Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won
    #3070933 - 08/30/04 08:26 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...94&ncid=716

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

NASHUA, N.H. - President Bush (news - web sites) ignited a Democratic inferno of criticism on Monday by suggesting the war on terrorism could not be won, forcing his aides to scramble to defend his remarks just as he had hoped to bask in convention accolades.

Bush sought to emphasize the economy ? New Hampshire's appears to be on a rebound ? but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention.

In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show, Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ? those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Democrats, looking for ways to deflect the spotlight from Republicans as they opened their convention in York, pounced.

"After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism," said Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites). "This is no time to declare defeat."

"The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable," Edwards said later on ABC's "Nightline."

"I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, at a news conference in New York organized by Democrats.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan sought to clarify the president's remarks, telling reporters, "He was talking about winning it in the conventional sense ... about how this is a different kind of war and we face an unconventional enemy."

"To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"First George W. Bush said he miscalculated the war in Iraq (news - web sites), then he called it a catastrophic success and blamed the military," said John Kerry (news - web sites) spokeswoman Allison Dobson. "Now he says we can't win the war on terror. Is that what Karl Rove means when he calls for steady leadership?"

Meanwhile Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, acknowledged that the continuing conflict in Iraq could be a political liability in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona.

"We're in a war, so you got a lot of people who say, `I don't like the fact that we're in a war. But I want to win the war,'" Rove said in an interview in New York with Pennsylvania reporters.

The coordinated Democratic attack came as Republicans sought to portray Bush as a strong leader in the war on terrorism in the opening session of the Republican National Convention.

Bush suggested in an interview with Time magazine that he still would have gone into Iraq but with different tactics if he had known "that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."

He called the swift military offensive that led to the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 "a catastrophic success" in light of the fact that fighting continues to this day despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government.

Speaking in Nashua, Bush praised a 3.9 percent unemployment rate that is considerably below the national average of 5.5 percent, below other states in the region and below New Hampshire's July 2003 rate of 4.3 percent. "It's dropping every second," Bush said with a smile as he took credit for the state's gains.

Bush was on a three-day, six-state campaign dash that will bring him to New York late Wednesday.

Later, in Taylor, Mich., he acknowledged at a rally before thousands of supporters that that state's "recovery has lagged." July's unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in Michigan was tied with Oregon for second-highest after Alaska.

He charged that Kerry's longtime support for raising automotive fuel-economy standards would worsen the state's unemployment. Kerry's campaign rejected that.

Bush "is trying to mislead Michigan voters on Kerry's plan to increase fuel efficiency," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. Kerry would provide $1 billion to help plants convert to make the autos of the future, Singer said.

"Kerry will ensure that the energy-efficient cars of the future are made in Michigan. Lee Iacocca knows this ? that's why he's supporting John Kerry this year." Iacocca, the former Chrysler Corp. chairman, campaigned for Bush in 2000 but backs Kerry this year.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,083
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 9 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3070975 - 08/30/04 08:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Then why the fuck would you start a fucking war on "terrorism" in the first place?

I'm not sure if Bush ever thinks anything over before he does or says something.





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month:  The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Learyfan]
    #3071005 - 08/30/04 08:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

who knows, he's not very smart you know


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,083
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 9 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071030 - 08/30/04 08:48 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Let's start a "War On Idiocy". It'll be won once each and every idiotic thought is stamped out.





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month:  The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Learyfan]
    #3071044 - 08/30/04 08:50 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Learyfan said:
Let's start a "War On Idiocy". It'll be won once each and every idiotic thought is stamped out.



I say we just get rid of all the safety labels and let the problem sort itself out.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: z@z.com]
    #3071178 - 08/30/04 09:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

z@z.com said:
Quote:

Learyfan said:
Let's start a "War On Idiocy". It'll be won once each and every idiotic thought is stamped out.



I say we just get rid of all the safety labels and let the problem sort itself out.




lol


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071190 - 08/30/04 09:11 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Of course the war on Islam cannot be won, duh!


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Zahid]
    #3071353 - 08/30/04 09:39 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Zahid said:
Of course the war on Islam cannot be won, duh!



Are you saying that by trying to destroy the terrorists we are attacking Islam?


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: z@z.com]
    #3071380 - 08/30/04 09:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

By invading sovereign Muslim nations and supporting the zionists you are attacking Islam.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071552 - 08/30/04 10:22 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

In the most strict sense of the terms involved in the discussion, the war on terrorism cannot be won -- in the sense that if we do X, Y and Z there will be no more terrorists -- so Bush is correct. There will always be terrorists, just as there will always be rapists and robbers and murderers.

It may not have been the most politically astute thing he has ever said (no politician ever gains votes by stating what people don't want to hear), but it is certainly an accurate assessment of the facts.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3071690 - 08/30/04 11:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

spin spin spin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 months, 23 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3071695 - 08/30/04 11:18 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Just sounds to me like an excuse to keep the nation in perpetual fear.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071761 - 08/30/04 11:32 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

If anyone here is being idiotic it is those who refuse to understand what Bush actually said. I think it was an extremely realistic assesment. The US may destroy Al-Qaeda and put an end to global terrorism, but there will always be some who will use terrorism, and that respect America's duty to stop terrorism will never end. I think any person with half a brain realizes that makes perfect sense.

I think this thread is a fine example of willful ignorance and misinterpretation. I don't there is anyone poster here that actually believes we can stamp out terrorism once and for all so stop the hypocrisy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071770 - 08/30/04 11:35 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

of course the war on terror cant be won. thats the whole fucking point.

for fifty years they used 'communism' to keep the populace in fear. But that was dependant upon a nation, the USSR. When the nation fell due to its own intrinsic flaws, everyone stopped being afraid for a little while.

'Terrorisim' is a beautifully crafted piece of propaganda, in that it has such an ambiguous definition of 'the enemy'. Its not dependant upon the survival of any nation, so it can go on forever. They'll be using this shit as an excuse to take our rights away and kill foriegners for the next hundred years.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 months, 23 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3071774 - 08/30/04 11:35 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Sort of like the inability of an unamed goverment to stop the war on drugs?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Rono]
    #3071793 - 08/30/04 11:41 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Rono said:
Just sounds to me like an excuse to keep the nation in perpetual fear.




BINGO!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

republicans need wars and fear to stay in power...the country is really left leaning on many issues until u scare them..look at all these right-wing pundits screaming about how scary al-queda is. in reality u have a better chance getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepazuzu
Shroom-o-Vision
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 132
Last seen: 11 years, 3 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Learyfan]
    #3071807 - 08/30/04 11:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The War on Terrorism is about as smart and winnable as the War on Drugs. Sigh. These old republican politicians and their silly ideas.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: pazuzu]
    #3071813 - 08/30/04 11:46 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

socially conservative people prevent the world from moving forward


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071817 - 08/30/04 11:47 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I don't think so. I think it is very cynical and unrealistic to believe the war on terrorism was some concocted scheme to take away peoples rights and keep people at war in perpetuity. On the one hand we do have to win to defend our country, but on the other terrorism itself will probobly never die. I think both of these realities are not contradictory at all.

Just because police can never completely stomp out crime doesn't mean we should get rid of them altogether. Just because we will never make poverty go away completely doesn't mean we can't reach certain goals and make improvements. I'm sorry to tell you guys, but the instant gratification approach usually doesn't work.

And yes there is an enemy. It's funny, 3,000 people get killed by terrorists, and couple years later some forget that terrorists even exist. The terrorists are Islamic extremists who believe that Western culture is the bane of Islam and that anyone that challenges their version of Islam must be estroyed. These people use deliberate targeting of civilians for media and shock value to demoralize their enemies into submission. That is exactly what we are up against.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3071831 - 08/30/04 11:50 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

more people die from aids, where is our war on aid? what about our war cigarettes? or maybe a war on drinking? bush has probably killed more civilians than 3,000 ...where's the war on bush?  :smirk:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071834 - 08/30/04 11:51 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

It might work better if we supplement the War on Terror with an Embargo on Terror, i.e. stop supporting oppressive dictators, stop engaging in interventionist foreign policy, and stop selling arms to Israel. Just a thought.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: DoctorJ]
    #3071840 - 08/30/04 11:53 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
of course the war on terror cant be won. thats the whole fucking point.

for fifty years they used 'communism' to keep the populace in fear. But that was dependant upon a nation, the USSR. When the nation fell due to its own intrinsic flaws, everyone stopped being afraid for a little while.

'Terrorisim' is a beautifully crafted piece of propaganda, in that it has such an ambiguous definition of 'the enemy'. Its not dependant upon the survival of any nation, so it can go on forever. They'll be using this shit as an excuse to take our rights away and kill foriegners for the next hundred years.




yes now with terrorism anyone can be the enemy, drugs users, democrats, non-christians, they can label any of us terrorists. but when christian groups bomb or shootup abortion clinics is that not terror?? where are out pre-emptive strikes on churches?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3071951 - 08/31/04 12:23 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
I don't think so. I think it is very cynical and unrealistic to believe the war on terrorism was some concocted scheme to take away peoples rights and keep people at war in perpetuity.



Why? It worked for the War on Drugs.

Quote:

On the one hand we do have to win to defend our country, but on the other terrorism itself will probobly never die. I think both of these realities are not contradictory at all.



I am all for defending our country from terrorists(as well as stopping certain activities which spawn terrorism), but declaring war on it implies that we believe we can defeat the enemy, and someday end the war. This is clearly not the case with terrorism.

Quote:

Just because police can never completely stomp out crime doesn't mean we should get rid of them altogether. Just because we will never make poverty go away completely doesn't mean we can't reach certain goals and make improvements. I'm sorry to tell you guys, but the instant gratification approach usually doesn't work.



