The Bush thread

Maybe we should all just have it out once and for all, instead of talking George Bush in every thread on the forums. So give your general opinions of Bush, or just argue with me about mine. Here's my opinions.

I'm in favor of the war in Iraq. There are a lot of countries in the world run by psychopaths, and even letting them sit around and ignoring them isn't enough to get them to keep their killing to themselves. If we had the power to do it, I'd be in favor of wiping out every corrupt regime on the planet. We likely don't have the power to do it, so one or two is good for now.

Justification for the war. Bush said Iraq had weapons and posed a threat. Let's assume (and I'm just assuming) that Iraq had no weapons and posed no threat. That means that Bush's words were untrue. Now for some reason people make the leap of judgment to say "He lied!". That would imply intent, and I see no reason to believe there was intent. Possibilities as I see it: 1) He lied. He knew we had no reason to go to war, so he made up a reason. 2) He guessed. He didn't know whether Iraq was a threat or not, so he took a blind guess, or made a biased decision based on factors other than the US's safety, and was wrong. 3) He had good reason to believe we had reason to go to war because Iraq was a threat, but he was still wrong. If the first, he's a liar. If the second, he's reckless or at least not entirely honest. If the third, I'm fine with it. I lean toward the third.

Foreign policy. I couldn't give less of a crap about foreign policy. The opinions about this country that matter stop at this country's borders. So long as we're not waging open war on our allies or something, or doing something that really harms our nation in some way, we should do what's in our own best interests, and Bush seems to.

Economy. I have no job, and computer jobs are bleeding out of the country right now, going overseas to dirt-poor countries like India, where people there will take $50,000-a-year jobs for the equivalent of less than a Taco Bell employee makes. If someone in India is willing to work for bread and water, why hire me here, who has a ridiculously high cost of living to maintain? Tech jobs are being destroyed in a way that people are comparing to the way farm jobs were destroyed by the rise of factories, and factory jobs were destroyed by the rise of computers. Is that Bush's fault? Well it's the habit to blame everything in the world on the President, so who knows. Bush had a huge tax cut, but no one in my family got a dime. I couldn't get a grant to go to college, but illegal aliens get free health care from the government, and Bush wants to invite another couple hundred thousand truckloads over the border. If I vote with my wallet, Bush wouldn't get my vote, but who knows. My sight is short, in the case of money, and I'm no economics professor, so I have to mostly ignore this issue. It's a great knee-jerker of an issue though.

Bush is probably owned by corporations and rich people, but who isn't? Money runs this country, whether I like it or not.

Philosophy. Bush is a religious whacko, and I don't care much for that. I get nervous when people start making references to deities when talking about the laws and dealings of this country. He's also apparently anti-gay people, and wants to make laws outlawing gay marriage if he can; I can't say I agree with that.

Environment. I can't say I could possibly give less of a crap about the environment, so long as we aren't causing mass-extinctions.

Abortion, he says he's anti-abortion except for rape and to save a mother, and I'm in agreement with that morally, if not legally.

There's all these Big Brother laws that people gripe about, because they "take away our freedom". I think if we destroyed more evil countries' regimes, we wouldn't need so many of those laws where innocent people are screened and prosecuted along with the bad guys. I can't agree with the idea that a broad enough net will catch all terrorists. There are too many people in the world to watch them all. There are too many chances to eliminate all possibility of harm. Crazy monitoring systems and giving the police super-powers and such are just treating the symptoms, not the problem. The problem is that so many of the mindless murderers of the world are still free and/or alive. Maybe it's not possible to catch / kill them all, but I'd rather see more effort going into that, or into digging countries out from under the weight of despotic dictators and the poverty and desperation that results, and such, than into pointless things like airport security which fail miserably time and time again.

And finally, the stupid arguments. "Bush is stupid!" Bush is a bad speaker, that's as far as I will accept that argument. I couldn't care less; so am I, and I'm not stupid. Bush says things that aren't completely true; let's see anyone consistently stand up to the ridiculous scrutiny of having every single one of your words analyzed, and every single move you make in public watched from a hundred angles. Actions bely words; I think people should judge the President on the big things that happen, the big actions and major decisions, not on the small things, not picking his words apart.

Like most voters, my opinions are ill-informed at best. A whole government's worth of people's opinions go into making every decision that's made, but we just throw "George Bush" out there as a figurehead or a symbol of the administration as though he's the King of America. We see a few minutes worth of public speech on the TV, which is the tip of the iceberg of the 4 YEARS worth of Presidency by which we rightfully should be judging him. We don't have that knowledge. We get to make a guess. And we're all voting for our own self-interests; there's not a person in the country who is doing otherwise. In fact that's the whole point of voting; to vote for our self-interests. The process is almost emotionally biased by defintion. But I guess we make do with what we can.

So anyways, will I vote for him. It's hard to decide. So far of the democrats I've seen super-liberal nut-cases, or else people who say "Vote for me; I'm not George Bush!" That's not good enough for me. I'm leaning towards either voting for Bush or not voting at all; probably not voting. But there's a long time to still think about it, and I've only just begin to consider it. I won't vote for a non-Bush by default though, as many people seem willing to do. Better the evil you know than the evil you don't.

Reasons why Howard Dean would make a good president:

1. Dean is a fiscal conservative. As governor of Vermont he tooka record decifit and made it into a surplus without raising huge taxes and while providing health care to 99% of children in the state. Bush by contrast has run up huge deficits while simultaneously lowering taxes for the wealthiest americans. You can't increase spending humoungously and cut your income.

2. Dean isn't owned by large corporations. He has almost exclusively financed his campaign from small donations on the internet from individual voters. Bush collects huge donations from corporations in exchange for favors.

3. Dean has been consistently against the war in Iraq. He rightly acknowledges that Saddam Hussein was never an imminent threat to the United States. He might have been a threat 10 yearsd ago but sanctions and UN efforts had reduced his capacity to put up any fight. Osama Bin Laden is a threat, Saddam is not. Obviosuly Saddam is a bad man and is better out of power, but Bush hasn't fixed anything for Iraqis. People laugh about Dean claiming we weren't any safer now that Saddam is captured, but now that we have destroyed the Saddam government, Iraq is anarchic and a haven for terrorists. If anything, toppling Saddam has strengthened Al Qaeda. Saddam never supported them anyway. It's the Saudis who support Al Qaeda.

4. Dean stands up and speaks the truth. Bush lies constantly.

That is enough for now...

