| YourValentine 22.10.2008 06:56 |
It's somewhat out of the public eye but "we" have been at war in Afghanistan now for 7 years and people are dying there each day. Our politicians and our media avoid the word "war" because people here have such a dislike against war. They call it "peace mission" or "international intervention" but of course it's a war. In America they are not so sensitive, they have a "war against drugs" and a "war against terror", so the word does not have this bad connotation it has in my country. Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there? Of course it's not about the control of oil and gas pipelines, it's about establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan and helping the people there. Then why is Afghanistan not a peaceful and stable country after 7 years of "intervention"? Why do our soldiers need 90% of their time to protect themselves against attacks on their lives and it's getting worse and not better? How is that supposed to establish any peace and security? When you do the same thing over again with the same result and you do it for the umpteenth time expecting a different result - it's called stupidity. We have no money for schools and universities, we have no money for the poor and unemployed, no money for the children and the sick and old people. We do have billions for bailing out private banks and for this totally useless war. I wonder how long the tax payers will be quiet. It's time that the democracy works for the people and not for banks and oil companies. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 22.10.2008 09:46 |
I have to say, I doubt this would have gone unchallenged in the 60's. People had a voice then, and they were unafraid to have it heard. Or was it that they were less lazy than we are today? Everyone complains but no one does anything. It's as if everyone expects someone else to take charge. We see what happens when we sit back and let the powerful become moreso, and yet nothing is done. It might be different individually, but as a whole, we're lazy and self-absorbed. It's happening "over there". It's happening to someone else. When it hits our homes, our families or our pocketbooks, then and only then will we complain. Sadly, I think "I, Me, Mine" is the mindset of today. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.10.2008 10:02 |
I really can't put the world's attitude any better than Bob Geldof did: link The world just doesn't care anymore, and that's about it. "I can watch whole nations die, I don't care at all" |
| Togg 22.10.2008 10:24 |
If they get a change in President they may not be at War much longer... then again |
| Poo, again 22.10.2008 10:37 |
Great weed. Seriously though, it is an obvious invasion with the purpose of gaining corporate America additional profit. |
| Micrówave 22.10.2008 10:56 |
I think there's a lot more to the conflict in Afghanistan besides an international man-hunt. The country is in absolute shambles and is ruled by an unstable government. Left alone, they could become quite a far greater threat to the world than Iran. This country has a history of civil war, followed by invasions by neighboring countries. Russia, or what's left of it, is not financially solidified enough to take that on themselves, which I guess is the main reason they pulled out in 1988. Now the US led coalition is facing the same problem. We had a global economic failure back then, too. I dunno. Maybe Obama will find Osama. |
| YourValentine 22.10.2008 11:06 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I have to say, I doubt this would have gone unchallenged in the 60's. People had a voice then, and they were unafraid to have it heard. Or was it that they were less lazy than we are today? Everyone complains but no one does anything. It's as if everyone expects someone else to take charge. We see what happens when we sit back and let the powerful become moreso, and yet nothing is done. It might be different individually, but as a whole, we're lazy and self-absorbed. It's happening "over there". It's happening to someone else. When it hits our homes, our families or our pocketbooks, then and only then will we complain. Sadly, I think "I, Me, Mine" is the mindset of today. I think we have less independent media, we are more brainwashed and fooled by the Orwellian language of our own leadership who lie to us shamelessly .Also we feel helpless in the globalized world dominated by a power structure we do not even know about. The worldwide resistance against the Vietnam war came from the TV footage provided by independent war reporters. Today they are "embedded " (i.e. under total control and censored) in the army. Today we do not see the war images unless in very few cases something leaks to the public. As a result the public got more angry about a puppet thrown down a hill by a soldier than about all the war crimes combined. Crimes are not called crimes but "incidents" and the leadership lies about what happens with no shame. The media endorse the govenments in unprecedented sheepish obedience, just incredible. We are affected, aren't we? People lose their homes and retirement portfolios in the "bank crisis". The governments heap up incredible debt in order to bail out banks and fund wars which only serve the interests of the oil and gas industry. Work incomes keep decreasing but the media tell us about how dangerous the bird flu is and alligators in the sewage system. What happened to the mad cow disease, anyway? In the 1980s I was on demonstrations against the Pershing 2 with 200 000 poeple in our then capital. Today only a couple of hundred people can be mobilized for any peace demonstration, it's embarrassing. I don't want to generalize - it's not that the youth does not care but a big part of the young people were brought up thinking they are the center of the universe. In my generation we had many people who only ever thought about their hairdo, too - that cannot be the reason that Joe Public seems to be so unconcerned. I don't know what happened but there is a widespread feeling of helplessness and denial. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 22.10.2008 11:34 |
===
YourValentine wrote:
I don't want to generalize - it's not that the youth does not care but a big part of the young people were brought up thinking they are the center of the universe. In my generation we had many people who only ever thought about their hairdo, too - that cannot be the reason that Joe Public seems to be so unconcerned. I don't know what happened but there is a widespread feeling of helplessness and denial.
===
I think that's the problem. It's not only the youth - indifference jumps the generation gap. You're correct, and I understand, how the media brought horrible images and ideas back from Vietnam but while there have been attempts as suppression re. Iraq, there have also been a lot of despicable scenes shown here. People ARE upset. People ARE pissed off. And people do indeed want these wars to end. BUT they don't want to get involved. It sad but not unusual. When my daughter was in kindergarten, all of the parents from my daughter's class - and I mean ALL - complained about two specific issues every morning when we dropped the kids off and every afternoon when we picked them up. After months of hearing the complaints, I suggested we sit down, as a united force, with the principle and present our concerns. It was like I'd walked into Stepford. There was an instant change in everyone. Suddenly the problems weren't so serious. Suddenly, they could deal with the issues themselves. I pulled my daughter out of that school and have remained very involved with her education since. Most of the others are still in that school and still in denial about this issues. I think that same don't-get-involved attitude is what prevents the majority of people from demanding change. I also think, while the 'credit crisis' has hit some/many personally, it hasn't hit enough. It's still happening 'over there' or to someone else. Very few people are willing to exert the extra time or energy it takes to help someone else. |
| Holly2003 22.10.2008 13:33 |
YV wrote: "Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all," Do we know that? In any event, getting rid of the Taleban in itself is a good thing (even if that wasn't the real reason behind the occupation of Afghanistan). personally, I've always been aganst the war in Iraq and broadly supportive of the war in Afghanistan. If we can[t use our military and economic might to get rid of a hideous cult like the taleban we may as well retreat intro our own borders and shut oursleves off from the rest of the world. However, NATO countries either refuse to send troops or don't send enough so it's left always to the Brits and Americans to carry the can. |
| April 22.10.2008 14:34 |
Guys, if the USA wanted they would have been through with the war in a week. Actually they want or need the war to laundry the dirty money, to have the military complex working or to justify the campaign against terrorism, saying that all the terror comes from that country, or Taliban, or O.B. Laden, who maybe doesn't even exist. The war is a fake. |
| Holly2003 22.10.2008 14:44 |
April wrote:
Guys, if the USA wanted they would have been through with the war in a week.
