The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[rick James]

Add Vietnam , Sudan , Central America and iraq..each one an American clusterf...

What would you have done differently in all of those instances?

 

[just maybe]

What would you have done differently in all of those instances?

Not invaded Vietnam, maybe? Not backed militias and helped crush dissent in Latin America, maybe?

 

[MightyFighting]

To summarise my position, terrorism caused by greater literal interpretation and adherence to the Koran is bad for business for EVERYONE.

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

But this isn't a war against Islam. It is not an attempt to wipe out Islam, and if it were, it would fail.

Ourselves, China, Europe, eskimoes and the saner countries in the ME region (I won't include Israel, otherwise this is bound to descend into a Jews Rule the World argument) will be thankful for the stability the US shall create in the long term (try to think past the suicide bombings of last month before assessing US performance so far.)

History would suggest that resistance to occupation in that region could last hundreds of years (not that American resolve could last more than a decade). Why are you so confident?

The US is not going to go the way of Rome, British Empire etc by having people of your ilk usurp power.

You're say people of "my ilk" "usurped" power and thereby destroyed those two empires?

I'll presume that "people of my ilk" simply means people who wouldn't support the invasion of Iraq. You probably think that those empire fell because of people who were too idealistic to take the "tough decisions" and go and kill people.

The fact remains that the Romans made foolish military escapades, conquering territory that cost more to defend and maintain than it returned in taxes and profit. (Ring any bells?) To add to that, they continued to use short-term solutions, that were harmful in the long run. It seemed good to hire and train barbarian mercenaries, and the lower cost (compared to using Roman citizens), allowed the powerful to keep their estate taxes low. (Bells?) But when these Roman trained and armed barbarians turned on the empire (*cough*), it should have been obvious to blind Marcus that following short term gain at the expense of long term position is a foolish mistake.

The British Empire was at its peak just before the first world war. A person of my "ilk" would have opposed involvement in that war, and if there had been more people of my ilk in Europe at that time, that pointless war would never have occurred, and the Empire would not have been weakened.

No, I think people of a different "ilk" were responsible for the ends of those two empires. BTW, why did you use the word "usurp"? Can only a conservative hold power legitimately?

By the way, Thailand is an extremely important country as far as South East Asia and Australia is concerned as they are battling the forces that were probably responsible for last night and the ones most likely to effect a similar attack on Australian soil. When it happens, perhaps you will then appreciate what "dhimmis" and "infidels" around the world are battling and how the time for sitting down around drinking coffee and asking our extremist friends, "Why do you hate us and how can we be better dhimmis?" has passed.

I understand the muslims in Southern Thailand are the population of an earlier muslim kingdom that was conquered by the Thai state.

Therefore, their muslim rebels are in fact a nationalist movement, and not part of a general anti-western terror campaign. (Thailand isn't western anyway.)

They are very unlikely to have been involved in a terrorist attack against non-Thais on Indonesian soil.

 

[section8]

What would you have done differently in all of those instances?

Communism and Islamic extremism rock my world. Or at least I wish they did. Maybe I should emigrate....hmmmm. Why can't they just let mother nature take it's course and let those who want to get their way at any cost walk over those who should be more responsible and should be advocating for everyone to sit down, therapy-session like, and nutting out a solution to everyone's ills?

/fantasy world off

Pick a side, fencesitters, even if it means you having to side with the lesser of two evils.

 

[Copernicus]

Bali has got a few at the moment. Extra crispy skin.

Please don't put me off, I'm trying to think happy thoughts over in this crazy place.

 

[moistie]

Add to that the exposure and ongoing attempted cover up of an Israeli spy ring within the largest and most powerful lobby group in the USA, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Since this has been uncovered AIPAC have even gone as far as to label the FBI as anti semitic for investigating them.

Yet one of the people involved has just rolled over and the hope is that prosecutions may follow for those caught, unless the Bushiites find a way to exonerate them. Whether there will be any further investigation into whether any spies remain or who else was involved remains unclear. Of course the mainstream media coverage of Israel spying upon the US has been nil. I wonder why?

 

[MightyFighting]

Communism and Islamic extremism rock my world. Or at least I wish they did. Maybe I should emigrate....hmmmm. Why can't they just let mother nature take it's course and let those who want to get their way at any cost walk over those who should be more responsible and should be advocating for everyone to sit down, therapy-session like, and nutting out a solution to everyone's ills?

/fantasy world off

Pick a side, fencesitters, even if it means you having to side with the lesser of two evils.

This isn't a matter of absolutes. You on the pro-war side often seem to think you have a more sophisticated position, but it's often you who don't understand the complications of these policies. The US cannot covet Iraq, Vietnam, etc. all it likes, but the reality is that securing them as a possession was never going to be as easy as marching their green men across the country.

We are better off with a strong America than a weak one. Particularly, we will be even harder hit than them by the economic costs of Bush and his adventurism.

 

[- PC -]

Add to that the Soldier who busted the Pentagons 11/9 planning now being charged with ''stealing pens''

Bic or Schaeffer?

Pentagon revokes 9/11 officer's clearance
By Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press Writer | September 30, 2005

WASHINGTON --An officer who has claimed that a classified military unit identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks is facing Pentagon accusations of breaking numerous rules, charges his lawyer suggests are aimed at undermining his credibility.

The alleged infractions by Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, include obtaining a service medal under false pretenses, improperly flashing military identification while drunk and stealing pens, according to military paperwork shown by his attorney to The Associated Press.

Shaffer was one of the first to publicly link Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta to the unit code-named Able Danger. Shaffer was one of five witnesses the Pentagon ordered not to appear Sept. 21 before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the unit's findings.

The military revoked Shaffer's top security clearance this month, a day before he was supposed to testify to a congressional committee.
-------------------------------

Freedom of speech comes at a cost

 

[moistie]

Add to that the Soldier who busted the Pentagons 11/9 planning now being charged with ''stealing pens''

Bic or Schaeffer?

Pentagon revokes 9/11 officer's clearance
By Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press Writer | September 30, 2005

WASHINGTON --An officer who has claimed that a classified military unit identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks is facing Pentagon accusations of breaking numerous rules, charges his lawyer suggests are aimed at undermining his credibility.

The alleged infractions by Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, include obtaining a service medal under false pretenses, improperly flashing military identification while drunk and stealing pens, according to military paperwork shown by his attorney to The Associated Press.

Shaffer was one of the first to publicly link Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta to the unit code-named Able Danger. Shaffer was one of five witnesses the Pentagon ordered not to appear Sept. 21 before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the unit's findings.

The military revoked Shaffer's top security clearance this month, a day before he was supposed to testify to a congressional committee.
-------------------------------

Freedom of speech comes at a cost

Stealing pens? Well bang goes that informants credibility! Now lying to send a country to war, thats okay. But stealing pens?! Hangings too good for him.

 

[rick James]

Stealing pens? Well bang goes that informants credibility! Now lying to send a country to war, thats okay. But stealing pens?! Hangings too good for him.

You didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

 

[rick James]

Not invaded Vietnam, maybe? Not backed militias and helped crush dissent in Latin America, maybe?

America needed latin America under control. They couldn't just let things take their natural course, because that puts America's superiority at risk. And America's superiority is America's number one priority.

Vietnam was... stupid. But America are allowed to make mistakes every noe and again, precisely because they enforce the rules. They do a lot more good than bad.

 

[MightyFighting]

America needed latin America under control. They couldn't just let things take their natural course, because that puts America's superiority at risk. And America's superiority is America's number one priority.

But the euphemism, "under control", refers to the removal of democratically elected governments and their replacement by murderous military dictatorships.

Are you really saying that that's alright because they do good things in the world as well?

 

[rick James]

But the euphemism, "under control", refers to the removal of democratically elected governments and their replacement by murderous military dictatorships.

Are you really saying that that's alright because they do good things in the world as well?

Yes. They are best hyper/superpower the world has ever had, but first and foremost, like any country, their loyalty is to themselves and their way of life.

 

[spanky ham]

And the UK was once warm enough for Roman settlers to grow grapes.

That's some compelling evidence.

 

[just maybe]

Yes. They are best hyper/superpower the world has ever had, but first and foremost, like any country, their loyalty is to themselves and their way of life.

So you advocate wholesale abuse of human rights and justice because of the line you gave above?

Wow, says a lot about you...

 

[section8]

That's some compelling evidence.

The UK once had a mediterranean climate, yes. Proven.

And your evidence for explaining temperatures "rising" is......?

They have been fluctuating across the planet for millenia.

 

[MightyFighting]

The UK once had a mediterranean climate, yes. Proven.

And your evidence for explaining temperatures "rising" is......?

They have been fluctuating across the planet for millenia.

There are good scientific explanations for how increases in CO2 can cause a rise in average global temperatures, and if the current rise is due to CO2 levels, rather than random fluctuations, then it means that it is possible for the average global temperature to rise far beyond the bounds of normal fluctuations.

In other words, the Earth could be made inhospitable to human life. Do you really want to risk it?

 

[rick James]

So you advocate wholesale abuse of human rights and justice because of the line you gave above?

Wow, says a lot about you...

pardon me for being realistic.

 

[MightyFighting]

Yes. They are best hyper/superpower the world has ever had, but first and foremost, like any country, their loyalty is to themselves and their way of life.

But your argument holds if and only if the coup in question is vital (or at least very important) to the continuation of American supremacy. However, the coup in Argentina seems to me to be the result of the corrupting effect of power, rather than a simple cold-hearted exercise in self-interest. Certainly, in the case of Iran (the coup which replaced a democratic coup with the Shah), we clearly saw an example of what I was talking about earlier in this thread, i.e. America was looking after its short term interest, instead of its long term position. They replaced a secular, democratic government with a secular dictatorship, and, 25 years later, the Iranians themselves replaced it with an Islamic dictatorship. Could it really be claimed that America has served its own interest?

Getting back to Argentina, they backed that coup only because no one significant would oppose them. Decades later they tried the same trick in Venezuela and found that most Latin American states opposed them. The result was that Venezuelan democracy was saved, but has American supremacy been dinted? Only slightly, surely.

The bottom line is that it is a good thing to oppose the bad actions of a superpower, regardless of whether it is a good superpower, or a bad superpower.

OK, we do disagree on which actions are good and which are bad (case in point: Iraq), but that's life.

 

[rick James]

But your argument holds if and only if the coup in question is vital (or at least very important) to the continuation of American supremacy. However, the coup in Argentina seems to me to be the result of the corrupting effect of power, rather than a simple cold-hearted exercise in self-interest. Certainly, in the case of Iran (the coup which replaced a democratic coup with the Shah), we clearly saw an example of what I was talking about earlier in this thread, i.e. America was looking after its short term interest, instead of its long term position. They replaced a secular, democratic government with a secular dictatorship, and, 25 years later, the Iranians themselves replaced it with an Islamic dictatorship. Could it really be claimed that America has served its own interest?

Getting back to Argentina, they backed that coup only because no one significant would oppose them. Decades later they tried the same trick in Venezuela and found that most Latin American states opposed them. The result was that Venezuelan democracy was saved, but has American supremacy been dinted? Only slightly, surely.

The bottom line is that it is a good thing to oppose the bad actions of a superpower, regardless of whether it is a good superpower, or a bad superpower.

OK, we do disagree on which actions are good and which are bad (case in point: Iraq), but that's life.

Fair point, Iran backfired on them, but then I never calimed they were clarvoyant either.

WE don't disagree on iraq, I was against the war, just not as feverently as some.

 

[camsmith]

Camsmith, come back to us when your criticisms aren't gormless hyperbole.

Come back when you have something relevent to say.

 

[section8]

There are good scientific explanations for how increases in CO2 can cause a rise in average global temperatures, and if the current rise is due to CO2 levels, rather than random fluctuations, then it means that it is possible for the average global temperature to rise far beyond the bounds of normal fluctuations.

In other words, the Earth could be made inhospitable to human life. Do you really want to risk it?

Until there is solid scientific evidence that temperatures have risen on a consistent, widespread basis at a rate which significantly exceeds any past increments then yes, I'll "risk" it.

I won't be frightened into altering my ways by scientists with an agenda that can't cough up the evidence. They are no different from a religion pushing their vengeful god tripe.

Prove it or keep on walking.

PS I'm all for nuclear and hydrogen power, by the way. The less we need to deal with the ME the better.

 

[MightyFighting]

Fair point, Iran backfired on them, but then I never calimed they were clarvoyant either.

But it's probably a matter of their overall philosophy, rather than each individual action.

"Trouble is harsher on those who actively seek it out, than on those who stumble on it unintentionally."
- Pericles (I think)

WE don't disagree on iraq, I was against the war, just not as feverently as some.

I should have put that better. When I said, "we do disagree on which actions are good and which are bad", I meant people in general. (This language needs more pronouns.)

 

[MightyFighting]

Until there is solid scientific evidence that temperatures have risen on a consistent, widespread basis at a rate which significantly exceeds any past increments then yes, I'll "risk" it.

I won't be frightened into altering my ways by scientists with an agenda that can't cough up the evidence. They are no different from a religion pushing their vengeful god tripe.

Prove it or keep on walking.

PS I'm all for nuclear and hydrogen power, by the way. The less we need to deal with the ME the better.

You're talking about shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

You want proof, proof of something that hasn't even happened yet. Well, I'll tell you that that is a scientific impossibility.

Apart from in mathematics, there is not proof in science, only disproof. So stop harping on about scientists not haven "proven" the greenhouse effect. (That goes for evolution too.)

There is good supporting evidence for man-made global warming and the has certainly never been anything approaching disproof. So it's all about probabilities. There is a good probability that the current rise in temperature is man-made, and if it's true, we could be in serious trouble.


But then, maybe you're just smarter than all those scientists, and everything's gonna be aaaaaaaaaaaaall right.

 

[just maybe]

pardon me for being realistic.

There's no realism in flagrant abuse of human rights and justice. It is simply unnecessary.