I agree mostly with waht Dr. Unne said. I support Bush and especially the war. Although one thing I dislike is that so many people assume he lied to get us into war, but most everyone just ignores the countless spies we had in Iraq before the war who gathered information classified top secret. And then people just forget that top secret means they don't reveal the details if not even the infomation to the public. I mean in 50 or so years we'll probally get a full detailed report of every weapon of mass destruction Saddam had probally. Although people also seem to forget that Saddam broke nearly every law the UN passed on him, including the law that he was not to build weapons like Scuds, and within minutes of the war scuds start flying from his sides to ours.

As for the philosphy that Dr. Unne mentioned, I never knew about that (then again I never pay much attention to politics.) but from the sound of it I fully disagree with Bush's religious views on anti gay and all that such.

Well that's all I can think of to say.

Hmmmmm

Iraq. Another extension of US hegemony. No I don't blame Bush personally, I blame the people around him. I cringe at the tought that the Reagan administration is still in power. They're the most regressive power concentration in the last century. What's interesting is that these same people, like Rumsfield, supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and when a popular movement tried to overthrow him, this administration suppressed the rebellion. Then we supported despots, like Marcos, in the Phillipeans(sp?) and the Panama. We are also currently supporting a dictatorship in Mexico and since NAFTA poverty has doubled and wages have been cut in half. I find it highly unlikely that this administration wants to end poverty and dictatorships when they endorse them right next door and even in the poorest communities in the US. Colin Powell has admitted that there was no connection to terrorists and the intelligence community has admitted there is no weapons of mass destruction. So, basically this war was a pile of poop.

Foreign Policy. I will, respectfully, disagree with Unne's assessment. Bad foreign policy can cause resentment amongst the world, particularly our 7.5 billion dollars per year to Israel.

Economy. Yes, those conditions are every President's direct responsibility. Treaties like NAFTA allow businesses to control profits directly for their benefit. Jobs are being shipped out but big business doesn't suffer a lick, neither do large banks and investors. A progressive administration would not allow a company to ship jobs out for their own profit. Keeping jobs here has tremendous benefits. Big companies get subsudized and put a mailbox in the caribbean to avoid taxes while the rest of us foot the bill of rising education and health costs. We should be subsidizing universities, the poorest public schools, and clinics. Instead, worldcomm gets a contract in Iraq for "wireless communications" and GE gets a very generous 10 billion dollar a year subsidy contract. Our whole society is being put on the market. If you're poor, you won't get an education, you'll die of curable disease and live in tremendous debt. The the past 4 administrations(including clinton) have supported such neoliberal policies.

Bush is wacky. As governor, he had the power to stop a mentally retarded person from being executed but choose not to. UGGGHHHH!

I'm for abortion until the beginning of the second trimester. That gives a woman plenty of time to decide. This is the only solution that seems reasonable to me personally.

I'm guessing you're referring to the Patriot Act. Well, 2 parts have been deemed unconstitutional already and other parts are being challenged in court. Being able to detain people without a judges's permission for an indefinite amount of time is a clear violation of civil rights. And then denying them legal counsel is worse. The Patriot Act was designed to lock down basic civil liberties, it does not deal with national security in anyway. A possible extension of the Patriot Act includes stripping people of their US citizenship without a trail! How does that deter terrorists who don't have citizenships?

You're right, most voters are stupid. That's why I'll never vote for a Democrate or a Republican.;) I personally always vote for the populist movement.

Originally posted by goyabean
You're right, most voters are stupid. That's why I'll never vote for a Democrate or a Republican.;) I personally always vote for the populist movement.

I agree with you 100% on that post, but I must say there is a populist movement being led by Howard Dean.

A chance to gripe about Bush, pince me I must be dreaming.

Iraq: Whatever happened to Laissez-faire? What ever happened to America not attacking any country unless it was provoked or endangered? Iraq was not a threat. Also, there is the fact that, though I actually might have supported the war if it were to remove a despot, I support no war that requires us to flout the UN and that was presented under... let's just say questionable pretenses. Also, I do not believe that Bush will go after any other dictator. He wanted Saddam, he got Saddam. I do not feel we were justified in this attack, and I do not feel that the cost of lives, both among the American military and the Iraqi civilians are worth it. We are attacking the way of life of the Iraqis, they find us immoral and, to some degree, evil. We shouldn't be there.

Foreign Policy: Like it or not we are not the only country, and we are definitely not strong enough to defend ourselves from a coalition of superpowers who feel that America is becoming too agressive and power hungry. The feelings of the rest of the world matter, we should not be hated and reviled, it is dangerous and unproductive.

Economy: Frankly I find Bush's economic plans highly suspect. Many protest that its all Clinton's fault, saying that the economy is the result of the former president. My contention is that Clinton had two terms, and the economic boom was in his second. And even with a regression this big, we had a surplus, that going to the largest deficit in US history doesn't strike me as sound economic planning.

Philosophy: Seperation of Church and State still exists, whether Bush likes it or not. Also, this same amendment makes all anti-homosexual laws completely unconstitutional.

Environment: It doesn't hurt to go the extra mile to protect the environment instead of recklessly destroying it.

Abortion: Though morally I agree, I feel I don't have the right as I am neither female, nor am I likely to get a girl pregnant in the near future. If I were, I would strongly fight against having an abortion, and be willing to raise the child on my own if need be. However, I am not in this position, so I will not argue it.

Bush's Stupidity: I am willing to accept that he isn't stupid. Doesn't make it any less amusing to listen to him speak though.

I will not vote for Bush unless I feel him to be the lesser of two evils, and the Democrats, at this time, seem far preferable.

So as to keep some semblance of order in this post, I'll (for the most part) use the topics Unne brought up in his original post, in his order.

The war in Iraq - I was completely against it. I would say I am still, but what's done is done. I support the reconstruction efforts because I think we have an obligation to clean up our mess, but I don't think that Bush has really put a lot of thought into what will actually be done. Furthermore, he's decreased the likelihood of intenational support by going in unilaterally.

Justification for the war - There was none. Many (if not all) of the documents the Bush administration used to show that Iraq had WMDs came from bad sources. We've found nothing so far but "related program activities," whatever those are. I think it's fine that we toppled Saddam's regime, but I think the means to that end were poor ones. Bush wants us to think that there are reasons or important pieces of information we don't know about, but I really don't think that's the case. For the sake of the country, though, I hope it is. Otherwise, we look pretty bad on the international level.

Foreign policy - What other countries think of us does matter. Unilateralism is a really bad policy. Bush promotes an extremely selfish foreign policy. There are a bunch of other countries out there and just because the United States thinks it's more powerful and more important than them doesn't mean it should do whatever it wants.

Economy - The deficit in its current state is bad news. Bush claims to be fiscally conservative, but he hasn't proven it. Reagan economics (the "logic" used in Bush's tax cuts) are just plain dumb. I'm not going to use Bush as a scapegoat for job losses because I don't know enough about economics to back myself up, but I think the deficit and the tax cuts are reason enough to not vote for Bush on the economic level.

