PDA

View Full Version : Cheney's Hunting Incident


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Huker
02-15-2006, 07:34 PM
I was careful not to call it an accident.

What are people's thoughts on the matter? Personally, I am skeptical that it was accidental at all. On top of that, the facts are a little iffy. I have more reading to do on it, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on a discussion.

We'll see if Cheney even gets manslaughter.

Opinions???

Michael O'Brien
02-15-2006, 07:52 PM
I was careful not to call it an accident.

What are people's thoughts on the matter? Personally, I am skeptical that it was accidental at all. On top of that, the facts are a little iffy. I have more reading to do on it, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on a discussion.

We'll see if Cheney even gets manslaughter.

Opinions???

First off, from everything I have read, including parts of the investigation performed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department there is no reason to refer to it as anything other than an *ACCIDENT*.

Also, why would you feel the need to be skeptical? Does VP Cheney have a reason to kill this man you would like to share with us? If he did have a reason to want him dead I'm also thinking he could come with a better way than this.

Secondly, how do you propose he gets a manslaughter charge?
NO ONE IS DEAD! Which happens to be a prerequiste to be charged with manslaughter.

The one thing I can agree with is that you have more reading you need to do.

Don_Modesto
02-15-2006, 07:59 PM
I was careful not to call it an accident.

What are people's thoughts on the matter? Personally, I am skeptical that it was accidental at all. On top of that, the facts are a little iffy. I have more reading to do on it, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on a discussion.

We'll see if Cheney even gets manslaughter.

Opinions???

Um...to get manslaughter, the victim would have to die.

Personally, I'd rather Cheney get got for treason (betraying agents in the field), crimes against humanity (torture, war-mongering), crimes against civil liberties, incompetence (9.11, Katrina), lying to the American people and Congress, or unalloyed greed and corruption--can you say, "No-bid contracts?"

Geez, comedians couldn't make this stuff up if they tried.

No, I don't think the VP--slimy, venal, vindictive, vicious, lying, treasonous, greedy, shameless bastard that he is--meant to shoot the dude.

For a more temperate opinion, try:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=59068

Huker
02-15-2006, 08:33 PM
Hmm, such hostility.

Ok, here goes:

You're right, someone does have to die for a manslaughter charge to apply. But that would be the "we'll see" part of my original post. This does imply that I expect Whittington to die. He did get shot in the chest and neck. Then, somehow, the birdshot migrated to his heart triggering what many news sources call a mild heart attack.

As for skeptical -- I've been so ever since I opened my eyes and started actually reading about 9/11. This is all a chain of events. As for a reason why someone would deliberately shoot this Texas lawyer, I do not yet know. Maybe he was going to blow the whistle on something. Maybe he knew too much about something the neocons didn't want him to know so much about. Maybe he was involved in a case they didnt' want him involved in. Maybe it was an accident. Nothing says experienced hunter and NRA member like not pointing your gun at the ground and hunting while under the influence. Butterfingers.

Don, they got Al Capone on tax evasion of all things. I'm sure many would have preferred different, but that's the way it went. My point was that I'm sure he won't get jailtime. If the heart attack is what kills him, then it would give Cheney a way out of punishment. That would make it awefully convenient, no?

Just my thoughts.

Michael O'Brien
02-15-2006, 09:00 PM
His gun wasn't pointed at the ground; He was shooting at a bird approximately 30 yards away from all reports I have seen.

Also, I am an NRA member and no, I don't hunt while drinking or after drinking, but I do know people that do, so it happens. I have also been "peppered" with bird shot while hunting dove and quail by other "experienced" hunters so that happens as well.

Thank goodness I have never had an experience such as this one and hopefully I never will but from firsthand hunting experience myself I know how a situation could happen.

Everything isn't a conspiracy and sometimes an accident is really an accident.

Mashu
02-15-2006, 10:05 PM
I bet that lawyer is wishing they had been fly fishing instead right about now.

James Smithe
02-15-2006, 10:30 PM
What a dumbass he's at least 65 years old, has a heart condition and he's out hunting with his buddies. I was cracking up when I first saw this on the news. Cheney you're too old for this mess.

ramenboy
02-15-2006, 10:43 PM
just like the way the bush administration has been run for the last how many years...ready. fire. aim.

Huker
02-16-2006, 07:02 AM
I like the analogy, Jerome. It fits so well!!

Huker
02-16-2006, 07:32 AM
In response to Michael's post:

You're right in saying that not everything is a conspiracy. It is also safe to say that some things are a conspiracy. After all that has happened since 9-11, how can someone not question their every move? At the very least it would only be prudent to do so.

From a lot of the reports I've read, it sounds as though Cheney shot while turning, which he would have had to do to hit a fellow 30 yards away. This is another amateur move. Sounds like Cheney wanted to be a gunslinger instead of VP. On top of that, you typically lead a bird rather than fire directly at it. These things beg the question: how could he have not seen Whittington?

In addition, bird shot isn't very effective at 30 yards. I've been hunting a number of times and have rarely seen a bird die or take any substantial damage from a more powerful 12 gauge (Cheney was using a 28 gauge, I believe) at distances greater than 30-40 ft. At a range like that you might get a wing or something and have to reload. Also, damage is not localized to a 1ft radius at 30 yards when using a conventional shotgun. No way.

Again, the information doesn't add up very well. Given the track record of the Bush admin and that very little of this makes any sense, my logical conclusion is that someone isn't telling the truth. The possibility exists that it was an accident. Thus far, that situation sounds improbable.

Any more opinions?

SeiserL
02-16-2006, 08:59 AM
Some of you have much higher opinions of humans than I do. I don't think everything everyone does is a conscious conspiracy with malintent. Some things, most things, IMHO, are just accidents because we are all very imperfect human beings in an imperfect world.

Those who have never made a mistake and hurt a friend, pick up your stones.

Get over it and get back to training.

Taliesin
02-16-2006, 09:37 AM
To me it seems likely that it was an accident - the VP is far too busy with all his other work , lying the the American public, inciting torture, abusing Constitutional rights and Civil Liberties, giving money to his campaign contributors, etc to try and shoot the guy.

A more serious question is - if that sort of carelessness is 'just something that happens' shouldn't there be more control over sales of 'sporting guns'

Hogan
02-16-2006, 09:52 AM
I want to congratulate all the Bush/Cheney haters / conspiracy theorists who have waited for several days until bashing him for this as well. I expected to see the hate the day it was annouced - so congrats.

Ron Tisdale
02-16-2006, 10:07 AM
Hi John, I considered posting a joke about the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, but decided against it. I think because it's so obvious, it wouldn't really have any punch. Frankly, the administration does such a good job of giving us amunition, we don't even have to dig very much.

Best,
Ron ;)

ramenboy
02-16-2006, 10:28 AM
......the administration does such a good job of giving us amunition, we don't even have to dig very much...

ron, as always, very well put.

lynn,
yes, we're all human and imperfect. but when certain people try to position themselves above everyone else, and try to put themselves above law, its IS something when THEY make a mistake and try to play it down, or in this case, try to pretend nothing happened for 2 days.

i don't see anyone casting stones. i see people being amused by a bumbling administration

oh, and tanner,
i'm right there with ya!!!!! ha!

and now back to our regularly scheduled keiko :D

Ron Tisdale
02-16-2006, 10:48 AM
MMMMMmmmmmmmm, keiko.

Best,
RT :)

Josh Reyer
02-16-2006, 11:11 AM
I'm not a fan of the current Administration, but I find it hard to believe that if someone wanted Whittington dead they would sic the Vice President on him with birdshot.

Ron Tisdale
02-16-2006, 11:15 AM
:) Yeah...that whole idea just kind of boggles the mind...but then again, look at some of the other snaffus. They sent Scooter Libby after what's-his-faces wife. ;) And he didn't even have bird shot...

Best,
Ron

James Davis
02-16-2006, 11:54 AM
If you want to kill someone on a hunting trip and make it look like an accident, go hunting for bear. If you want to kill a guy and keep it a secret, don't send the VP (surrounded by secret service agents and accompanied by an ambulance close by) to do the deed. :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
02-16-2006, 12:09 PM
I don't think everything everyone does is a conscious conspiracy with malintent. Some things, most things, IMHO, are just accidents because we are all very imperfect human beings in an imperfect world.

Those who have never made a mistake and hurt a friend, pick up your stones.

I want to congratulate all the Bush/Cheney haters / conspiracy theorists who have waited for several days until bashing him for this as well. I expected to see the hate the day it was annouced - so congrats.

Oh, please. Even tho this story has been vastly overreported, IMO: you're both forgetting something vital...we're not just talking about some average Joe hunting overdomesticated game, from the comfy safety of his car... :eek: ...we're talking about the Veep, here. The last veep who shot someone was Alexander Hamilton.

And some of the elements of this story are more than a little disturbing:

1. The Bush House waited so long (12 hrs) to report the story;
2. No apology seems forthcoming, even tho the Veep did not have the appropriate permits or seemed to follow basic safety rules;
3. The whole "hunt-from-my-car" business seems disturbing, but right in character for a man who organized an energy task force composed of his oil-cronies.

All the elements...the secrecy, the casual disregard for safety, the concern for media-spin versus empathy for his "victim"...all these elements are symptoms of just what is wrong with this Administration.

But the story itself is vastly overblown, IMO.

And now, back to training. :ai: :ki: :do:

Mark Freeman
02-16-2006, 01:02 PM
Personally, I'd rather Cheney get got for treason (betraying agents in the field), crimes against humanity (torture, war-mongering), crimes against civil liberties, incompetence (9.11, Katrina), lying to the American people and Congress, or unalloyed greed and corruption--can you say, "No-bid contracts?"

Geez, comedians couldn't make this stuff up if they tried.

No, I don't think the VP--slimy, venal, vindictive, vicious, lying, treasonous, greedy, shameless bastard that he is--meant to shoot the dude.

LOL :D :D Not a big fan of old Dick's then eh Don? ;)

Mark
p.s I couln't agree more, he along with 'W' and Donald make an Unholy Trinity :(

Mike Sigman
02-16-2006, 03:13 PM
Ah, yes... the real "AikiSpeak" seems to predominate. The "universal harmony" is supposed to mean a *balance* of yin-yang, yet Aikido lists are invariably unbalanced in their suasions. If you guys gotta hate, try balancing it out to everyone that deserves it, not just the political party you don't like. ;)

aikigirl10
02-16-2006, 03:23 PM
I was careful not to call it an accident.

What are people's thoughts on the matter? Personally, I am skeptical that it was accidental at all. On top of that, the facts are a little iffy. I have more reading to do on it, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on a discussion.

We'll see if Cheney even gets manslaughter.

Opinions???


wow... all the ridiculous ways people will try to bash Bush. What are you, 5 years old? *Grow up*.

Be realistic Dick Cheney is not conspiring to assassinate anyone. Your life is so boring that you have to make up crap about people thats not true and you know it. Or do you just like to stir up problems? Or both? I wouldnt doubt it at all.

I think its perfectly justified to say that Bush isn't our greatest president ever by a long shot but Good God... get a life.

*Paige*

Ron Tisdale
02-16-2006, 03:28 PM
Here's a question...just how the heck do you EAT one of those birds when they have 500 pellets in them??? I have this recurring nightmare about my teeth breaking...I know lead is pretty soft, but really...

R

Mike Sigman
02-16-2006, 03:35 PM
.just how the heck do you EAT one of those birds when they have 500 pellets in them??? You eat carefully. Problem with small birds like quail is that you have to have pretty small pellets in order to not tear them up. So when you're sitting around eating, there's always less conversation as everyone picks their way through the meat. As you go up to bigger birds, the shot gets bigger and it's easier to spot. I used to hunt a lot (because I grew up doing it), but it just seems so much easier to go to the store nowadays. Heck, I'm too lazy to even fish, now. ;)

Mike

Ron Tisdale
02-16-2006, 03:41 PM
Yowza...yeah, store sounds good. That sounds like trying to eat the lake fish in Kenya. So many darn bones...the people around the lake could hold a conversation and zip through a fish like a chain saw...fish goes in one side of the mouth, bones come out the other. Never did learn how to do that...

Best,
Ron (we now return you to your regularly scheduled political debate)

Huker
02-16-2006, 05:01 PM
Paige:

To answer your questions as best and as honestly as I can, please read on...

Am I 5 years old?
Yes. I am only five, but my instructor thinks I am big for my age and allows me to attend the adult classes.

Is my life so boring that I have to make up crap about people that just isn't true?
This answer is in two parts. Yes. My life is very boring. I spend several hours a day lodged at my desk studying diagram after diagram of biology and biochemistry.
And no. I never lie unless I'm trying to make fun of someone. Honestly.

Do I like to stir up problems?
Oh very much so. It entertains me greatly to see people get into a good verbal conflict. I don't particularly like yelling or fighting, but I do love it when people make good arguments and counter-arguments to discuss an issue. A well-placed sarcastic post or comment lightens the mood and adds to my entertainment.

I believe that takes care of your questions. Please allow me to retort.

If you're going to call me a Bush-basher, please don't think that I do it in a rediculous way. I do my best to carefully examine multiple perspectives and look at the facts, rather than people's opinions. The reason I bash bush is because I believe him to be an evil man. I do have reasons for this belief as do many others. Some also have reasons for liking him or thinking he's not the "greatest president ever by a long shot but Good God..." The reason that I focus much of my time on Bush and his cronies is because they are people in control of a powerful nation and its assets. I read up on these things because I believe that there are too many who do not. The fact that you've admitted that he's not the best President is the only reason I need to keep reading and posting my opinions. The problem is that he SHOULD BE the greatest president ever or should at least try to be, even once in a while. If he can't do it (he clearly can't) someone else should be on the throne.

Be realistic?? Ok, lets talk realism. There is a war going on in the middle east that country after country is being dragged into. People are being killed on both sides by the thousands. George Bush and those he collaborates with are responsible. Whether or not it was orchestrated by them or not doesn't really matter to my argument here. They launched the invasion, they perpetuate it, they send other people's kids to die. They gather the public support. Sometimes this is done through decieving those who don't examine the facts, sometimes it calls upon those who genuinely love their country and its leaders.

Did Cheney conspire to assassinate anyone, or was it an accident? I suppose this would be an element best left to a discussion. Now...where could I find a place to start one...I'll need some sort of communication medium...hmm...how about a forum.

My questions to you, Paige:

Is YOUR life so boring that you have to hop on a discussion board and start up hostility in my direction?
Are you afraid to make constructive posts that contribute to the discussion?
Did anything I said raise a question in your mind?

Regards.

Hogan
02-16-2006, 05:55 PM
Paige:

To answer your questions as best and as honestly as I can, please read on...

Am I 5 years old?
Yes. I am only five, but my instructor thinks I am big for my age and allows me to attend the adult classes.

Is my life so boring that I have to make up crap about people that just isn't true?
This answer is in two parts. Yes. My life is very boring. I spend several hours a day lodged at my desk studying diagram after diagram of biology and biochemistry.
And no. I never lie unless I'm trying to make fun of someone. Honestly.

Do I like to stir up problems?
Oh very much so. It entertains me greatly to see people get into a good verbal conflict. I don't particularly like yelling or fighting, but I do love it when people make good arguments and counter-arguments to discuss an issue. A well-placed sarcastic post or comment lightens the mood and adds to my entertainment.

I believe that takes care of your questions. Please allow me to retort.

If you're going to call me a Bush-basher, please don't think that I do it in a rediculous way. I do my best to carefully examine multiple perspectives and look at the facts, rather than people's opinions. The reason I bash bush is because I believe him to be an evil man. I do have reasons for this belief as do many others. Some also have reasons for liking him or thinking he's not the "greatest president ever by a long shot but Good God..." The reason that I focus much of my time on Bush and his cronies is because they are people in control of a powerful nation and its assets. I read up on these things because I believe that there are too many who do not. The fact that you've admitted that he's not the best President is the only reason I need to keep reading and posting my opinions. The problem is that he SHOULD BE the greatest president ever or should at least try to be, even once in a while. If he can't do it (he clearly can't) someone else should be on the throne.

Be realistic?? Ok, lets talk realism. There is a war going on in the middle east that country after country is being dragged into. People are being killed on both sides by the thousands. George Bush and those he collaborates with are responsible. Whether or not it was orchestrated by them or not doesn't really matter to my argument here. They launched the invasion, they perpetuate it, they send other people's kids to die. They gather the public support. Sometimes this is done through decieving those who don't examine the facts, sometimes it calls upon those who genuinely love their country and its leaders.

Did Cheney conspire to assassinate anyone, or was it an accident? I suppose this would be an element best left to a discussion. Now...where could I find a place to start one...I'll need some sort of communication medium...hmm...how about a forum.

My questions to you, Paige:

Is YOUR life so boring that you have to hop on a discussion board and start up hostility in my direction?
Are you afraid to make constructive posts that contribute to the discussion?
Did anything I said raise a question in your mind?

Regards.


You damn Canadians! Lay-off my american compatriot! We might just have to annex you in the next war....

Mark Freeman
02-16-2006, 06:26 PM
Yes. I am only five, but my instructor thinks I am big for my age and allows me to attend the adult classes.

Good schools there in Canada eh Tanner! :D ;)

You may be interested to read the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html

It seems that the pentagon's long term review is being read and digested by world leaders at the moment, we are all facing a "Long War" that all of us will be drawn into. The US are planning for long term focused conflict with Islamist extremism.
On past evidence, the US Military machine is not very good at winning the hearts and minds of the locals when they go in 'heavy handed'. It's been generally accepted in many parts of the world that the war in Iraq has not reduced the threat of terrorism. So now we enter into a stated 'Long War' Just the term itself is probably enough for some people teetering on the edge of 'extremism' to tip over into the 'dark side'

I hope that this long war is over by the time you graduate ;)

My own terribly cynical view is that the hawks are secretly quite comfortable with the continued terrorist threat, it justifies hundreds of billions of $$ for them to play with :( After all is not them in the front line, they can enjoy the occasional leisurely hunting trip, while others lose their lives so that they can continue to enjoy the fruits of their 'labours'.

John Hogan wrote:

You damn Canadians! Lay-off my american compatriot! We might just have to annex you in the next war....

as there was no use of a smiley I'm not sure if he was serious! :rolleyes: if he was - the defence rests it's case. ;)

We are entering into interesting times folks.

Mark Freeman
02-16-2006, 06:28 PM
Here's a question...just how the heck do you EAT one of those birds when they have 500 pellets in them??? I have this recurring nightmare about my teeth breaking...I know lead is pretty soft, but really...

R

Ron, don't bother chewing, just swallow! :D

Huker
02-16-2006, 07:50 PM
Nah, don't bother annexing. Just ask Harper. He'll give you Canada. I hear he's a pretty generous guy. :)

Just for the record, I have absolutely no problem with Americans. I really don't. I don't think that you're any less informed that anyone else on the matter. I fully respect your opinions and your beliefs. But, America is supposedly "the leader of the free world". Bush, being the Pres, is in a pretty big seat. Just don't take it personally if some of us criticize the way he's running things.

I certainly hope the war is over very soon, but I too feel that it will get much worse before it gets better. After all, the next stop is Iran. Gotta stop that power plant from getting built. I hear they're REALLY planning to nuke-up. :rolleyes:

As for eating animals with bullets in them--
I was sitting across from one of my uncle's while he was eating a deer steak from one of his kills and he suddenly laughed and spit something hard out onto the plate. It was a rifle round. I guess he got the winning piece. We all thought it was pretty funny.

aikigirl10
02-16-2006, 08:37 PM
Paige:
Am I 5 years old?
Yes. I am only five, but my instructor thinks I am big for my age and allows me to attend the adult classes.

Ah! hahahahahahah. hee ahh he ha oh eh ah ha heheheheheh ha...aaahhh.....



Now...where could I find a place to start one...I'll need some sort of communication medium...hmm...how about a forum..

You canadians are darn witty... let me tell ya.



My questions to you, Paige:

Is YOUR life so boring that you have to hop on a discussion board and start up hostility in my direction?
Are you afraid to make constructive posts that contribute to the discussion?
Did anything I said raise a question in your mind?

Regards.

You see... tanner... hostility is started when 1/2 french people get on a forum and start making idiotic claims about things that have no discussion in the first place. You know that Cheney didnt shoot the guy on purpose... all you bush bashers know that. You just want to be able to say something to make the bush administration look dumber and dumber.

You're not kidding anyone... not the other members of the "bash bush bandwagon" nor yourself so .... im done now... nothing i will say will ever change your mind or make you view issues without a built-in democratic filter... so go ahead i wont bother you anymore...

my apologies for being rude (this time only haha ;) )
*Paige*

Huker
02-16-2006, 09:25 PM
Apology accepted, Paige. Thank you for your input.

Tanner

Neil Mick
02-16-2006, 10:20 PM
If you guys gotta hate, try balancing it out to everyone that deserves it, not just the political party you don't like.

What, do you mean something on the order of hounding a President to distraction and ordering impeachment proceedings for lying about sex with an intern??

Is that the sort of "balance" you mean? Or perhaps you're referring to the "balance" of hoisting up the "mission accomplished" banner, days after the Iraqi invasion? Or, is it the "balance" if lying about a threat, to usher in a war?

Which is it, Mike? Or, are you simply trying to dissemble...yet again, hmm?

You know that Cheney didnt shoot the guy on purpose... all you bush bashers know that. You just want to be able to say something to make the bush administration look dumber and dumber.

Gosh, Paige: making BushCo look "dumber (than it already is)," at this point, would be a neat trick...nigh on the order of making the deficit disappear (something beyond the fabled powers of BushCo, I'm sorry to say).

But to the point: it's not about whether Cheney shot the guy "on purpose:" that's not it at all (at least, not for me). The point is the WAY the Administration (mis)handled the whole media affair. I guess Karl Rove must have been on vacation. :)

Nah, don't bother annexing. Just ask Harper. He'll give you Canada. I hear he's a pretty generous guy. :)

A bit too generous, IMO.

Just for the record, I have absolutely no problem with Americans. I really don't. I don't think that you're any less informed that anyone else on the matter.

For the record, I respectfully disagree. American's are some of the most uninformed people on the planet, regarding foreign affairs.

I fully respect your opinions and your beliefs. But, America is supposedly "the leader of the free world". Bush, being the Pres, is in a pretty big seat. Just don't take it personally if some of us criticize the way he's running things.

That's the weird thing...for some reason, they do.

If MY President (say, David Cobb, of the Greens) were elected and HE was found out to be lying to the American's and illegally spying on them: I'd be one of the first to call for his resignation...followed by a speedy trial.

But THESE people...you'd think that if Cheney showed up on the Armstrong ranch covered in blood and rambling about how he had to shoot in "self defence (in the back)," as security eases the shotgun from his nerveless fingers: why, I'm sure that several people here would be on aikiweb TOMORROW, proclaiming how butter wouldn't melt in the Chen'ster's mouth, etc, ad nauseum.

Why? I dunno: some people figure that this is some sort of hockey, or computer game. So long as "our side's" winning or in power: it's all good. :disgust: :rolleyes:

After all, the next stop is Iran.

You can expect an invasion to be sometime around June. "All options are on the table..." please. :rolleyes: BushCo ONLY understands two methods..."MY way, or the HIGHWAY."

You see... tanner... hostility is started when 1/2 french people get on a forum and start making idiotic claims about things that have no discussion in the first place.

AND..."1/2 French??" So...when 1/2 Swedish people get on a forum and start making idiotic claims...that doesn't cause hostility?? :freaky: :freaky:

Those damned French!! Always stirring up trouble! :grr: :D

Huker
02-16-2006, 11:17 PM
I can agree that the way the scenario was handled was highly questionable, which is probably what led me to believe that there was treachery afoot. I mean, if Shotgun Dick has nothing to hide then why keep it from the world. Sure, his job or reputation might have been at stake if he spilled his guts without an explanation, but would waiting 14 hours to report the incident not raise even more skepticism?

Any thoughts, anyone?

Mark Freeman
02-17-2006, 04:26 AM
You just want to be able to say something to make the bush administration look dumber and dumber.