Just like the USSR in Afghanistan, right? |
| Micrówave 22.10.2008 15:02 |
I guess a better question would be Why can't the Afghani people get their country in order? Instead of herding around in Tribes, realize this is 2008 and we don't need to do that anymore? There has been a civil was there for over 40 years now!! |
| Mr.Jingles 22.10.2008 15:44 |
YourValentine wrote: Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there? Just because Bin Laden might not be there NOW, it doesn't mean he was never there. There's plenty of evidence to prove that Al-Qaeda's training camps before 9/11 were there. Iraq, as well all know is a completely different story. I do certainly agree that the role of the UN and the coalition in Afghanistan hasn't lead to a considerable improvement for Afghanis. |
| April 22.10.2008 16:16 |
The USA would have put the country in order in no time, if that was the aim. They would have found O.B.Laden in any secluded cave or residence with all the inteligence equipment and sources... |
| Winter Land Man 22.10.2008 16:25 |
YourValentine wrote: It's somewhat out of the public eye but "we" have been at war in Afghanistan now for 7 years and people are dying there each day. Our politicians and our media avoid the word "war" because people here have such a dislike against war. They call it "peace mission" or "international intervention" but of course it's a war. In America they are not so sensitive, they have a "war against drugs" and a "war against terror", so the word does not have this bad connotation it has in my country. Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there? Of course it's not about the control of oil and gas pipelines, it's about establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan and helping the people there. Then why is Afghanistan not a peaceful and stable country after 7 years of "intervention"? Why do our soldiers need 90% of their time to protect themselves against attacks on their lives and it's getting worse and not better? How is that supposed to establish any peace and security? When you do the same thing over again with the same result and you do it for the umpteenth time expecting a different result - it's called stupidity. We have no money for schools and universities, we have no money for the poor and unemployed, no money for the children and the sick and old people. We do have billions for bailing out private banks and for this totally useless war. I wonder how long the tax payers will be quiet. It's time that the democracy works for the people and not for banks and oil companies. I don't really see a reason to have war in Afghanistan, or any other country for that matter. They'll probably use the Bin Laden excuse, but I we don't need to throw bombs at countries to find him. I think of the people in those countries that have been invaded, and wonder what'd it be like if my country was invaded by another country and hearing bombs and gun fire all the time. It'd be horrible. |
| YourValentine 23.10.2008 04:14 |
Holly2003 wrote:
In any event, getting rid of the Taleban in itself is a good thing (even if that wasn't the real reason behind the occupation of Afghanistan). personally, I've always been aganst the war in Iraq and broadly supportive of the war in Afghanistan. If we can[t use our military and economic might to get rid of a hideous cult like the taleban we may as well retreat intro our own borders and shut oursleves off from the rest of the world. However, NATO countries either refuse to send troops or don't send enough so it's left always to the Brits and Americans to carry the can.
========================================== I think the Taliban was a terrible regime but war won't save Afghanistan. You can bomb the whole country into rubbles and kill half of the population and the Taliban will still be there. Also, I think it's not our job to get rid of other nation's government - we would have to attack dozens of states if that were the case. All we do is plant more hatred in the Islamic world and we do not fight terror but increase it. War does not solve this problem. I can't understand that developed countries make this same mistake over and over again.It's true that the Taliban refused to extradite Osama Bin Laden and that may have given reason to invade the country in the specific situation after the 9/11 attacks. but 7 years later it's time to stop to run against this wall. And why people do not stand up against this mania - I really don't know. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 23.10.2008 04:41 |
Holly2003 wrote: YV wrote: "Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all," Do we know that? In any event, getting rid of the Taleban in itself is a good thing (even if that wasn't the real reason behind the occupation of Afghanistan). personally, I've always been aganst the war in Iraq and broadly supportive of the war in Afghanistan. If we can[t use our military and economic might to get rid of a hideous cult like the taleban we may as well retreat intro our own borders and shut oursleves off from the rest of the world. However, NATO countries either refuse to send troops or don't send enough so it's left always to the Brits and Americans to carry the can. you hit the nail firmly on the head :-] usually though its the Brits that have to go in and clear up the mess our colonial cousins have caused as my nephew is finding out at the moment in Afghanland.its far worse there than we in civilianland are led to believe |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.10.2008 06:10 |
Micrówave wrote: I think there's a lot more to the conflict in Afghanistan besides an international man-hunt. The country is in absolute shambles and is ruled by an unstable government. Left alone, they could become quite a far greater threat to the world than Iran. This country has a history of civil war, followed by invasions by neighboring countries. Russia, or what's left of it, is not financially solidified enough to take that on themselves, which I guess is the main reason they pulled out in 1988. Now the US led coalition is facing the same problem. We had a global economic failure back then, too. I dunno. Maybe Obama will find Osama. If you look carefully in the history books, you'll find that there are a few countries, Afghanistan and Somalia being the most prominent, where there is *always* a war being waged, usually between rivaling factions, warlords, clans (all different words for the same phenomenon really). Some social scientists speculate that it is to do with semi-nomadic societies based around a limited number of water-sources, which results in them fighting over those water-sources, and basically everything else. Whatever the reason is, war and Afghanistan are about as unseparable as human life and oxygen. |
| john bodega 23.10.2008 07:27 |
Heh... just wait till water availability becomes a problem for the rest of us. The shit will hit the fan. |
| Saif 23.10.2008 10:13 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: If you look carefully in the history books, you'll find that there are a few countries, Afghanistan and Somalia being the most prominent, where there is *always* a war being waged, usually between rivaling factions, warlords, clans (all different words for the same phenomenon really). Some social scientists speculate that it is to do with semi-nomadic societies based around a limited number of water-sources, which results in them fighting over those water-sources, and basically everything else. Whatever the reason is, war and Afghanistan are about as unseparable as human life and oxygen. This is true, I have partial Pashtun/Afghan ancestry on my mother's side and from what I've heard, the Pashtuns are a war-like race. There's a pretty famous story of an Indian author going to Afghanistan to teach at the Kabul University and getting embroiled in a mini-war between rival tribes. He was a linguist and spoke near-fluent Pashtun. Since he was a new arrival, a tribesman offered him lunch and he accepted. The guy then disappeared to slaughter one of his sheep and after a while the professor grew impatient. Then came another guy who insisted that the professor also dine with him. Since he was famished, he agreed but just as he was about to leave with him, the previous guy came back and accused him of betraying his trust by having lunch with a man from another tribe. The same guy vowed to kill him. The professor was scared and asked the other guy what to do, to which he replied, "Don't worry, I'll avenge your death". Instead of arranging his safety, they apparently "sparred" with each other. The guy narrowly escaped. I know it's a lame story, but it's a real one. |