Remind me when a president declared a war on crime.

Quote:

And yes there is an enemy. It's funny, 3,000 people get killed by terrorists, and couple years later some forget that terrorists even exist. The terrorists are Islamic extremists who believe that Western culture is the bane of Islam and that anyone that challenges their version of Islam must be estroyed. These people use deliberate targeting of civilians for media and shock value to demoralize their enemies into submission. That is exactly what we are up against.



The terrorists themselves may be Islamic extremists, but they derive their support from oppressed Muslims everywhere, both radical and moderate, who look at our support for Israel, interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East, and xenophobic rhetoric(often with Christian undertones), and see a war on their religion and culture. The problem is that the enemy is not a nation or even an organization. It's an ideology, and violence alone will only create more martyrs to strengthen that ideology.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3071982 - 08/31/04 12:32 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken, 1920

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil ... to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.
- General Douglas MacArthur 1957

Now before somebody goes off half cocked, terrorism is real. However, it conveniently works to increase state power, while the state does precious little to curb it's behaviors which incite terrorism (as a matter of fact, it does just the opposite). No reasonable man can expect that you can have a war on a tactic, this is absurd - as patently absurd as a 'war on drugs.' Terrorism is not an enemy and hence provides a convenient foil for a government bent on increasing power, as it can never be defeated - but the propaganda benefits for statism are enormous. The roots of terrorism lie in perceived grievances and the reality of the impotence of effectively addressing these grievances through other means.

Welcome to Oceania and the perpetual warfare state.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Evolving]
    #3072845 - 08/31/04 06:07 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

This is quibbling over semantics. Perhaps "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror" is poorly phrased, but it makes for a good sound bite and follows the clich?-speak of past "wars" such as the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.

To be more accurate and avoid the usual sneering about a "war on a tactic" or a "war on an abstract noun", it would perhaps have been better to label it a "War on Terrorists". In actual fact, that's what it is. Or maybe "the war against the terrorists" rather than on terrorists.

Regardless of what it labelled, the truth of the matter is that it is possible to greatly reduce the threat that terrorists present by eliminating them through capturing and/or killing them. Another way is to change the conditions which encourage terrorist recruitment. However, it is also true that it is impossible to eliminate every terrorist.

As for the phrase "war on crime", that has been around for far longer than the war on terror, as any Google search will show.


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Zahid]
    #3073153 - 08/31/04 09:20 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Zahid said:
Of course the war on Islam cannot be won, duh!




Two points;

1 We could turn all of Islum's holy spots into rubble overnight, so I'd say that we could destroy the religion if we tried hard enough. Not many people worship Zeus anymore, eh?

2 You can't really destroy an ideology by force. We fought the Nazi's and won, but the racial concepts that they created still exist. If presidents during dubdubtwo would have said "We might not win the war against Nazism", he'd be stoned to death probably for his "Anti americanism". However, it's 50 years later, and I still see goofball baldies with svastikas on their flight jackets. How do you destroy an ideology? I think that Bush has a better grasp on the terrorism issue than the leftie idiots on this board.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3073169 - 08/31/04 09:29 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

retread said:
1 We could turn all of Islum's holy spots into rubble overnight, so I'd say that we could destroy the religion if we tried hard enough. Not many people worship Zeus anymore, eh?



I must have missed the part where America bombed the hell out of the Greeks. Could you tell me when that happened?

Quote:

2 You can't really destroy an ideology by force. We fought the Nazi's and won, but the racial concepts that they created still exist. If presidents during dubdubtwo would have said "We might not win the war against Nazism", he'd be stoned to death probably for his "Anti americanism". However, it's 50 years later, and I still see goofball baldies with svastikas on their flight jackets. How do you destroy an ideology? I think that Bush has a better grasp on the terrorism issue than the leftie idiots on this board.



This is exactly what Bush doesn't seem to get. You fight an ideology by ruining its credibility. So long as the U.S. continues to engage in interventionist foreign policy and provides money and weapons to oppressive regimes, the Islamic militants will have a leg(or at least a stump) to stand on when they tell their fellow Muslims that America is the Great Satan. If we stay out of such conflicts, they will lose their credibility among the populace, which will then be less likely to protect them if they do decide to continue their anti-American jihad.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073207 - 08/31/04 09:44 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
This is exactly what Bush doesn't seem to get. You fight an ideology by ruining its credibility.



I must have missed the point where we ruined the credibility of Japan and Germany. Maybe Nagaskai was one big meeting where we REALLY destroyed some credibility?
Quote:


So long as the U.S. continues to engage in interventionist foreign policy and provides money and weapons to oppressive regimes, the Islamic militants will have a leg(or at least a stump) to stand on when they tell their fellow Muslims that America is the Great Satan.




Then the whack-os that do that can meet the Uday and Qusay Reeducation Plan.
Quote:


If we stay out of such conflicts, they will lose their credibility among the populace, which will then be less likely to protect them if they do decide to continue their anti-American jihad.



Hey, I bet if we told them that we'd give them Israel and allow the shieks to take over the USA, we'd "win" too! Thats great! I'll call the President now and let him know that surrender and capitulation equates with winning!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3073249 - 08/31/04 09:57 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

I must have missed the point where we ruined the credibility of Japan and Germany. Maybe Nagaskai was one big meeting where we REALLY destroyed some credibility?



An ideology, not a country, is what's being discussed here.

Quote:

Then the whack-os that do that can meet the Uday and Qusay Reeducation Plan.




Who knows how many terrorists we create for every one we kill?

Quote:


Hey, I bet if we told them that we'd give them Israel and allow the shieks to take over the USA, we'd "win" too! Thats great! I'll call the President now and let him know that surrender and capitulation equates with winning!



Do you really think if the United States government stopped subsidizing Israel with billions in foreign aid and military equipment tommorow, Israel and it's denizens would be in the sea within the week? Israel is a nuclear power...they can survive quite well without us. No clue what you could possibly be talking about regarding shieks taking over the USA.

Their are certain truths in this conflict that you can either accept or decline in utter ignorance. The reason the anti-US movement in the Muslim world is so fierce is NOT because they hate our freedom(or what's left of it). I'm sure there are some who do, but they are without a doubt a fraction of a fraction of the population. They despise America because of our persistant meddling in their affairs over the past half-century or so. Whenever you take a side in a conflict, you make an enemy of the other side. You must see this. America MUST, if it wants to dramatically reduce the threat of terrorism, adhere to the foreign policy suggested by the wisest of our founding fathers, that is a policy of non-intervention.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3073291 - 08/31/04 10:12 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
This is quibbling over semantics.



It's not quibbling at all. It's a basic fact of statist propaganda.

Quote:

Perhaps "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror" is poorly phrased, but it makes for a good sound bite and follows the clich?-speak of past "wars" such as the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.



I'm glad you picked those examples which help to buttress my point. Some of the benefits which those other 'wars' have given us: increased government power, decreased civil liberties, the surveillance state, more money taken from productive citizens, criminalized peaceful behavior, the largest percentage of the population in prison of any major nation, the emboldenment and enrichment of those who have no respect for human life or property - but they have also been utter failures in acheiving their objectives.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3073294 - 08/31/04 10:13 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

retread said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
This is exactly what Bush doesn't seem to get.  You fight an ideology by ruining its credibility.



I must have missed the point where we ruined the credibility of Japan and Germany. Maybe Nagaskai was one big meeting where we REALLY destroyed some credibility?



Pop Quiz:  Are Japan and Germany (a) ideologies, or (b) countries?

Quote:

Quote:


So long as the U.S. continues to engage in interventionist foreign policy and provides money and weapons to oppressive regimes, the Islamic militants will have a leg(or at least a stump) to stand on when they tell their fellow Muslims that America is the Great Satan. 




Then the whack-os that do that can meet the Uday and Qusay Reeducation Plan.



:confused:

Quote:

Quote:


If we stay out of such conflicts, they will lose their credibility among the populace, which will then be less likely to protect them if they do decide to continue their anti-American jihad.



Hey, I bet if we told them that we'd give them Israel and allow the shieks to take over the USA, we'd "win" too! Thats great! I'll call the President now and let him know that surrender and capitulation equates with winning!



Who's talking about surrender?  I'm talking about sensible foreign policy which we should have been following all along.  We can still have our intelligent agencies keep close watch on terror networks and apprehend(or kill if necessary) any wanted terror suspects.  In the event that we are chasing down a known terrorist in a foreign country which refuses to hand them over, then military force might be justified, which is why I wasn't entirely against the war in Afghanistan(even though it did leave us with a costly long-term occupation to carry out).  It would make sense, however, to stop supporting a country like Israel, which has become to great a liability to us.  If it did get invaded by Arabs(which, while possible, is certainly not a foregone conclusion, especially given their strong military), we could provide refugee status to those who chose to flee.  It would also help if we could distance ourselves from the Saudi royal family, one of the most hated regimes in the Middle East.  This is not to give in to the terrorists, but to show the other Muslims that the terrorists are wrong about us, thus discrediting them and making them easier targets among a population more willing to help us.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073408 - 08/31/04 10:56 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Wait, on second thought...

After Citing Doubt, Bush Declares 'We Will Win' Terror War
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 31, 2004

Filed at 12:32 p.m. ET

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- President Bush said Tuesday ``we will win'' the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-CVN-Bush.html?hp


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3073456 - 08/31/04 11:16 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
Who knows how many terrorists we create for every one we kill?




If you don't know, and I don't either, then we don't really know, and it's a moot point. How many would-be terrorists from Iraq are now going to go to schools and learn something other than vitriolic hatred for the West?
Quote:


Do you really think if the United States government stopped subsidizing Israel with billions in foreign aid and military equipment tommorow, Israel and it's denizens would be in the sea within the week? Israel is a nuclear power...they can survive quite well without us. No clue what you could possibly be talking about regarding shieks taking over the USA.




He was talking about a way to "Win the war" by giving them things that they were asking for. Thats like saying that Germany "won" the hi-jacker standoff when they released the 3 Olympic Games terrorists. The goal is to have no terrorist attacks, but the means are what matters.
Quote:


Their are certain truths in this conflict that you can either accept or decline in utter ignorance. The reason the anti-US movement in the Muslim world is so fierce is NOT because they hate our freedom(or what's left of it). I'm sure there are some who do, but they are without a doubt a fraction of a fraction of the population. They despise America because of our persistant meddling in their affairs over the past half-century or so.




This explains the attacks in Spain how? The kidnapping and impending murder of French journalists how? The execution of the Nepalese construction workers how? etcteras.
Quote:


Whenever you take a side in a conflict, you make an enemy of the other side. You must see this. America MUST, if it wants to dramatically reduce the threat of terrorism, adhere to the foreign policy suggested by the wisest of our founding fathers, that is a policy of non-intervention.



However, to do that now would be giving in to their demands. After Germany did that, after many other nations have given into terrorist demands, they feel that all they have to do is kill a few thousand people and they'll be getting what they asked for. I think that we need to kill each and every terrorist, each and every "holy man" preaching the destruction of the west and of Israel, and anyone who takes their place. It's time to stop saying "Golly, we sure are bad for supporting a democracy in your fuckhole part of the world, we'll stop and sit back and as long as you don't hurt us, you can do what the fuck ever you want to". It's time to start shedding more of their blood than they do of ours. If giving into terrorists would end terrorism, why is it that German capitulation didn't end terrorism? Why is it that the surrender of "occupied" lands didn' end terrorism?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073469 - 08/31/04 11:22 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Then the whack-os that do that can meet the Uday and Qusay Reeducation Plan.:confused:




If these people insist on acting that way, we'll just kill them. So far the Allahcrowd has tried to blow up one building, quite unsucessfully, and killed about three thousand people. We've turned two arab dictatorships into freeer countries. We've removed the Taliban from power, we've got Iran to say that they won't be building nukes, we've removed Saddam from power. Afghanistan isn't a terrorist training camp nation anymore. They can keep on killing us with their whimpy little IED's and  terrorist tactics, and we'll keep on hitting them with a sledgehammer. We'll see who wins.
Quote:


Who's talking about surrender?  I'm talking about sensible foreign policy which we should have been following all along.




What is more sensible than trying to help a nation that the UN chartered on land legally given to them, exist without women blowing themselves up on busses? Are we taking the moral low ground here?
Quote:


In the event that we are chasing down a known terrorist in a foreign country which refuses to hand them over, then military force might be justified, which is why I wasn't entirely against the war in Afghanistan(even though it did leave us with a costly long-term occupation to carry out). 




Good thing you weren't entirely against going into the beehive and trying to find the queen. More American imperialism? If you are against the war in Afghanistan, I don't know what more I can say to you. It's like trying to describe the sun to a blind man, you don't see the reality and you never will. Isn't it time for indocttrination class again?
Quote:


It would make sense, however, to stop supporting a country like Israel, which has become to great a liability to us.




Do the wrong thing to cut our losses? Great idea. The more we give into the terrorist demands, teh more demands they will have. Geez, they are kidnapping FRENCH people with demands now. If we keep giving into their demands, we'll end up living under the Shah.
Quote:


If it did get invaded by Arabs(which, while possible, is certainly not a foregone conclusion, especially given their strong military), we could provide refugee status to those who chose to flee.  It would also help if we could distance ourselves from the Saudi royal family, one of the most hated regimes in the Middle East.  This is not to give in to the terrorists, but to show the other Muslims that the terrorists are wrong about us, thus discrediting them and making them easier targets among a population more willing to help us.



Well if it's one thing that terrorist respond well to, it's sensible plans that include them getting what they want.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3073566 - 08/31/04 11:56 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)


socially conservative people prevent the world from moving forward


Socially "progressive" people often end up warping and perverting the
world.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3073577 - 08/31/04 11:58 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

examples please


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3073582 - 08/31/04 11:59 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I've read on two different blogs now that according to the transcript of the Matt Lauer interview with Bush the question was not "can the war on terror be won", but "can it be won in four years". Note that since I have been as yet unable to find the transript online, the quote marks above are not to be taken as literal quotation but as expressing the sense of the actual question asked.

I have spent about twenty minutes typing various combinations into Google and have not yet found an online transcript of the interview, so I cannot vouch for anything other than to note that two different people on widely-separated blogs have made the same comment.

Perhaps someone more practiced in Google searches than I am could find a link? I know that NBC almost always files transcripts of their presidential interviews, but I'm damned if I can find this one.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3073584 - 08/31/04 12:00 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

It's time to start shedding more of their blood than they do of ours

The number of Afghani's and Iraqis slaughtered far outweighs the number of Americans. Yet the insurgency carries on. Your theory is clearly heavily flawed germ.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073603 - 08/31/04 12:07 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
It might work better if we supplement the War on Terror with an Embargo on Terror, i.e. stop supporting oppressive dictators, stop engaging in interventionist foreign policy, and stop selling arms to Israel. Just a thought.




we will never stop supporting israel, the rich powerful jewish lobby groups would fucking freak out if we cut israel off.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3073609 - 08/31/04 12:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


more people die from aids, where is our war on aid?

The U.S. federal government spends a lot of money on AIDS. I
believe that it spends the most money on AIDS of any government on
earth.


what about our war cigarettes?

...You disagree with drug prohibition, but want cigarettes made
illegal? Don't you think that is a tad bit hypocritical? The
government spends millions on trying to educate people about the
dangers of cigarettes. The government has done all kinds of
stuff to dissuade people from smoking, like making the tobacco
companies put a warning label on the side of the box to forbidding
tobacco ads on TV. The government also taxes the hell out of
cigarrettes.


or maybe a war on drinking?

Public intoxication laws....drunk driving laws...to me that
constitutes a government effort to curb the bad effects of drinking.


bush has probably killed more civilians than 3,000 ...where's the war
on bush?

I have seen estimates of 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed in
the recent Iraqi war. So, technically it appears as if his actions
have resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 civilians.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3073639 - 08/31/04 12:20 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Marx, Lenin, Mao.

In America, in my opinion, the Left has helped bring about many
problems(high rates of illegitamacy, high rates of welfare dependance,
a lessening of values and moral behavior which has led to high
crime rates).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3073646 - 08/31/04 12:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

whose values?? what moral behavior has led to crime?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3073649 - 08/31/04 12:26 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Ah! Here we go --

LAUER: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of ter -- on terror? For example, in the next four years? [emphasis mine]

Pres. BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years.

LAUER: So I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you see that?

Pres. BUSH: I don't -- I don't think we can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in part of the world, let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us. And that's necessary. I'm telling you it's necessary.

The country must never yield, must never show weakness. Must continue to lead, to find the al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliates, who are hiding around the world and who want to harm us and bring them to justice. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally, and my dad -- and I don't know about your relatives -- but fought against the Japanese. And here Koizumi, Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/

Regardless of the context of the discussion in which the statement was made and regardless of the fact that what he said is literally true, it was still a politically inept thing to say.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Tao]
    #3073708 - 08/31/04 12:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- President Bush said Tuesday ``we will win'' the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.





What a flip-flopper!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: deafpanda]
    #3073735 - 08/31/04 12:51 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

i know how can we trust someone with all these damn waffles? :smirk:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3074599 - 08/31/04 03:41 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Come on, you know damn well what he means. Stop splitting hairs.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3074612 - 08/31/04 03:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

coming from a republican :lol: that's funny :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3074679 - 08/31/04 03:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I think there is a difference between saying something that is accurate, but worded in a politicaly incorrect way, and then revising that wording to avoid criticism, and voting for a war, voting not to fund it, claiming to be an anti-war candidate, and then claiming to be a defense hawk. Those are actual contradictory positions. Bush meant the same thing both times, but he changed his language to accomadate the sound bite people who ignore the context of the remark.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3074694 - 08/31/04 03:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

excuse me but kerry voted to fund the war when it was to be paid for by rolling back bush's tax cuts on the wealthy...only when they didnt have a way to pay did he vote no....but republicans dont give u the whole story, its called spin...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Xlea321]
    #3074811 - 08/31/04 04:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

How many attacks have occured since 9/11?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3074828 - 08/31/04 04:33 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

on US soil on terrorism in general?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3074843 - 08/31/04 04:38 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

This rock I'm holding is keeping tigers away :shiftyeyes:


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Tao]
    #3074851 - 08/31/04 04:40 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
This rock I'm holding is keeping tigers away :shiftyeyes:



:lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProtester
Stoner ReekingHavok

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 361
Last seen: 10 years, 9 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: z@z.com]
    #3074981 - 08/31/04 05:23 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

z@z.com said:
Quote:

Learyfan said:
Let's start a "War On Idiocy". It'll be won once each and every idiotic thought is stamped out.



I say we just get rid of all the safety labels and let the problem sort itself out.




I like that idea.


--------------------
I work my shitty 9-5 and I pay my taxes, I'm not hurting anybody else. So why do you care what i do in my spare time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3075225 - 08/31/04 06:27 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Certain elements of the Left relentlessly attack anything that is
seen as having power, tradition, and influence. Religion fits into
that description, so religions and moral codes are automatically
rejected out of a senseless need to rebel without consideration.
With this lack of a moral compass, societies decay into violence and
apathy. This rejection of everything traditional poisons people's
minds with cynicism, bias, and an unwarranted vociferousness.

Also, these same certain elements love to champion whoever is viewed
as "weak". They are usually in favor of income redistribution(taking
money from productive people and giving it to non-productive
people). Getting things for free encourages laziness, indolence, and
apathy in my opinion.

I think that these things will be big factors in the continuing
decay of American society and the people who make it up.


Edited by RandalFlagg (08/31/04 06:31 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3075249 - 08/31/04 06:34 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

As an atheist I very much resent your implication that someone must believe in some imaginary best friend or fiery horseman to have a moral code. I very sincerely believe that abelief in a god or gods is an endemic psychosis and I don't think you have to be insane to respect other peoples right to exist. The golden rule is areligious.

I consider myself a true conservative. Not all atheists are left wing moonbats


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3075250 - 08/31/04 06:34 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

whose religion should we adopt this "moral compass" from?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3075254 - 08/31/04 06:35 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Mine


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3075255 - 08/31/04 06:35 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
As an atheist I very much resent your implication that someone must believe in some imaginary best friend or fiery horseman to have a moral code. I very sincerely believe that abelief in a god or gods is an endemic psychosis and I don't think you have to be insane to respect other peoples right to exist. The golden rule is areligious.

I consider myself a true conservative. Not all atheists are left wing moonbats




i rarely agree with you (but this time i do), i am agnostic and i know that murder, theivery, etc are wrong without some bullshit dogma scaring me into behaving


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3075271 - 08/31/04 06:41 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


As an atheist I very much resent your implication that someone must
believe in some imaginary best friend or fiery horseman to have a
moral code.

You misunderstand me. I myself am not a Christian(although I
do believe in a Creator). I am not tying "moral behavior" to
believing in a certain supernatural being. It is not the Left's
attacks on problems caused by religion that bothers me, but there
seems to be an almost nihilist attitude of rejecting ALL morality and
restrictions on behavior.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3075283 - 08/31/04 06:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

what behavior does the left champion that falls outside of your moral code??? i dont think anyone on the left wants to legalize murder or rape. Religion does cause more trouble than its worth almost all active conflicts on this earht are a result of religion. if there was no organized relgion things would not be perfect but i believe they would be better


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3075308 - 08/31/04 06:52 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


whose religion should we adopt this "moral compass" from?

I am not advocating that all Americans believe(or be forced to
believe) the same thing. But, the extreme Left is so antagonistic
towards institutions of anything(religious, governmental, moral,
monetary, etc..) that they have brought about an attitude of
rebellion for rebellion's sake. This leads to a shaky moral
relativism which is not good for society in my opinion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3075312 - 08/31/04 06:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

you haven't given me one example of something immoral being pushed by the left. you keep using this morality agreement but how are we to decide what is moral? example i love listening to howard stern in the morning, christian loonies and others find him immoral. should his free speech and my right to listen be restricted because some folks hold different morals than myself?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3075329 - 08/31/04 06:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


what behavior does the left champion that falls outside of your moral
code??? i dont think anyone on the left wants to legalize murder or
rape.

The extreme Left does not champion making murder and rape legal, but
they revel in the destruction of tradition and convention. When
morality or something that attempts to instill morality
is attacked, it is not too hard to predict that people's behaviors
will be less restrained and more apt to cause problems for their
fellow citizens.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3075335 - 08/31/04 07:06 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

provide one fucking example, jesus christ stop generalizing ...what traditions are the left tearing down?? if you have examples, break it out


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3075361 - 08/31/04 07:22 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


you haven't given me one example of something immoral being pushed by
the left.

When it comes to morals, the Left doesn't necessarily push immoral
things, but they pursue things which ALLOW immoral things to happen
more frequently.

Also, the Left seems to be enamored by utopias(making the world
into a perfect place). One way that they have gone about
trying to make things "better" is by heavily controlling the
populace(income redistribution, gun control, political correctness,
etc....). Some of the lengths that they have gone to in order
to impose this "utopian progressiveness" has been immoral in my
opinion.


you keep using this morality agreement but how are we to decide what
is moral?

That is the most important question that has ever been considered
by Man. What is truly Right and Wrong? What should individuals
strive for? If there is no understandable and concrete Right and
Wrong, why should we expect people to follow a certain way of
life if its "correctness" cannot be verified?

The extreme extreme Left(which I consider to be nihilism) is a
rejection of everything because nothing can be proven. Unfortunately,
I am a nihilist theist(if that makes any sense). It is a
contradictory existence. I don't think anything can be proven and
therefore nothing can be followed with any amount of assurance.
However, I do believe in a Creator that is superior to me and
who does have a Will that should be followed. I am just incapable
of understanding what this Will is. So, some of my thoughts fall
to the extreme Left, which is kind of ironic.

If the human race is allowed freedom, it repeatedly decays and
is reborn. If the human race is controlled, life will be safe but
some of its members will be miserable. I constantly try to figure out
how I feel about enforcing certain codes of behavior on people,
because as I said, I cannot fathom what God's Will is and therefore
I have no proof of what is Right and Wrong. Because of that I
find it difficult to justify the enforcement of moral and legal
codes.

However, some amount of agreement on permissible conduct makes things
go smoother. So, for the sake of peace and security, I am willing
to accept the idea that moral codes can make things better, and
when I see moral codes being attacked for no reason other than
rebellion for rebellion's sake, I become annoyed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3075376 - 08/31/04 07:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

still you fail to provide one issue or specific item you feel the left is attacking!!!!!!

the left doesnt care what u believe, we do care about u keeping your illogical religous beliefs out of politics (like in the constitution). christians especially have a history of pushing their beliefs on people through violence or missionaries.also if people actually were more concerned with what we can prove and advancing science, the world would be a better place


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3075385 - 08/31/04 07:32 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
still you fail to provide one issue or specific item you feel the left is attacking!!!!!!

the left doesnt care what u believe, we do care about u keeping your illogical religous beliefs out of politics (like in the constitution). christians especially have a history of pushing their beliefs on people through violence or missionaries.also if people actually were more concerned with what we can prove and advancing science, the world would be a better place




The ironic thing is that even if he could find a recent example, it would be largely irrelevant as the major social conventions conservatives hold so dear today are relatively new. The nuclear family model for example, sexuality, religion, etc.

Also I am reminded of the RWE line, "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds".


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3075451 - 08/31/04 07:55 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

retread said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Then the whack-os that do that can meet the Uday and Qusay Reeducation Plan.:confused:




If these people insist on acting that way, we'll just kill them. So far the Allahcrowd has tried to blow up one building, quite unsucessfully, and killed about three thousand people. We've turned two arab dictatorships into freeer countries. We've removed the Taliban from power, we've got Iran to say that they won't be building nukes, we've removed Saddam from power. Afghanistan isn't a terrorist training camp nation anymore. They can keep on killing us with their whimpy little IED's and  terrorist tactics, and we'll keep on hitting them with a sledgehammer. We'll see who wins.



Yes, we shall see(or maybe we won't).  Note that I never said I was against fighting the terrorists.  I simply suggested that our tactics include a re-evaluation of our foreign policy in the Middle East(and elsewhere).

Quote:

Quote:


Who's talking about surrender?  I'm talking about sensible foreign policy which we should have been following all along.




What is more sensible than trying to help a nation that the UN chartered on land legally given to them, exist without women blowing themselves up on busses? Are we taking the moral low ground here?



First of all, what gives the UN the legal authority to give a piece of land already inhabited by other people to a bunch of newcomers, most of whom had never even visited that land before?  Second, how is it taking the moral low ground to stop using money forcefully taken from taxpayers to fund another nation's massive army?  Third, why is it sensible to help Israelis live without suicide bombers, but not sensible to help Palestinians live without having their houses bulldozed and their families shot?

Quote:

Quote:


In the event that we are chasing down a known terrorist in a foreign country which refuses to hand them over, then military force might be justified, which is why I wasn't entirely against the war in Afghanistan(even though it did leave us with a costly long-term occupation to carry out). 




Good thing you weren't entirely against going into the beehive and trying to find the queen. More American imperialism? If you are against the war in Afghanistan, I don't know what more I can say to you. It's like trying to describe the sun to a blind man, you don't see the reality and you never will. Isn't it time for indocttrination class again?



Well, we didn't so much go into the beehive as much as we just smacked it with a baseball bat.  We killed quite a few bees, but the others have dispersed, and they're pissed.  Oh, and btw, unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have yet to find the queen bee.

Quote:

Quote:


It would make sense, however, to stop supporting a country like Israel, which has become to great a liability to us.




Do the wrong thing to cut our losses? Great idea. The more we give into the terrorist demands, teh more demands they will have. Geez, they are kidnapping FRENCH people with demands now. If we keep giving into their demands, we'll end up living under the Shah.



It is not the wrong thing to stop initiating force against taxpayers to fund the military of a nation that many of them oppose.  I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."

Quote:

Quote:


If it did get invaded by Arabs(which, while possible, is certainly not a foregone conclusion, especially given their strong military), we could provide refugee status to those who chose to flee.  It would also help if we could distance ourselves from the Saudi royal family, one of the most hated regimes in the Middle East.  This is not to give in to the terrorists, but to show the other Muslims that the terrorists are wrong about us, thus discrediting them and making them easier targets among a population more willing to help us.



Well if it's one thing that terrorist respond well to, it's sensible plans that include them getting what they want.



It is what most of the Muslim world wants, not just the terrorists.  To refrain from doing the right thing simply because terrorists want us to do it would be foolish.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3076027 - 08/31/04 10:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


still you fail to provide one issue or specific item you feel the
left is attacking!!!!!!

Are you not listening? My point is that by being overly hostile to
religion and authority in general, the extreme Left has instilled a
cynicism and a rejectionist attitude in a lot of people. This
attitude permeates certain aspects of American culture. This
attitude is obvious in your and other people's posts. I have
met many many people who have the exact same opinions that you do,
which makes me think that this whole attitude is widespread.

But, just to satisfy your demand on giving a specific example, I
list the following:

1. The ACLU's absolute hatred of any type of Christian display.


the left doesnt care what u believe, we do care about u keeping your
illogical religous beliefs out of politics

Why can't the Left keep their illogical social utopian beliefs
out of politics? Why do they insist upon taking my money away
from me and giving it to people who did nothing to earn it? I live
in a rural area that could be termed "white trash". So many people
around here have kids that they can't support and do nothing to
ever become self-sufficient. They live in public subsidized housing,
get free medical care for a lot of stuff, get food stamps every
month, and if they do work they get amazing tax breaks or giveaways.


christians especially have a history of pushing their beliefs on
people through violence or missionaries.

A perfect example of Leftist thought. Because America has a solid
history of Christianity, that is seen as the traditional and powerful
religious institution in this country. Therefore, it is to
be attacked.

Radical Islam has been by far responsible for more violence in
recent years than any other religion. But, because Islam is
not the "powerful entity" that Christianity is in America, it
does not receive near the ire because it is not seen as the "main"
entrenched powerful institution. Whatever is viewed as powerful
is automatically viewed as bad.

EVERY group has a history of trying to impose their beliefs upon
the rest of the world. Does the Left not affect the world(and
people's rights) when they demand affirmative action(people who
are white and who have higher test scores are passed over for
minorities who have lower test scores), when they take money away
from people and give it to other people, or when they restrict my
gun rights?



if people actually were
more concerned with what we can prove and advancing science, the
world would be a better place

Where has the focus on science gotten us? Living in a ultra-
materialistic society with a high crime rate. If there is no moral
underpinning in a society, bad things will happen.


Edited by RandalFlagg (08/31/04 10:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: unbeliever]
    #3076037 - 08/31/04 10:40 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


The ironic thing is that even if he could find a recent example, it
would be largely irrelevant as the major social conventions
conservatives hold so dear today are relatively new. The nuclear
family model for example, sexuality, religion, etc.


I am in no way supporting the classic "conservative" desires for
America. I am not demanding that people be straight, married,
all be of the same faith, etc... I just think that the Left has
taken ahold of a lot of people's thinking(just like the Right
has to some people), it has biased their view of things, and it
adversely affects America.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: silversoul7]
    #3076117 - 08/31/04 10:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Yes, we shall see(or maybe we won't). Note that I never said I was against fighting the terrorists. I simply suggested that our tactics include a re-evaluation of our foreign policy in the Middle East(and elsewhere).




You said you were barely for the war in Afghanistan. What more justification should we possibly need for a war? Should we have said "Thats it you bastards, just for 9/11 we'll not attack you, let you keep your money, arms, training places, and violent theocracy in palce, and we'll move out of Israel and stop supporting them! Take that!". I see low sucess rates in that path.
Quote:


First of all, what gives the UN the legal authority to give a piece of land already inhabited by other people to a bunch of newcomers, most of whom had never even visited that land before?




Are you expecting that I won't know that the land wasn't "Palestinean" territory before hand? That the british controlled it? Come on now, what is more prevalent throughout history than owning land due to military conquest. That was BRITISH land that they gave to the jews, and the arabs in trans-jordan etc. Seriously now.
Quote:


Second, how is it taking the moral low ground to stop using money forcefully taken from taxpayers to fund another nation's massive army?




That is a valid point.
Quote:


Third, why is it sensible to help Israelis live without suicide bombers, but not sensible to help Palestinians live without having their houses bulldozed and their families shot?




Israel doesn't target innocent Palestineans for random murder, Palestine does.
Quote:


Well, we didn't so much go into the beehive as much as we just smacked it with a baseball bat. We killed quite a few bees, but the others have dispersed, and they're pissed. Oh, and btw, unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have yet to find the queen bee.




I don't know exactly the percentage of Al Qieda camps, personnel or leadership that were destroyed. I know that analysing us NOT going into Afghanistan at all or the choice of going in with military force, the latter probably did much more damage to the enemy. I know that the personnel at Guantanemo Bay aren't going to bomb any buildings, I know that the jihadists in the caves that got bombed out of existance won't be hijacking any airplanes and I know that Afghanistan won't harbor terrorist training camps that put out people to execute non-combattants on video tape. We might not have won the battle in one fell swoop, but we put a pretty good hurting on them.
Quote:


It is not the wrong thing to stop initiating force against taxpayers to fund the military of a nation that many of them oppose. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best:




For that reason, I'll agree. My libertarian views make me think that it's wrong to use our tax dollars to fund another nation. However, don't we SELL them F-16's and the like? If we produce a product and sell it to them, even for zero profit, we aren't funding them with taxpayer loot, so I'd be ok with that. Are you?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,026
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 17 days, 18 hours
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3076147 - 08/31/04 11:05 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I understand what your trying to say. I'm agnostic and don't believe that a creator or supreme being is neccesary for morality.

(The rest is not really aimed at Randal Flagg)

It's quite obvious that there exists extreme hatred for Christians in this country. If you don't agree with their philosophy, then fine. But if they aren't infringing on your rights, what's the problem?

There have been instances where school kids weren't allowed to organize a voluntary prayer meeting in an isolated part of the school. Why the fuck not? I read a while back about some town (maybe in PA?)with a large Muslim population that was allowed to have the daily call to prayer broadcast on a city wide P.A. system. But a court house with a bible in front of it, that's been there 50 years, must be removed? If nothing else it's a part of our history that deserves recognition. Tearing down things that serve as little more than symbolic reminders is only going to exacerbate the problem.

This country, like it or not, was constructed around Christians beliefs and ideals. It permeates our entire history and culture. If you don't subscribe to those beliefs, great, I can't say I blaim you. But why such vicious hatred for them?

KOTT, I've seen you repeatedly badmouth and accuse Republicans of being racist and intolerant. Exactly how is your position any different?


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3076926 - 09/01/04 04:14 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You really are misrepresenting the left. The left doesn't attack institutions such as religion, but demands, rightfully, that they don't have a role in policy-making. Politics and religion should be separate entities.

It is not Christianity which recieves "ire" from the left, it is policies drawn from religious beliefs.

Quote:

Radical Islam has been by far responsible for more violence in recent years than any other religion. But, because Islam is
not the "powerful entity" that Christianity is in America, it
does not receive near the ire because it is not seen as the "main"
entrenched powerful institution.




You miss the point. Islam has little influence in the west, its presence in the US and the UK is pretty benign. Islam is not lobbying for hysterical anti-gay laws, even though I'm sure there are many extreme muslims who would like to see them.

Personally, I think that Islam and Christianity, as institutions, are blights on the face of humanity. As religions, I have no problem with them.

I still don't know what "moral underpinning" you are looking for. You see, I think that having sweeping "principles" is too simplistic to make the best decisions. Things should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not put against the "moral compass" and then automatically thrown out/accepted. This is not through any kind of "hatred" of powerful institutions.

Quote:

when they demand affirmative action(people who
are white and who have higher test scores are passed over for
minorities who have lower test scores




This is indefensible, I agree. But equal opportunity laws (or whatever you call them in the US) do need to be enforced. "Positive" discrimination is certainly not the way forward.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3077249 - 09/01/04 07:29 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Regardless of what it labelled, the truth of the matter is that it is possible to greatly reduce the threat that terrorists present by eliminating them through capturing and/or killing them. Another way is to change the conditions which encourage terrorist recruitment.

What if your method for capturing and/or killing the terrorists is a recipe for even more terrorist recruitment? How can you expect to lessen terror if you knowingly breed more terror with your "anti-terror" actions?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: trendal]
    #3077309 - 09/01/04 08:04 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

trendal writes:

What if your method for capturing and/or killing the terrorists is a recipe for even more terrorist recruitment?

Tough beans. The point is to capture/kill them. If more arise, capture/kill them as well. I'm curious -- seeing as how Osama and his band of Merry Pranksters were holed up in Afghanistan with no intention of handing themselves over for trial, and seeing as how the Taliban had no interest in rounding them up and handing them over, just which method of capturing/killing them do you believe should have been employed? Be specific, please -- saying something like "I don't know, but it could have been done better," doesn't count.

How can you expect to lessen terror if you knowingly breed more terror with your "anti-terror" actions?

This is the whole reason why terrorism is such a difficult tactic to counter. Terrorists typically have no interest in defeating militarily their enemy -- they know their actions won't lead directly to any large-scale military victories. They're crazy, not stupid. The idea is to get the opponent to over-react through increasing security measures and suspending certain liberties at home and/or through using excessive force on the battlefield. This enables the terrorists to point out the "oppression of the people" by their opponent. They calculate that the oppressed will therefore rally to their cause. It worked quite nicely for them in Viet Nam, as just one example.

As for "knowingly" breeding more terrorists, no one knows the answer to that one. Are the new terrorists who have been inspired to join up more of a threat or less of a threat than the trained veterans and leaders killed or captured? Are they more numerous or less numerous? Can they bring more money into the coffers of the group than the cost of their training and upkeep?

Here's an extremely interesting article I came across recently. The author makes some very astute observations that few if any of the talking heads ever seem to consider.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lacey200408250834.asp

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3077447 - 09/01/04 09:14 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

you are missingmy point i dont hate christians, hell my parents are sheep. i am most vocal against them because the far right ones seem to insist we take their beliefs into consideration when making public policy. i dont hear any other religions trying to force their assinine beliefs down my throat. believe me if jews or muslims were trying to force us into some sort of theocracy id vocally bash them also.

the alcu is just trying to get all religous symbols removed from government institutions. the constitution cleary states that religion should be SEPERATE from state. some of these far right chirstian assholes dont understand that. why cant they just practice their religion quietly and let the rest of us do what we want?? if they dont want abortions, they shouldnt have them. if they dont want stem cell research then dont have stem cell treatments..if they dont want "offensive material" on TV/radio then dont watch or listen. its pretty simple.

lastly your comment on radical islam killing people... wow so they are recently the killers? do u have any fucking clue how many native peoples christians have SLAUGHTERED throughout history??? what about crusades?? or how about recently when the christian serbs were massacring muslims in bosnia???

im not sticking up for islam..that religion is JUSt as crazy as the rest of em... there are very few religions that dont offend me. any asshole preaching a dogma where it excludes people or tells u to hate others is bullshit.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3077510 - 09/01/04 09:46 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
the constitution cleary states that religion should be SEPERATE from state.



Really? Please quote the Constitutional clause which states that religion should be separate from state. By this logic, no men in service of the government should allow their conscience or morality if it is rooted in a religion to guide their decisions.

Most people have some form of religion, even leftist secularists have their dogma and articles of faith which they attempt to push on other people via the mechanisms of the state. Should this be allowed?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: deafpanda]
    #3077635 - 09/01/04 10:37 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)


You really are misrepresenting the left. The left doesn't attack
institutions such as religion, but demands, rightfully, that they
don't have a role in policy-making. Politics and religion should be
separate entities.

The normal rational Left actually has some good points to get across,
and their consistent skepticism and dissent keeps everybody
questioning things - which is good. The extreme "loony" left does
attack religion viciously. And, this attitude of caustic hatred
towards authority or convention is harmful in my opinion...because
it has a tendency to spread and to cause problems.


It is not Christianity which recieves "ire" from the left, it is
policies drawn from religious beliefs.

True...the policies are what gets most of the Left mad. But, the extreme Left is hostile to religion period. In America
they are much more hostile to Christianity, because it is the
preeminent religion in the U.S.


Radical Islam has been by far responsible for more violence in recent
years than any other religion. But, because Islam is
not the "powerful entity" that Christianity is in America, it
does not receive near the ire because it is not seen as the "main"
entrenched powerful institution.



You miss the point. Islam has little influence in the west, its
presence in the US and the UK is pretty benign. Islam is not lobbying
for hysterical anti-gay laws

Radical Islam has great influence on our lives right now. There are
millions of Muslims who hate the West, and some of them are trying
to kill us. They have repeatedly attacked the U.S. and its interests,
and they don't always confine their attacks to military targets(
i.e. they kill innocent civilians). But, I see what you are saying.
The Christian political movement is much more powerful in the
U.S. than the Muslim political movement is.


I still don't know what "moral underpinning" you are looking for. You
see, I think that having sweeping "principles" is too simplistic to
make the best decisions.

Neither do I. Sweeping principles keep people in line, but they
don't allow dissent, which limits freedom. Dissent brings about
the decay of any morals that were held dear, and people are more
inclined to commit violent and despicable acts.


Edited by RandalFlagg (09/01/04 10:56 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3077672 - 09/01/04 10:53 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)


you are missingmy point i dont hate christians, hell my parents are
sheep. i am most vocal against them because the far right ones seem
to insist we take their beliefs into consideration when making public
policy.

All groups are trying to force their beliefs down our throats. This
includes the Left. The reason I singled out the Left to begin with
is because I was talking about the decay of moral behavior, which
I attribute to the Left.


the alcu is just trying to get all religous symbols removed from
government institutions.

Maybe. But, I also sense an undercurrent of hostility to Christianity
in the American Left's thinking(the ACLU seems to be decidedly
Leftish).


the constitution cleary states that religion should be SEPERATE from
state.

The Constitution also quite clearly says that the right to bear arms
will not be infringed. In fact, the Constitution says a lot of stuff
that is not obeyed by governmental officials today.


some of these far right chirstian assholes dont understand that. why
cant they just practice their religion quietly and let the rest of us
do what we want??

Because they are ideologues who think that they are right. They
want to impose their views upon the world in order to have it
fit what they believe is best. Every group that has an ideology
attempts to do this.


lastly your comment on radical islam killing people... wow so they
are recently the killers? do u have any fucking clue how many native
peoples christians have SLAUGHTERED throughout history??? what about
crusades?? or how about recently when the christian serbs were
massacring muslims in bosnia???

I am focusing on the present. I don't care what happened a thousand
years ago. True, every religion has been responsible for at
least one atrocity it seems. But, radical Islam is the biggest
religious threat to safety and security in the world today in my
opinion.

Hm...how do I summarize all of the stuff that I was trying to say?...
I don't buy into specific religious beliefs, but I think that the
Christian underpinning of the American nation kept people in line
when it came to bad behavior. I am not mad about Christianity
losing power in public life in America. I am mad about the increase
in bad behavior by people(greed, violence, laziness). I think
that the extreme Left's assault on Christianity has led to these
things. I can understand the extreme Left's desire to question
an authority and to desire absolute freedom of expression and
thought. But when Man gains too much freedom, and He does not
have a strong guiding influence(religion for example), society
will decay.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3078117 - 09/01/04 01:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

any increases in bad behavior have nothing to do with christianity being under attack. do you know how many people who do bad things consider themselves christian. and let me pound the nail into the coffin of your litttle theory. both canada and europe are becoming more and more secualr as far as govt goes (just turn on fox news u can hear oreilly complain about canada and europe being secular) and they have LESS crime than us. not just less crime because they have less people, but less crime per capita. so its obvious that your postiion is a common one among jesus freaks who are concerned with shoving their beliefs down the public's throats. we need gov't officials who can ste aside their relgious belief and make policy that benefits humanity


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3078123 - 09/01/04 01:32 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

also heres a quick litte tidbit of info i got from a class called human sexuality. the puritanical stance on sex and nakedness in america creates sexual devience. in countries where people arent ashamed of the body or sex their are less rapes, sex crimes. we cant even try to curb the spread of stds and teach kids how to use condoms in schools because the religous right would flip their wigs. abistinence is not a smart thing to teach because it goes againts the natural impulses of the human body.


ps look what religion and no sex did to all those priests, turned them into little boy touchers :crazy2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3078267 - 09/01/04 02:14 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


any increases in bad behavior have nothing to do with christianity
being under attack.

I beg to differ. Christianity quite clearly states that theft,
murder, adultery, etc... are wrong. Christianity also assigns
rewards to people who obey these rules, and punishments to people
who don't. This is a strong motivating factor to keeping people
from doing things which harm their fellow citizens. I think that
there is a direct correlation between Christianity's semi-retreat
from the public arena, and an increase in harmful behavior.


and let me pound the nail into the coffin of your litttle
theory. both canada and europe are becoming more and more secualr as
far as govt goes (just turn on fox news u can hear oreilly complain
about canada and europe being secular) and they have LESS crime than
us.

They still have decent amounts of crime, but not as high as America's.
I believe it is like that because(you are going to think I am racist
here) those countries have much lower minority populations
than America does. African-Americans are much more likely to
commit criminal acts than white people(statistics show this).

However, I am not a sociologist. I am no expert. I am not saying
that the retreat of Christian values from the public arena is the
cause of all criminal behavior. I do believe it has an impact though.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3078291 - 09/01/04 02:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


also heres a quick litte tidbit of info i got from a class called
human sexuality. the puritanical stance on sex and nakedness in
america creates sexual devience.

That may be true.  Although, your class could be biased to the Left
:smile:  I experienced blatant Leftish bias when I went to college.


in countries where people arent ashamed of the body or sex their are
less rapes, sex crimes. we cant even try to curb the spread of stds
and teach kids how to use condoms in schools because the religous
right would flip their wigs. abistinence is not a smart thing to
teach because it goes againts the natural impulses of the human body.

I agree that the fear of sex that the religious right displays
is idiotic sometimes. 


ps look what religion and no sex did to all those priests, turned
them into little boy touchers

Religion can be abused sometimes, but so can ideology.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3078306 - 09/01/04 02:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

no the point is those countries DON'T have much crime compared to us. a secular sociey does NOT = more crime. that is the bottome line. also with our "minority problem" we have a group of people that are here because we brought them as slaves. then in the years later we abused an treated them poorly. racism is still very much alive today. the racism goes both ways though, blacks hating whites, whites hating blacks. the racism and hatered are slowly dying though and more blacks are home owners and college students now than ever. in the future im sure society will be fully intergrated hopefully meaning less crime. also remember poverty breeds crime


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3078361 - 09/01/04 02:42 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


no the point is those countries DON'T have much crime compared to us.
a secular sociey does NOT = more crime.

I guess the only way to clarify my hypothesis is to find some
hardcore data on secular country's crime rates. I will hunt around
for some stuff, but for now I am a little busy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3078369 - 09/01/04 02:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

find stats for our neighbor to the north


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3078406 - 09/01/04 02:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

There are more differences between Canada and the US than the percentage of people who call themselves religious. To assume that the reason Canada's crime rate is lower than that of the US is due to secularism (or any other single factor) would be illogical.