Nothing more needs to be said! :rolleyes:

Hogan
02-17-2006, 09:28 AM
I can agree that the way the scenario was handled was highly questionable, which is probably what led me to believe that there was treachery afoot. I mean, if Shotgun Dick has nothing to hide then why keep it from the world. Sure, his job or reputation might have been at stake if he spilled his guts without an explanation, but would waiting 14 hours to report the incident not raise even more skepticism?

Any thoughts, anyone?

He did't wait 14 hrs to report it - it was that long before the major US press found out. And the major US press is pissed because they think the world revolves around them, you see. Local authorities were there shortly after it happened, and medical attention was given promptly - that's all that matters.

Huker
02-17-2006, 09:57 AM
True, local authorities were there. My understanding is that they weren't allowed to investigate or talk to anyone related to the incident until the secret service was done holding them off for whatever reason. Were they stalling? Why was the law being obstructed?

Immediate medical attention is important, of course, but in this case, it isn't the only thing that matters. The important question is "why?"

Sometimes I think that the world is run by the major US press. :disgust: Then I think about who controls the press and realize once again that it is run by them. :hypno:

Regards.

Hogan
02-17-2006, 10:41 AM
True, local authorities were there. My understanding is that they weren't allowed to investigate or talk to anyone related to the incident until the secret service was done holding them off for whatever reason. Were they stalling? Why was the law being obstructed?

Immediate medical attention is important, of course, but in this case, it isn't the only thing that matters. The important question is "why?"

Sometimes I think that the world is run by the major US press. :disgust: Then I think about who controls the press and realize once again that it is run by them. :hypno:

Regards.


Ummm, uh, ok. So.... when was marijuana consumption made legal in Canada ?

You know, my fellow American, instead of being afraid of Big Bad Richie (that's Dick Cheney, you know), you should be standing up and fighting things like:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11383819/


But, I guess it's easier to fight Uncle Sam.


If you guys keep this up, your "Hate Bush & Co. At All Costs" will have surpassed the Republican obsession with the Clintons. Well, never mind - it has....

Psufencer
02-17-2006, 11:45 AM
Ummm, uh, ok. So.... when was marijuana consumption made legal in Canada ?

You know, my fellow American, instead of being afraid of Big Bad Richie (that's Dick Cheney, you know), you should be standing up and fighting things like:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11383819/


But, I guess it's easier to fight Uncle Sam.


If you guys keep this up, your "Hate Bush & Co. At All Costs" will have surpassed the Republican obsession with the Clintons. Well, never mind - it has....


Why does any response to a critique of the Bush Administration invariably come down to simple fear-mongering?

I do not wish to fight anybody. I simply would like my country to remain a pleasant place to live, and to regain some shred of respectablity in the eyes of the world. I don't feel like Mr. Bush and Company are with me on that, and so I dislike them.

But I guess that means that I'm not a real American... :rolleyes:

James Davis
02-17-2006, 11:48 AM
You damn Canadians! Lay-off my american compatriot! We might just have to annex you in the next war....

I heard they have oil up there!! Lock and load!! :p

Hogan
02-17-2006, 11:48 AM
Why does any response to a critique of the Bush Administration invariably come down to simple fear-mongering?

I do not wish to fight anybody. I simply would like my country to remain a pleasant place to live, and to regain some shred of respectablity in the eyes of the world. I don't feel like Mr. Bush and Company are with me on that, and so I dislike them.

But I guess that means that I'm not a real American... :rolleyes:

Fear mongering ? Sorry, I have done no such thing using any definition of the term. I would suggest getting thee to a dictionary.

Hogan
02-17-2006, 11:49 AM
I heard they have oil up there!! Lock and load!! :p


hahaha... I'm already staking out claims.

Psufencer
02-17-2006, 12:09 PM
Fear mongering ? Sorry, I have done no such thing using any definition of the term. I would suggest getting thee to a dictionary.

Your link suggests that we should fear--okay, you said "fight," but aren't fear and fighting closely related?--those in other nations who think and feel differently from us. I have no such desire. Even if I'm not exactly crazy about what they're saying... :confused:

Neil Mick
02-17-2006, 12:41 PM
Your link suggests that we should fear--okay, you said "fight," but aren't fear and fighting closely related?--those in other nations who think and feel differently from us. I have no such desire. Even if I'm not exactly crazy about what they're saying... :confused:

You have to understand something, about John's beliefs. To John:
freedom is impossible, without US domination. The Iraqi's; the Iranians...heck, everyone living in the ME is living under tyranny, unless they are firmly under a US-approved military rule.

(And, I suppose, by extension: democracy is also impossible, unless it is supported by the US. Would you agree with me on this, John? Without US interference, democracy is also impossible, in many parts of the world? :crazy: )

But in any case: in John's beliefs, fighting is not only necessary...it's vital to securing world freedom. :freaky:

Personally, tho, Aaron: I agree with you...fear and fighting are closely related. America has got to be the most scared country in the world. :ai:

There's a new movie coming out that touches on this topic, esp around the military-industrial complex. It's called "Why We Fight." (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whywefight/) Sadly, it's not playing in my area. :(

Hogan
02-17-2006, 12:45 PM
Your link suggests that we should fear--okay, you said "fight," but aren't fear and fighting closely related?--those in other nations who think and feel differently from us. I have no such desire. Even if I'm not exactly crazy about what they're saying... :confused:

Did you even read the link ? I suggested people fight against others putting $1million bounties on cartoonists because they dare to believe in a free press and published a cartoon. I think that is a little more important than whether Cheney waited a few hrs to tell the main- arrogant US press. In other words, his accident is small potatoes compared to other things. Get your panties in a bunch about other, really important stuff.

Neil Mick
02-17-2006, 12:49 PM
In other words, his accident is small potatoes compared to other things. Get your panties in a bunch about other, really important stuff.

On THIS point: we are in complete agreement.

Hogan
02-17-2006, 12:49 PM
You have to understand something, about John's beliefs. To John:
freedom is impossible, without US domination. The Iraqi's; the Iranians...heck, everyone living in the ME is living under tyranny, unless they are firmly under a US-approved military rule.

(And, I suppose, by extension: democracy is also impossible, unless it is supported by the US. Would you agree with me on this, John? Without US interference, democracy is also impossible, in many parts of the world? :crazy: )

But in any case: in John's beliefs, fighting is not only necessary...it's vital to securing world freedom. :freaky:

Personally, tho, Aaron: I agree with you...fear and fighting are closely related. America has got to be the most scared country in the world. :ai:


Neil, Neil, Neil - my soon to be drinking buddy - c'mon... what does me saying to people they should be more concerned and fight against crazy nut jobs who put $1million bounties on the head of a cartoonist because they were "offended" (boo hoo) have anything to do with your attempted summary of my beliefs? Are you trying to swing to another subject?

By the way, US domination does not mean firmly under US military rule, nor does US interference mean that freedom exists - it (freedom) exists because the US exists, because she 'dominates' the world.

Neil Mick
02-17-2006, 12:55 PM
Neil, Neil, Neil - my soon to be drinking buddy - c'mon... what does me saying to people they should be more concerned and fight against crazy nut jobs who put $1million bounties on the head of a cartoonist because they were "offended" (boo hoo) have anything to do with your attempted summary of my beliefs? Are you trying to swing to another subject?

No...I was commenting on what Aaron said. (BTW, I am curious...do you think that democracy is impossible, without US interference? Was Chavez elected in Venezuala under a democratic process? I know...off-topic..but I was wondering if you use the same "logic" as defining "freedom")

By the way, US domination does not mean firmly under US military rule, nor does US interference mean that freedom exists - it (freedom) exists because the US exists, because she 'dominates' the world.

So, what's the difference btw US domination, and US military occupation? Or, is there any?

Hogan
02-17-2006, 04:08 PM
...I am curious...do you think that democracy is impossible, without US interference?
So, you asking that for democracy to succeed, you need interference by the US ? No, you don't. But you do need for the US to exist in the world. We are the 'arsenal of democracy', the 'last best hope', etc....

Was Chavez elected in Venezuala under a democratic process?
Don't know enough about the election set-up down there.

So, what's the difference btw US domination, and US military occupation? Or, is there any?
Yes, there is. US dominates the world economy, but we don't militarily occupy the world. I mean, really, US dominates the world, no ? But do we militarily occupy all the countries ? No. Those cute Frenchies always complain about how they may be dominated by US culture soon if they don't do something about it, but have we occupied France anytime recently ? No. Is there ANY country that can really dominate us economically (I'm not talking about certain parts - I know US is behind here and there; I'm talking in general - we do have the biggest economy), or militarily ? (Yes the US may lose a battle here and there, but is there any countries military out there that can surpass our equipment or training ? No). We also dominate politically - look how many people complain that we run the UN, or at least the Western Hemisphere or Europe. We also dominate is resource use - is that good or bad, I don't know. Domination doesn't just mean under the thumb of the military.

Neil Mick
02-17-2006, 07:03 PM
what's the difference btw US domination, and US military occupation? Or, is there any?

Yes, there is. US dominates the world economy, but we don't militarily occupy the world. I mean, really, US dominates the world, no ? But do we militarily occupy all the countries ? No. Those cute Frenchies always complain about how they may be dominated by US culture soon if they don't do something about it, but have we occupied France anytime recently ? No. Is there ANY country that can really dominate us economically (I'm not talking about certain parts - I know US is behind here and there; I'm talking in general - we do have the biggest economy), or militarily ? (Yes the US may lose a battle here and there, but is there any countries military out there that can surpass our equipment or training ? No). We also dominate politically - look how many people complain that we run the UN, or at least the Western Hemisphere or Europe. We also dominate is resource use - is that good or bad, I don't know. Domination doesn't just mean under the thumb of the military.

OK. That makes a little more sense: you're talking about economic domination, versus military domination.

Not that I agree for a milisecond that the existence of the US (in its current role as global strongman) guarantees anything but endless war...but thank you for explaining your views.

Don_Modesto
02-17-2006, 07:28 PM
What, do you mean something on the order of hounding a President to distraction and ordering impeachment proceedings for lying about sex with an intern??

Thanks for this.

I feel remiss for not saying something along these lines, myself. But the discourse is so polarized, the conditions so ludicrous, I fear people are only seeing what their positions militate anyway.

Huker
02-17-2006, 10:29 PM
Both Niel and John are correct. Today's war is most definitely economic. It goes on right under our noses and claims/will claim more lives than any military battle. Part of the problem is that the middle east, as it stands, is resisting this economic domination. This may explain why the United States has installed/removed leaders in other countries over the years. They grant the US a more secure economic foothold in these places.

The military war (ie: war in iraq) is a more localized problem, so it is given plenty of attention. I don't mean to downplay its importance, but distraction is essential to secrecy. These local problems are terrible, but there are definitely bigger problems going on. The reason that military conflicts get so much attention is because the elusive 'big picture' is so hard to see (not that I can see it all myself, but I can pick out the odd detail, as I'm sure most can). This attention generates protest or support among the masses, but the root of the problem still exists, so the problem never goes away.

...I'm getting away from the point of the thread. Oh well, I think its taken a good turn. At least discussion about important issues is going on. Its all about dynamics!! :circle:

Well, I'm going away for a few days, so I won't be able to see how things progress from here until I get back. Talk to you all soon.

Mark Freeman
02-18-2006, 07:07 AM
John Hogan wrote,
So, you asking that for democracy to succeed, you need interference by the US ? No, you don't. But you do need for the US to exist in the world. We are the 'arsenal of democracy', the 'last best hope', etc....

God help us all....

Yes, there is. US dominates the world economy,
Not bad for a country with the worlds largest debt. (correct me if I am wrong)
Is there ANY country that can really dominate us economically (I'm not talking about certain parts - I know US is behind here and there; I'm talking in general - we do have the biggest economy)
Give China about 8- 10 years, you ain't seen nothing yet..
We also dominate politically - look how many people complain that we run the UN, or at least the Western Hemisphere or Europe.
How do you do this exactlly?

The US may be biggest, and most powerful nation 'at present', but unfortunately to the rest of the world you are not seen as a beacon of shining light leading the rest of us out of darkness towards the promised land of light and freedom. The US leadership's duplicitous position over torture and the continued use of the Guantanamo, is just one of the issues that put's this once great nation out of step with the rest of the 'free world'.
Domination is not a good word in my book, not much to be proud of, for it to work there has to be someone 'dominated'.
The US is gearing up for what the Pentagon are calling "The Long War" Onward Christian Soldiers and all that jazz, I'm getting bored by all the hawkish posturing. War is not the only option open to human beings, but listening to some you'd think it was.

Leadership by example, that might be worth a try?

aikigirl10
02-19-2006, 06:59 PM
AND..."1/2 French??" So...when 1/2 Swedish people get on a forum and start making idiotic claims...that doesn't cause hostility?? :freaky: :freaky:


The only reason i said that about the 1/2 french thing was to point out that Tanner wasn't from our country, which in turn is sort of a way of me saying "why the crap do you care?"

Personally if i was living in Canada i wouldnt care what was going on in America politically. I dont know what's going on in Canada politically , nor do i care unless something is going on that will somehow affect me.

Anyway i just wanted to clear up that the 1/2 french thing wasn't meant to be a racial slur or anything.

*Paige*

Neil Mick
02-19-2006, 08:35 PM
The only reason i said that about the 1/2 french thing was to point out that Tanner wasn't from our country, which in turn is sort of a way of me saying "why the crap do you care?"

Personally if i was living in Canada i wouldnt care what was going on in America politically. I dont know what's going on in Canada politically , nor do i care unless something is going on that will somehow affect me.

Anyway i just wanted to clear up that the 1/2 french thing wasn't meant to be a racial slur or anything.

*Paige*

OK...good to know.

But, I'm betting that Canadian's care a lot about what goes on in the US: moreso than the reverse.

Just IMO, of course.

Lorien Lowe
02-19-2006, 10:16 PM
I dont know what's going on in Canada politically , nor do i care unless something is going on that will somehow affect me.
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks one language?
American.

It all affects all of us, though not always directly.

-LK

aikigirl10
02-20-2006, 09:31 AM
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks one language?
American.

It all affects all of us, though not always directly.

-LK

whether or not the canadian prime minister ACCIDENTALLY shot someone in the face while hunting, does not affect me seriously in anyway.

Please enlighten me if i'm wrong.

Hogan
02-20-2006, 11:15 AM
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks one language?
American.

It all affects all of us, though not always directly.

-LK

That's what you call a benefit from being the biggest-baddest 'mo 'fo on the block; everyone has to speak OUR language....

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 11:51 AM
The US may be biggest, and most powerful nation 'at present', but unfortunately to the rest of the world you are not seen as a beacon of shining light leading the rest of us out of darkness towards the promised land of light and freedom. Actually, the US was not seen as a "beacon of shining light" before World War I or World War II, which European inaction got us into. In fact, prior to World War I, about 90% of England was for unilateral disarmament (and France was similarly leaning). It was that sort of "peace" pressure that Neville Chamberlain was under when he knuckled under to Hitler and came back saying "there will be peace in our time." The "peace movement" in Europe ultimately cost a minimum of about 20 million lives because they were so strongly for peace that they wouldn't contain Hitler at a time when he was still easily containable. Yet after the war, how many of the ardent "peace movement" stepped forward and said, "We were wrong". I only know of one instance... where were all the rest???? I hear how valiantly the Brits resisted the bombings, etc., and how all the Frenchmen were "resistance fighters" (complete bullshit), but I never hear anyone say "Oops... we screwed up".

Same thing with some of the problems in Bosnia, the Middle East, Africa, problems that Europe has been unable to do anything at all about .... it's all "what's American doing and why are they doing it wrong". What I want to know is why Europe can't do anything but piss and moan about the US? I'm not saying the US does everything right, but basically in the last 100 years, there have been 2 world conflagrations that were mostly to do with Europe not being able to mow its own grass, while it moans and whines about the US. Yet one doesn't see Americans constantly harping about how useless Europe is (they can't meet even their own Kyoto goals, their unemployment is rampant, the economies sliding, they have no armies and depend on the US; they are almost marginalized now and will be in 10-20 years)...... so what is the reason for the US-bashing? People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mike

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 11:54 AM
Personally if i was living in Canada i wouldnt care what was going on in America politically. I dont know what's going on in Canada politically , nor do i care unless something is going on that will somehow affect me.

If I was living in Canada I would definitely be concerned with what was happening politically in the US. I live alot further away and am still concerned. The US is such a major player and has such profound affects, particularly regarding it's foriegn policy, that we 'have' to be interested.

Example: The US lead invasion ( backed by the UK) of Afghanistan successfully dethroned the Taliban regime, it did not get rid of them, it just scattered them about into the quieter parts of the country, the've been playing at this sort of thing for hundreds of years! Keep your eye out, they have not gone away and they will be back. Since they were ousted the opium poppy production has massively increased. The Taliban 'were' against the production of the drug crop, they now actively support it as means to generate funds.
The UK is being flooded with Afghan produced Heroin ( about 80% of it comes from there ). Just one small example. :(

We are all interconnected in this modern global economy, there is very little that happens in isolation. This is a good thing, once we all realise it and start to act accordingly.

I personally couldn't really care less about the VP's hunting 'accident', large rich men driving up to defenceless animals and blasting them with a gun, do not have alot going for them, in my book. But then, I'm just a reactionary old hippy, so what do I know? :D

aikigirl10
02-20-2006, 12:24 PM
Personally if i was living in Canada i wouldnt care what was going on in America politically. I dont know what's going on in Canada politically , nor do i care unless something is going on that will somehow affect me.

*Paige*

Why does everyone ignore that part of my post??


Example: The US lead invasion ( backed by the UK) of Afghanistan successfully dethroned the Taliban regime, it did not get rid of them, it just scattered them about into the quieter parts of the country, the've been playing at this sort of thing for hundreds of years! Keep your eye out, they have not gone away and they will be back. Since they were ousted the opium poppy production has massively increased. The Taliban 'were' against the production of the drug crop, they now actively support it as means to generate funds.
The UK is being flooded with Afghan produced Heroin ( about 80% of it comes from there ). Just one small example.

This would serve as something that would affect you... would it not?? Look back at my post and read the bold section please... God. ***frustration***

The point i was getting at was why would someone care if Dick Cheney had a hunting accident. It isn't affecting the people in America, let alone the people in Canada, England, Bangladesh, or wherever in the world.

Let me restate again:


whether or not the canadian prime minister ACCIDENTALLY shot someone in the face while hunting, does not affect me seriously in anyway.

Please enlighten me if i'm wrong.

*Paige* sighs

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 12:34 PM
People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I agree Mike, and if you want to get in a tit for tat it would just waste a lot of time and energy. I am not defending Europe, or any of the particular countries therin, I can't say thay I recognise your version of history, and in a couple of discussions where we have been discussing current world events. I have been forcefully reminded of the World War/s. and how grateful we should be ( we are ) for ever more, ( that depends )
I personally was not there, I am however here today and able to comment on what I see on a day to day basis.
1/ It is pretty clear that your leadership lied to its people to take them into a War.
2/ Its pretty clear that my leadership lied to its people to take them to War
I cannot in my right mind defend either party, and am surprised when anyone can.
I think I am perfectly entitled to whinge and whine about any lying, scheming, greedy, self serving, arrogant behaviour that I see carried out by my own government, and I don't see why yours should be immune from it too.

The "peace movement" in Europe ultimately cost a minimum of about 20 million lives because they were so strongly for peace that they wouldn't contain Hitler at a time when he was still easily containable. Yet after the war, how many of the ardent "peace movement" stepped forward and said, "We were wrong". I only know of one instance... where were all the rest????

I would be interested in this one instance, as I was not aware that there was a 'peace movement' as such, what were they called?

No one is disputing the help that America gave to the allied countries in the fight against fascism.

And in both of the recent US lead invaisions the UK has been in partnership with you.

Same thing with some of the problems in Bosnia, the Middle East, Africa, problems that Europe has been unable to do anything at all about ....

You'll have to be more specific, for that to carry any weight.

Yet one doesn't see Americans constantly harping about how useless Europe is (they can't meet even their own Kyoto goals, their unemployment is rampant, the economies sliding, they have no armies and depend on the US; they are almost marginalized now and will be in 10-20 years)...

They don't??
What I want to know is why Europe can't do anything but piss and moan about the US?
We really oughtt to get beyond slagging each other off. Europe can and does do alot more than piss and moan about the US. I'm sure that most of my fellow Europeans would rather the US entered into the many global agreements on International Law ( torture ), The environment, chemical and bioligical weaponry, rather than acting unilaterally.
The US had 'massive' global support after the atrocity of 9/11. Your current administration has managed to fritter away much of it by being so isolationist. That is such a shame.

If the doves of the world offend the hawks, then so be it.

I would rather we worked together than apart. I am not 'against' the US, I just think that history will show that your current regime was not one of your best.

regards
Mark

Neil Mick
02-20-2006, 01:01 PM
Revisionism is a sad, sad thing.

Actually, the US was not seen as a "beacon of shining light" before World War I or World War II, which European inaction got us into.

No, nor is that "beacon of shining light" metaphor used for the US, much, today: have you noticed?

In fact, prior to World War I, about 90% of England was for unilateral disarmament (and France was similarly leaning). It was that sort of "peace" pressure that Neville Chamberlain was under when he knuckled under to Hitler and came back saying "there will be peace in our time."

(buzzer-sound) *aaaaah* You lose: Godwin's Law! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) Just what IS it with you US apologists, these days?? To all of you, I suppose that a significant time-line would consist of only 3 dates: 1776, 1941, and 2001.

Newsflash: there was a LOT more about the US than occurred in WW2.

The "peace movement" in Europe ultimately cost a minimum of about 20 million lives because they were so strongly for peace that they wouldn't contain Hitler at a time when he was still easily containable.

Even if this WERE true (and I completely disagree...do you have any sources to support your contention that the peace movement bought Hitler time, or are you simply ditto-heading such unbiased shows like "The World at War??" :rolleyes: ), what relevance does it have, here?? Are we supposed to hold all peace activism as "abhorrent" to fighting the rise of fascism..?

Yet after the war, how many of the ardent "peace movement" stepped forward and said, "We were wrong". I only know of one instance... where were all the rest???? I hear how valiantly the Brits resisted the bombings, etc., and how all the Frenchmen were "resistance fighters" (complete bullshit), but I never hear anyone say "Oops... we screwed up".

Again...relevance? And, I never hear anyone from the US, apologizing for waiting so long before stopping the Nazi menace, either. Where are all those apologies, for the people killed between 1937 and 1941?

You see, Mike? History is often a double-edged sword. When you yank out WW2 to defend your strawmen: you might well cut yourself. :p

Same thing with some of the problems in Bosnia, the Middle East, Africa, problems that Europe has been unable to do anything at all about .... it's all "what's American doing and why are they doing it wrong".

Ah, here we go...and thus, the reason for Godwin's Rule. You atttempt here to inherently compare Bosnia, the Middle East, et al, to the efforts of the US in WW2.

Sorry, but those comparisons are thin...to put it charitably.

In WW2: America was the neutral party, who waited until it was attacked to join in.

Today, America often uses "client states" to do its dirty-work. We bomb, torture and starve innocent people to "get" the bad guys, without even an acknowledgement that we did something wrong.

We invade countries on the weakest of evidence and then call it "liberation" when that evidence falls apart.

We offer our hand (as a loan package) to Africa in the form of expensive medicines made cheaper elsewhere: and then we don't even pony up what we promised. And don't even get me STARTED on our shoddy performance regarding Darfur, or in combatting malaria, which kills 2m ppl/yr in Africa, and yet we do squat.

Wave that flag with the moldy WW2 patches on it somewhere else, Mike: you're getting no strokes for it, from this corner.

What I want to know is why Europe can't do anything but piss and moan about the US?

What I want to know is why

-the US cannot seem to pay its UN dues?
-the US consistently votes for pariah-states (i.e., Israel) that consistently violate international law?
-the US engages is using a network of torture camps in Europe, for extroadinary rendition?
-the US Army seems engaged in a systematic programme of torture?

I'm not saying the US does everything right,

Everything?? How about act like something other than a S. American banana republic??

but basically in the last 100 years, there have been 2 world conflagrations that were mostly to do with Europe not being able to mow its own grass, while it moans and whines about the US.

And the scores of conflicts that the US participated in, EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE WW2...what about those, Mike? You seem to ignore those, in your 3-point time-line.

Yet one doesn't see Americans constantly harping about how useless Europe is (they can't meet even their own Kyoto goals, their unemployment is rampant, the economies sliding, they have no armies and depend on the US; they are almost marginalized now and will be in 10-20 years)

And the US (with a ballooning deficit; Pentagon budget greater than the next 7 largest military budgets, COMBINED; a decaying infrastructure; crumbling education system; NO socialized medicine; a plummeting reputation and an executive branch in violation of its own Constution and hell-bent for another costly war) is so much better...how?

...... so what is the reason for the US-bashing?

Gosh...what could it be? :crazy:

Do ya think it was the new Abu Ghraib snapshots: or maybe it's simply that the rest of the world resents being shackled to an out-of-control superpower, as it resolutely relearns the same old lessons of Ozymandias. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias)

Yeah, if I were a European: I'd be complaining about the US right now, too: just as I'd complain about the captain of the Titanic, if I were on that deck, watching the iceberg inexorably heading my way.

People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mike

People sitting behind monitors shouldn't try to pass off half-histories, as gospel.

Neil Mick
02-20-2006, 01:08 PM
That's what you call a benefit from being the biggest-baddest 'mo 'fo on the block; everyone has to speak OUR language....

And, I'm betting that you think of this as "freedom," too... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 01:12 PM
I agree Mike, and if you want to get in a tit for tat it would just waste a lot of time and energy. I am not defending Europe, or any of the particular countries therin, I can't say thay I recognise your version of history, and in a couple of discussions where we have been discussing current world events. Sure, but there's a lot of documented history to show Europe's inaction that led to the deaths of *millions* of people and the decimation of European Jews (it could be easily argued now that Europe is paying the Muslims to finish the job, BTW). However, the history is there. What you're offering about the "lies" of Bush and Blair is simply opinion, when someone backs you to the wall for facts that contain all the data... I hope you'll admit that or explain to me why there has been no impeachment of Bush or Blair. You're stating your opinions as facts.... and that is, in my way of thinking, a bit of dishonesty. I have been forcefully reminded of the World War/s. and how grateful we should be ( we are ) for ever more, ( that depends ) As much as I've gone to Europe over many years, I have to comment on the change of perspective I've noticed. Nowadays, many Europeans simply slag off America during the two world wars and attribute all the help, the American deaths, the Marshall Plan to re-build Europe, as a cynical plan by America to gain more trade. I.e., America went into those world wars simply to make money. That's why I'm all for dissolving NATO and letting Europe fend for itself, frankly. What do you think Europe would ever have done about Bosnia and Milosovich, if it had only itself to depend on? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Just like the "World Court" crap that is still fumbling and bullshitting 4 or 5 years after they started the Milosovich trial. 1/ It is pretty clear that your leadership lied to its people to take them into a War.
2/ Its pretty clear that my leadership lied to its people to take them to War It is not clear to me nor to many legal scholars, so you're offering the leftist opinion as fact. I don't listen to the extreme Right nor the extreme Left.... they both try to present opinion and emotional beliefs as facts. So you're marginalizing your views by not saying "it could be argued... etc." and giving your reasons. I would be interested in this one instance, as I was not aware that there was a 'peace movement' as such, what were they called? Well, there is no one "movement" right now under which the vast majority of Europeans don't want war at any cost..... just like in earlier history, eh? It's interesting to watch. I read an interesting argument that Europe's appeasement course had a lot to do with the percentage-of-population deaths in World War I, but I don't fully buy it, even though I get the gist of the thought. No one is disputing the help that America gave to the allied countries in the fight against fascism. Remember that "fascism" usually got its start with "socialism". For instance the "Nazis" were a socialist party and of course "Uncle Joe" Stalin was a "socialist", too. So these labels of "socialism" and "fascism" tend to morph. The people who don't believe fanatically as the Leftists do become hated or not tolerated by the leftists and then the suppression begins. Of course the same thing happens in a theocracy, too. So here in the States, I desperately don't want a fundamental religious-believing government, but I don't want a Leftist government telling me what politically correct views I should have. At the moment, the biggest hate-mongers are the Left. If you don't believe that, just glance down at the stuff from the leftists in this forum.... take a look at how much is "hate Bush", "hate the religious Right", etc. On other forums (Aikido is notoriously full of the Left), the religious Right will sometimes prevail and you have the same sort of intolerance for anyone who doesn't accept Jesus, accept Allah, or whatever. The trick is to try and stay balanced and consider all sides of the issues.
We really oughtt to get beyond slagging each other off. (snip) "We"???? I was simply replying to another "slag the US" post from a European. How many "slag Europe" posts are on this forum????? ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 01:30 PM
Just what IS it with you US apologists, these days?? Er... so that's what you call Americans, nowadays, Nick? "US Apologists"? Why don't you just come out of the closet like the LA Times guy, Joel Klein, and just say that you don't care that American military get killed, unless they're doing what suits your political fantasy?

You can go on with your America-bashing, Nick, because I really don't seriously consider that you're "balanced" in any way. But in regard to the peace movement in Europe, here's a comment in relation to Winston Churchill:

Winston Churchill's ability shown most brilliantly in periods of crisis. He was the first to recognize the potential danger of Adolf Hitler. His was the clearest and most persistent voice against the Chamberlain policies in the late 1930s. For years he stood virtually alone and unheeded. Here is the way Mr. Churchill expressed his forlorn effort, after the war, it in the famous speech he delivered at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5th, 1946:

Last time I saw it all coming, and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up fin the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored today, but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.

It was fifty-three years ago that four world leaders met in the German city of Munich: Mussolini of Italy, Hitler of Germany, Daladier of France and Chamberlain of Great Britain. They signed what become known as the Munich agreement. It approved Germany taking over a part of Czechoslovakia, after his already having taken the Rhineland and Austria. Neville Chamberlain, returning to England from Munich, proclaimed that the agreement brought "peace in our time." He was acclaimed a hero, in England and for the most part throughout the world. He was the man of the hour, the peacemaker.

The only significant voice in opposition was that of an old bulldog named Winston Churchill, who thundered in the Parliament, and throughout England, that the Munich Agreement not only would not lead to peace but inevitably would lead to war. Countering Churchill's arguments that Hitler's appetite for domination of Europe could not be appeased, Chamberlain replied that Hitler had signed an agreement forswearing any further demands.

The forces of appeasement and "peace" ruled the day in England, Nick. Churchill was pretty much isolated, as were the small groups of pragmatists in England and in France. It cost 20 million lives because people like you gained the upper hand. No one disputed Churchill's post-war claim that it could have been stopped without a shot... they were too embarrassed at the time. But now all that history is beginning to repeat itself. And it's fun to watch guy like you, salary drawers from the soft life, the "intellectually superior liberals". Same people that caused so many deaths by letting World War II start. Maybe the next war, if we let Islam or a future Milosovich or what whatever develop, will help lower the pollution, eh? ;)

As for the absurdity of an apology for delaying in entry to aid Europe, Nick.... you're being fatuous and frantic in your America-hating. Take a few deep breaths. Let's see just ONE post from you where you try to present both sides of the facts.



FWIW

Mike

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 02:12 PM
"We"???? I was simply replying to another "slag the US" post from a European. How many "slag Europe" posts are on this forum????? ;)

Mike

Maybe you should start one Mike, you've done a pretty good job of redressing the balance single handedly :rolleyes:

just for the record, "It is pretty clear" is not a bald statement of fact, there is room for manouver.

The trick is to try and stay balanced and consider all sides of the issues.

A difficult trick Mike

Sure, but there's a lot of documented history to show Europe's inaction that led to the deaths of *millions* of people and the decimation of European Jews (it could be easily argued now that Europe is paying the Muslims to finish the job, BTW).

To equate modern Europeans with the Nazi's of the past is neither balanced, fair, or anything less than just plain daft. How can one with so balanced a view as you argue that case so easily??

And on that note I will bow out of the proceedings.

Mark

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 02:30 PM
To equate modern Europeans with the Nazi's of the past is neither balanced, fair, or anything less than just plain daft. How can one with so balanced a view as you argue that case so easily??I didn't say that Europeans were co-participants in the actual extermination of Jews, but the real problem is that historical documents show that the English and French governments were aware of what the Nazis were doing and didn't do a lot to stop it. The question is in the complicity of silence... although it's a tricky silence. Are other countries bound to interfere within the sovereignty of any particular country that begins to sytematically kill ethnic/religious citizens of itself? Historically, in most cases the answer is that it won't happen. So in some ways my comments were not fair and it's why I said "it could be argued...". It's easy to go back to any set of actions in human history and lay the blame on someone. But it's sort of chickenshit to do so.... which is why I get a little irritated at these "blame Bush" arguments that don't "blame Clinton" in the same breath. If someone is fault-finding or critiquing, try to at least make the argument even-handed instead of the shrill partisan whining of people like Neil Mick. Particularly if you're claiming to be a balanced martial artist.

My 2 cents.

Mike

Hogan
02-20-2006, 02:32 PM
And, I'm betting that you think of this as "freedom," too... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

HA! Why, yes - that leaves US americans free from bothering to learn other languages.

LET FREEDOM RING !

Neil Mick
02-20-2006, 03:01 PM
Er... so that's what you call Americans, nowadays, Nick? "US Apologists"?

Still having problems with reading comprehension, Mike?

Here, lemme help...N...E...I...L....that spells "Neil;" not "Nick. Your continued misspelling of my name is immature, if done willfully...not to mention distracting to your point.

You can do better.

Now, onto the thread.

Since most American's don't come on here and attempt to rationalize US foreign policy, I can say that it's safe to say that no, your vitriolic statement is false. Next.

Why don't you just come out of the closet like the LA Times guy, Joel Klein, and just say that you don't care that American military get killed, unless they're doing what suits your political fantasy?

Hyperbole, hyperbole: who's got the hyperbole? Must be Mike.

No, I am guessing that Joel Klein said no such thing...unless, of course: you can finally break pattern and supply a reference, mayhap?

You can go on with your America-bashing, Nick, because I really don't seriously consider that you're "balanced" in any way.

Whoah!!! Mr. Mispronounciation cannot find my posts "balanced!" :eek: :eek: Oh NO!!!

But, go ahead: please do diverge from your usual diatribes, and try to exactly define what "Anti-American" means.

This ought to be rich.

But in regard to the peace movement in Europe, here's a comment in relation to Winston Churchill:

Winston Churchill's ability shown most brilliantly in periods of crisis. He was the first to recognize the potential danger of Adolf Hitler. His was the clearest and most persistent voice against the Chamberlain policies in the late 1930s. For years he stood virtually alone and unheeded. Here is the way Mr. Churchill expressed his forlorn effort, after the war, it in the famous speech he delivered at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5th, 1946:

Last time I saw it all coming, and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up fin the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored today, but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.

Hello? Where did this come from?? Source?

Also, you're quoting WINSTON CHURCHILL on the effect of pacifists, pre-ww2?? Duh! That's like taking Bush's reference to the anti-war protests pre-Iraqi invasion, in '03, as some form of defining gospel of activism!! Guess that makes all the peace movements to be little more than focus-groups, right?

The antagonists to Winston Churchill's cry to war, OF COURSE: are going to be anti-war activists. It's like trying to find out the effects of Communism in Russia by listening to Voice of America (err...maybe that IS how you get your info, Mike...hmmm...). I could go on and on with the fallacy of this source, but you don't care...you're a man with a mission. So, here's your shovel (to dig your rhetorical grave), and get on with the shovelling.

It was fifty-three years ago that four world leaders met in the German city of Munich: Mussolini of Italy, Hitler of Germany, Daladier of France and Chamberlain of Great Britain. They signed what become known as the Munich agreement. It approved Germany taking over a part of Czechoslovakia, after his already having taken the Rhineland and Austria. Neville Chamberlain, returning to England from Munich, proclaimed that the agreement brought "peace in our time." He was acclaimed a hero, in England and for the most part throughout the world. He was the man of the hour, the peacemaker.

