I haven't heard of Michael Badnarik before but he seems to be quite sane. And you can still vote for Nader if you don't like the democrats <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Damn, I wish I was american...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did it come to this? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say the main reason is Bush's own policy of black and white, either you're with him or against him.
i say we're gonna have a wall mart crash by the end of 2005. i GUARENTEE IT! this is because, economy's falling, not a lot of money is being produced, we are being screwed by bush.
ok so now i hear that president bush is trying to INVADE iran rather than go in with permission from all the tables of legislation.... we're screwed, once AGAIN.
side note: don't double post, kindly edit your old one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
to be honest, i'm kind of disappointed in Bush. He was by and far the most attractive candidate in 2000, but somehow he managed to botch his job and now a lot of people are angry at him. While this isn't really a good measure of a president's success, and perhaps new evidence will come out eventually that will vindicate him, things don't look good.
i didnt double post, the other post is a day old <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> so bleh...
and i agree, he did butcher is job....playing golf...heh
How is this guy different from any other liberal's stance on the war?
Also, his solution to Iraq in the first place, 'targeting individuals'... how the hell is that suppose to work? Fight the enemy but leave the breeding grounds alone?
Terrorism is spawed out of poverty. Terrorists are the by-product of a misguided country. Killing a few individuals sounds like a half-assed solution to me.
the only terrorists around here is the government. those butt monkeys ARE the terrorists, all this time they have, will ALWAYS chase them selves no matter what because THEY ruin contries, THEY ruin homes, THEY try to run countries into poverty which create ANTI-Americans.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited July 2004
Strange, BlackPlague has either been chewing some lead paint bubble gum or he's trolling his own thread.
Anyway, to answer your question Forlorn, Badnarik is a Libertarian. The base Libertarian foreign policy ideology is "what you do in your country is your problem, but if you bring it here your **** is grass". Their adherence to the U.S. constitution is matched only by <a href='http://www.constitutionparty.com/' target='_blank'>the Constitution Party.</a> One literal solution from a Libertarian viewpoint is to recall every member of the Armed Forces from stations outside the U.S. and place them on the borders and at every access point--in effect castling US citizens from outside forces.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Terrorism is spawed out of poverty. Terrorists are the by-product of a misguided country. Killing a few individuals sounds like a half-assed solution to me<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd refute that and instead say that Terrorism is spawned out of a multiplicity of things. The terrorism in regards to that of late is more spawned out of ignorance. A misconception of reality. They have been led to believe that America is evil, which, I'm sure we can say is not true. Terrorists are the byproduct of their own agenda.
well see the thing is, i live in america, so i know what goes on, but i wasnt born here, i was born in Pakistan, so this makes me an alien. so i have different concepts on this stuff.
Seriously, BlackPlauge. This is the discussions forum, if you're not going to at least back up your claims with a few reasons, however circumstantial or opinionated (as I'm just about to do <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), don't post, eh?
Back on topic. There's only so much a man can do with a situation. I'm not saying the President was right about going into Iraq. What I'm saying is he did the best he could under the circumstances. If you honestly believe there's some kinda conspiracy with the government against it's own people, you've been watching too many movies.
There's no Illuminati, operating in secret. There is, however, a corrupt band of half-wits who would trade Arab lives for oil who bascially already run the world. We call it the UN (food for oil, anyone?)
This is not the first time a war has been fought for the wrong reasons. There hasn't been a war in HISTORY fought for the right reasons. The only difference today is spin. And what would you HAVE the president do? Sit back and quietly launch a few cruise missiles at Iraq in Clinton style "slap on the wrist" fashion, or get his butt in gear and some things: Homeland Security, awareness alerts, our "blood wars," etc.
And there's no WAY you can play that "Now watch this drive" card. He was playin freakin golf. The president doesn't have the right to play golf? What do you expect him to say? "Hold on, let me hold up the line while I put on a suit and tie and walk over to this convient podium to answer your question in the proper manner?!" No- Just like everyone else, he's going to dismiss you quickly and try to make a joke out of it so he doesn't look so bad. Come on.