Philosophy - Having a man who preaches religion in his political speeches scares me. I have no problem with religion whatsoever, but I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state. Bush has blurred those already unclear lines even further.

Environment - Bush's environmental policies are appalling. He claims that the environment is important to him, but his administration's policies don't reflect that one bit. Many of his staff members in charge of environment are actually former lobbyists that lobbied in favor of polluters. Bush's problem with the environment is that it interferes with business now, but in the long run it hurts business to have poor environmental standards. A common theme in many of Bush's policies seems to be the concentration on the present, rather than on the future and the long run.

Social issues - Here's where I think Bush gets really offensive. His view on gay marriage (and gays in general) is just plain hateful. I agree with his pro-life stance morally, but not politically. (There's no right choice when it comes to deciding on abortion.)

Freedoms - The Patriot Act goes too far. That's all I have to say.

Education - If you want to know how unsuccessful No Child Left Behind has been, just talk to any teacher in the country about it. I can almost guarantee that that teacher will have nothing but bad things to say about it. What do teachers know about education, anyway?

"Bush is stupid!" - I don't think Bush is that stupid. I think he's easily manipulated (and easily manipulates) and not a very good public speaker, but I don't think he's stupid. I'd probably like him more if I did think he was stupid. The way things look now, he's doing all these horrible things on purpose.

I won't be voting for Bush. I won't necessarily be voting democrat either, but I probably will. If Dean gets the nomination, I'll vote third party. There are a few other democrats I wouldn't vote for, but it doesn't look like they have a chance at this point.

1. Dean is a fiscal conservative.


IMO, hes not conservative, he is far left... Liberal.

My opinion on Bush is, he doing a good job.

Tax cuts is what we need, unlike democrates taxes... I dont know why people say tax cuts bad, I myself think tax cuts needed for low income people. Like a payroll check taxcut depending on your income.

Economy, well yea defecit... We owe money?? I know its sky rocketing but its slowly recovering now from 9/11, afghanistan war+ iraq war.

An his foriegn policy I agree.. ''The United States, doesnt need a permission slip to defend are security....''. And this war for oil is total bs, only reason other countries oppose the war is because they had oil contracts with Iraq. Plan and simple, and were not profitting off this war spending billions on rebuilding Iraq. But one thing we are profitting off is the future of the middle east, will it stabelize??


An also Im all for anti-abortion. Because Abortion is like legalized murder, if the woman didnt want the baby in the first place she shouldve used a friggin condom, the pill, or some responsiblity, and if she was rapped or either way, doesnt want the baby? give it up for adoption.

Dean is much more conservative with money than Bush. Bush spends HUGE amounts of money. That's not very conservative, or very wise, especially when combined with tax cuts.

George Bush only attacked Iraq because of oil. The war on terror only gave him an excuse to. Iraq was never a threat and George Bush knew that. The plight of the Iraqi people had nothing to do with the Iraq war. If that were the case, why isn't the Bush administration trying to sort out the situation in Africa, where the humanitarian crisis is far, far worse than it was in Iraq.

I also made a comment about Bush handling of foreign policy and world opinion in a thread just before the server switch. I don't suppose someone with access to the backups could fish that out?

Why does everyone think we're in Iraq for oil. Look at the facts, we have NO extra oil after taking Iraq and we haven't gotten any oil from Iraq in the past. So how can anyone say it's about us stealing the oil if we aren't taking any? So please explain how, we're after thier oil by leaving it there and not touching it? The closest we've come to taking it is by stopping Saddam's men from burning all the oil fields. I just don't see any proof to the idea that we're there for oil is even slightly true.

Ya know, it's really easy to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq right now from the comfort of your safe, warm home. Try asking the men and women who are living and dying right now in that hell-hole - I guarantee most (if not all) of them will say that this is what needs to be done.

Bah, you know I hate Bush. Kind of....I'm tired of justifying my reasons. He's an imperialist blablabla his speechest are sophistic blahblah he's maniacheist blah blah blah I'm a baby eating tree-hugging greenie commie with black dots. Thats all, you know I am really tired of talking about it. He just sucks from nearly every philosophical point of view, and the philosophical point of views from the ones he dosen't are exactly the ones I opose to.

I personally always vote for the populist movement.

OK, about that, I don't know exactly what populism is in English, but in my language "populismo" stands for a political strategy that consists in winning elections not with real merits, but just for being popular. Example, in Chile, Lavin (Preety right winged) went to the poor sectors of Santiago and started giving away kitchen equipment. He also did an artifical beach in Mapocho. Populism is basically that, electoralism and demagogy. Like, before the elections, Bush starts this plan for nice immigrants to stay more on the country and . Thats electoralism, compete populism. Kissing babies or going on humanitarian good deed before the elections is populism too. Thats why I keep saying democracy has degenerated into a populism.

Ya know, it's really easy to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq right now from the comfort of your safe, warm home.

Yes

Truth be told, Bush ought not to have been president anyway. Now it's time that fate catches up with him, and he leaves the office.

And why, ye Republicans might ask?

Because he has not been leading America in a healthy direction.

He has (or at least tried to)

-Mandate the overdemanding "No Child Left Behind" program while at the same time cutting funding from public schools.

-Sent troops to war yet cut armed forces' pay and veteran benefits.

-Started with the biggest tax surplus in history and eventually created the largest national debt in history

-He had the audacity to call an unconstitutional policy "The Patriot Act," asserting that his definition of patriotism was the only true one.

And with regard to the war, I'm not sure I'd put a whole lot of blame on him directly for the WMD claim that turned out to be a load of bull. The CIA had been overzealous to prove a falsehood, and Bush liked what he heard from them.

Iraq needed help, and Hussein needed to go away, but we probably could've gone about it with a much better way. If Bush had been smart, he would've been sneaky about it. The CIA has committed sneaky acts before and arranged displacements of government (read: assassinations or coups). If Bush had been smart, he would've invaded Iraq with a crack-team of assassins, gotten rid of Hussein, and then rebuilt the country quickly with newleadership without having to bomb the place and ruin the infrastructure.

History would've hated Bush for it, but from a leadership standpoint, it would've been more cost-effective and less deadly. Instead, Bush went to Iraq with guns blazing, instilling a fear in the general public of a foreign threat that didn't exist. He got there and got Saddam, but he had no realistic plans for how to rebuild Iraq. Colin Powell had said from the beginning that we don't have the resources to do this, and Bush ignored him for so long that Colin just gave up saying it.