To give just two examples, Canada's climate is generally cooler. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that hotter weather=more crime. Another factor is race. Canada's percentage of blacks is far lower than that of the US, and like it or not (no, this is not a racist comment but an observation of fact) blacks in the US are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of reported crime.

What connection does Canada's crime rate have with Bush's remarks, by the way?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3078600 - 09/01/04 03:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

blacks in the US are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of reported crime.





But blacks in the US are also poorer, on average, than their white countrymen, and crime is closely correlated with poverty.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: deafpanda]
    #3078658 - 09/01/04 04:15 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Correlation does not equal causation.

Besides, why don't the per capita incomes of the states correlate with crime rates?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3078665 - 09/01/04 04:20 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

the constitution cleary states that religion should be SEPERATE from state.



Ah. I see you haven't read the constitution then.

Or perhaps you could point out where taht is?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Evolving]
    #3078687 - 09/01/04 04:28 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Correlation does not equal causation.





I know, I don't understand why you said that?

Quote:

Besides, why don't the per capita incomes of the states correlate with crime rates?




I don't know...I was just pointing out that since black people are poorer on average than white people, the high rate of crime in black communities cannot be put down to skin colour.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3078983 - 09/01/04 05:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
There are more differences between Canada and the US than the percentage of people who call themselves religious. To assume that the reason Canada's crime rate is lower than that of the US is due to secularism (or any other single factor) would be illogical.

To give just two examples, Canada's climate is generally cooler. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that hotter weather=more crime. Another factor is race. Canada's percentage of blacks is far lower than that of the US, and like it or not (no, this is not a racist comment but an observation of fact) blacks in the US are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of reported crime.

What connection does Canada's crime rate have with Bush's remarks, by the way?

pinky




i never said it was lower due to secularism. randallflagg or whatever, said the reason we have more crime is because we are straying away from christianity. total fucking bullshit. i was pointing out that some secular countries have lower crime rates than us (proving his "theory" wrong).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079251 - 09/01/04 06:48 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the constitution cleary states that religion should be SEPERATE from state.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ah. I see you haven't read the constitution then.

Or perhaps you could point out where taht is?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3079269 - 09/01/04 06:51 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079282 - 09/01/04 06:54 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Zahid]
    #3079284 - 09/01/04 06:55 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079296 - 09/01/04 06:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


That says they can't start nor stop a religion.

It says nothing about seperation of church and state. Plain english..... May not pass laws ESTABLISHING, or PROHIBITING. Unless you spell SEPERATION differently than most, or twist definitions like PinochhiAl, it's not the same.

As an Atheist, I wish it did say so, yet it doesn't.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079305 - 09/01/04 06:58 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I disagree with the U.S. constitution.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3079310 - 09/01/04 06:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Good post.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3079318 - 09/01/04 07:00 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

es?tab?lish?ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

The act of establishing.
The condition or fact of being established.
Something established, as:
An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
An established church.
A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
often Establishment An established social order, as:
A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.


the republican party in texas has a line in it stating that Christianity is the official language of the USA. does that not go against the constitution?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Zahid]
    #3079326 - 09/01/04 07:01 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Zahid said:
I disagree with the U.S. constitution.




good thing you dont live here :smile: i envy you, you live in a more secular nation than i  :tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079331 - 09/01/04 07:01 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Nope, it's not ENFORCING. That's what it says, it's not my opinion. If I had my way, Americans would be subjected to Shariah.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079344 - 09/01/04 07:04 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Apparently not against the Texas constitution. I haven't read it.

That doesn't change the fact that you're unable to show a seperation of church and state in the federal constitution. It doesn't exist.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3079373 - 09/01/04 07:10 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

i guess me and almost all judges intepret that phrase differently  :grin:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079398 - 09/01/04 07:15 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

the republican party in texas has a line in it stating that Christianity is the official language of the USA.



Bet you meant religion, not language. Doesn't matter. A party can put anything it wishes into it's platform. It's not a law and therefore doesn't have to pass constitutional muster.

A search of the Texas Constitution using the keyword "religion", brings up this.... Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.
So the Texas Constitution is in line with the US constitution.

A search for the word "Christianity" and "Christian" brings up..... absolutely nothing.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079404 - 09/01/04 07:15 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
i guess me and almost all judges intepret that phrase differently  :grin:



I'd imagine not those judges who can read.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3079410 - 09/01/04 07:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

whoops i dint mean the texas constitution, i meant the texas republican party platform


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Zahid]
    #3079414 - 09/01/04 07:18 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Zahid said:
Nope, it's not ENFORCING. That's what it says, it's not my opinion. If I had my way, Americans would be subjected to Shariah.




Hmmm...Texas republican party or Shariah...hard to choose.
I'll go with the ones that don't have public executions, fatwahs, and make women wear burkas.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079421 - 09/01/04 07:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

last i head the alcu was going after them for that


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079437 - 09/01/04 07:21 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
whoops i dint mean the texas constitution, i meant the texas republican party platform



You didn't say constitution. You said Republican Party.

I merely pointed out a party's platform has no bearing on law. I then out of curiosity checked the Texas constitution and added that to avoid heading down that road. Besides, I found it interesting.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3079451 - 09/01/04 07:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Don't forget the jizya tax on Christians and Jews.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: deafpanda]
    #3079530 - 09/01/04 07:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

deafpanda writes:

But blacks in the US are also poorer, on average, than their white countrymen, and crime is closely correlated with poverty.

Why is Sweden's crime rate so low, then? American blacks, on average, are wealthier than the Swedes, on average. Yet black crime rate is substantially higher than the Swedish crime rate.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3079551 - 09/01/04 07:48 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

a damn good question.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3079574 - 09/01/04 07:53 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Well, I'd say that being comparitively poor in the context of one's society would be more of a motive to commit crime than being objectively poor by the world's standards, but average in your country.

I don't know though, I'm just guessing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: deafpanda]
    #3079578 - 09/01/04 07:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

ah, so crime is not corellated with poverty, but envy...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: ]
    #3079583 - 09/01/04 07:57 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Crime is a result of seperation of church and state.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3079651 - 09/01/04 08:11 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


What connection does Canada's crime rate have with Bush's remarks, by
the way?


None. It looks as if I have unintentionally derailed the thread.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #3079827 - 09/01/04 08:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


find stats for our neighbor to the north


You know, I just realized some things:

1. I cannot prove my hypothesis that the Left's rejection of
things that support absolute morality(such as religion) has led
to an increase in unsavory behavior. In any society, people's
behaviors are going to be influenced by so many possible factors
that no matter how many statistics I found, I would not be
able to narrow down a cause for increased crime rates to one thing.
Also, every society is different. Something that holds one society
together might destroy another. So comparing them can be problematic.
And lastly, the Left's influence and battles with organized religion
would be near impossible to quantify into scientific data. My
hypothesis is unprovable.

2. My belief in this hypothesis was based more on "perceiving"
things in the world as opposed to examining factual data. This
is just how I see things happening in the world today.

3. I believe that the extreme Left has a distaste for religion(or
any type of established institution that exerts control and influence).

The threat of supernatural punishment, supernatural rewards, and an
absolute unquestionable morality that is enforced by an omnipotent
and immensely superior being are the only things that seem to keep
people in line in the long run. Without such grandiose and powerful
beliefs, people can allow their morals to wander, and bad things
happen. I have no way of proving that. That belief is based upon
my own thoughts which draw inspiration from the things I perceive
around me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: retread]
    #3080192 - 09/01/04 09:39 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

retread said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Yes, we shall see(or maybe we won't). Note that I never said I was against fighting the terrorists. I simply suggested that our tactics include a re-evaluation of our foreign policy in the Middle East(and elsewhere).




You said you were barely for the war in Afghanistan. What more justification should we possibly need for a war? Should we have said "Thats it you bastards, just for 9/11 we'll not attack you, let you keep your money, arms, training places, and violent theocracy in palce, and we'll move out of Israel and stop supporting them! Take that!". I see low sucess rates in that path.



Must you always twist my words and make such wild assumptions about what I believe? You are quickly turning into a right-wing version of Alex. I said I wasn't entirely against the War in Afghanistan. What I meant by this was that while I believe military action was justified, the results have not been so nice. The country has fallen to warlords, and we are still far from capturing Osama. Mission failed.

Quote:

Quote:


First of all, what gives the UN the legal authority to give a piece of land already inhabited by other people to a bunch of newcomers, most of whom had never even visited that land before?




Are you expecting that I won't know that the land wasn't "Palestinean" territory before hand? That the british controlled it? Come on now, what is more prevalent throughout history than owning land due to military conquest. That was BRITISH land that they gave to the jews, and the arabs in trans-jordan etc. Seriously now.



Yes, the British really fucked that one up. In fact, I think most modern problems in the Middle East can be traced back to the British. If another country conquered the area you live in, then gave it to a group of people who had never lived there and allowed them to force you out of your home, would you support such actions?

Quote:

Quote:


Second, how is it taking the moral low ground to stop using money forcefully taken from taxpayers to fund another nation's massive army?




That is a valid point.



Of course it is. That's why I made it.

Quote:

Quote:


Third, why is it sensible to help Israelis live without suicide bombers, but not sensible to help Palestinians live without having their houses bulldozed and their families shot?




Israel doesn't target innocent Palestineans for random murder, Palestine does.



I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Quote:

Quote:


Well, we didn't so much go into the beehive as much as we just smacked it with a baseball bat. We killed quite a few bees, but the others have dispersed, and they're pissed. Oh, and btw, unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have yet to find the queen bee.