It's not like the constant wars in the middle east are a new thing, either. Hell, when their not mad at us, they're fighting eachother. The area was a plentiful source of oill during a time when an army -nay, a country- needed oil to function and a Cold War was happening. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN!? Do you think the citizens of the 1950's would object to ousting an already tyranical leader and securing oil reserves so we can beat the Russians? We were both doing it! Why do you think they shoot AK-47's at us? The cold war powers are directly responsible for what the middle east has become, not just Bush, so don't point the finger at him.
<!--QuoteBegin-rob6264+Jul 22 2004, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rob6264 @ Jul 22 2004, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's no Illuminati, operating in secret. There is, however, a corrupt band of half-wits who would trade Arab lives for oil who bascially already run the world. We call it the UN (food for oil, anyone?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First you scold Blackplague for insubstantial statements, then launch this tirade of rediculous, inflammatory and completely unbased complaints. The "half-wits that would trade arab", african, caucasian and indeed any other lives for oil are the ones that run the oil companies. You do of course realize that that's where the power is at.
UN is merely a tool of its member states, not really an independent entity. The UN food-for-oil program was a response to the trade embargo created by the United States and Great Britain. In the nineties, even after many other UN members tried to get the trade embargo of Iraq removed at the security council, the US and Great Britain would always vote against the proposals or veto them.
For a decade, people in Iraq suffered not only because there was no one powerful enough there to topple Saddam, but also because the US-created economic sanctions drove them to poverty and illness.
And about the name, it was called food-for-oil because oil is the only export Iraq could sell. That's all they've got. If their main export would have been silly garden clowns to walmart shelves, then the program would have been named "food-for-clowns".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is not the first time a war has been fought for the wrong reasons. There hasn't been a war in HISTORY fought for the right reasons. The only difference today is spin. And what would you HAVE the president do? Sit back and quietly launch a few cruise missiles at Iraq in Clinton style "slap on the wrist" fashion, or get his butt in gear and some things: Homeland Security, awareness alerts, our "blood wars," etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd expect the world's most powerful man to understand that preemptive strikes are a scary concept. The US has WMD. Should we perform a preemptive strike to make sure they never deploy them? Israel has WMD. Can the arab states invade Israel now?
The awareness alerts are a joke. Does anyone even pay any attention to them? Does anyone even believe that they are based on even remotely quantifiable facts?
And homelad security... Well, please go do some reading on Information Awareness Office and their pet project Total Information Awareness. Those guys are scary.
I scolded Blackplauge for using one liners that served no purpose other than bashing bush. Like I said, I'm not saying there's no blame on Bush: I'm saying he shouldn't take all of it.
The world hasn't changed much in the last 50 years: we're still a raving bunch of cut-throats. And that's not going to change any time soon. Just because in the case of Iraq it's more public doesn't make it any worse a thing to do. Like I said, this is ALL residual chaos from the cold war, I can guarentee you, and this kinda stuff takes a long time to heal up.
Look back through history and you'll see much worse done to far more innocent people. Our natural ferocity is what defines us as humans.
yes Bush DOES deserve this, how many lives have been taken THIS YEAR on the war alone? and i quote on information from CNN "300,000 lives." and in vietname, it was only twice as less! so who IS the criminal? bush? government? saudis?
Bush and the Government. why? because they believe that USA is the best ( which i think is only good in the food industry.... mmmmm.... fooood.) and they think that just by sending some odd number of people will make the USA stronger, EEEEEEEEEEEEEH WRONG, population of our defenses = 0 <-- by the end of the war is over, there will be no one to protect us but our fists.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Jul 20 2004, 09:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Jul 20 2004, 09:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, let me get this straight - Bush is an idiot for trying to find facts? Hey, there may be no link at all to Iran and 9-11 - thats great. If there is no link, then any investigation will go quickly and smoothly, and Iran will be clear.
However, if there is a link, and we dont find it (no investigation) then who is the idiot?
Police officers have to investigate a lot of inocent people to find the guilty. Just because it is a country in the middle east doesn't make it automatically guilty, but neither does it absolve it from being investigated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I suggest a thorough investigation of Saudi Arabia.