We can't keep Bush in office. Not only do we need a feasible rebuilding of Iraq, we need to rebuild our own country. We need to bring back jobs in this nation. We need to bring back trust in the office of the President. We need a president who can write his own speeches, or at least not sound like an idiot when he reads off a speechcard.

And as for the alternatives...

I am generally unimpressed with Dr. Dean. Hee-aaaah!
Kucinich doesn't have a chance in the world, and he's more liberal than most healthy human beings ought to be.
Sharpton doesn't really want to be president, he just wants delegates at the Democratic National Convention to have influence on the party platform. I respect that.
Kerry seems like a decent guy. And Clark is very responsible.

But I've been in support of Edwards from the beginning. I've actually met the guy, and that makes a world of difference. He hasn't been the most notable of senators here in North Carolina, but he did his job to the best of his ability while juggling the presidential race at the same time.

My only problem is this... I'm registered as an independent, and in North Carolina, only party members can vote in the primary. And I don't particularly feel like joining the Democratic party.... by the time we get a primary it'll be pretty much decided anyway.

Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
OK, about that, I don't know exactly what populism is in English, but in my language "populismo" stands for a political strategy that consists in winning elections not with real merits, but just for being popular. Example, in Chile, Lavin (Preety right winged) went to the poor sectors of Santiago and started giving away kitchen equipment. He also did an artifical beach in Mapocho. Populism is basically that, electoralism and demagogy. Like, before the elections, Bush starts this plan for nice immigrants to stay more on the country and . Thats electoralism, compete populism. Kissing babies or going on humanitarian good deed before the elections is populism too. Thats why I keep saying democracy has degenerated into a populism.I was using the dictionary definition of pupulism, meaning anybody who supports policies for ordinary people, rather than the privileged elite. I see it as the first step to ending corporate capitalism.

Dean isn't a populist. He puts on a show just like everybody else.

oh....there won't be any Iraqi oil for several years but there is *cough*Haliburton*cough* great opportunity right now for kickbacks and corporate profiteering.

I was using the dictionary definition of pupulism, meaning anybody who supports policies for ordinary people, rather than the privileged elite. I see it as the first to ending coporate capitalism.

OK. Nothing to do with the Spanish definition, then.

Originally posted by goyabean
Dean isn't a populist. He puts on a show just like everybody else.

Dean may not be delivering any cross of gold speeches but he's the most populist of the lot. His fundraising is very populist. He's populist in the sense that he represents the people more than the party. He's alos pretty much revitalized the Democratic Party after its fawning almost-Bush stances of the last few years.

I'm pretty sure Foreign Policy is an important issue Unne because it decides whether or not Russia nukes us, or if we kill a few thousand Guatamalans

I'm also sure a toddler could do a better job with foreign policy than Bush

<i>So long as we're not waging open war on our allies or something, or doing something that really harms our nation in some way...</i> --Unne

I pretty much agree with what Unne said. As much as the right wing repubs scare me, the liberal democrats scare me 10 times that much.

Originally posted by eestlinc
His fundraising is very populist.That was exactly my point. Anybody who is moderate in mainstream spectrum of politics is not a populist. I consider Kusunich(sp?) to be a populist, but I'm not registred with the Democratic Party. Dean's undoing will be in his view of post-war Iraq. He was against the war but now wants to send more troops to Iraq! That policy will infuriate the ayatollahs in Iraq. That has 2 horrible consequences: uprising from the 17 million Shiites and popular support for radical clerics who want the country to basically emulate Iran. For the most part, the ayatollahs have been moderate. They protected hospitols during the looting and have kept the radicals from dominating transitional politics. Their only conditions being free elections, rather than US planned 'electoral college,' and the immediate removal of any occupying force. Basically they just want their sovereignty and it is in the best interest of US foreign policy not to piss them off.

Environment. I can't say I could possibly give less of a crap about the environment, so long as we aren't causing mass-extinctions. -- Unne

We are causing mass extinctions. If you don't give a crap now - fine, but 50 years down the line you may think differently. I remember you saying you have asthma, Unne, and I know that a lot of asthma is caused by pollution. I wouldn't have a clue if your asthma falls into that category, but I'd think about the problems pollution causes for others.

The declining environment might not affect you, but it may affect your kids, or your grandkids. I don't think it's right to disregard the next generation(s).

I'm not planning on having any kids, and disease will exist no matter what we do to the environment. Our life expectancy today is 2 or 3 times longer than it would be naturally, so we must not be doing that badly, huh? I expect that it will continue to go up, and that our quality of life will continue to improve in the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see, I guess. No real way to tell.

We should try not to muck things up if it's avoidable, and I don't think we should go around killing animals for fun or anything, but personally, I believe that my own well-being is more important than the well-being of trees and fishes. Trees and fishes matter insofar as it doesn't harm me by destroying them, I suppose. If blasting a rainforest into extinction will cause the world to become crappier for me, then sure, save it. But saving the environment for the environment's sake, I don't know if I really care one way or another. In 50 years I'll be 70 (or dead) and the environment will likely matter to me even less than it does now.

The environment is actually a bigger problem than we may realize.

The biggest piece of it being the topic everybody seems to ignore or just not believe in: Global Warming.

We did a two-week study of global warming in my Technology and Society class, and we all turned in research papers regarding the subject. It does exist, it's happening now, and though it probably won't lead to the silliness of Kevin Costner's Waterworld, it will begin melting a part of the icecaps that cannot freeze back again.

A climate change of this nature may only be a few degrees on average, but the rate at which we're filling the sky with greenhouse gases will prevent some species from adapting in time. Our world is not supposed to change this fast.

The solution? Something we've known about for years. GET RID OF FOSSIL FUELS!! They're going to run out, they're costing us a fortune, they're polluting our environment, and we have alternatives. We can be solar, wind, and hydro power plants. We could have cars that run on hydrogen or whatnot.

Jimmy Carter started to create funding for alternative fuel source research, but as soon as Reagan took office, it got nixed.

Bush is an ally to oil companies. He will do nothing to help solve this problem, as the oil companies are making a whole lot of money in prolonging it.

I think many people exaggerate the effects of global warming. How do we know that the recent increase in temperature isn't just some trend? In the early 20th century, there were crude reports of somewhat elevated temperatures. For all we know, "global warming" could just be caused by a century-long trend in solar activity, like sun spots.

In respect to fossil fuels, you can't just snap your finger and say "We're not going to use fossil fuels anymore." Do you know how many appliances, services and industries rely on fossil fuels? The only other energy source that's anywhere near as cost-efficient is nuclear power, and too many people are wary of that - there hasn't been a single nuclear plant built in the U.S. for the last twenty-some years. Nothing else comes close. Even if there were another efficient source, making such a change to the economy would be a long, gradual process, which could take decades. Trust me, fossil fuels aren't leaving any time soon.

Yes and no, Doc. They won't go away, but at the rate we're consuming said fossil fuels, they'll be gone relatively soon. Consider these facts on energy and America:

- The United States has approximately 5% of the world's population, and yet consumes 25% of the world's energy.
- Because of the aforementioned rate of consumption, the U.S. emits the highest carbon dioxide levels of any country in the world. With no change in energy policy or consumer behavior, that rate will increase 34% by the year 2010.
- The global demand for energy has tripled in the last 30 to 50 years, and will quite possibly triple yet again in another 50 years.

I'm not going to try and paint all of this as Armageddon, because that isn't necessarily the case. Statistics will show that, as a whole, Americans have gotten considerably better at conserving energy, but there's still a considerable amount more that we could be doing.

And Alces, as much as using renewable sources would ease the strain on our supply of petroleum and natural gas, Doc is also right in stating that any of those renewable sources (i.e. wind, water, solar and nuclear) just aren't efficient or enough in volume to handle the demand that the world carries. The only viable renewable source that anyone can think of is fusion, but that's still a few generations off at this time.

Originally posted by DocFrance
Ya know, it's really easy to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq right now from the comfort of your safe, warm home. Try asking the men and women who are living and dying right now in that hell-hole - I guarantee most (if not all) of them will say that this is what needs to be done.

Ahh, but you are ALSO in the comfort of your safe, warm home, and are also putting words into the soldiers' mouths, albeit the opposite way.

Here we go:

Iraq war: I'm against it on principle. See, Bush had a STONE COLD LEAD PIPE reason for going into Iraq and throwing Saddam out of power, with the UN's blessing (and assistance), that would have built upon the goodwill 9/11 fostered for the U.S.'s better standing in the world. Saddam had killed millions of his own people and committed many, many human rights violations. That in itself would've been enough for the normal American. It may not have been enough for the UN, but combined with other stuff, they would have helped.

Instead, Bush & co. made up a reason almost fully out of thin air, and engaged the armed forces in America's first EVER pre-emptive strike on a country. Never before had they done this. They always before had a concrete reason to invade a country. It may not have been the best reason (Vietnam) but it was concrete. Not this time. Not only did he alienate half the country with that decision, he alienated the rest of the world, as well. And even worse, he kept saying that the U.S. was upholding UN mandates, when the UN itself CONDEMNED HIS ACTIONS. This does not strike me as an honest mistake.

Foreign Policy: See above. That one action destroyed all goodwill that 9/11 brought out. That, plus continued support of Israel (I'm a radical about this one; I think we should pull out COMPLETELY of that area of the world, and let 'em sort it out on their own), and support of a country where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, supports a president with faulty logic at best.

The Economy: Don't really care about jobs, or the stock market. Neither is fully within the current President's purview. The defecit, however, is. And in FY 2003, the defecit was the second highest since the Office of Public Debt was created in '87. The highest was, unsurprisingly, a Reagan year. The one year defecit of 2003 was higher than the 4 year defecit of Clinton's FIRST term. And had we 16 years of Clinton's SECOND term defecit trends, the defecit accrued during that time wouldn't even be 1/3 of what it was FY 2003. And, like I said, defecit, unlike other economic issues, is directly attributable to the laws passed during the current president's administration. In other words, tax cuts HURT far more than they HELPED...

Philosophy: Far too much religion. Look no further than seeking a Marriage Amendment to the constitution. Mr. Bush, your father supported an amendment that was far more likely to be enacted than yours would be, and that fell well short. Also, if you can't get such things codified by Congress (majority in both houses, and sign into law), what makes you think it'd be any easier to get an amendment (2/3 majority in both houses, THEN 3/4 majority of the states) to that effect?

Environment: Don't really care, but it's been set back nearly a dozen years thanks to some of the stuff Bush approved of.

Patriot: The worst infringement upon Americans' civil rights since SLAVERY. Thank god it's starting to be judged unconstitutional...

Bush is Stupid!: Nah. Uninformed, maybe. Manipulated, yes. Slow, possibly. But not stupid. I doubt anyone who is stupid could get INTO an Ivy League college, let alone graduate...

I think many people exaggerate the effects of global warming. How do we know that the recent increase in temperature isn't just some trend? In the early 20th century, there were crude reports of somewhat elevated temperatures. For all we know, "global warming" could just be caused by a century-long trend in solar activity, like sun spots. ~ DocFrance

There's no correlation between sun-spot activity and the rise in temperature, as far as I can remember. I do know that the sea temperature has risen more in the last century than it did when it came out of the last ice-age. Maybe it is a natural process, but I don't think there's any evidence for a specific natural phenomenon causing the increase. The rise in temperature does, however, correspond surprisingly well with man's activities. But ignore it if you wish (I admit it's easier that way).

In the end, it probably won't affect our generation too much. A few thousand more species will disappear, but who cares just so long as they don't impact on me? I'm much happier being in a city where there's virtually no wildlife. Grey is a much better colour than green. I don't see many birds anymore, but what does that matter?

Our kids might have a slightly different take on it all. When the fossil fuels begin to run out in 50 years time and there's nothing in the way of renewable energy, then people might have a rethink. And when there are more wars over oil, people might begin to regret what we did (i.e. very little).

Oh well, to hell with it. It doesn't affect me.

In the early 20th century, there were crude reports of somewhat elevated temperatures.

Keep in mind two things:

First, Global warming began when we started burning fossil fuels en masse. In the early twentieth century, the industrial revolution had already come to the states, and by that time factories were sprouting up like weeds, many of them burning coal.

Secondly, the Earth may be in a warming trend. What the studies on Global Warming show is not just a rate of temperature increase, but an accelerated rate of temperature increase. The Earth can change, and it has changed before. It's the rate of change that we've induced that it might not be able to handle.

Bush is Stupid!: Nah. Uninformed, maybe. Manipulated, yes. Slow, possibly. But not stupid. I doubt anyone who is stupid could get INTO an Ivy League college, let alone graduate...

Keep in mind that Ivy League schools have a policy like many schools of accepting Legacy students. When you have a famous parent, especially one who went to that school (I believe GBush went to Yale as well), you have a good shot at getting in the school.

And if I remember correctly, GW passed the school with a C average. No, he's not a total idiot, but he has been an awfully naive president. If you watched the debates from election 2000 and really pay attention to whether Bush's arguments actually follow, you'll see a lot of what I mean.

Gore's problem during that debate was that he was so much more well prepared that he got y about it.