| Poo, again 23.10.2008 11:07 |
Micrówave wrote: I guess a better question would be Why can't the Afghani people get their country in order? Instead of herding around in Tribes, realize this is 2008 and we don't need to do that anymore? There has been a civil was there for over 40 years now!! Ah, so just because they don't share your values and societal structure, they're wrong? They may be a backward country, but in many ways yours is no more civilized. At least Afghanistan doesn't invade others for their natural resources in the name of "democracy". |
| Micrówave 23.10.2008 12:26 |
Poo, again wrote:Micrówave wrote: I guess a better question would be Why can't the Afghani people get their country in order? Instead of herding around in Tribes, realize this is 2008 and we don't need to do that anymore? There has been a civil was there for over 40 years now!!Ah, so just because they don't share your values and societal structure, they're wrong? They may be a backward country, but in many ways yours is no more civilized. At least Afghanistan doesn't invade others for their natural resources in the name of "democracy". Poo, you're showing your niavity, but I'll play along. Afghanistan constantly invades and pushes border disputes. They say its in the name of "religion". They have no working form of government. They say its in the name of "religion" But yes, any country or person that doesn't share MY values and societal (huh?) structure is wrong. So that means all you Q+PR haters are WRONG. Shame on you all. |
| Mr.Jingles 23.10.2008 12:36 |
Poo, again wrote: At least Afghanistan doesn't invade others for their natural resources in the name of "democracy". I would like to know what's Afghanistan's primary natural resource that provides so much wealth to make it worth invading the country (aside from opium poppy of course). |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.10.2008 12:44 |
Poo, again wrote:Micrówave wrote: I guess a better question would be Why can't the Afghani people get their country in order? Instead of herding around in Tribes, realize this is 2008 and we don't need to do that anymore? There has been a civil was there for over 40 years now!!Ah, so just because they don't share your values and societal structure, they're wrong? They may be a backward country, but in many ways yours is no more civilized. At least Afghanistan doesn't invade others for their natural resources in the name of "democracy". It's not often that I say this, but: you are completely right there. |
| YourValentine 23.10.2008 13:41 |
It's about the oil and gas pipelines link |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.10.2008 13:45 |
Mostly. It's about keeping a presence in the Middle East, too. |
| Poo, again 23.10.2008 15:45 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:Poo, again wrote:It's not often that I say this, but: you are completely right there.Micrówave wrote: I guess a better question would be Why can't the Afghani people get their country in order? Instead of herding around in Tribes, realize this is 2008 and we don't need to do that anymore? There has been a civil was there for over 40 years now!!Ah, so just because they don't share your values and societal structure, they're wrong? They may be a backward country, but in many ways yours is no more civilized. At least Afghanistan doesn't invade others for their natural resources in the name of "democracy". I'm glad someone's seeing this from a sane point of view. @ Microwave. Okay, you got me there. You are completely right. Please do not invade me. I have no oil. |
| April 23.10.2008 16:47 |
I am surprised at the amount of the extremely objective people here! Free from propaganda... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 24.10.2008 09:09 |
Why is it every time I decide that I'm going to not bother visiting this place for a while because it's gone to pot I come back only to find some really interesting conversation has started! Damn Murphy and his law.... Anyway, I do want to say one thing with respect to the "indifference" argument that some have spoken about here in regards to my generation. In a lot of cases, what you are calling "indifference" is merely biding time. My generation has donated more volunteer hours to causes like AmeriCorps, The Red Cross and hundreds of localized organizations than any other generation previously. You see, my generation has seen people giving money to charity for years, only to subsequently see that the money was either spent in ways that had nothing to do with the work the charity was supposed to be doing. We aren't blind; and in order to make sure the best use is made of our resources we have developed a strong distaste for giving cash. We'd rather do the work ourselves, give our time, because that can't be mis-managed as easily. As far as the "Protesting" thing goes, you have a point to a certain extent; we do not have the mass amounts of protesting going on as the US had in the 1960's. But you forget one key and fundamental difference: The Draft. In the 1960's, young men were getting called up involuntarily for service overseas in a war. Today, the people who are getting called up are the people who voluntarily joined the armed forces. That is the key reason behind the protests of the 1960's...people didn't have a choice. Nasty as war is, there simply isn't the sympathy now that there used to be, because you signed up for it. You know full well when you go in, even in peacetime, that there is a good chance things will change and you could wind up in a battle zone and dead. I may pity those who have died in this conflict because I don't agree with it, but I can't feel too sorry for you because you knew what you were getting into when you signed up (especially since most of those signing up were doing so in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when it was obvious that we were going to war). That is the major POV I've heard amongst my peers. We also know that fundamental change is needed to the system to prevent things like this from happening again; but fundamental change from the grassroots level is often VERY difficult even if you have the free time to devote to such things. Let's face it, most of my generation doesn't because of school and university and working, etc. We don't want to overthrow democracy in this country, we want to change it to work better. But we know that we can't do that until we get into a position where we can make those changes. So we wait and watch as the older generation (the generation in power now) gets older and older and makes mistake after mistake. We're watching, and we are waiting for our turn. We simply do not see the point in banging one's head against a brick wall for no obvious reason or benefit. Far easier and faster to "wait until the opportune moment" to quote Captain Jack. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.10.2008 10:26 |
===
MasterHistoryGirl wrote:
Anyway, I do want to say one thing with respect to the "indifference" argument that some have spoken about here in regards to my generation...