The only significant voice in opposition was that of an old bulldog named Winston Churchill, who thundered in the Parliament, and throughout England, that the Munich Agreement not only would not lead to peace but inevitably would lead to war. Countering Churchill's arguments that Hitler's appetite for domination of Europe could not be appeased, Chamberlain replied that Hitler had signed an agreement forswearing any further demands.

Someone sitting near Mike reading this...please, PLEASE, for god's sake! If you can see these words...PLEASE! Hand him a history text and show him that there is more to history, than what occurred 1935-1944.

And it's fun to watch guy like you, salary drawers from the soft life, the "intellectually superior liberals".

And it's fun to watch guys "like you" in action...folks who seem to think that they know everything about a person, from what he writes on the internet... :crazy:

Same people that caused so many deaths by letting World War II start.

Um...dude...I wasn't even BORN, in WW2. My mother was barely a teen...honest! I have an alibi, really. :hypno:

Maybe the next war, if we let Islam or a future Milosovich or what whatever develop, will help lower the pollution, eh? ;)

Maybe the next war, you will be a more evolved and introspective person, than to simply collage your revisionist perspectives of WW2, onto the events of today....

....maybe. But I won't hold my breath.

As for the absurdity of an apology for delaying in entry to aid Europe, Nick.... you're being fatuous and frantic in your America-hating. Take a few deep breaths. Let's see just ONE post from you where you try to present both sides of the facts.

You mean...like calling into account my teaching abilities,,,and attempting to lie your way out of it? Is that the sort of "balance" (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9762) you mean?

You have seriously flawed notions of what "debate" means. I am not here to "present both sides:" if you want that ridiculous idea of media coverage...turn on the glass teat, and suck away. I am here to present what I think is balanced.

With respect, Mike: I couldn't care one whit that you find my posts unbalanced. If you find them unbalanced, you have my permission...no, you have my invitation!...to come on here and present what you find "balanced." We can hash out these ideas in the "dojo of the mind" here, to see if these views can "defend" themselves.


FWIW

Mike

Not very much, from someone who uses hyperbole and disrespect. I far more respect views from people who offer opinions in a spirit of respect...even from corners which I disagree...than the converse.

Next.

Neil Mick
02-20-2006, 03:05 PM
HA! Why, yes - that leaves US americans free from bothering to learn other languages.

Yes, freeing up our valuable time to seek out, imprison and torture as many Arab's as our soldiers can find.

LET FREEDOM RING !

If you make that a toast when you come to visit....YOU'RE buying the first round (and maybe, the second)!!!! :D

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 03:12 PM
Here Neil, about Joel Klein:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,1803125.column?track=hpmostemailedlink

The rest of it you do such a whack job of deliberate misconstruction, attempts to belittle, etc., I'm ignoring. BTW... take a hint from something I told you earlier. I follow up on my declarative sentences.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
02-20-2006, 03:31 PM
Here Neil, about Joel Klein:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,1803125.column?track=hpmostemailedlink

Thank you for the link. Sad, that reality is far, far divorced from your contention:

Why don't you just come out of the closet like the LA Times guy, Joel Klein, and just say that you don't care that American military get killed, unless they're doing what suits your political fantasy?

Now, sorry, but the article actually states the opposite. Rather than Klein saying that he doesn't care about soldiers' lives, he advocates giving

our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades

NEXT!!

The rest of it you do such a whack job of deliberate misconstruction, attempts to belittle, etc., I'm ignoring.

Translation: you hurt my feewings...now I take my marbles and go home. But hey! In case you missed the last paraghraph through all your "noble ignoring..." here it is again...the important part, bolded:

With respect, Mike: I couldn't care one whit that you find my posts unbalanced. If you find them unbalanced, you have my permission...no, you have my invitation!...to come on here and present what you find "balanced." We can hash out these ideas in the "dojo of the mind" here, to see if these views can "defend" themselves.


BTW... take a hint from something I told you earlier. I follow up on my declarative sentences.

This statement is dishonest. You actually RUN AWAY from your declarative sentences. The empiric evidence of this is undeniable.

Hogan
02-20-2006, 03:33 PM
..If you make that a toast when you come to visit....YOU'RE buying the first round (and maybe, the second)!!!! :D

HA ! Deal.

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 05:14 PM
I didn't say that Europeans were co-participants in the actual extermination of Jews,

but you did say:(it could be easily argued now that Europe is paying the Muslims to finish the job, BTW).
which is why I get a little irritated at these "blame Bush" arguments that don't "blame Clinton" in the same breath.
Why should one be synonomous with the other? They are different people, presidencies, and regimes.
Particularly if you're claiming to be a balanced martial artist.
Who is making this claim?

Personally I find the whole dragging of WW2 into the whole procedings disingenuous. I do not appologise for calling the Bush administration to task over it's double standards, as I have done my own governments.
If you are going to go in and invade a sovereign nation on the flimsiest ( and so far proven wrong ) evidence of WMD, and then to proclaim that Saddam was "one of the bad guys". It's probably best to show by example that you "the leaders of the free world" treat people with the respect that they can expect from a people of 'moral' superiority. The continued use of the Guantanamo prison against calls by the UN for it to be closed, the continued revelations of abuses of human rights of those in the 'safe hands' of US custody, does nothing to help your case.

To keep refering to history gets us nowhere, only by looking at the viable options for the future can any conflicting groups hope to move forward. Trying to lay a guilt trip on the people who weren't even born when a dispute happened is not constructive. How could Germany be the nation it is today if it's neighbours were to carry on the way you have.
Our countries are not in conflict, but we do collectively think differently about many things. Vive la differance

Mark

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 05:30 PM
Personally I find the whole dragging of WW2 into the whole procedings disingenuous. I do not appologise for calling the Bush administration to task over it's double standards, as I have done my own governments. Maybe you missed my point. It gets tiresome listening to the liberals of Europe constantly whining about what the US is doing wrong when they haven't done anything right themselves for quite a few generations and they're in decline.If you are going to go in and invade a sovereign nation on the flimsiest ( and so far proven wrong ) evidence of WMD, and then to proclaim that Saddam was "one of the bad guys". But this is sort of what I mean about the silliness. It's the "do you still beat your wife" approach to discussion. Look at your statements. Iraq was a "sovereign nation" subject to the treaty it signed with the UN and its signatory members. It broke the treaty numerous time. It was legally subject to the things laid out in the treaty..... yet you don't mention it and act like it was an innocent country invaded by "bad guys". The resolutions passed by the US Congress on the invasion of Iraq... do you think it was something about "flimsy evidence on WMD's". It's a matter of public record if you want to read the resolution... so your statement is false and presumably deliberately so. The WMD issue has never been resolved. The two reports by appointed inspectors both left the caveat that there might be new devlopments and that it could not be ruled out that WMD's had been moved to Syria. An Iraqi general just released a book saying the WMD's were taken to Syria just before the war. So it's an open question.... I don't believe either way because there's not enough proof, as a number of people realize. However, it staggers me to think what will happen to a number of carreers on the Left if WMD's are found in Syria or someplace... Democrats will be out of power for another 20 years at minimum and that means we'll drift too far toward the Right, probably. But regardless, look at the deliberate inaccuracies you just foisted off with your statements. I would respect someone who tried very hard to make measures, honest, and balanced evaluations, rather than someone who partisan flair is so obvious and constant.

Mike

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 06:05 PM
Maybe you missed my point. It gets tiresome listening to the liberals of Europe constantly whining about what the US is doing wrong when they haven't done anything right themselves for quite a few generations and they're in decline.
I can only answer with your own words Mike;I would respect someone who tried very hard to make measures, honest, and balanced evaluations, rather than someone who partisan flair is so obvious and constant.

Mike Sigman
02-20-2006, 06:14 PM
I can only answer with your own words Mike; Good. I was making a point. When I discuss politics, I try to look at all the facts, not just the facts that support my own preferences. I wouldn't, for instance, attack John Kerry, George Bush, or Tony Blair because I had a persistent hatred for them, but I might attack them for a particular deed in which I could *factually* show that there was reason to make the attack. The partisan type of attacks which don't allow for discussion and which are heavily invested in personal attack or innuendo..... that's for the mindless. I don't like having good martial arts diluted with the rabble. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
02-20-2006, 06:28 PM
The resolutions passed by the US Congress on the invasion of Iraq... do you think it was something about "flimsy evidence on WMD's".

As a matter of fact...yes. And, this can be well-documented...by the very people who voted, on this legislation.

It's a matter of public record if you want to read the resolution...

What? Where? Oh, those damned factoids....always getting in the way (of a good rant). :crazy:

so your statement is false and presumably deliberately so. The WMD issue has never been resolved. The two reports by appointed inspectors both left the caveat that there might be new devlopments and that it could not be ruled out that WMD's had been moved to Syria. An Iraqi general just released a book saying the WMD's were taken to Syria just before the war. So it's an open question.... I don't believe either way because there's not enough proof, as a number of people realize.

Oh, Mike, Mike... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The stuff you trumpet, as fact. Really. I could show how tenuous, how thin, this argument is holding up. But I won't bother: I understand that you aren't listening. Too bad for you.

It's sort of like watching someone test, when they clearly aren't ready. You don't say anything, later, of course...you just remember feeling your gut clench, in an inward spasm of empathy, and embarassment. :uch:

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 06:29 PM
Please Mike let's stop....If you can factually show that you can suport your claim that Europeans:-haven't done anything right themselves for quite a few generations and they're in decline.
I might take you seriously..... and then only might :p
I don't like having good martial arts diluted with the rabble.
Curious and curiouser!

Mark

Taliesin
02-21-2006, 09:00 AM
I've just returned to this thread so have a few observations -

Firsly with regard that it was prior to WWII there was a movement for appeasement but then that was a generation who had lost millions in WWI rather than the 60,000 (still a lot) that the US lost.

Secondly although Chamberlain was Prime Minister it is often forgotten by many - that he was the one who declared war.

As far as Europeans bringing the US into WWII - I thought the japanese 'visit' to Pearl Harbour had something to do with that.

As far as 'productive matters since WWII - We (that the British) set up a democratic Iran - this was overturned for the Americans to put the Shah in charge - so how productive was your interference in Iran would you say?

In Iraq , we have to share blame we armed and supported Saddam Hussain 'to maintain stability' - How's that going BTW.

In Northern Ireland huge funds were sent by Americans to support the IRA

How much did Viet Nam or the US benefit from thePolicing Action there (and no you were not alone there were australian and Kiwi troops there to)

In Bosnia it was NATO who became involved and this included British and European Troops

The fact is every dominant country in history promotes hostility. The British did just as much - although we at least had the sense to try to assimilate rather than purely dominate.

As far as the rest of your arguments - it appears to be that GWB IS America - because I sure can't imagimne you fight for Bill clinton the same way. (But then you don't need to the US was a well respected and undisputed democracy in his time - it's arguably neither at present).

Mike Sigman
02-21-2006, 09:49 AM
Firsly with regard that it was prior to WWII there was a movement for appeasement but then that was a generation who had lost millions in WWI rather than the 60,000 (still a lot) that the US lost. I mentioned the WWI bit. You say "Europe" lost millions but the "US" lost only 60,000. Odd you should treat "Europe" as a country equivalent to the US, when it certainly wasn't, in WWII. But from where I sit, after having listened to the complaints about the US from Europeans (France was back-biting the US before 1950; Helmut Kohl ran on a fairly openly anti-US ticket in the 50's), I think the US made a mistake becoming involved. According to many of the new generation of Europeans, we weren't really needed, it seems. Secondly although Chamberlain was Prime Minister it is often forgotten by many - that he was the one who declared war. So? He had no choice when Germany invaded Poland. He was a broken man at that point and resigned completely when Germany began even more invasions in Europe. As far as Europeans bringing the US into WWII - I thought the japanese 'visit' to Pearl Harbour had something to do with that. It's a lot more complex than that, if you'll dig into it. Lend-lease, etc.
As far as 'productive matters since WWII - We (that the British) set up a democratic Iran - this was overturned for the Americans to put the Shah in charge - so how productive was your interference in Iran would you say? The Shah wasn't the problem, the problem was Jimmy Carter. Besides, no matter who you put in place in Muslim countries, tell me one that has worked out successfully. It's a waste of time. The idea of the Caliphate and/or totalitarian government always dominates the Muslim countries. Do you have an example of a successful Muslim country with civil rights? Don't blame that on the US. In Iraq , we have to share blame we armed and supported Saddam Hussain 'to maintain stability' - How's that going BTW. We also supported Joseph Stalin in World War II. That was then and now is now. In Northern Ireland huge funds were sent by Americans to support the IRA Irish immigrants for the most part. Maybe we should kick out the Irish, those rogues. ;) How much did Viet Nam or the US benefit from thePolicing Action there (and no you were not alone there were australian and Kiwi troops there to) You may want to go back and read your history about the Cold War and how many countries the communists took over and how many the US (mainly) tried to keep from the hands of the communists. If you'll think about it, one way to dominate the world is to quietly emplace your representatives in as many countries as you can (which was the communist goal for the Cold War). The US, with very little help from Europe and active back-stabbing from France, attempted to stop the spread of puppet regimes. That was the rationale behind many of the engagements, active and behind-the-scenes, in the Cold War. In Bosnia it was NATO who became involved and this included British and European Troops NATO means that the US does the work and the Europeans provide token support. Bosnia was even less of a threat to the US than Iraq and the UN refused to sanction the action.... so why no complaints from the "anti-war" crowd? Basically, the US was doing Europes dirty laundry for them. And in Bosnia, because of French active inside dirty-work, the US learned to go it alone rather than let the European bickering and politics in the door. That's why the US is reluctant to give any command decisions to allies, nowadays. The fact is every dominant country in history promotes hostility. The British did just as much - although we at least had the sense to try to assimilate rather than purely dominate. Well, I think the US should just pull out of the Middle East stuff and let good ole Europe handle things in its inimitable decisive style. If Europe had to fund armies instead of welfare, perhaps their economies could get back on track. ;)
As far as the rest of your arguments - it appears to be that GWB IS America - because I sure can't imagimne you fight for Bill clinton the same way. (But then you don't need to the US was a well respected and undisputed democracy in his time - it's arguably neither at present). "Well respected"? That's why the Arabs kept attacking. They saw the US as soft because Clinton never responded. In fact, if you watched the news, you saw that Clinton national security advisor almost went to jail for hiding documents showing that he nixed a lot of necessary security precautions. The reason Berger did that is because Clinton didn't want to be bothered with the CIA, intel, etc., and didn't even take briefings for the most part, leaving it to the national security advisor.

See? There's more information out there than you thought. But again, same as with Mark.... is there some fixation you have about the US that causes you to bash the US when you have even bigger targets at home? I think you'd see the absurdity of the "bash the guys overseas" if we just did it more often in our papers, etc. Trying to be nice certainly doesn't pay. Those mere 60,000 lives you glossed over didn't amount to much.

FWIW

Mike

Neil Mick
02-21-2006, 10:01 PM
The Shah wasn't the problem, the problem was Jimmy Carter.

Besides, no matter who you put in place in Muslim countries, tell me one that has worked out successfully. It's a waste of time.

The idea of the Caliphate and/or totalitarian government always dominates the Muslim countries.

(ignoring, of course, the govt's of Turkey, Lebanon, et al: which have elections and parliaments)

Do you have an example of a successful Muslim country with civil rights?

(Turkey, again, off the top of my head. Tho it's hardly a shining example)

from Taliesin: "As far as the rest of your arguments - it appears to be that GWB IS America - because I sure can't imagimne you fight for Bill clinton the same way. (But then you don't need to the US was a well respected and undisputed democracy in his time - it's arguably neither at present)."

"Well respected"? That's why the Arabs kept attacking. They saw the US as soft because Clinton never responded.

{World opinion does not = Attacks by the odd Arab extremist.
This is known as sidestepping the question.}

See? There's more

{mis-}
information out there than you thought.

:uch: :uch: Ooh...here comes that gut-clenching feeling, again... :uch: :uch:

Taliesin
02-24-2006, 07:38 AM
Mike

I really do admire the effort you put into your reply, it's shame you sacrificed accuracy. But hey, if that's your style.

Just a few points

What I said was "a generation who lost millions" - I didn't specify country or 'Europe' (although I was referring to the UK)

Still I don't blame you for not paying attention to what I write - since that seems to be your response to everything.

Then we have the argument that Britain had no choice but to declare war when Germany invaded Poland - This begs the question - Exactly how poor is your geography?

The US attempted to stop the spread of puppet regimes - NO - they simply tried to establish their own puppet regimes - like the Shah , or Daniel Noriega etc. So you are wrong again.

Then we came to the final irony - the assertion that the 'Arabs kept attacking' when Bill Clinton was president. Don't you even know who was President, and as far as I can remember fled to his hidey-hole, at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Gee with such a wealth of ignorance at your disposal its amazing that people disagree with you.

BTW - the only middle-eastern Moslem democracy was the one the US overthrew to install the Shah.

Mike Sigman
02-24-2006, 08:41 AM
Mike

I really do admire the effort you put into your reply, it's shame you sacrificed accuracy. But hey, if that's your style.

Just a few points

What I said was "a generation who lost millions" - I didn't specify country or 'Europe' (although I was referring to the UK) Well, I thought your number was a little low for the US, so I looked it up at http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html
US deaths: 295,000
GB, military and civilain: 388,000
You don't know what you're talking about. Still I don't blame you for not paying attention to what I write - since that seems to be your response to everything. Nice cheap shot, but you look like a fool now. Then we have the argument that Britain had no choice but to declare war when Germany invaded Poland - This begs the question - Exactly how poor is your geography? My geography's pretty good. I was talking treaties and never said or implied geography. You took that one on yourself. "Not paying attention"? The US attempted to stop the spread of puppet regimes - NO - they simply tried to establish their own puppet regimes - like the Shah , or Daniel Noriega etc. So you are wrong again. You're completely clueless about the Cold War, aren't you? Do some research on the numbers of countries acquired by the USSR and Communist China.... I think it was in the 40's. Then we came to the final irony - the assertion that the 'Arabs kept attacking' when Bill Clinton was president. Don't you even know who was President, and as far as I can remember fled to his hidey-hole, at the time of the 9/11 attacks. USS Cole, Khobar towers, Somalia, Nigerian embassies, 1993 WTC bombing, etc. Are you daft? Gee with such a wealth of ignorance at your disposal its amazing that people disagree with you. I would hope, given the enormous errors you just made, that you'd be a little embarrassed with your last statement.... but I doubt it.

Mike

Taliesin
02-24-2006, 11:05 AM
Mike

I appreciate your difficulty in paying attention but try not to confuse WWI and WWII. Although I am impressed at the way you researched casualties for World War 1 on a website called secondworldwar.com.

I am sure you can appreciate why I am not overly worried at your view that I don't know what I'm talking about. Nor am I worried about being told I look like a fool by somebody who apparently has no idea or the order of WW1 and WW2 - that's the FIRST and SECOND World Wars (there's a clue in the numbers Mike)

As far as the UK being forced to declare War - You may be talking about treaties but counties have ignored treaties before when they are inconvenient - like say the 2nd Geneva Convention - so again not a strong point.

Puppet Regimes - my point was that the US didn't try and stop the spread of puppet regimes - they merely tried setting up their own. - Your answer you think 'Communist' countries established 40 + puppet regimes. What's your point Mike? certainly it supports my view that the US were not preventing 'Communist' puppet regimes being established, nor does it refute my assertion that the US was establishing it's own puppet regimes.

As far as your point that Arabs kept attacking when Bill Clinton was president. You forgot to tell me who was President when the 9/11 attacks occurred because I'm sure it wasn't Bill Clinton and the argument that they kept attacking because he was Bill Clinton was President doesn't actually stand up.

BTW Somalia and Nigeria aren't Arabic countries.

Still it was nice of you to try and clarify things.

James Davis
02-28-2006, 12:45 PM
As far as your point that Arabs kept attacking when Bill Clinton was president. You forgot to tell me who was President when the 9/11 attacks occurred because I'm sure it wasn't Bill Clinton and the argument that they kept attacking because he was Bill Clinton was President doesn't actually stand up.

BTW Somalia and Nigeria aren't Arabic countries.

Still it was nice of you to try and clarify things.


No, it wasn't Bill Clinton that was president during the 9-11 attacks. Bill Clinton was the guy that had Osama offered to him on a platter and did nothing. :drool:

True, Somalia and Nigeria aren't Arabic countries. I think Mike was probably thinking about the fact that arabs claimed responsibilty for the bombings.

Was it nice of me to try and clarify things, too? :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
02-28-2006, 12:54 PM
Was it nice of me to try and clarify things, too? :rolleyes:

Well, at least you didn't confuse WW1 and WW2... :p

Taliesin
03-01-2006, 11:37 AM
James

Of course it was nice of you to try and clarify things - but it would have been even nicer if you had actually managed it.

Perhaps you can help Mike to clarify why he thinks Bill Clinton's 'weakness' was the reason for 'Arab' attacks against US targets when the largest attack took place while GWB was President.

Perhaps you can clarify whether you meant Arab or Islamic extremists - given that Islam is not an exclusively middle eastern religion and the extremists are not necessarily middle eastern. (This is just because I don't recall any news report stating "the Arabs claimed responsibility")

It might help for you to clarify what you mean by Arab - as not all middle eastern people view them selves as 'Arab' - such as Kurds, or even Iranians who may view themselves as Persian.

It might also be helpful to clarify that the groups of middle eastern people are far more often victims of Islamic extremism than us in the west.

I'd also be grateful for you to clarify the attacks in Somalia - given the Somali Government collapsed following the Civil War in 1991 and dissolved into chaos with Clan based militia's fighting with each other for control. In Somalia the key matter is your clan, whether it has a militia, and how strong that militia is. Religion is not an issue.

James Davis
03-01-2006, 12:09 PM
James

Of course it was nice of you to try and clarify things - but it would have been even nicer if you had actually managed it.

Perhaps you can help Mike to clarify why he thinks Bill Clinton's 'weakness' was the reason for 'Arab' attacks against US targets when the largest attack took place while GWB was President.

Perhaps you can clarify whether you meant Arab or Islamic extremists - given that Islam is not an exclusively middle eastern religion and the extremists are not necessarily middle eastern. (This is just because I don't recall any news report stating "the Arabs claimed responsibility")


Osama Bin Laden (an arab) and his Al Qaeda organization (islamic extremists) claimed responsibility for USS Cole and 9-11 World Trade Center bombings (among other things).

Same organization, same leader. Both times. Bill Clinton didn't lift a finger to go after OBL; he lifted a cigar instead. :rolleyes:

The differences between Bill and Dubya can (sort of) be likened to the changing of managers of a department store:

One manager (Bill) watches people shoplifting on the stores hidden cameras and decides that the solution is to post signs to talk tough to potential shoplifters ( FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, etc.). Strangely enough, the shoplifting doesn't stop. :confused:

When another manager (Bush) is hired, the store is again hit hard because every thief in town has heard of its reputation as an easy target. This time, the store manager unasses his chair and goes after the thieves with the intention of prosecuting them. The store manager has a reputation as a hardass, and the stores losses due to shoplifting drop. People still try to steal, but often they are caught before they're able to complete the act.

And now, to recap:

Bush did... something about the problem.

Bill did... Monica. :yuck:

Hogan
03-01-2006, 01:32 PM
...Perhaps you can help Mike to clarify why he thinks Bill Clinton's 'weakness' was the reason for 'Arab' attacks against US targets when the largest attack took place while GWB was President. .


David - the terrorists were encouraged to attack the US over the yrs because of weakness showed by our previous leaders. In fact, Bin Laden said it actually started when Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the marine barracks were attacked. He said our pull-out 'encouraged' them and showed them that the great US was vulnerable. And it didn't help matters much when Clinton pulled out of Somalia when he got his nose bloodied.

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 02:14 PM
Osama Bin Laden (an arab) and his Al Qaeda organization (islamic extremists) claimed responsibility for USS Cole and 9-11 World Trade Center bombings (among other things).

Same organization, same leader. Both times. Bill Clinton didn't lift a finger to go after OBL; he lifted a cigar instead. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Yet another urban legend raises its head, from the muck (not that I'm a great fan of Clinton).