<i>Grey is a much better colour than green. I don't see many birds anymore, but what does that matter?</i> --Burtsplurt

Computers don't grow on trees, for example. A nice big stinking polluting factory and a loud ugly transportation system and a huge steaming fuel-chugging power plant, among many other things, are all necessary to give you the luxury of just typing those sentences to me. Should we all revert back to the status of nomads living in huts? That's about what it'd take to have us no longer hurt nature. I just read an article about people complaining about power plants which use wind power, because the huge fields of windmills are decimating the bird population. If you flip on the lights, you're killing something somewhere, that's all there is to it. Life on this planet exists by killing other life. That's nature. Nature does it to itself. We do it to nature. Nature does it to us when it has the chance. We just happen to be much better at it than anything else.

Given a choice between birds and trees, and having my computer and the power to run it, a warm house, food on demand, cars to take me places, and all sorts of other things, I'm going to have to be selfish and pick myself, I guess.

If/when fossil fuels run out, then the problem's solved itself, right? We'll find something else.

<i>Patriot: The worst infringement upon Americans' civil rights since SLAVERY. Thank god it's starting to be judged unconstitutional...</i> --IlGreven

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, if nothing else. Civil rights are often rejected in times of war. What they did to the Japanese living in this country in the World Wars for example. They could be rounding up Arabs by the millions and throwing them into camps. Not saying that that makes the Patriot Act OK, but it's not the worst thing since slavery by any means.

<i>The Earth can change, and it has changed before. It's the rate of change that we've induced that it might not be able to handle.</i> --KingAlces

The earth itself can handle it. Not sure if we can, but that's our problem. I think it would take a great deal to wipe out life completely on this planet. I don't even know if humans could manage it if we tried our best to do it on purpose.

There's only one aspect that I truly have a strong opinion about.

Foreign policy. This guy made a joke of the United Nations, this thing we have all built up since WWI. To me, and to pretty much any European people, it's probably the most disgraceful thing I can think about. In other words, George W. Bush Jr. has caused that 3/4 of all the other countries in the UN has gone from respecting the US, to hating it.

Looking over this thread (and especially the first post), I get the feeling that the reasoning behind why foreign policy is important is being missed.

When one country makes others upset, this breeds a resentment that leads the resentful countries to form alliances against the superpower, (usually taking on a military form) to bring it down. This is called "hard balancing" and it brought down Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany.

The US isn't that much of an international threat, of course, and this has led to an international tendency that the media has dubbed "soft balancing". No, Europe won't invade us, but they can still hurt us, in the wallet. They can pay for oil in Euros, not in dollars. They can open up trade with countries that the US has turned its back on. They can exclude the US altogether from trade agreements. They can construct nuclear reactors, and allow them to be constructed in Iran and elsewhere that the US might balk at.

When enough of them get together, they will be powerful, and form a powerful coalition that the US won't be able to laugh off. We can't ignore this, and saying that the only opinions that matter about our policies are within our borders is naive.

Should we all revert back to the status of nomads living in huts? ~ Unne

I don't believe in anything like that. I'm no hippie. What I do believe in is trying to make the world a cleaner, more natural place. There are many, many ways of doing this, all of which George Bush seems keen to avoid. Unfortunately, cleaner usually means more expensive, but that's a price we should pay. I work for the Environment Agency in England, and we do a lot of work to make a more natural, cleaner environment. I don't believe we go far enough, but that's just my opinion. What annoys me is someone like Bush, who has installed his cronies in top jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency. Legislation in the United States is going backwards - all because Bush and co. don't want to hurt the profits of his industrial friends. It's corrupt.


If/when fossil fuels run out, then the problem's solved itself, right? We'll find something else.

But you've just said we couldn't manage without electricity! If the power went off tomorrow, there'd be chaos. I can't even imagine it.

Forien Policy - The man is a complete moron when it comes to this. After 9/11 everyone in the frickin' world was all like 'We feel for you USA! We are there for you man!' Now it is almost 2 1/2 years later and he has some how gotten the world turned 180 on us. He just pissed people off by not listening to their concerns and just did his own thing.

Economy - The fool wasted a surplus and put us into a huge deficit. The biggest deficit ever. For a conservative he isn't very conservative when it comes to spending. Yep....don't like his economic policy either.

Those are the 2 issues I give a damn about for the most part.

Just one slightly off beat remark. How can bush be pro-life when he supports the death penalty?

If Bush continues to have such a great influence on the world by using his position as leader of the United States of America, I think the rest of the world should also be allowed to vote in the American elections - and possibly even run it.

Bush is the most debatable president that I know about. I would be pleased to see him step down. Also, I feel for whoever has to take over his position, because he's going to have a lot of crap to fix up. Years of crap.

As for all the people who say the war on Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad man - where is Bush's influence in Africa? They call for his help and he doesn't come. Why should he come, though? I mean, it's only full of countries where the people die everyday for all sorts of horrid reason. Oh, and there's a bunch of terrorists out that way, too. The only reason Bush used weapons of mass destruction as the reason to attack is because he knew bloody well that he'd never have got away with it using any other reason, because there are people in other countries suffering similar troubles as the people in Iraq. In fact, the people in Africa suffer MORE than the people in Iraq.

Of course, I understand that the next president won't be very different with his/her stance on the African situation, but what I do know is that he/she wouldn't go around picking on the countries where the people are in fact better off than those in Africa.

<i>When one country makes others upset, this breeds a resentment that leads the resentful countries to form alliances against the superpower, (usually taking on a military form) to bring it down. This is called "hard balancing" and it brought down Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany.</i> --Anaralia

I don't think we should do anything that would make our allies consider us a physical threat, by any means. I just don't think we should consider the desires of other countries over our own, either. Every country has (and should have) its own self-interests as its first priority. It seems like people expect the US to be the one country in the world that doesn't, and that's what I disagree with. I don't think we should avoid disagreement for the sake of avoiding disagreement. If our allies are wrong about something, we should disregard their opinions.

<i>No, Europe won't invade us, but they can still hurt us, in the wallet.</i>

That's their right, of course. That doesn't mean we should sell our souls or cater to the whim of everyone who has a financial hold on us. We should do what's right, and we should do what's best for our country, and if it helps the world too, then yay.

<i>But you've just said we couldn't manage without electricity! If the power went off tomorrow, there'd be chaos. I can't even imagine it.</i> --Burtsplurt

It's not going to happen in one day. We'd see it coming and compensate. We're beginning to compensate already today, and we still have plenty of fossil fuels left. We'll probably have no more need of fossil fuel long before it runs out. I hope so anyways.

<i>How can bush be pro-life when he supports the death penalty?</i> --ed

I agree, "pro-life" is a misnomer. Pretty sure the anti-abortion group picked that name to make themselves sound good and to attempt to take the moral high-ground. On the news they tend to say "so-called pro-life" and "so-called pro-choice", I've noticed, which is appropriate.

<i>As for all the people who say the war on Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad man - where is Bush's influence in Africa? They call for his help and he doesn't come.</i> --BoB

So it's all or nothing, right? If two people are drowning and we can only save one, best to let them both die. That's your argument.

In any case, we have sent troups to Africa, just last year if I remember right, to help stop a civil war in some country or another. And in any case, Africa isn't a threat to us, are they? They're poor as dirt for the most part. I don't think they have the technical capabilities to hurt us if they wanted to. I'm not in favor of babysitting the world. I am in favor of getting rid of threats. Saddam had weapons in the past, and he used them on other countries without provocation; he expressed a desire to harm other countries, including America and its allies, and he backed those words up with actions. He defied the international community up to the second the war started. Whether he actually had weapons at the moment the war started is irrelevant; he kept too many secrets, and I think it's right to assume he had them or would have had them in the future.

No no, I wouldn't want us under the whim of every other country in the world either. We're antagonizing them though, and if we're going to do that, it should be worth it. And therein lies the debate.

My point is, that we shouldn't overlook the importance of foreign policy. If we do, it could crush us, and my impression was that some didn't understand why or how it was a big deal.


quote:
In any case, we have sent troops to Africa, just last year if I remember right, to help stop a civil war in some country or another.


Libya. We controlled Libya for some years, and should accept some responsibility for the conditions there now as such (I do believe having learned somewhere that Libya’s name even came from the fact that the US sent its liberated slaves over there to populate the region. Liberty, get it?)

I don't know how old you guys are, but do you remember 1986? We violated UN Charter and international law when we launched a series of air and sea attacks on Libya. The justification was self defense (you couldn't make this stuff up!).

So, no applause for helping them out last year. It was overdue, and not enough.

Originally posted by Anaralia
So, no applause for helping them out last year. It was overdue, and not enough.

Let's check out the options. Become involved with Lybia and be accused of 'warmongering', or not get involved and be accused of standing by and letting bad things happen.

The same works for Iraq, if we weren't there now I guarantee the complaints would be about how we have to power to stop Saddam but we let awful things happen.

It's obvious that you can't satisfy the people who have it out for you no matter what.

Bush is a bad president because he can't do morally objectionable deeds while keeping the rest of the world happy. Any president of even the most humble ability should be able to come up with a convincing lie to fool the UN and the people into following him to war. Bush had a plethora of believable excuses for war, and still chose an unbelievable lie. What good is a president that can't lie?

If Bush wants to throw away the Constitution, he should be less blunt about it. A good president would rob us of our rights gradually, so that we wouldn't become alarmed. Bush makes speeches about God and Christian morality that threaten the separation of Church and State. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Can't Bush's speech-writers get the same objectionable message across without throwing around alarming words like "God"? It shouldn't be too hard. Subtlety, Mr. Bush, subtlety. And the Patriot Act - if he wanted to pass unconstitutional laws, he shouldn't group them all into a single bill. If he tossed a single right-infringing law into each "harmless" bill he tried to pass, noone would notice. What sort of dictator can't rob his citizens' rights without causing a stir?

Is Bush smart? No. Does it matter? Not as long as he can fool enough people to believe otherwise. If he pulled off a few intelligent speeches (someone else could write them -it matters little), people would never know how dumb he is. His only real duty in securing public oppinion is reading a convincing speech. He can't do it. If Bush were smart, he'd stop making speeches.

My vote is going for either Dean or Kerry. Probably Dean.

No, I'm thinking of a different country... one that was calling for the support of the U.S. for a long, long time. Wast that Libya? I don't think it was. But yeah, they called and called and called and called, and Bush had troops literally on boats outside the country, but they wouldn't enter the country until the leader of who they were fighting would give up and leave.

People were being massacred there, by the way. Hundreds upon hundreds of people. The country had been torn and the people actually fought back against the bad dude themselves because it got that bad. The good guys had no leader - they just cried for help everyday, and watched the boats in the bays sit and do nothing. I'll try to find the name of the country ASAP.

When a country cries for the help of the US to aid the freedom of their people who are being massacred in broad daylight, Bush does nothing. He held up his hand and turned away. When a country does it secretly, not against as many people (Saddam did kill a load of people but not nearly on the scale of what I'm talking about), in a rich country where the arch-nemesis of his daddy reigns... Bush invades. Without the begging of the people being slaughtered by the hundreds. There were photos of people outside the American embassy of this country. People that were DEAD. Dozens of them laid out. And what did Bush do? Nothing.

Which does surprise me, actually. I mean, it wouldn't have costed them much to swiftly overrun the ragtag army over there. But it still would have costed, and that's clearly what Bush wants to do. Spend money on stuff.

<i>When a country cries for the help of the US to aid the freedom of their people who are being massacred in broad daylight, Bush does nothing. He held up his hand and turned away. When a country does it secretly, not against as many people (Saddam did kill a load of people but not nearly on the scale of what I'm talking about), in a rich country where the arch-nemesis of his daddy reigns... Bush invades. </i> --BoB

So it's wrong for the US to act in its own self-interests? Whose interests should we promote then? Your country's interests? Every country's interests but our own? Are we the slaves of the world?

Where were all the other hundreds of countries in the world who could've sent aid? Did they send military aid, EVER? I don't recall hearing about it. But if the US sends aid LATE, we're seen as evil. The solution, then, is to do nothing at all, right? That seems to be what you need to do in the world to be thought well of. Just pretend that no problems exist, bury your head in the sand, and pray that someone else takes care of things for you. Because if you try to solve a problem, and you make even the tiniest mistake, or take too long, or step on some toes, well then, your country is just a selfish, evil empire, right?

Did you ever consider blaming the people who are doing the killing actual killing, i.e. the dictators and psychopaths and rebel armies and terrorists and fanatics, instead of blaming the person / country who doesn't come to stop it fast enough for your liking?

Exactly which problems in the world is the US NOT to blame for? That list is likely shorter than the ones we are to blame for, from what I hear.

Other presidents seemed perfectly able to aid those who cried for help - by working with the UN, too! Also, you seem to admit that Bush was doing it in the interests of the US and not for the interests of the countries it was attacking. So... they DID do it for self-interest? So they WERE after the oil?

Unne, debates aside - do you think that the war on Iraq (and the 'evidence' used that led to the war) was justified? Just curious. I mean, I know you like debating, and I do too, so if you're anything like me it's not hard to debate just for the sake of debating and I'm happy for you to do so, I just like knowing what you really think. ;)

I really wish Clinton didn't HAVE to step down. It's a real shame. Oh well, such is life. I guess every country goes through a time when all the potential leaders are pretty crappy.