=== Just to clarify, since I believe I was the one who mentioned 'indifference' originally... I also mentioned how I felt it 'spanned the generation gap'. I don't place blame on one group of people. I think indifference, inactivity, preoccupation, whatever, is a trait shared by many today. No offense intended... but I think/hope you know that MHG. :-) |
| YourValentine 24.10.2008 10:26 |
I totally agree about the drafting aspect. However, in Europe people were not outraged by the death of drafted US soldiers, they were outraged about the mass murder of the Vietnamese population. They were outraged about agent orange poisoning people only to give the American army a better "battle view", they were outraged about napalm bombs when they watched children burning like torches on TV.. All these atrocities were well documented by independent reporters who put their own lives at stakes to deliver the truth *even if it was not in the interest of theiri own government* Since the gulf war 1990 the war pictures are censored. TV teams are "embedded" (i.e. under Army control and censored). The TV is sheepishy repeating the government propaganda and it's much harder for Joe Public to get an educated idea about what is going on. Even the Ramsey Clark report on war crimes in the Bush 1 gulf war is widely unknown inside and outside the USA although it has been published as a book and on the internet. I think people are not outraged because they do not know the extent of the crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have seen on TV how US troops enter civilian homes in Iraq by kicking in the door in the middle of the night but an ex- US officer told me in person that they only do this when they are filmed. When no camera is around they blow up the door with dynamite because it's "safer". As a result many innocent men, women and children are killed or badly wounded in their own homes to provide for this "safety". The soldiers don't do this by themselves, they are ordered to do it. I really do not believe that any generation is less caring or concerned than the previous but it is so much harder for young people today to look through all the garbage they are fed by the media and the government. However, I can see how millions of people do not care about severe violations of human rights, about torture and injustice. It's exactly what happened in my own country in the 1930s. One by one our "leaders" take away civil rights and violate national and international law under the pretense that terrorism is so dangerous. I don't know how to change it, there must be some sort of wake up call.. |
| Micrówave 24.10.2008 11:41 |
I think there's a couple of things in play with regards to the indifference. In today's world, you can simply open a window and see what's going on in a certain part of the world. The internet, love it or hate it, has put it there right in front of us. A six year old could navigate thru it. With that ability, came two things. (1) The ability to slant the simple-minded towards a certain point of view and over time grow that culture, and (2) The ability to click on the hot girls popup and forget about the trouble in the world. Thus, a far less intellegent community begins to decipher the news and base decisions on what they've learned on the internet. They haven't lived thru any of these experiences, they simply went to www.whatever and heard that's the right thing to do. Then you end up with ideas such as 'America is just invading countries because they want to impose their will'. This thought process is usually strong in countries that have endured years of poor foreign policy or lack of stable government. But then you look at their youth and they all want to live like Americans and have malls and rock music. And protest things. |
| Saif 24.10.2008 12:00 |
America is SO imperialistic. FACT! |
| Holly2003 24.10.2008 12:10 |
Saif wrote: America is SO imperialistic. FACT! Your country, India, has just sent some men to the moon, probably to colonise it and steal the moon men's oil. What are you going to do when the Clangers rebel and destroy Chandrayaan 1 with an improvised explosive device? Call Captain Kirk for help I bet. Oh hang on, that's silly. Kirk is dead. I meant Captain Sisko of the USS Defiant. Here's a documentary about the Clangers made by David Attenborough and Steven Hawkins. And Brian May. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s |
| AspiringPhilosophe 24.10.2008 13:01 |
@ Magical, of course no offense was taken!! I was merely pointing out things that I've heard from MANY people of the older generation; complaining that my generation is stupid and lazy and doesn't give a damn. Believe me, there are people in my generation who are like that, but they aren't limited to my generation only. As you said, it spans generations. It's just an argument that I've heard and I am sick of hearing, so when I can I try to put forward different POVS. I know you don't believe that my entire generation is indifferent :-) @Your Valentine you are speaking of generations in Europe and their reaction, so of course I cannot take a stand on that since I have no idea. I can only speak for my generation here. But you (and Microwave, coincidentally) do raise a good point. Information now adays is funneled and manipulated. It's still illegal here to take pictures or video of the returning bodies of soldiers coming back from there, because they were being used to fuel protests against Iraq. But, for what it's worth, I think it's more a result of information overload. We live in a 24 hour news cycle. There is information bombarded at us faster than we can blink, especially with the internet. The human brain simply cannot cope with that kind of bombardment and have it make any kind of sense. So humans natrually try to limit what they are seeing to one place: one news network, one source, etc. That news network (like Fox for example) knows the power they have in this situation, and color things to suite them. CNN and the rest of them are just as bad, but Fox is the most blatently biased example; a 3 year old could tell. This process of limiting your information sources out of neccessity also leads to the laziness which we can see now. It's a self-sustaining cycle. |
| Micrówave 24.10.2008 14:04 |
Saif wrote: America is SO imperialistic. FACT! Gandhi was really a war monger. FACT! |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 24.10.2008 14:11 |
for all the seriousness of this topic [and there is some good points here] i must point out to Holly that i bow down in your presence for introducing the young-uns here to the wonder of my childhood that were 'the Clangers'.just need to get them watching Bagpuss now ;-] *deep bow towards Holly* right,carry on with the serious convo,im going back to The Clangers on youtube now *does the voice of the Soup Dragon and disappears* |
| Poo, again 24.10.2008 16:58 |
They make good drugs in Afghanistan. That's partially why the USA wants to conquer them. The other reason would be that George W. Bush is a bloodthirsty tyrant-vampire with an acquired taste for infant blood and genitalia. The Dark Lord constantly needs new ones to feed upon. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 24.10.2008 21:41 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: for all the seriousness of this topic [and there is some good points here] i must point out to Holly that i bow down in your presence for introducing the young-uns here to the wonder of my childhood that were 'the Clangers'.just need to get them watching Bagpuss now ;-] *deep bow towards Holly* right,carry on with the serious convo,im going back to The Clangers on youtube now *does the voice of the Soup Dragon and disappears* I just clicked on the link....you guys over there in the UK have seriously cute TV shows for kids!! All we have over here is Barney and shit. They look like little ant eaters with mouse ears! :-D |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 25.10.2008 05:14 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote:JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: for all the seriousness of this topic [and there is some good points here] i must point out to Holly that i bow down in your presence for introducing the young-uns here to the wonder of my childhood that were 'the Clangers'.just need to get them watching Bagpuss now ;-] *deep bow towards Holly* right,carry on with the serious convo,im going back to The Clangers on youtube now *does the voice of the Soup Dragon and disappears*I just clicked on the link....you guys over there in the UK have seriously cute TV shows for kids!! All we have over here is Barney and shit. They look like little ant eaters with mouse ears! :-D you think i ended up being this daft on my own accord? us old farts born in the late 60's early 70's had a lot of help being corrupted by BBC childrens tv.i can never get bored with The Clangers *does the clangers whistle voice* |
| Saif 25.10.2008 06:07 |