I don't know exactly the percentage of Al Qieda camps, personnel or leadership that were destroyed. I know that analysing us NOT going into Afghanistan at all or the choice of going in with military force, the latter probably did much more damage to the enemy. I know that the personnel at Guantanemo Bay aren't going to bomb any buildings, I know that the jihadists in the caves that got bombed out of existance won't be hijacking any airplanes and I know that Afghanistan won't harbor terrorist training camps that put out people to execute non-combattants on video tape. We might not have won the battle in one fell swoop, but we put a pretty good hurting on them.



The ones held in Guantanamo Bay have provided endless opportunities for anti-US propaganda, the ones that were bombed in caves have become martyrs, and the training camps have simply been moved to other countries, making Al Queda all the harder to track down. The ones executing non-combattants on videotape are in Iraq. And we have only hurt them enough to piss them off. They are regrouping right now, and you'd better believe they've got something more up their sleeves.

Quote:

Quote:


It is not the wrong thing to stop initiating force against taxpayers to fund the military of a nation that many of them oppose. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best:




For that reason, I'll agree. My libertarian views make me think that it's wrong to use our tax dollars to fund another nation. However, don't we SELL them F-16's and the like? If we produce a product and sell it to them, even for zero profit, we aren't funding them with taxpayer loot, so I'd be ok with that. Are you?



We give them billions of dollars in foreign aid as well. Even if we didn't, it's taxpayer money that funded the creation of those F-16's, under the premise that it will be used by our own military as allowed in the Constitution, not sold to some foreign power.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3080219 - 09/01/04 09:42 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
deafpanda writes:

But blacks in the US are also poorer, on average, than their white countrymen, and crime is closely correlated with poverty.

Why is Sweden's crime rate so low, then? American blacks, on average, are wealthier than the Swedes, on average. Yet black crime rate is substantially higher than the Swedish crime rate.

pinky



I think it's not so much about being poor itself as it is about being poor compared to those around you.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: silversoul7]
    #3080235 - 09/01/04 09:46 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

So -- as mushmaster so astutely observed -- we're talking not about poverty, but about envy.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3080267 - 09/01/04 09:54 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
So -- as mushmaster so astutely observed -- we're talking not about poverty, but about envy.



Sort of. I think it probably has to do with the sense of hopelessness you get knowing that the other guy is always going to have it better than you. Many poor people find that stealing, drug dealing, and prostitution are the most expedient ways of keeping up with the Jones's, and in such a materialistic society as we have here, one's self-worth is often determined by one's wealth. I suppose you could call that envy.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3081515 - 09/02/04 06:00 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

3. I believe that the extreme Left has a distaste for religion(or
any type of established institution that exerts control and influence).




This may be true, but have you seen the extreme right? If you judge a population by its most extreme members, you won't find much worth exploring.

Quote:

The threat of supernatural punishment, supernatural rewards, and an
absolute unquestionable morality that is enforced by an omnipotent
and immensely superior being are the only things that seem to keep
people in line in the long run




Could be. Lets hope not, more and more people are atheist these days, so if you're right, god help us. I'm not sure you are though.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefastfred
Old Hand
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: deafpanda]
    #3081587 - 09/02/04 06:31 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Brights actually have a majority in the US now... It's sad that they're not more organized.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won [Re: Phred]
    #3090839 - 09/04/04 10:22 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

In my previous post (the one this one replies to), I had given a reason why terrorism was such a difficult tactic to counter. Clifford D. May http://www.townhall.com/columnists/cliffordmay/cm20040902.shtml points out other reasons: (the bolded parts are my emphasis)

As President Clinton might say: "It depends on what the meaning of 'win' is."

By now, you've no doubt read all about it: President Bush told NBC's Matt Lauer that he didn't think America could win the War on Terrorism. Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards accused Bush of declaring defeat.

Bush then told Rush Limbaugh that what he meant to say was that the current global conflict is not like World War II. No enemy general is going to hand over his weapons in ceremonial surrender.

But that's not how the last great international struggle ended either. The Cold War?- which some historians now call World War III?- concluded when the Soviet Union collapsed and ordinary citizens smashed the Berlin Wall into paper weights.?

In the War on Terrorism -- or World War IV -- the Free World is battling totalitarian ideologies that have borrowed freely from both Communism and Nazism, but which stake their claim to legitimacy on a radical interpretation of Islam and Islam's doctrine of jihad, or holy war.

Terrorism?- the deliberate slaughter of civilians by combatants disguising themselves as civilians ? is simply the means by which the Jihadis believe they can defeat decadent, infidel democracies.?

And terrorism is a weapon the Jihadis believe they have all to themselves ? infidels, they are confident, will not indiscriminately slaughter them and their families. Our reluctance to use this weapon is, in their view, a symptom of our weakness.?

Terrorism is not a new weapon. But on 9/11, terrorists armed with hijacked passenger jets wreaked havoc on an unprecedented scale. Terrorists armed with nuclear, chemical or biological Weapons of Mass Destruction would escalate such crimes to apocalyptic levels.?

Some analysts believe that such an attack in all but inevitable. The only hope of preventing it is to aggressively ? and preemptively -- hunt down terrorists cell by cell, individual by individual, and target dictators who support terrorists and might supply them with WMDs.

That, by the way, is the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. After that atrocity, Saddam had to be viewed through a sharper lens, his menace measured by a different yardstick. So, too, North Korea's Kim Jung Il and the mullahs of Iran. This seems a simple proposition yet many otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp it.

Winning World War IV also requires de-legitimizing terrorism. Terrorism today is a thriving enterprise because for at least three decades terrorists have been rewarded. Republicans and Democrats alike have been responsible for this error. Europeans even more so.

Almost exactly 32 years ago, Palestinian terrorists entered the Olympic Village in Munich and massacred 11 innocent Israeli athletes. That act of mass murder was not considered sufficiently serious to merit canceling the Olympics -- or even postponing it for a day.

The group responsible for the killings, the Palestine Liberation Organization, received more encouragement than condemnation. Two years later, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat was invited to address the UN. The PLO was received in the General Assembly and ?the question of Palestine? was introduced on the agenda.

A few years later, Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. Abu Daoud ? the unrepentant terrorist who planned the 1972 massacres -- received the Palestinian Prize for Culture.??

And everyone else in the world with grievances and complaints learned the rules: Terrorism is acceptable. Terrorism works. Terrorism succeeds -- like nothing else. So why not employ it?

Why not indeed? Over the years that followed, to the extent terrorists were pursued, it was less by soldiers, commandos and spies than by lawyers armed with subpoenas. Terrorists and their masters were seldom punished. There is a name for such policies: Appeasement.

Clearly, we need new and better policies. Surely, the United States needs to develop intelligence and clandestine services capable of ferreting out terrorists wherever they hide, train and plot.

There must be expansion of our now-tiny Special Forces, the component of the military machine best equipped to fight 21st century warfare.

A War of Ideas must be fought as well. It must stop being socially acceptable to excuse terrorism (e.g.: ?One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter;? ?They must be so desperate!?). Yes, in the past, terrorism has been condoned many times in many places. But morality evolves. Not so long ago, genocide, slavery and piracy also were common practices. Should that mean that we tolerate those evils forever, too?

Terrorism must come to be seen as not just a crime but also a blunder. It must be demonstrated repeatedly that terrorism sets back the cause in whose name it is committed ? no matter how righteous some people may believe that cause to be.

Eventually, the extremist, supremacist, totalitarian ideologies championed by Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Iranian mullahs and others must be regarded as a dead end, figuratively and literally.?

Bin Laden famously said, ?When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally choose the strong horse.? He understands the dynamics of public persuasion better than many State Department officials. It falls to America to lead the effort to demonstrate that freedom and democracy are the strongest horses on the track.?

In the 20th century, America and its friends defeated both Communism and Nazism. There are still Communists and Nazis in the world but their movements are weak and unappealing to all but a lunatic fringe.

Memo to the candidates: This is what ?win? means. Tell us you understand. Tell us you'll do what it takes.

------------------------------------------------------------

May makes some points that correspond all too well with so many comments which appear on this board. I call it the "obligatory Lefty throat-clearing" -- i.e. "Yes, of course, we all must condemn terrorism, but.... yadda yadda yadda," where the "yadda yadda yadda" is yet another repetition of some variant of as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," or "you surely must understand that these people are angry," or "Israel has killed civilians, too, ya know," or "the US wiped out the Indians" or 'The Spanish Inquisition burned people at the stake" or whatever.

The reasons there will always be terrorists:

- there is virtually no downside to it from the point of view of the terrorists (or at least there was no such downside before Bush's response)
- the moral relativists honestly see no difference between executing schoolchildren and killing civilians with a stray bomb aimed at a different target
- the terrorists know that the West refuses to adopt their tactics
- terrorism is rewarded (see the deification of Arafat, or the capitulation of Spain and the Philippines for more recent examples).

This is why even if we ignore Bush's answering in the context of "four years", his estimation of the problem was accurate -- the war against the terrorists cannot be won -- without a radical shift in the attitude a large part of the world has towards terrorism.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* If we go to war, it won't be good shroomizzy 856 15 01/29/03 05:19 AM
by Chills420 version2
* FUCK BUSH - FUCK WAR Teiro 737 4 02/12/03 01:20 PM
by downforpot
* Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists Ellis Dee 733 3 04/04/03 11:28 PM
by I_Fart_Blue
* Supposedly 74% of the American public supports Bush's war grib 1,404 18 03/25/03 04:40 AM
by Innvertigo
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,185 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 3,753 32 11/06/02 04:01 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
( 1 2 all )
Eightball 2,320 24 10/29/02 09:54 AM
by Xlea321
* "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam" EchoVortex 1,557 14 03/22/03 11:03 PM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
9,387 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.055 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 12 queries.