide in each instance. This allows for personal philosphies to dictate who lives, and who dies.

We very well may invade Saudi Arabia, if the current regime there is overthrown, it may become a "national security" threat becuase it threatens our war on terror (the terroists are taking over). We don'tneed Kuwaitt, half of their territory is simply a US base.

Iran is next, US intelligence is actively supporting a popular uprisinbg of the secular.

The US will continue to destabilize the area to meet our needs, with little care for the actual people there.

And Alt, the dirt comes off... eventually.

soph · 2002-12-09 14:34:02

caltech, there are certain situations, intervention would cause a problem far greater than the current one. going into tibet would be one of them. going against china would be a big mistake-even if we win a war (which we probably could, numerically, they are superior, but they couldnt get an army overseas...our navy would win out). that would be like sending an american army into poland right after ww2 ended. bad idea.

clark · 2002-12-09 14:48:44

The Devils due...

Given a choice between two evils, which do you choose?

The lesser evil, or the greater one?

If you must choose between the tyranny of one man over the people, or the exploitation or resources by conglomerates, which do you choose?

Is exploitation an unreasonable price to pay for offering greater opportunity for people currently oppressed?

What would be your choice, if you knew that an action was just, but the reason was not- would you still proceed with the action?

Is it better to suffer a dictator for life, or a dictator for only a few years?

In terms of a war on terroism: Such a war is spoken about in length on the order of decades. Let us now understand where the financial backing to fund such terroist activities are derived from, notably, from certain wealthy elites in the Arab world. Where is their wealth derived from?

Oil.

If we were to destablize the current regimes in the Middle East, we not only create an opportunity to redirect where the wealth of those nations flows and to who, we also have the opportunity to create social instutions that will allow for progressive change within those countries. The progressive chanegs can lead to social reforms that allow the people of those countries to develop a stake in their government, and their futures (i.e. democracy). This would in effect lead to opportunities to reduce the casues of terroism- one of the most notable ones being repressive regimes that are non-represenative of the people whom they govern.

It allows us to legitiametly fight one of the causes of terroism.

Alt, still feel dirty?

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-09 15:03:21

Soph, I am advocating that we not intervene in Tibet. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to compare Iraq to Tibet, as pointed out by Auqakah.

****DISCLAIMER****

The management accepts no responsibility for the implication that we a.) don't like the opinions of others b.) are chavanist male pigs c.) hate other nationalities

(THE ABOVE WAS A JOKE! *SARCASM*)

As for the liberating of people, I never said that we should invade Iraq solely to liberate the people. I said that Iraq was possibly a national security threat, and that the people there would be on our side if we removed Hussein from power. I would by no means risk US lives in the Gulf over human rights if I was President (I'm sorry. If I was the Congressional majority).

And as for invading Saudi Arabia, we wouldn't let the government be overthrown in the first place. Perhaps if it was a people's rebellion, but certainly not terrorism. And on my point, we're not accusing Saudi Arabia or Kuwait of terrorism, and we haven't had any open hostilities or political cold-shoulders.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-09 15:29:57

b.) are chavanist male pigs

should be chauvanist... sorry

soph · 2002-12-09 15:30:33

oh please. we are holding up a hated dictatorship in saudi arabia. if it were not for their teaching of terror to their people, the people would have killed them by now, too. oil is keeping us there, and terror is keeping the people somewhat sated.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2002-12-06 23:27:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#102 2002-12-06 23:45:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#103 2002-12-07 00:18:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#104 2002-12-07 06:05:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#105 2002-12-07 07:48:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#106 2002-12-07 08:58:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#107 2002-12-07 10:00:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#108 2002-12-07 10:07:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#109 2002-12-07 10:44:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#110 2002-12-07 10:55:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#111 2002-12-07 13:13:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#112 2002-12-07 13:21:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#113 2002-12-07 15:18:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#114 2002-12-07 15:28:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#115 2002-12-07 15:31:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#116 2002-12-07 17:24:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#117 2002-12-07 18:54:04

Re: President Bush - about bush

#118 2002-12-08 12:05:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#119 2002-12-08 22:41:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#120 2002-12-09 07:27:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#121 2002-12-09 14:34:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#122 2002-12-09 14:48:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#123 2002-12-09 15:03:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#124 2002-12-09 15:29:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#125 2002-12-09 15:30:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer