I've been thinking

Originally posted by Nixjim
I base my conclusion on all the posts of yours I have read, not just this one.
And from your last statement may I assume you are saying your not anti-American, just anti-Bush?
Please remember our only other choice was Al Gore, and despite what some people think he was no better than Bush. The day a decent candidate runs for President will be a joyous day indeed in America.

i guess your reputation in the world could not have suffered worse in the world with gore as president...

[menth0l]

Originally posted by Archi
Sigh, ok you win. We're the source of all evil in the world. The innocent peace loving peoples of the earth would be a lot better off without the evil Americans flooding the world with movies, rock music, McDonalds, Blue Jeans and Coca Cola. No one should have to tolerate that. Americans should all be rounded up, put in camps then gassed (that is the European way after all). Everyone would disarm, hold hands and sing Kumbayah. The world would then be an idyllic place where there would be no conflict and people could live side by side in peace and harmony.

America is doing a good job of destroying itself from the inside.

[Archi]

i guess your reputation in the world could not have suffered worse in the world with gore as president...

I wouldnt be so sure about that. Clinton/Gore deployed more troops to more places than GWB did and with a lot less reason. Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia. Sudan offered up Osama bin Laden on a silver platter in 1994, but Clinton/Gore turned them down. Instead they bombed an aspirin factory there to get Monica Lewinski out of the headlines. Then they bombed Iraq and launched cruise missles at Afghanistan. They were the ones that cut the deal with NK (we saw how that came out). They traded US tech to Red China for political donations.

So dont be so sure that Al Gore would be so much better.

[W]

Originally posted by Archi
They traded US tech to Red China for political donations.

You're saying that a better relationship to china is a BAD thing?

but at least cliton could "sell" what he did better to the rest of the world he did at least pret3end he gives a damn about the rest of the world

[Archi]

You're saying that a better relationship to china is a BAD thing?

I am saying that the Chinese now have ICBM's that can reach the continental US, which they didnt have b4 Clinton/Gore.

America is doing a good job of destroying itself from the inside.

We may argue with ourselves and have heated debate, but it is debate. No American citizens are being put up against the wall and shot.

[Archi]

but at least cliton could "sell" what he did better to the rest of the world he did at least pret3end he gives a damn about the rest of the world

So you would prefer an American President that would lie to the rest of the world about his policies? You may dislike Bush, but he makes no secrets about where he stands.

Originally posted by Archi
I am saying that the Chinese now have ICBM's that can reach the continental US, which they didnt have b4 Clinton/Gore.

and you are sure you gave them that technolgy (for free) and it wasn an own development or espionage?

[Archi]

and you are sure you gave them that technolgy (for free) and it wasn an own development or espionage?

The Loral Corporation was given special license from the Commerce dept to give rocket technology to the Chinese. Unfortunately the Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was killed in a "mysterious" plane accident a few months later before he could be brought before a grand jury.

Originally posted by Archi
So you would prefer an American President that would lie to the rest of the world about his policies? You may dislike Bush, but he makes no secrets about where he stands.

its not about lieing, its about convicing the rest of the world he does the right thing. bush had no sucess at all in doing that
and, no, ofc i didnt agree with everything clinton did. but he didnt **** up the whole world as bush is doing atm

[Archi]

Well if Clinton would have taken up the Sudanese on their offer, chances are 9/11 would not even have happened. So who do you think screwed up things more? I will agree with you on one thing though, Clinton has a good ol' boy charm that is contagious. Something that Al Gore and GWB lack.

[Nixjim]

Bush is a very poor statesman and has no idea how to handle Foreign policy. His War on Terror will fail as you cannot defeat terrorism with military might, even if he manages to hunt down and kill every terrorist on earth it will simply inspire more people to take their place. Inspite of all that I think he is trying to protect not only the US, but the world with his actions. The fact that he has not already attacked Iraq shows that he is listening to people, if he was truly a gun-ho cowboy he would have sent in the troops months ago. Gore is a brainless painty waist who would still be scratching his a.. trying to figure out what he could do that wouldn't offend anyone. While I agree it is important to consider others at all times, when the time for action comes any delay results in failure. No decision is a decision in itself.

[bobble]

Originally posted by Archi
I wouldnt be so sure about that. Clinton/Gore deployed more troops to more places than GWB did and with a lot less reason. Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia. Sudan offered up Osama bin Laden on a silver platter in 1994, but Clinton/Gore turned them down. Instead they bombed an aspirin factory there to get Monica Lewinski out of the headlines. Then they bombed Iraq and launched cruise missles at Afghanistan. They were the ones that cut the deal with NK (we saw how that came out). They traded US tech to Red China for political donations.

So dont be so sure that Al Gore would be so much better.

this post drips with such right-wing propaganda-fed crap i lost all respect for you.

[Nusselt]

so what did everyone think of my comic book theory??

Marvel and DC are the root of all evil!

[Archi]

this post drips with such right-wing propaganda-fed crap i lost all respect for you.

Can you prove me wrong on any of it?

Originally posted by Nixjim
Bush is a very poor statesman and has no idea how to handle Foreign policy. His War on Terror will fail as you cannot defeat terrorism with military might, even if he manages to hunt down and kill every terrorist on earth it will simply inspire more people to take their place.

if you know that and i know that and the rest of the world as well, why doesnt bush?

Inspite of all that I think he is trying to protect not only the US, but the world with his actions.

maybe his goal is to protect the rest of the world, but what does it matter if he chooses the wrong means?

The fact that he has not already attacked Iraq shows that he is listening to people, if he was truly a gun-ho cowboy he would have sent in the troops months ago. Gore is a brainless painty waist who would still be scratching his a.. trying to figure out what he could do that wouldn't offend anyone. While I agree it is important to consider others at all times, when the time for action comes any delay results in failure. No decision is a decision in itself.

im still sure he will attack in febuary (which is the best time for an attack), no matter what others say, but i hope time will proove me wrong

if it would be only his war on terrorism, but there are so many others things where he took, in my opinion, the wrong decissions

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Bush is a very poor statesman and has no idea how to handle Foreign policy. His War on Terror will fail as you cannot defeat terrorism with military might, even if he manages to hunt down and kill every terrorist on earth it will simply inspire more people to take their place.

So are you suggesting that he should have done nothing? Do you think it would have been viable, following 9/11, to have not made some major military response? I don't follow your logic here - you seem to be saying that you think it would have been sensible to have done nothing in terms of military counter-attack against those who perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

While I take your point that Bush is a poor stateman, and agree with it in some respects, overall you must agree that the cumulative effect of the War on Terror will be to decrease the threat posed by terrorist organisations. Increased vigililance plus a physical military blitz on the machinery and organisational centres of terror (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) must surely equals a decrease in terrorist threat, even if some new recruits take the place of the dead.

Overall, the only viable response to 9/11 was a massive military one. Would you disagree with that?

Originally posted by General Geiger
So are you suggesting that he should have done nothing? Do you think it would have been viable, following 9/11, to have not made some major military response? I don't follow your logic here - you seem to be saying that you think it would have been sensible to have done nothing in terms of military counter-attack against those who perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

While I take your point that Bush is a poor stateman, and agree with it in some respects, overall you must agree that the cumulative effect of the War on Terror will be to decrease the threat posed by terrorist organisations. Increased vigililance plus a physical military blitz on the machinery and organisational centres of terror (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) must surely equals a decrease in terrorist threat, even if some new recruits take the place of the dead.

Overall, the only viable response to 9/11 was a massive military one. Would you disagree with that?

im the one who doesnt support the idea. what exactly did he archive by attacking so far? sure the taliban are no longer in power, which most likely will be a good thing for the people in afganistan (if kazai ever gets any power outside kabul that is). but the terrorists? sure you get some of their soldiers, but how long will it take bin laden to find replacements with yet another muslim country under "us-occupation"? you dont need much for a terrorist, a strong belife (or some brainwashing), a little money and a short training (and you can be sure they will take more care of not beeing discovered now :/)
this whole war-idea doesnt work out if you have to deal with fanatics, as everyone can see in israel, and would you really want to live in a country like israel with police and military in every corner?
waht he should have done? im not sure, improve domestic security and try to inviltratde bin-ladens organization, then gather information and destroy it from inside

[W]

Originally posted by General Geiger
So are you suggesting that he should have done nothing? Do you think it would have been viable, following 9/11, to have not made some major military response? I don't follow your logic here - you seem to be saying that you think it would have been sensible to have done nothing in terms of military counter-attack against those who perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

While I take your point that Bush is a poor stateman, and agree with it in some respects, overall you must agree that the cumulative effect of the War on Terror will be to decrease the threat posed by terrorist organisations. Increased vigililance plus a physical military blitz on the machinery and organisational centres of terror (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) must surely equals a decrease in terrorist threat, even if some new recruits take the place of the dead.

Overall, the only viable response to 9/11 was a massive military one. Would you disagree with that?

Doing nothing would be better than what was done, yes. The latest plays from Bush&co have gotten alot of reasonable people (ie not just religious fanatics) with some power (ie not just the poor in unindustrialized countries) to realize that perhaps it isn't such a bad idea to work against USA. More and more the attitude moves from "oh those silly americans" to "hmm, these americans could actually do as they wished even in MY country, and there's little effective we could do to stop them, I don't like it". Short term, perhaps you ensured that your government remains secure instead of being doubted for their lack of resolve, long term you've probably hurt USA's image severely.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by General Geiger
So are you suggesting that he should have done nothing? Do you think it would have been viable, following 9/11, to have not made some major military response? I don't follow your logic here - you seem to be saying that you think it would have been sensible to have done nothing in terms of military counter-attack against those who perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

While I take your point that Bush is a poor stateman, and agree with it in some respects, overall you must agree that the cumulative effect of the War on Terror will be to decrease the threat posed by terrorist organisations. Increased vigililance plus a physical military blitz on the machinery and organisational centres of terror (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc) must surely equals a decrease in terrorist threat, even if some new recruits take the place of the dead.

Overall, the only viable response to 9/11 was a massive military one. Would you disagree with that?

I suggested no such thing, only that the war is unwinnable by military might. Some military use is required, but defeating terrorism as a whole, rather than just individual terrorists, will require a complete change of the conditions that inspire people to become terrorists. I deplore terrorism, yet if the US were defeated and occupied by a hostile force I despised you can bet they would soon be calling me a "terrorist".

[Archi]

This may sound silly, but I think democrocy is the key. All those governments where terrorists come from are brutal dictatorial regimes. The modus operandi of these people is to point the finger at the US as the "Great Satan" thereby distracting the people from their real problems. That is the leadership itself. Look at Palestine. Every Palestinian who has tried to oppose Yassir Arafat politically has had they're house fire-bombed by the Palestinian Authority. A good strong nation will always have an opposition to keep the ruling party in check (even Israel has this).

this post drips with such right-wing propaganda-fed crap i lost all respect for you.

Bobble is an American, but we disagree on our leadership. This is what makes not only America, but all democratic nations strong. The free flow of ideas and debate. I support Bush, he doesnt. Though he does not respect me, I respect him as an American. Because it is his right (and my right too) to question our leadership. You do not have any of this in any of the nations that sponsor terrorists.

Though Bush may be going about this wrong. Which as everyone already knows here is highly debateable (since we are debating on this now). We still have the right to debate this without having to go to the gulag for our views.

To put this in a nutshell, give the people of these countries the right to control their own destinies at the ballot box and a lot of these terrorists will dry up and blow away. I may be off base on this one, but I doubt it.

[W]

Originally posted by Archi
This may sound silly, but I think democrocy is the key. All those governments where terrorists come from are brutal dictatorial regimes. The modus operandi of these people is to point the finger at the US as the "Great Satan" thereby distracting the people from their real problems. That is the leadership itself. Look at Palestine. Every Palestinian who has tried to oppose Yassir Arafat politically has had they're house fire-bombed by the Palestinian Authority. A good strong nation will always have an opposition to keep the ruling party in check (even Israel has this).



Bobble is an American, but we disagree on our leadership. This is what makes not only America, but all democratic nations strong. The free flow of ideas and debate. I support Bush, he doesnt. Though he does not respect me, I respect him as an American. Because it is his right (and my right too) to question our leadership. You do not have any of this in any of the nations that sponsor terrorists.

Though Bush may be going about this wrong. Which as everyone already knows here is highly debateable (since we are debating on this now). We still have the right to debate this without having to go to the gulag for our views.

To put this in a nutshell, give the people of these countries the right to control their own destinies at the ballot box and a lot of these terrorists will dry up and blow away. I may be off base on this one, but I doubt it.

A) Don't think you understand, or know anything about, the palestinia/israel conflict.
B) Enforced democracy isn't.
C) IRA? ETA?

[Archi]

A) Don't think you understand, or know anything about, the palestinia/israel conflict.

Could you please tell me where I am wrong there? Instead of just calling me an idiot. As far as I know Yassir Arafat has no political opposition in Palestine, Israel does, this was the only point I was making on that issue.

B) Enforced democracy isn't.

It can if done right, look at Germany, Japan and Italy, democracy was forced on them, and theyre doing pretty good last time I looked. Besides did I say anything about forcing anyone to do anything? No I am not debating the means of HOW to do it.

C) IRA? ETA?

Perhaps democrocy wont solve all their problems, but it will get them on the road and going in the right direction. A democratically elected leader will always have more respect from the world community than a despot.

I cant believe you are even arguing about this here, against free speech and a democratically elected government. Maybe someone ought to take away your right of free speech and see how you like it. However you are entitled to your opinion no matter how silly.