How many were killed, and would continue to be killed under Saddam's regime?
How many more years would the UN dance around while Saddam gassed his own people?
Not to put the war in the context of morales - it wasn't. But there you have it. And are you sure about those numbers from Vietnam? We lost around 50,000, but we killed at least 3-4 of the enemy per american death, I believe. How many lives were lost in the wave attacks launched by China during the Korean war (again our fault for crossing the line - both metaphorical and real in this case). Millions died in the world wars. Sure WWII had "reasons" Hitler was genocidal; but Stalin was much worse than Hitler ever dreamed of being, and who were we allied with?
WWI was PURE murder. The battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun claimed over a million lives a peice, and for what? That entire war was old hatreds resurfacing. It was about blood.
I've never and will never subscribe to the idea that we are growing more barbaric.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jul 22 2004, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jul 22 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyway, to answer your question Forlorn, Badnarik is a Libertarian. The base Libertarian foreign policy ideology is "what you do in your country is your problem, but if you bring it here your **** is grass". Their adherence to the U.S. constitution is matched only by <a href='http://www.constitutionparty.com/' target='_blank'>the Constitution Party.</a> One literal solution from a Libertarian viewpoint is to recall every member of the Armed Forces from stations outside the U.S. and place them on the borders and at every access point--in effect castling US citizens from outside forces. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Spooge, but the problem with this is that we've already tried something along those lines.
How do you think Pearl Harbor occured? And 9/11? Both happened because we simply said sat on our thumbs and pretended no one would ever be jealous. No one likes the winner. People want what they don't have. This is precisely the only reason America has ever been attacked. Assuming a defensive stance does not promise peace.
"Evil succeeds only when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (might be off a bit)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd refute that and instead say that Terrorism is spawned out of a multiplicity of things. The terrorism in regards to that of late is more spawned out of ignorance. A misconception of reality. They have been led to believe that America is evil, which, I'm sure we can say is not true. Terrorists are the byproduct of their own agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If terroism is spawned out of ignorance, than ignorance is caused by a lack of proper education, which is caused by poverty.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Both happened because we simply said sat on our thumbs and pretended no one would ever be jealous. No one likes the winner. People want what they don't have. This is precisely the only reason America has ever been attacked. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Where are you getting this? Jealousy? Are you kidding?
Osama, the multi-millionaire, who could have lived a better life than most Americans, but chose to live a dismal life hiding in caves, is <i>jealous</i>. The real reason any terrorist attacks occur, is because of the total ignorance of the American populace of American foreign policy. Government controlled mass media surreptitiously filters the bad content out and leaves Americans with the impression that America upholds justice, and human rights. Then these people place their faith that the US government will do the 'right' thing, and it bombs whoever it likes for the sake of bombing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Jul 23 2004, 04:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Jul 23 2004, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Osama, the multi-millionaire, who could have lived a better life than most Americans, but chose to live a dismal life hiding in caves, is <i>jealous</i>. The real reason any terrorist attacks occur, is because of the total ignorance of the American populace of American foreign policy. Government controlled mass media surreptitiously filters the bad content out and leaves Americans with the impression that America upholds justice, and human rights. Then these people place their faith that the US government will do the 'right' thing, and it bombs whoever it likes for the sake of bombing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wasnt it an american media source that first reported the prison scandels in iraq?(remember hearing this somewhere, someone correct me if Im wrong) If it is correct, reports like this, and there are others, don't exactly show a good job of media filtering. If the media was filted we'd see soldiers building new schools and handing out food to people every night on the news not their dead bodies.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aries86+Jul 23 2004, 03:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aries86 @ Jul 23 2004, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wasnt it an american media source that first reported the prison scandels in iraq?(remember hearing this somewhere, someone correct me if Im wrong) If it is correct, reports like this, and there are others, don't exactly show a good job of media filtering. If the media was filted we'd see soldiers building new schools and handing out food to people every night on the news not their dead bodies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But you don't see soldiers' bodies on the news. There's a big no-no in this war. We don't show dead Americans to people sitting down for their nightly news. The coverage for this whole war has felt one step removed, somehow. It's all being reported as if it were something that had no bearing on the rest of the U.S. Generic soldiers fighting generic 'arabs'.
The point is that the news doesn't report things like the fact that U.S. foreign policy for decades has made us many many enemies around the world. Not from the leaders of these countries that the U.S. 'helps' but from the people that get caught in the crossfire while we install our U.S. friendly governments or prop up 'freedom fighters'. To find out these things, you have to do your research, because our news outlets are never going to report it for you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Jul 23 2004, 04:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Jul 23 2004, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Osama, the multi-millionaire, who could have lived a better life than most Americans, but chose to live a dismal life hiding in caves, is <i>jealous</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He hides in a cave to surrive
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Where are you getting this? Jealousy? Are you kidding?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wanting what someone else has when you don't have it is a small form of jealousy.
Forlorn, it's not that these terrorists are "jealous", but it's because there's a religious fervor driving their desire to kill. At least, the terrorists we are discussing.
ok and no, thats kinda offending me. driving muslims to KILL? its against our religion to kill first of all, and second, who gave you the right to tell US that muslims who are the terrorists have to KILL? if you havent read ANY article, then you must be stupid. i know for a fact they are only beheading them is because of the wrong doing, its in our culture, if someone does something very very wrong, we dont KILL them, we show them a lesson and to the other people so that they dont make the same mistake.
so dont u DAAAAARE say that muslims are being driven into killing other people, that was SUCH offense to me its not funny.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Jul 24 2004, 12:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Jul 24 2004, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Forlorn, it's not that these terrorists are "jealous", but it's because there's a religious fervor driving their desire to kill. At least, the terrorists we are discussing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would argue that it in fact has nothing to do with their religion. Their hatred for the US is entirely based on criticism of the actions of the US. The religious element is just the terminology in which their political positions are cloaked. The religion is sort of a moral "vernacular" in which they can describe the terms of their struggle <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wanting what someone else has when you don't have it is a small form of jealousy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where are you getting <i>this</i>?
This is getting a bit hot. So think carefully before you post, everyone!
Back on topic:
I believe it's actually a mix between what you're saying. Islam is a bueatiful religion, currupted and twisted for use by people who for whatever reason want to kill other people. Holy War is an oximoron. No God of any of the three monotheistic religions in power today would accept mass genocide done in their name, and any person who murders for the sake of Abba, Jesus, or Allah is perverting those religions. Well, I suppose the Old Testimate borders on that being okay...
But anyway, the point is you can't call it a Holy War and simply wash your hands of the blood you've spilled. Nothing is ever cut and dry.
I'm sorry, but the saying the media is being filtered by the government is just insane. Think about it, it's in pretty BAD taste to show dead Americans to Americans. The only time you'd want to do that is if you want to enrage them. So you could almost say that by not showing dead americans, the media is helping to calm tensions and pull us out. Yeah, bit of a stretch. But if you honestly believe this, you've been playing too much MGS2, DuesEx, etc.
Lastly, everyone needs to understand that you can't please everyone. Making someone happy will enrage someone else, and on it goes. What I'm getting at is that no matter what kind of foreign policy our country adopted, we'd still have <i>someone</i> **** off at us. It's just the way the world works. You have enemies and you have friends. Sometimes you have more of one than the other. Sometimes you have about the same; but you always have both.
If you look at the bushs family, then they are all stupid... Not very higjh IQ and so on... Actually bush doesnt lead the country, the military does. Bush is just a stupid mascott who got advisors who think what decisions should be made and bush just fills them in.. He does nothing. Poor little Bush..
But as i am not american, I don't give much **** about america. I know it is screwed. I don't like their money politics. They think that they are in the centre of the earth.. In the centre of the universe. They own what they should not own and without purpose, they just take it. Like the Moon and Mars. Someone has been selling lands on there... Like who does it belong to and with what purpose? It should belong to everybody.. Did you know that USA is actually one of the poorest countries. Do you know that saing that "dept is a property what belongs to other", USA has very big dept. The largest. Dept to the national funds of money or something.. And it is VERY big. USA has some other depts to the humans and nature also. I don't care about the money. Money should be burned! Todays world is screwed. All is abouyt the money, only for a peace of paper, only bechause of stupid numbers what are worth nothing. Wars are planned and papers are filled to start the war, there are rules and one country tells the other when war begins, it is like a freaking game. Game has rules, not war, so todays war is a game. USA is worse that the Nazis. You don´t know what military does, awful experiments he does. I make no differense between USA and old Nazis who are gone now.. Histry returns and all those things what were in Abessinia and in ancient Rome, those gladiators and that ruler Nero, all these things still exist in today..
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But you don't see soldiers' bodies on the news. There's a big no-no in this war. We don't show dead Americans to people sitting down for their nightly news. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
because americans in general do not want to see dead soldiers on tv. Media outlets think about ratings first. You can report about a soldier dying without showing his dead body. Come to think of it, how many dead bodies do they show on TV when reporting on murders. I cannot think of the last time I saw one on the news.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Re: isolationism -- I'm not sure I ever thought I'd say this, but Forlorn is right. Isolationism doesn't work because eventually other powers - countries, terrorists, whoever - will bring the conflict to us. We live in a global economy now, and we can't ignore the rest of the world. We might have gotten away with it before WW2, but we can't anymore.
I've been watching Season 2 of <i>The West Wing</i> (For those who don't know, it's an Aaron Sorkin show about the president and senior staff of a fictional White House), and there was recently an episode that began with the collapse of the Mexican peso. Sorkin frequently uses Donna, one of the secretaries, to question the definitely liberal decisions that the President makes. In this case, Donna objected (to her boss, Josh) to having $30mill in American tax dollars to Mexico when the same thing has happened many times in the past. Her reasoning: "doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is the psychological definition of insanity."
Josh's response, which is what I've been getting to, was this: "Why are we helping Mexico? Because we can. When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the cost of your garden hose."
The same thing is true of our "police actions" in various countries. We have the military strength and the available money to help nations in turmoil when no one else can or will (that said, I don't think we were justified in going into Iraq, but that's not the point here). ____
Re: death on the news -- two things. First of all, the media has found it VERY difficult to get pictures of coffins returning from Iraq because the government doesn't want pictures taken. Secondly, Americans *love* seeing violence on TV. It's what I call the "car-accident mentality" - no matter how horrific it is, we have this strange fascination with it. "Death" is sterile and boring, but a dead person isn't.
That said, I agree with BobTheJanitor -- people don't like to see our men dying in the war. It hits too close to home; it's too personal.
Comments
And you can still vote for Nader if you don't like the democrats <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Damn, I wish I was american...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did it come to this? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say the main reason is Bush's own policy of black and white, either you're with him or against him.
to be honest, i'm kind of disappointed in Bush. He was by and far the most attractive candidate in 2000, but somehow he managed to botch his job and now a lot of people are angry at him. While this isn't really a good measure of a president's success, and perhaps new evidence will come out eventually that will vindicate him, things don't look good.
and i agree, he did butcher is job....playing golf...heh
How is this guy different from any other liberal's stance on the war?
Also, his solution to Iraq in the first place, 'targeting individuals'... how the hell is that suppose to work? Fight the enemy but leave the breeding grounds alone?
Terrorism is spawed out of poverty. Terrorists are the by-product of a misguided country. Killing a few individuals sounds like a half-assed solution to me.
the only terrorists around here is the government. those butt monkeys ARE the terrorists, all this time they have, will ALWAYS chase them selves no matter what because THEY ruin contries, THEY ruin homes, THEY try to run countries into poverty which create ANTI-Americans.
Anyway, to answer your question Forlorn, Badnarik is a Libertarian. The base Libertarian foreign policy ideology is "what you do in your country is your problem, but if you bring it here your **** is grass". Their adherence to the U.S. constitution is matched only by <a href='http://www.constitutionparty.com/' target='_blank'>the Constitution Party.</a> One literal solution from a Libertarian viewpoint is to recall every member of the Armed Forces from stations outside the U.S. and place them on the borders and at every access point--in effect castling US citizens from outside forces.
I'd refute that and instead say that Terrorism is spawned out of a multiplicity of things. The terrorism in regards to that of late is more spawned out of ignorance. A misconception of reality. They have been led to believe that America is evil, which, I'm sure we can say is not true. Terrorists are the byproduct of their own agenda.
Back on topic. There's only so much a man can do with a situation. I'm not saying the President was right about going into Iraq. What I'm saying is he did the best he could under the circumstances. If you honestly believe there's some kinda conspiracy with the government against it's own people, you've been watching too many movies.
There's no Illuminati, operating in secret. There is, however, a corrupt band of half-wits who would trade Arab lives for oil who bascially already run the world. We call it the UN (food for oil, anyone?)
This is not the first time a war has been fought for the wrong reasons. There hasn't been a war in HISTORY fought for the right reasons. The only difference today is spin. And what would you HAVE the president do? Sit back and quietly launch a few cruise missiles at Iraq in Clinton style "slap on the wrist" fashion, or get his butt in gear and some things: Homeland Security, awareness alerts, our "blood wars," etc.
And there's no WAY you can play that "Now watch this drive" card. He was playin freakin golf. The president doesn't have the right to play golf? What do you expect him to say? "Hold on, let me hold up the line while I put on a suit and tie and walk over to this convient podium to answer your question in the proper manner?!" No- Just like everyone else, he's going to dismiss you quickly and try to make a joke out of it so he doesn't look so bad. Come on.
It's not like the constant wars in the middle east are a new thing, either. Hell, when their not mad at us, they're fighting eachother. The area was a plentiful source of oill during a time when an army -nay, a country- needed oil to function and a Cold War was happening. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN!? Do you think the citizens of the 1950's would object to ousting an already tyranical leader and securing oil reserves so we can beat the Russians? We were both doing it! Why do you think they shoot AK-47's at us? The cold war powers are directly responsible for what the middle east has become, not just Bush, so don't point the finger at him.
/rant
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First you scold Blackplague for insubstantial statements, then launch this tirade of rediculous, inflammatory and completely unbased complaints. The "half-wits that would trade arab", african, caucasian and indeed any other lives for oil are the ones that run the oil companies. You do of course realize that that's where the power is at.
UN is merely a tool of its member states, not really an independent entity. The UN food-for-oil program was a response to the trade embargo created by the United States and Great Britain. In the nineties, even after many other UN members tried to get the trade embargo of Iraq removed at the security council, the US and Great Britain would always vote against the proposals or veto them.
For a decade, people in Iraq suffered not only because there was no one powerful enough there to topple Saddam, but also because the US-created economic sanctions drove them to poverty and illness.
And about the name, it was called food-for-oil because oil is the only export Iraq could sell. That's all they've got. If their main export would have been silly garden clowns to walmart shelves, then the program would have been named "food-for-clowns".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is not the first time a war has been fought for the wrong reasons. There hasn't been a war in HISTORY fought for the right reasons. The only difference today is spin. And what would you HAVE the president do? Sit back and quietly launch a few cruise missiles at Iraq in Clinton style "slap on the wrist" fashion, or get his butt in gear and some things: Homeland Security, awareness alerts, our "blood wars," etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd expect the world's most powerful man to understand that preemptive strikes are a scary concept. The US has WMD. Should we perform a preemptive strike to make sure they never deploy them? Israel has WMD. Can the arab states invade Israel now?
The awareness alerts are a joke. Does anyone even pay any attention to them? Does anyone even believe that they are based on even remotely quantifiable facts?
And homelad security... Well, please go do some reading on Information Awareness Office and their pet project Total Information Awareness. Those guys are scary.
The world hasn't changed much in the last 50 years: we're still a raving bunch of cut-throats. And that's not going to change any time soon. Just because in the case of Iraq it's more public doesn't make it any worse a thing to do. Like I said, this is ALL residual chaos from the cold war, I can guarentee you, and this kinda stuff takes a long time to heal up.
Look back through history and you'll see much worse done to far more innocent people. Our natural ferocity is what defines us as humans.
Bush and the Government. why? because they believe that USA is the best ( which i think is only good in the food industry.... mmmmm.... fooood.) and they think that just by sending some odd number of people will make the USA stronger, EEEEEEEEEEEEEH WRONG, population of our defenses = 0 <-- by the end of the war is over, there will be no one to protect us but our fists.
However, if there is a link, and we dont find it (no investigation) then who is the idiot?
Police officers have to investigate a lot of inocent people to find the guilty. Just because it is a country in the middle east doesn't make it automatically guilty, but neither does it absolve it from being investigated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suggest a thorough investigation of Saudi Arabia.
How many more years would the UN dance around while Saddam gassed his own people?
Not to put the war in the context of morales - it wasn't. But there you have it. And are you sure about those numbers from Vietnam? We lost around 50,000, but we killed at least 3-4 of the enemy per american death, I believe. How many lives were lost in the wave attacks launched by China during the Korean war (again our fault for crossing the line - both metaphorical and real in this case). Millions died in the world wars. Sure WWII had "reasons" Hitler was genocidal; but Stalin was much worse than Hitler ever dreamed of being, and who were we allied with?
WWI was PURE murder. The battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun claimed over a million lives a peice, and for what? That entire war was old hatreds resurfacing. It was about blood.
I've never and will never subscribe to the idea that we are growing more barbaric.
Spooge, but the problem with this is that we've already tried something along those lines.
How do you think Pearl Harbor occured? And 9/11? Both happened because we simply said sat on our thumbs and pretended no one would ever be jealous. No one likes the winner. People want what they don't have. This is precisely the only reason America has ever been attacked. Assuming a defensive stance does not promise peace.
"Evil succeeds only when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (might be off a bit)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd refute that and instead say that Terrorism is spawned out of a multiplicity of things. The terrorism in regards to that of late is more spawned out of ignorance. A misconception of reality. They have been led to believe that America is evil, which, I'm sure we can say is not true. Terrorists are the byproduct of their own agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If terroism is spawned out of ignorance, than ignorance is caused by a lack of proper education, which is caused by poverty.
Where are you getting this? Jealousy? Are you kidding?
Wasnt it an american media source that first reported the prison scandels in iraq?(remember hearing this somewhere, someone correct me if Im wrong) If it is correct, reports like this, and there are others, don't exactly show a good job of media filtering. If the media was filted we'd see soldiers building new schools and handing out food to people every night on the news not their dead bodies.
But you don't see soldiers' bodies on the news. There's a big no-no in this war. We don't show dead Americans to people sitting down for their nightly news. The coverage for this whole war has felt one step removed, somehow. It's all being reported as if it were something that had no bearing on the rest of the U.S. Generic soldiers fighting generic 'arabs'.
The point is that the news doesn't report things like the fact that U.S. foreign policy for decades has made us many many enemies around the world. Not from the leaders of these countries that the U.S. 'helps' but from the people that get caught in the crossfire while we install our U.S. friendly governments or prop up 'freedom fighters'. To find out these things, you have to do your research, because our news outlets are never going to report it for you.
this is prolly what they did at the elections.
i seriously think we need a new president. no not kerry, hes a moron too. this world is TOO unsafe now.
He hides in a cave to surrive
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Where are you getting this? Jealousy? Are you kidding?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wanting what someone else has when you don't have it is a small form of jealousy.
so dont u DAAAAARE say that muslims are being driven into killing other people, that was SUCH offense to me its not funny.
I would argue that it in fact has nothing to do with their religion. Their hatred for the US is entirely based on criticism of the actions of the US. The religious element is just the terminology in which their political positions are cloaked. The religion is sort of a moral "vernacular" in which they can describe the terms of their struggle
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wanting what someone else has when you don't have it is a small form of jealousy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where are you getting <i>this</i>?