Holly2003 wrote:Saif wrote: America is SO imperialistic. FACT!Your country, India, has just sent some men to the moon, probably to colonise it and steal the moon men's oil. What are you going to do when the Clangers rebel and destroy Chandrayaan 1 with an improvised explosive device? Call Captain Kirk for help I bet. Oh hang on, that's silly. Kirk is dead. I meant Captain Sisko of the USS Defiant. Here's a documentary about the Clangers made by David Attenborough and Steven Hawkins. And Brian May. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s Micrówave wrote:Saif wrote: America is SO imperialistic. FACT!Gandhi was really a war monger. FACT! Come on, guys! I was obviously being sarcastic. Didn't you see the "FACT!" at the end? Jeez... |
| Poo, again 25.10.2008 06:39 |
You can NEVER be too careful around Americans, Saif. FACT! |
| YourValentine 25.10.2008 07:00 |
MasterHistoryGirl Information now adays is funneled and manipulated. It's still illegal here to take pictures or video of the returning bodies of soldiers coming back from there, because they were being used to fuel protests against Iraq. yes, but does that not bother you? How can they forbid to publish photos? The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution. How is its possible that a so called democratic government violates national and international law in the worst way and the people do not care? We have similar phenomena but at least the government obeys the supreme court who declared dozens of laws unconstitunuonal in the last 3 years, for example about data protection and violation of the privacy of citizen homes. I don't get it. I saw a photo from a war demonstration in Washington and a woman carried a poster saying: "Can't someone please give him a blow job, so we can impeach him". I think that says it all. Even the Congress does not seem to be bothered. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.10.2008 13:06 |
YourValentine wrote:MasterHistoryGirl Information now adays is funneled and manipulated. It's still illegal here to take pictures or video of the returning bodies of soldiers coming back from there, because they were being used to fuel protests against Iraq.yes, but does that not bother you? How can they forbid to publish photos? The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution. How is its possible that a so called democratic government violates national and international law in the worst way and the people do not care? We have similar phenomena but at least the government obeys the supreme court who declared dozens of laws unconstitunuonal in the last 3 years, for example about data protection and violation of the privacy of citizen homes. I don't get it. I saw a photo from a war demonstration in Washington and a woman carried a poster saying: "Can't someone please give him a blow job, so we can impeach him". I think that says it all. Even the Congress does not seem to be bothered. Of course it bothers me; but I also know that I can't do a thing about it to change it. The only way it's going to get changed is if the next President has the power to be able to revoke some of the more right-trampling parts of the Patriot Act. Freedom of Speech in the US has never meant the freedom to say anything you want. The "yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" example comes to mind, but even farther back than that there are examples. If speech were truly free, there would be no laws against treason or slander or libel. You are free to say whatever you want, but saying certain things can get you into trouble. It is the same way in your country; if someone threatens to kill someone they can be brought up on charges. Therefore, there is no true freedom of speech, in any country. As far as the Congress goes; I'll agree to a certain extent that they can't seem to be bothered. But it's a complex problem. They do not have the majority needed to impeach him. Trust me, the Democrats have been wanting that for years, but they simply don't have the clout. The Republican minority is too large and can block any impeachment process. You only need a simple majority in the House to pass Articles of Impeachment, and while there is a simple majority of Democrats in the house right now not all of them would sign on to impeachment legislation (for various reasons). Even if they could get the articles passed, it takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict, and there is no where near this number of Democrats in the Senate. Maybe after the next cycle of elections they'll have the majority where they could do it, but it will be too late by then; Bush will be out. Besides, even if they could start impeachment proceedings tomorrow, why bother? He's gone in 3 months; it would take that long just to run the investigation to produce the evidence needed for the trial. And with the fiscal meltdown, they are a bit busy anyway trying to make sure the economy doesn't go belly up on all of us. *edit* And if they could impeach Bush, that would leave us with Cheney as the President. And NO ONE wants that. That's probably the biggest reason no one has impeached him; he's better than the alternative! |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 25.10.2008 20:20 |
Man, I wish I knew a lot about the war so I could talk with you guys! It all sounds very interesting! Some of my teachers at school start mentioning war, but they go on about how we shouldn't join and how it's all Bush's fault and the fact that we're all just gonna die in war. We're never encouraged to speak up. None of my questions are ever answered, but you guys have answered some of them! Thank you! If I was better informed and if I had enough time (I have so much work to get done!), I would definitely start rallying against the war, writing letters, anything to get my opinions heard. But, I cannot at the moment. Instead, I stuck at home wasting my time with useless and stupid projects like the one I have for math. |
| YourValentine 26.10.2008 05:29 |
Maggie wrote: Of course it bothers me; but I also know that I can't do a thing about it to change it. The only way it's going to get changed is if the next President has the power to be able to revoke some of the more right-trampling parts of the Patriot Act. Freedom of Speech in the US has never meant the freedom to say anything you want. The "yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" example comes to mind, but even farther back than that there are examples. If speech were truly free, there would be no laws against treason or slander or libel. You are free to say whatever you want, but saying certain things can get you into trouble. It is the same way in your country; if someone threatens to kill someone they can be brought up on charges. Therefore, there is no true freedom of speech, in any country. =================== Yes, of course there are restrictions like treason. In work life you cannot speak up to your boss the way to like to for fear of your job etc But forbidding to publish pictures of the caskets of soldiers is abuse of power. The only reason to forbid these pictures is to keep people from seeing the truth and there should be an outcry. It's not that the Iraqui troops will conquer Washington DC as a result of publishing the pictures, it's only to manipulate the people and the truth is that it is very easy to manipulate the people. Please do not believe that the next president gives you back your citizen rights. Citizen rights are not given as a present by the powers, you have to fight for them, it has always been that way. Right now we have an example in Europe: the EU commissions suggests that passengers should be x-rayed on airports before boarding a plane. Security people can then see the passenger nude and any "hidden object can be detected". Even Orwell did not come up with such an outrageous idea. It won't happen in Germany where everybody vetoed the idea: churches, unions, political parties, civil rights organisations but in Zurich they are already tested. There must be boycotts and resistance to get rid of this shameless attack on the peoples' rights. @StoneColdClassic Queen Make up your own mind, other people do not know more than you, either. Always ask yourself who is profiting from what your governmentmt does and always try to step into the shoe of the "other side" - for example ask yourself how you would feel as a Christian if Muslims would take war into your country because of the acts commited by some fundamentalists etc. Mainly - do not be afraid to change your mind about things if you get more information and do not be afraid to say that. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 26.10.2008 12:06 |