I was thinking self-interests more in the sense of national security, but economics probably comes into play too, who knows. I can't say it's ENTIRELY in self-interest either, I believe at least part of the motivation of doing such things is to help people who're in a bad situation, but it's likely more self-interest than not, and that's how it should be.

I think the specific reason "Iraq has nuclear weapons and will use them on us soon!" will likely turn out to be false. But I think that the Middle East in general is a threat to us, to our allies, and to itself. I think it's a problem that's been ignored for a very long time, and the results have been terrible. I think huge changes need to take place over there. It's not my place to say when or how; I'm not qualified to make those decisions, or else I'd be a general myself. But I am happy to see ANY change for the better in that region, and I think the war in Iraq was a change for the better.

Unless more is done about the situation in Israel, little will make the middle east any different. I think there are more anti-US terrorists in Africa than in the middle east.

EDIT: I do agree that it's good Saddam is gone, but I disagree that Bush should receive the praise for it. That's like having a person across the road hoarding weapons, so you bomb his house, destroying the neighbour's house (ie, citizens) while you're at it, and then you steal his stuff. Sure, you've saved people from what would have been their death, but should you be praised for how you did it?

There's a scene in the movie "The Mummy" where O'Connell and that Magi played by Oded Fehr are clearing away a large pile of boulders. Meanwhile, Jonathan is standing behind them not lifting a finger, and saying things to the effect of: "Put your backs into it! You're doing it all wrong! Come on, faster." That's the situation we have here. The US is busy clearing away boulders (a good and necessary task), whilst the rest of the world refuses to help, yet eagerly criticizes. The rest of the world wants dictators deposed (in Lybia for example), yet does nothing. The US deposes dictators as it sees fit (as the two heroes removed the boulders as they deemed fit), and recieves only criticism. America's next leader aught to turn the US into an isolationist. When the US stops helping any country at all, self interests or not, maybe those nations who like to sit back and complain rather than help the world themselves will take notice.

Originally posted by Loony BoB
EDIT: I do agree that it's good Saddam is gone, but I disagree that Bush should receive the praise for it. That's like having a person across the road hoarding weapons, so you bomb his house, destroying the neighbour's house (ie, citizens) while you're at it, and then you steal his stuff. Sure, you've saved people from what would have been their death, but should you be praised for how you did it? Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.

Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.The US is busy clearing away boulders (a good and necessary task), whilst the rest of the world refuses to help, yet eagerly criticizes. The rest of the world wants dictators deposed (in Lybia for example), yet does nothing. The US deposes dictators as it sees fit (as the two heroes removed the boulders as they deemed fit), and recieves only criticism.I disagree with both of these statements. The recent US-led war in Iraq had a typically appalling number of blunders which killed many thousands of innocent Iraqis. Faulty intelligence which led to civilian buildings being bombed, or trigger-happy forces attacking 'suspected terrorists' at whim. If Hussein had been deposed by a truly international co-operation, there'd be less outcry from all but ardent pacifists. As it was, though, Bush demanded that the UN bow down and obey its will to wage war, then criticised the UN fro refusing to violate its own rules. Now that the war is over and Iraq needs rebuilding, Bush is demanding that the rest of the world aid in the reconstruction efforts, yet his government is also dictating who may or may not lend support to the humanitarian effort. Really, it's not so much what Bush does that upsets people, but rather how he does it. The approach that "you must do everything I say, you must obey my rules even though I don't" is one that's kind of offensive to independent countries and their citizens.

Then why don't other countries go out and do what's right? Why doesn't a coalition force led by the UK, France, and Germany go depose of Kim Jong-Il? Why is it that nearly every, if not all, humanitarian efforts or battles for freedom for other nations are led by the US? Is no one else willing to step up and take a swing? If these other nations don't like the way Bush is "ordering them around," why don't they just say "Screw Bush, let's deal with these tyrants ourselves?" They don't - all it is is good men doing nothing.

That's sort of my point as well. I don't always like HOW the US goes about handling problems, but I can balance that somewhat by knowing that at least the US does in fact solve problems. To throw another movie reference in here - Braveheart vs the Scottish nobility. Braveheart didn't always do things the right way, and the nobles were always keen to point that out, but is that worse than the nobles who would've done nothing but talk? Stalling for time, holding peace talks, trying to make a deal, appeasement: you can rephrase it a multitude of ways, it's still doing nothing. And it's a common phrase that "you can't get something from nothing". Sometimes it's better to do the wrong thing with good intentions than to do nothing at all.

Originally posted by DocFrance
Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.
How so? I'll clarify a bit by saying that Bush is the bomber, the guy hoarding weapons is Saddam and the neighbours of Saddam are his citizens. Haven't more citizens been killed than army troops? I think that's fact, but I'm not sure. I could be wrong on that account. Either way, the analogy still works.

Originally posted by DocFrance
battles for freedom

I'd rather be alive than free.

It almost sounds like you were saying that there's a link between software companies hiring overseas and immigration in your first post, Unne. Which of course there isn't.

I especially don't like how you used the phrase "Invite a couple hundred thousand truckloads over the border." What if we had this same Xenophobic attitude toward immigrants during the Irish potato famine or even during WWII? What if we just told all the suffering Jews in East Europe that they couldn't come to the United states? What if we told them that their horrible life in their country was their problem to fix, as we do now to Mexicans?

Immigrants aren't "stealing people's jobs" or any other equally stupid excuse some old conservative cook comes up with for getting fired. If someone got fired because the company hired an immigrant in his place, then that means that the immigrant was willing to work as hard or harder for less money. That is a basic principle of our country - that the hardest workers should be the ones who get hired.

This differs from what software companues do, because even if a software worker was willing to work for the same meager wages of a person from India, they still wouldn't be able to be hired. Software companies don't hire immigrants, anyway.

I think Bush is a moron.

That is all.

Originally posted by Burtsplurt
I'd rather be alive than free.

Something is very wrong with you, then.

Originally posted by Moose Knight
It almost sounds like you were saying that there's a link between software companies hiring overseas and immigration in your first post, Unne. Which of course there isn't. I think you might be responding to the wrong post, here.

Originally posted byBurtsplurt
I'd rather be alive than free. Obviously, you have no idea what it's like to not be free. You should be glad there are better men and women than yourself out there keeping you free, you miserable creature. If you'd rather be alive then free, go spend some time in a cage where your captors enslave and torture you. But hey, at least you're still alive, right?

Why do so many people ingore the 'no flame' warning in this forum?

*Closes thread*

It's so easy to be tolerant of others' beliefs - "This is what I think, and these are the reasons, but if you believe differently then that's up to you."
Try it.