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.
Status: False.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.
On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen. (The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.
. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

The differences between Bill and Dubya can (sort of) be likened to the changing of managers of a department store:

One manager (Bill) watches people shoplifting on the stores hidden cameras and decides that the solution is to post signs to talk tough to potential shoplifters ( FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, etc.). Strangely enough, the shoplifting doesn't stop. :confused:

The diffference between Bill and Dubya can be likened to the changing of the guard, at the oiligarchy. :crazy:

When another manager (Bush) is hired, the store is again hit hard because every thief in town has heard of its reputation as an easy target. This time, the store manager unasses his chair and goes after the thieves with the intention of prosecuting them. The store manager has a reputation as a hardass, and the stores losses due to shoplifting drop. People still try to steal, but often they are caught before they're able to complete the act.

Funny...but I seem to remember that large portions of the people caught (and not processed) under terrorism charges are being let go.

Perhaps your metaphor would be more accurate if you said:

One manager tried to call security and fix the problem before the store owners got mad, but his co-workers busted him for lying about diddling an underling. Other times he just resorted to bombing and mass-starvations, and that didn't work much, either (except, of course: the inspections-disarmament plan went as planned, as we all now know).

The next manager said screw the rules (and logic)...let's just round up people over in the "Pakistan" aisle, offer rewards for random tips and scoop up people by the bushel; and then lock them up in the basement; not tell anyone even their identity; torture, beat, and kill them; and then release them in small groups when we're finally called on it.

Whoops! :eek: My metaphor slipped! :)

And now, to recap:

Bush did... something about the problem.

Bill did... Monica. :yuck:


And now to recap:

Bush did nothing for the problem, except kill and jail a lot of innocents (and no, Saddam doesn't count. The Kurds nabbed him, after all) and illegally wiretap American's.

Bill did some things, but the problem didn't go away.

Ron Tisdale
03-01-2006, 02:16 PM
it actually started when Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the marine barracks were attacked. He said our pull-out 'encouraged' them and showed them that the great US was vulnerable.

Ah, so it's all the fault of a CONSERVATIVE! I KNEW IT!

Thanks, can I quote you on that? ;)

Best,
Ron (a. this is a joke b. I guess I already quoted you on that...)

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 02:24 PM
David - the terrorists were encouraged to attack the US over the yrs

when we bomb their homes, starve them, and prop up dictators who happen to experience a momentary fit of (lucre-fueled) friendliness, to the US.

James Davis
03-01-2006, 05:34 PM
Wrong. Yet another urban legend raises its head, from the muck (not that I'm a great fan of Clinton).

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm


Sudan's president, Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, offered to arrest Osama Bin Laden and provide valuable intel on Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas in exchange for lifting of sanctions against Sudan.

Bill said "No".


The diffference between Bill and Dubya can be likened to the changing of the guard, at the oiligarchy. :crazy:

On that, we agree. :mad:


Bill did some things, but the problem didn't go away.

Yeah, bombing aspirin factories didn't make the headlines about Monica go away. :D

Neil Mick
03-01-2006, 05:49 PM
Bill said "No".

I'll be the first to say that slick Willie's imperfect. I'll even go so far as to say that much of his campaigns against terror seemed to be a form of media-damage control.

But it's simply erroneous to say that Clinton did nothing.

Yeah, bombing aspirin factories didn't make the headlines about Monica go away. :D

Worse, that factory supplied 1/2 of all pharmaceuticals for that country (Somalia, right?) Even Clarke, at the end of his 9-11 Commission testimony, was attesting to his belief that they were right in bombing it.

No apology, no recompensation...just business as usual. :disgust:

Taliesin
03-02-2006, 03:59 AM
I must say I am impressed at how all the inaccuracies exposed by those on the right have been forgotten in an attempt to claim that everything is Bill Clinton's fault and nothing GWB fault.

I'd be more impressed by James (and his allies) if he could clarify any of the points I asked him to.

James Davis
03-02-2006, 11:41 AM
I must say I am impressed at how all the inaccuracies exposed by those on the right have been forgotten in an attempt to claim that everything is Bill Clinton's fault and nothing GWB fault.

'inaccuracies exposed by those on the right have been forgotten'...

Yup, that's about right. :p

I've NEVER said the GWB is perfect; heck, at this point I don't even like him. I think that there are quite a few things that he could do to improve our borders that ain't gettin' done. I refuse to believe, however, that Clinton can simply pardon a few of his pals, walk away, and wash his hands of all the stuff he had a role in messing up.

By the logic presented in previous posts, it shouldn't matter what was done by previous presidents, because it only matters who was president at the time of the attacks...

Mmmmkaaay... :confused:

Then Reagan saying, "We don't deal with terrorists." just before he caved in to their requests shouldn't be included in the discussion, either. :rolleyes:

I'd be more impressed by James (and his allies) if he could clarify any of the points I asked him to.

"More impressed"? You mean to say that I'm impressing you? Just a little bit? :D

I have allies? Neat. Maybe they can post something more "impressive" for ya. Or maybe they aren't concerned with splitting hairs about Kurds, Arabs, and Persians either. :rolleyes:

David, it's true that other countries do get attacked just as much, if not more, than we do. We're not the only target that appeals to Islamic extremists.

Taliesin
03-02-2006, 12:05 PM
James - you can't have it both ways - you are looking to blame Bill Clinton and completely exonerate GWB - You still haven't come close to explaining why the worst attack came when GWB was President.

Your argument is there was a problem Bill Clinton did nothing about it, GWB was elected things got worse. Therefore GWB can't be blamed it must all be Bill Clinton's fault - a very strange argument indeed.

And that's the only point you Mike, John Hogan etc appear willing to defend.

Still since i'm away for a few days I will look forward to your responses.

Hogan
03-02-2006, 12:23 PM
James - you can't have it both ways - you are looking to blame Bill Clinton and completely exonerate GWB - You still haven't come close to explaining why the worst attack came when GWB was President.

Your argument is there was a problem Bill Clinton did nothing about it, GWB was elected things got worse. Therefore GWB can't be blamed it must all be Bill Clinton's fault - a very strange argument indeed.

And that's the only point you Mike, John Hogan etc appear willing to defend.

Still since i'm away for a few days I will look forward to your responses.

Well, since you brought my name in it for some reason, let us use a different example. Look at the New Orleans levies and their subsequent breakdown. The levies were not built to where they should have been built, and that original decision was made over the yrs by many folks many yrs ago. Any attempts to build-up those same levies in subsequent yrs failed or were not done, again by decisions of many folks throughout the yrs, including during the period of Bush's presidency (you know, federal dollars supposed to have gone for repairs, etc, but then that same money is lost to New Orleans corruption, etc...). Then the worst happened, and they broke. Is Bush to blame, or are the people who actually designed and built and refused to fix the levies throughout the prior yrs more to blame?

(And what's worse, the levies are being rebuilt to EXACTLY where they were prior to failing - now THAT'S stupid).

makuchg
03-02-2006, 03:42 PM
What I find amazing in all this discussion is the limiting to the last 10 or 12 years. While as American's our memory often fails to reach beyond the current and last president, to believe the conflict between Arab extremists (albeit by different names) and western culture that exists today is anyone in the last 20 years fault is naive. It isn't that it's Bills fault for not doing anything, or it's W's fault, it's a cultural chasm that spans centuries. While it would be nice to think we could have mitigated the violence toward us if Bill would have done this or W would do that, the reality is it's both their fault and no one's fault.

Hogan
03-02-2006, 04:49 PM
What I find amazing in all this discussion is the limiting to the last 10 or 12 years. While as American's our memory often fails to reach beyond the current and last president, to believe the conflict between Arab extremists (albeit by different names) and western culture that exists today is anyone in the last 20 years fault is naive. It isn't that it's Bills fault for not doing anything, or it's W's fault, it's a cultural chasm that spans centuries. While it would be nice to think we could have mitigated the violence toward us if Bill would have done this or W would do that, the reality is it's both their fault and no one's fault.

I think you're right, Greg. No one is at fault; not my problem, I didn't do it - he did it. Let's just accept it that that's the way it is - it'll never change. Think of it, all those opportunities to have stopped it / them in the last 20 yrs (at least) - if only Reagan never pulled out of Lebanon, maybe Bin Laden wouldn't have thought us weak and thus encouraged him. But it doesn't matter, it's the way it is, it'll never change - it must be in their nature or something....

makuchg
03-02-2006, 07:31 PM
I hope I didn't sound like a defeatest, that wasn't my intention. I know sometimes intention is not conveyed accurately online, so maybe I came across that way. I think the answer is not in accepting the situation, but in acknowledging the differences of opinion and understanding why each is justified. The blame game doesn't move us forward, it holds us in place to worry about past conflicts rather than address current ones. While I don't agree with many decisions made by this administration, it is our only administration and we must pressure them to make the right decisions or replace them the first chance we get.

Is it possible to make peace with Islamic extremists? NO. However, you can make peace with that region and create an environment where extremism isn't an acceptable option. Turkey is the perfect example of what is possible for Islamic countries. Is this an easy task? Of course not, but dwelling on the mistakes of the past is not the right option and will NEVER move the world forward toward peace.

James Davis
03-03-2006, 11:46 AM
Is it possible to make peace with Islamic extremists? NO. However, you can make peace with that region and create an environment where extremism isn't an acceptable option. Turkey is the perfect example of what is possible for Islamic countries. Is this an easy task? Of course not, but dwelling on the mistakes of the past is not the right option and will NEVER move the world forward toward peace.
Well said.

I hope that there will come a time when everybody gets smart and stops supporting and condoning terrorism. Car bombs kill everyone in the area, whether they are friend or foe. Some day maybe everyone will figure out what a horrible idea it is to aid and hide bomb makers living down their street. They only remain "friendly" for so long...

makuchg
03-03-2006, 01:18 PM
I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" last night. It was a good movie, although somewhat long and dry at times. However there is a great line when Orlando Bloom is encouraging the people of Jerusalem to defend against the Muslims (a fight he loses):

"It has fallen to us, to defend Jerusalem, and we have made our preparations as well as they can be made. None of us took this city from Muslims. No Muslim of the great army now coming against us was born when this city was lost. We fight over an offence we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended. What is Jerusalem? Your holy palaces lie over the Jewish temple that the Romans pulled down. The Muslim places of worship lie over yours. Which is more holy?"

He then continues:
"The wall? The Mosque? The Sepulchre? Who has claim? No one has claim. All have claim!"

James Davis
03-03-2006, 05:01 PM
I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" last night. It was a good movie, although somewhat long and dry at times. However there is a great line when Orlando Bloom is encouraging the people of Jerusalem to defend against the Muslims (a fight he loses):

"It has fallen to us, to defend Jerusalem, and we have made our preparations as well as they can be made. None of us took this city from Muslims. No Muslim of the great army now coming against us was born when this city was lost. We fight over an offence we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended. What is Jerusalem? Your holy palaces lie over the Jewish temple that the Romans pulled down. The Muslim places of worship lie over yours. Which is more holy?"

He then continues:
"The wall? The Mosque? The Sepulchre? Who has claim? No one has claim. All have claim!"
"What is Jerusalem? It is nothing, and it is everything."

Neil Mick
03-03-2006, 05:35 PM
I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" last night. It was a good movie, although somewhat long and dry at times. However there is a great line when Orlando Bloom is encouraging the people of Jerusalem to defend against the Muslims (a fight he loses):

"It has fallen to us, to defend Jerusalem, and we have made our preparations as well as they can be made. None of us took this city from Muslims. No Muslim of the great army now coming against us was born when this city was lost. We fight over an offence we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended. What is Jerusalem? Your holy palaces lie over the Jewish temple that the Romans pulled down. The Muslim places of worship lie over yours. Which is more holy?"

He then continues:
"The wall? The Mosque? The Sepulchre? Who has claim? No one has claim. All have claim!"

I liked Kingdom of Heaven, a lot...I drove out to another city to go see it (wasn't playing in Santa Cruz).

There's a great interview on DN! where Robert Fisk (British journalist, spec in the MidEast) takes a moment to describe what he saw while watching it in Lebanon (where he currently lives). He described the scene where Saladin comes into a church, just after conquering Jerusalem. He walks over to a fallen cross and rights it again.

At that point, the whole audience applauded. It's a very different snapshot of the face we're presented in the media, today. But, both images are accurate...depending upon location, and context.