YourValentine wrote: Maggie wrote: Of course it bothers me; but I also know that I can't do a thing about it to change it. The only way it's going to get changed is if the next President has the power to be able to revoke some of the more right-trampling parts of the Patriot Act. Freedom of Speech in the US has never meant the freedom to say anything you want. The "yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" example comes to mind, but even farther back than that there are examples. If speech were truly free, there would be no laws against treason or slander or libel. You are free to say whatever you want, but saying certain things can get you into trouble. It is the same way in your country; if someone threatens to kill someone they can be brought up on charges. Therefore, there is no true freedom of speech, in any country. =================== Yes, of course there are restrictions like treason. In work life you cannot speak up to your boss the way to like to for fear of your job etc But forbidding to publish pictures of the caskets of soldiers is abuse of power. The only reason to forbid these pictures is to keep people from seeing the truth and there should be an outcry. It's not that the Iraqui troops will conquer Washington DC as a result of publishing the pictures, it's only to manipulate the people and the truth is that it is very easy to manipulate the people. Please do not believe that the next president gives you back your citizen rights. Citizen rights are not given as a present by the powers, you have to fight for them, it has always been that way. Right now we have an example in Europe: the EU commissions suggests that passengers should be x-rayed on airports before boarding a plane. Security people can then see the passenger nude and any "hidden object can be detected". Even Orwell did not come up with such an outrageous idea. It won't happen in Germany where everybody vetoed the idea: churches, unions, political parties, civil rights organisations but in Zurich they are already tested. There must be boycotts and resistance to get rid of this shameless attack on the peoples' rights. @StoneColdClassic Queen Make up your own mind, other people do not know more than you, either. Always ask yourself who is profiting from what your governmentmt does and always try to step into the shoe of the "other side" - for example ask yourself how you would feel as a Christian if Muslims would take war into your country because of the acts commited by some fundamentalists etc. Mainly - do not be afraid to change your mind about things if you get more information and do not be afraid to say that. I'd have to be completely daft to think that the next President is going to "hand back" our rights. And believe me, I'm not daft. But I'm also not stupid enough to try and fight the fight with the current administration in power. Again, the issue of "banging ones head against a brick wall" comes to mind. Fighting for an issue is only effective if the other side is willing to be persuaded; this administration is NOT. It's been the modus operendi of the Republican party since 9-11: Anyone who isn't in full support of what we do is against us. And anyone who is against us is a terrorist. But the brilliant thing is, that kind of thinking is forceful and strong. Believe me, there were protests of the kind that you want to see in the 2006-early 2008 time. But there were too many people in power who were still in the "with us or against us" camp. The drawback of this kind of thinking is that it's generally very short lived. People soon enough begin to see how short-sighted and flawed it us, and how easily corrupted for other uses. That's what the last round of Legislature elections accomplished: Republicans were voted out by the boat loads. That was the wake up call to those still in power that the people wouldn't tolerate this any longer. The problem was that there were not enough seats up for re-election to gaurantee total Democratic control in any circumstance; there were only enough seats up for grabs to give them a simple majority (and you need more than that to enact any kind of massive change). Plus, under the current administration, the power of the executive branch has grown FAR beyond it's intended bounds, and the Supreme Court (who would interpret when the line had been crossed) was evenly split between these two parties. That's why this presidential election is so important: There will likely be at least 1, if not up to 3 Supreme Court Justices to appoint. If we get a repeat of the current ways of thinking in the administration, guess which side they will pick to fill those holes? Then they'll have the power of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch; no Legislative power could trump these two if they combined. Thus, this election is of paramount importance in this issue, because the party that gets voted in will determine if restoration of rights is even possible. But these simple minded, "with us or against us" people still exist, and like it or not they can make life very difficult for you. Sure, I could have stood up on my soap box in my courses, preaching against the evils of the current administration, and continued to do so even as a volunteer with the government. Two things stopped me: 1) Success would never happen, because I am only one person and it would take much more than just me to do it. As I said earlier, success can only happen if the opposing side is open (or can be made open) to persuasion. Not exactly a strong characteristic of this administration 2) Fighting this unsuccessful fight would permanently damage my life. Let's face it, they may not lock me up and ship me somewhere overseas, but they can make it impossible for me to find a job, to pay my bills, or to get other benefits. If there was a possibility this administration could be persuaded, then the fight would be worth it. But there isn't, and quite frankly I don't intend to throw away everything I've done in my life to this point trying to be Sisyphus. There are better and smarter ways to accomplish what you want. It starts out by getting an administration in that agrees that there is no excuse to revoke rights of the people. Then the work can begin, safer and with far better odds of success. |
| Micrówave 27.10.2008 11:28 |
Your Valentine wrote: How can they forbid to publish photos? The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution blah blah blah C'mon Barb. Let's not start the Bush/America sucks joke series again. Which is what you're trying to do. Your country, like mine, has always had a "set of rules" when it comes to this. Think about it for a moment. There are quite a few reasons I CAN CLEARLY SEE for not publishing photos like this: 1. PROPAGANDA (Yes, even Germany has been known to play it) - If there is footage of dead soldiers coming off the planes, that film can be used by ANYONE... including the nation that you're at war with. They, in turn, use it as fuel for their cause. "We're winning the war, the Americans will soon be defeated". Remember that Saddam speech? 2. FAMILY PRIVACY - Family members of fallen soldiers are not flown to Baghdad or Kabul to let them view the body first. How would you like to see your dead brother rolling accross the TV screen before you've had a chance to (1) see it or (2) not want it published. Doesn't the family have the right to privacy? 3. RECRUITING - Every country needs an Army, Barbara. Sorry, but that's the world we live in. How do you boost your troop recruiting if those videos are shown every day? Should we play body footage before or after an Army commercial? 4. DECENCY - Why stop at soldier's bodies? Why not start showing burn victims? Why didn't we do a close up on the arm that was found at Ground Zero and then do a story about the man it belonged to... all the while showing his detatched arm in the right upper corner? "Today there was a fatality on I-35. Here's some footage of the rescue team prying the decapitated body from the car". C'mon Barb, what kind of TV do you wanna watch? No, Barbara, George Bush and our government are not stepping on anybody's constitutional right, but that was a nice try. |
| Mr.Jingles 27.10.2008 12:18 |
Poo, again wrote: You can NEVER be too careful around Americans, Saif. FACT! Neither around left wing nuts, like the bloodthirsty fucktard on your avatar. |
| YourValentine 27.10.2008 12:27 |
"C'mon" - we are talking about caskets and not dead or mutiliated bodies. Where is family privacy violated when all caskets look the same? Why is it allowed to show these pictures in my country? (German soldiers die in Afghanistan, too). There was not such sensitivity when Saddam Hussein's dead sons were shown off on TV in unprecedented lack of decency. I suppose that was in the interest of US security? Guess what - it was not. It only bred more fighters for the "holy war". @ Maggie - I was not suggesting that you should start a one-woman campaign against your government :) My point is: I simply have no explanation why people do not stand up against this useless war - in my country as well as in yours. |
| Micrówave 27.10.2008 15:06 |
Well that Sons Of Hussein campaign was pretty low. We were scoreboarding, plain and simple. I would not have gone that route. That upset a lot of people, including me. But "C'mon". You really want to roll out casket footage? THAT is the answer to all this? I seem to remember seeing that from wars past and it didn't help. Has it ever occured to you that maybe this IS the right course of action just the wrong way of going about it? I think we should be at a heightened military alert, if not "at war". I guess 7 years is a long time to remember what really "escaladed" this. Note: I didn't say "start". If my safety means we have to go out there and rid the world of evil clerics and rogue nuclear sciences, then for Christ sake let's do it. War is never pretty. People are always going to protest. But rolling casket footage isn't going to change anything. And I don't think someone actually drafted some memo somewhere banning casket footage just to trample our basic human rights. And while we're counting... since this "useless war" started how many buildings have been levelled in the US due to terrorist bombings since 2001? That's right, zero. So I wouldn't call it exactly "useless". But this thread isn't about casket footage, so I apologize for going off course a bit. |