Back on topic:
I believe it's actually a mix between what you're saying. Islam is a bueatiful religion, currupted and twisted for use by people who for whatever reason want to kill other people. Holy War is an oximoron. No God of any of the three monotheistic religions in power today would accept mass genocide done in their name, and any person who murders for the sake of Abba, Jesus, or Allah is perverting those religions. Well, I suppose the Old Testimate borders on that being okay...
But anyway, the point is you can't call it a Holy War and simply wash your hands of the blood you've spilled. Nothing is ever cut and dry.
I'm sorry, but the saying the media is being filtered by the government is just insane. Think about it, it's in pretty BAD taste to show dead Americans to Americans. The only time you'd want to do that is if you want to enrage them. So you could almost say that by not showing dead americans, the media is helping to calm tensions and pull us out. Yeah, bit of a stretch. But if you honestly believe this, you've been playing too much MGS2, DuesEx, etc.
Lastly, everyone needs to understand that you can't please everyone. Making someone happy will enrage someone else, and on it goes. What I'm getting at is that no matter what kind of foreign policy our country adopted, we'd still have <i>someone</i> **** off at us. It's just the way the world works. You have enemies and you have friends. Sometimes you have more of one than the other. Sometimes you have about the same; but you always have both.
Actually bush doesnt lead the country, the military does. Bush is just a stupid mascott who got advisors who think what decisions should be made and bush just fills them in.. He does nothing.
Poor little Bush..
But as i am not american, I don't give much **** about america. I know it is screwed. I don't like their money politics. They think that they are in the centre of the earth.. In the centre of the universe. They own what they should not own and without purpose, they just take it. Like the Moon and Mars. Someone has been selling lands on there... Like who does it belong to and with what purpose? It should belong to everybody..
Did you know that USA is actually one of the poorest countries. Do you know that saing that "dept is a property what belongs to other", USA has very big dept. The largest. Dept to the national funds of money or something.. And it is VERY big.
USA has some other depts to the humans and nature also. I don't care about the money. Money should be burned!
Todays world is screwed. All is abouyt the money, only for a peace of paper, only bechause of stupid numbers what are worth nothing.
Wars are planned and papers are filled to start the war, there are rules and one country tells the other when war begins, it is like a freaking game. Game has rules, not war, so todays war is a game.
USA is worse that the Nazis. You don´t know what military does, awful experiments he does. I make no differense between USA and old Nazis who are gone now..
Histry returns and all those things what were in Abessinia and in ancient Rome, those gladiators and that ruler Nero, all these things still exist in today..
because americans in general do not want to see dead soldiers on tv. Media outlets think about ratings first. You can report about a soldier dying without showing his dead body. Come to think of it, how many dead bodies do they show on TV when reporting on murders. I cannot think of the last time I saw one on the news.
I've been watching Season 2 of <i>The West Wing</i> (For those who don't know, it's an Aaron Sorkin show about the president and senior staff of a fictional White House), and there was recently an episode that began with the collapse of the Mexican peso. Sorkin frequently uses Donna, one of the secretaries, to question the definitely liberal decisions that the President makes. In this case, Donna objected (to her boss, Josh) to having $30mill in American tax dollars to Mexico when the same thing has happened many times in the past. Her reasoning: "doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is the psychological definition of insanity."
Josh's response, which is what I've been getting to, was this: "Why are we helping Mexico? Because we can. When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the cost of your garden hose."
The same thing is true of our "police actions" in various countries. We have the military strength and the available money to help nations in turmoil when no one else can or will (that said, I don't think we were justified in going into Iraq, but that's not the point here).
____
Re: death on the news -- two things. First of all, the media has found it VERY difficult to get pictures of coffins returning from Iraq because the government doesn't want pictures taken. Secondly, Americans *love* seeing violence on TV. It's what I call the "car-accident mentality" - no matter how horrific it is, we have this strange fascination with it. "Death" is sterile and boring, but a dead person isn't.
That said, I agree with BobTheJanitor -- people don't like to see our men dying in the war. It hits too close to home; it's too personal.