| YourValentine 27.10.2008 16:05 |
I believe that you would bomb other countries to rubble for "your safety" but you know - that won't save your kids from drive by shootings or school yard massacres. How many US buildings were "levelled" before 2001? And how many buildings were "levelled" elsewhere in the world? |
| Micrówave 27.10.2008 17:07 |
Actually, I taught my kid to be very fast on the draw. Remember, I'm in Texas. We do the drive by shootings. You still haven't explained how rolling casket footage is going to do anything. All you can do is retort and assume I would bomb other countries. No, Barb, I wouldn't personally bomb other countries... but I have gotten bombed in other countries, is that close? Can you back your rolling casket footage stance or not? I don't think you can. In fact, I think your answer will go one of three ways: (a) A short-sighted Texas witicism (b) A "I'm too above you" to reply approach, or (c) You'll bring up some other human rights violation of America's that you saw on Amnesty International to avoid the issue you brought up. Remember, this was a thread about Afghanistan and you steered it towards a "The US has no regards for the constitution". |
| Micrówave 27.10.2008 17:20 |
You really have no clue what's going on in Afghanistan, do you? If you did, you would know it's history of uncertainty. You once started a thread that George Bush is making the world more dangerous. Wake up and look at countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, just about any country named Stan. Those are the countries that are making the world more dangerous. And where is most of there military knowledge coming from? The former Soviet Republic. When it dissolved, everything went up for sale to the highest bidder. Now am I sitting around blaming Gorbachev? Of course not. That was only one player. Germany is just as guilty about nuclear security as Russia. Even the U.S. has had it's share. |
| Poo, again 27.10.2008 17:54 |
Oh please. George W. Bush is just as much a terrorist as Osama is. Bush is also a liar, while Osama is at least truthful and honest with his intentions. Where were the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Al-Qaida in Iraq? Terrorism? Those things were nowhere to be found in Iraq during Saddam's reign. And now? How's that civil war going nowadays, I wonder? Well done, Mr. President. You've managed to fuck up Iraq more than Saddam would in a hundred lifetimes. Ah, the things we do in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". I'm in no way defending Saddam, but compared to Bush, he was most certainly the lesser of two evils. |
| Mr.Jingles 27.10.2008 19:20 |
Micrówave wrote: You really have no clue what's going on in Afghanistan, do you? If you did, you would know it's history of uncertainty. You once started a thread that George Bush is making the world more dangerous. Wake up and look at countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, just about any country named Stan. Those are the countries that are making the world more dangerous. I guess you can explain to us how the world is safer and less dangerous since Bush took office. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.10.2008 19:40 |
@ Microwave: Careful here. Your line about "How many buildings have been leveled since 2001" doesn't mean crap. It's illogical, and it's an unprovable point. That's the same line of thinking the Republicans have been using to keep the fear in society and keep themselves in power..."If you don't re-elect us, they'll attack us again. We've prevented another 9-11" That's not true and can't be proven, because it would require proving that another 9-11 caliber event was planned and attempted to be executed, and that it was stopped solely because of actions of the government using the powers given to them only through the Patriot Act. It's quite possible (and even more likely IMHO) that 9-11 was the big blow. It took all a good chunk of their resources (money, etc), and now they can't coordinate centrally like they did in Afghanistan to plot another one. I won't deny that the Patriot Act has helped in ways, but it's not the sole cause. So don't use that as "proof" of anything, because all it is is proof of nothing. |
| Micrówave 28.10.2008 11:12 |
In no way did I say the Republicans or Democrats caused anything. I'm talking about the country as a whole. Suicide bombings did not begin with Bush, Clinton, or even Ford. Obviously as technology grows, so does the ways and means to kill. By the way, 9/11 is Clinton's legacy. From the first Twin Towers bombing, to the embassy, to the USS Cole,..Clinton did nothing. The hijackers were planning for years. So you're saying that there's no way to proove that it's safer here from foreign acts of terrorism in the U.S. since 2001? Actually, there is. Read a paper. Watch the news. That wasn't the L.A. Marriott that got bombed. And it's surely a lot easier to purchase, make, and drive around with bomb making materials here than say Columbia or Sri Lanka. But you go on believing that the Afghanistan problem is a Republican issue. Tell the Russians that. Reagan WAS in power then, it must have been a secret Republican Intellegence thing that started this whole thing. Once Obama is in, there will mysteriously be peace in the world. Gosh, I hope so!! |
| Micrówave 28.10.2008 11:15 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Micrówave wrote: You really have no clue what's going on in Afghanistan, do you? If you did, you would know it's history of uncertainty. You once started a thread that George Bush is making the world more dangerous. Wake up and look at countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, just about any country named Stan. Those are the countries that are making the world more dangerous.I guess you can explain to us how the world is safer and less dangerous since Bush took office. Better yet, you show me a 4 year span where the murder rate went down... or a rape count went down. Dude, as population grows, crime grows. Kinda basic math. More people are gonna die... because there are more people in the world. Airplane crashes 50 years ago didn't kill 300 people because they couldn't make planes that held 300 people. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.10.2008 12:29 |
Micrówave wrote:Mr.Jingles wrote:Better yet, you show me a 4 year span where the murder rate went down... or a rape count went down. Dude, as population grows, crime grows. Kinda basic math. More people are gonna die... because there are more people in the world. Airplane crashes 50 years ago didn't kill 300 people because they couldn't make planes that held 300 people.Micrówave wrote: You really have no clue what's going on in Afghanistan, do you? If you did, you would know it's history of uncertainty. You once started a thread that George Bush is making the world more dangerous. Wake up and look at countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, just about any country named Stan. Those are the countries that are making the world more dangerous.I guess you can explain to us how the world is safer and less dangerous since Bush took office. That's why there's per capita statistics. Even still, crime by numbers in the U.S. reached a peak in the early 90s, and has been going down ever since, with a slight rise since Bush took office. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm So, there you have it. |
| Micrówave 28.10.2008 14:04 |
Well, unless I'm reading it wrong, Violent Crimes and Vehichle thefts have gone DOWN during the BUSH years. But that's really petty, isn't it? I don't think George Bush stopped carjackers. This thread is about AFGHANISTAN, which got turned into the U.S. trampling on the right to free speech and then into it's the Republican party's fault for the world going to hell. I've yet to see any evidence pointed out of that. Yours, Jingles, does not. Pretty inconclusive if you ask me. How this ties all back to Afghanistan is beyond me. But then, Barbara, who originally hijacked the thread, has yet to reply. I'm not trying to offend, it just seems a lot of people are drinking the Democratic Obama Kool Aid. Every four years, it becomes the most important election ever. Things will be different after that. I can't wait for all of you to come back here in six months saying "See? I told you so!!! Things |
| Micrówave 28.10.2008 14:17 |
Here's Jingles' chart broken down for BUSH. YEAR, President, Total Crimes, Violent Crimes, Property Crimes, Murder 1999, CLINTON, 11,644,378.....1,426,044.....10,208,334.....15,522 2007, BUSH, 11,251,828.....1,408,337.....9,843,481.....16,929 while the population increased by 29 million people. Some are up, some are down. Did the President or his politcal party really have to do with any of that? |
| Mr.Jingles 28.10.2008 18:13 |
Micrówave wrote: This thread is about AFGHANISTAN... ...but you are the one who asked for proof that murder and rape rate went down, so I gave it to you. The problem with having a discussion with you, is that even when you're given solid proof to show that you're wrong, you're still willing to prove that you're right. As far as I know, nobody here is drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. I want to see the actual quotes from anyone in this board saying that Obama will turn this country around the good in 4 years. From what I know, a good majority of people will pick Obama NOT so much based on believing that he's the ideal candidate, but mostly based on the fact that people are strongly skeptical about having another Republican in office, and they are willing to give the chance to someone who offers a different kind of policy. The Bush administration was given 8 years to do something good for this country, and they failed so miserably that even McCain himself is keeping the distance from them. The numbers don't lie, around 75% of Americans dissaprove what Bush has done with this country, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it's hurting his own party. I personally find it sad that Republicans didn't give John McCain the opportunity to run for office back in 2000, because he might be one of the very few politicians who are willing to bring both parties together instead of turning Washington into a tug of war. However, while McCain was quick to criticize Bush for his ties to the ultra conservative far-right back in the 2000 primaries, he was also quick to jump on the bandwagon of support when Bush got the nomination, as well when he was seeking re-election in 2004. That being said, I have to give Ron Paul kudos for standing by his own beliefs, and not being willing to endorse anyone, even those of his own party. Regardless of who wins next week, I have no doubt that either one would be a better President than Bush. How much better, is a question that we'd have to wait 4 years along the way to look back and see. If McCain wins, let's just pray he doesn't croak, otherwise we'd be in much deeper shit than we are right now. |
| Micrówave 28.10.2008 18:30 |
Mr. Jingles wrote: but you are the one who asked for proof that murder and rape rate went down, so I gave it to you. Yes, you gave proof that the rate went down... DURING the Bush Administration. I don't think you were trying to do that, but it is you who proved me right. ABOUT IT NOT BEING BUSH'S FAULT, OR CLINTON'S, OR CARTER'S, ETC. Presidents and parties don't affect the crime rate. Remember, Bush has had a Democrat controlled congress and THEY pass the laws. All a president can do is Veto them, but even that can be overridden. Actually, I still don't see how this world is so much unsafer now. We've yet to substantiate that. All I know is our ships aren't being bombed, are buildings are not being razed, and minor terror threats in this country seem to be pretty well sniffed out. Other countries, I don't know. But then, I'm planning to bomb and raid them, apparently, so it doesn't matter. My whole point is, as yours seems to be, is that no one party is going to fix everything... you're right about that. But everytime we have a good debate, it all goes back to Bush. It's about as tired as Queen isn't Queen without Freddie. Maybe if there was a forum created for Q+PR and Bush/America bashing, I would avoid that section and some people could have nice long pointless conversations. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.10.2008 18:53 |
Micrówave wrote: In no way did I say the Republicans or Democrats caused anything. I'm talking about the country as a whole. Suicide bombings did not begin with Bush, Clinton, or even Ford. Obviously as technology grows, so does the ways and means to kill. By the way, 9/11 is Clinton's legacy. From the first Twin Towers bombing, to the embassy, to the USS Cole,..Clinton did nothing. The hijackers were planning for years. So you're saying that there's no way to proove that it's safer here from foreign acts of terrorism in the U.S. since 2001? Actually, there is. Read a paper. Watch the news. That wasn't the L.A. Marriott that got bombed. And it's surely a lot easier to purchase, make, and drive around with bomb making materials here than say Columbia or Sri Lanka. But you go on believing that the Afghanistan problem is a Republican issue. Tell the Russians that. Reagan WAS in power then, it must have been a secret Republican Intellegence thing that started this whole thing. Once Obama is in, there will mysteriously be peace in the world. Gosh, I hope so!! Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You cannot prove that we are safer now from foreign terrorist attacks than before 9-11. The evidence you try to use (news, reading papers, etc.) doesn't prove that we are safer; it merely proves that we haven't had one since 9-11. Just because we haven't had one doesn't mean we are safer. It's like a heart attack. Just because you haven't had one doesn't mean you are safe from ever having one. Proving that we are safer than we were before 9-11 is impossible because it would require proof of the existence of all terrorist threats against us (both carried out and just in the planning stages) before 9-11 and since 9-11, including ones we don't know about. It would also require you to prove that the ones we've caught since 9-11 would NOT have been caught had 9-11 not happened. You cannot prove that, because it requires time travel in the future to make sure the threat would have been carried out had 9-11 not happened. I never said Afghanistan was a Republican issue; we all (Democrats, Republicans, everyone) dropped the ball with Afghanistan. What I fault is the Republican (i.e. John McCain's) insistence that the front line of the War on Terror is in Iraq. It was never in Iraq; it's a front all right, but we made it one when we de-stablized everything and let the radicals move in. I'm not condoning Saddam or his activities, but Islamic Radicals weren't active in his country when he was in power, because he persecuted them (contrary to popular belief, he was not an Islamic Radical; they hated him as much as we hate them). The front is not in Iraq now either...it's hiding out somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan because we never finished the job there. If we want to truly be victorious against the Islamic Radicals, we need to focus there instead of Iraq. Consequently I also think we can't win the war solely by military means anyway. Islamic Radicalism is an idea; an idea is an inanimate object and can't be killed. Sure, you can try and kill everyone who has the idea, but all you do is make enemies in the process and martyrs for the cause, which makes the idea spread. We need to be smarter than this to defeat this, and so far the strategy of throwing soldiers and bombs at it until it goes away has only cost men and women their lives on all sides, and we are no closer to defeating the idea. |
| Micrówave 29.10.2008 12:26 |
Brilliantly put, especially that last paragraph. That's what it's gonna take, outside-the-box strategy. I have yet to see anything out there that closely resembles that. |
| QueenMercury46 30.10.2008 20:29 |
Afghanistan hasn't changed for the past 1029383492 years and they're not going to anytime soon. There is not a point in hoping that we can help them embrace democracy, they don't give a shit. I also believe there is no point in sitting down and having a tea party with those crazy bastards and trying to end this war with conversation. It will accomplish nothing. So therefore I'm not quite sure what should be done. Those are just my thoughts. You can disagree if you want but I don't feel like arguing. I'm too young anyways so I'll admit I don't know much. |
| Sergei. 30.10.2008 20:59 |
QueenMercury46 wrote: Afghanistan hasn't changed for the past 1029383492 years and they're not going to anytime soon. There is not a point in hoping that we can help them embrace democracy, they don't give a shit. I also believe there is no point in sitting down and having a tea party with those crazy bastards and trying to end this war with conversation. It will accomplish nothing. So therefore I'm not quite sure what should be done. Those are just my thoughts. You can disagree if you want but I don't feel like arguing. I'm too young anyways so I'll admit I don't know much.I agree actually. All these politicians who think that "All we have to do is talk to them" need to get their head out of their asses. Do they really believe that sitting down with fucking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il and telling them, "Let's get along! Let's not make threats of nuclear war--Let's break down them barriers and be FRIENDS!" will actually do anything? No. Those stupid sumbitches will go back to their goddamn gilded palaces and walled-in sanctuaries while the people of their countries suffer and fester, and won't do a thing. -_- |