JLP Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 are you so sure that the entire muslim world thinks that the USA is an Agressor Actually pretty much the entire world thinks the USA is an Aggressor. Even Americans who are living outside the USA. Sorry but that's what I have experienced in the many countries I have been living and working in across Asia, Europe and Oceania over the past few years. Meeting and talking with people, there is an almost audible sigh of relief when they discover I am Canadian and not American. With American expats, it takes like 10 minutes into the conversation before most will make a point of distancing themselves from Bush doctrine. The international perception of America has changed dramatically over the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbr93 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I'm talking about God. Jesus. So God is a guy in a robe in the clouds? :?- Hmmm. Never saw that one in my Bible. Guess I'll have to look harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 So God is a guy in a robe in the clouds? :?- Hmmm. Never saw that one in my Bible. Guess I'll have to look harder. It's on the inside front cover of the 3D version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Leave the middle east alone??? That's a joke right? Didn't you read my last arguement? Leaving Hitler alone before he invaded Poland only gave him time to gather up strength. Leaving Sadaam alone would have been the same thing. The Taliban was torturing it's people and controlling them by mis-reading the Quaran. As North American's and part of the richest parts of the Globe, we sort of have the duty to help weaker countries. We can't just sit on our ass and watch people get killed. It's unhuman. Yes we should have gottem involved. Maybe we could have went into Afghanistan and Iraq in a wiser manor or for better reasons, but it should have been done none the less. Ever hear of a place called Darfur, in Sudan? A lot of people are getting killed there by a genocidal government, but ah shucks, that region of Sudan has no oil. Result: a lot of press coverage--in some countries at least-- and no action. If you actually believe that there was any philanthrophic sentiment behind the US's recent follies in the ME you seriously need to give your head a shake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 (edited) Musharraf is a rotton leader that the U.S. tolerates because he is "cooperating". I'm getting sick and tired of their conviction to get the terrorists and the Taliban. Most of their actions are simple "window dressing". When the U.S. calls Musharraf, the conversation probably goes something like this; "Ah, yes Mr. Bush. As you saw on your CNN, we have arrested four Talibani men. Oh wait, do you mind just waiting a minute, I'm going to excuse my servant here" (whispers in background) - "you've got to get out of here, the U.S. ambassador is coming, if they see a Taliban in my office..." Bush: "What was that Musharraf?" Musharraf: "Nothing Mr. President, you were saying what now? Edited September 22, 2006 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Ever hear of a place called Darfur, in Sudan? A lot of people are getting killed there by a genocidal government, but ah shucks, that region of Sudan has no oil. Result: a lot of press coverage--in some countries at least-- and no action. If you actually believe that there was any philanthrophic sentiment behind the US's recent follies in the ME you seriously need to give your head a shake. Exactly. Self interest governs U.S. policy. Same with their policy in Cuba - in that case, it's politically-motivated self-interest. By the way, I don't think that the U.S. is different from other countries in using self-interest to guide their policy. The difference is that they are powerful enough to start wars, and have shown they will do that in pursuing their self-interest. The stakes are so much higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5369198.stm Talk about using fear. big deal... posturing, that's all. Do you think that the US government was stupid enough to carry that out considering the backlash that would come for it all? In my mind, words like that are only rhetoric. :king: :hlogo: :king: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Taliban if the Musharraf-Bush meeting leads to expanding the war from Afghanistan into Pakistan. There was mention (reporter speculation) on CNN today that the US might be pushing for permission to hit (with Pakistani government appoval) targets and possibly send troops to areas in Pakistan. I doubt Musharraf is going to care about the US concerns, again. I'm sure Musharraf is going nuts though. Makes me happy. Musharraf doesn't really care about the Taliban. They're an annoyance. That's probably why Washington is turning up the heat. He could wipe the floor with them. But, why risk anything that might actually lead, through a course of unfortunate incidents to his being over thrown? In a nutshell, he's not going to start anything that will bring him problems. I mean, why even try to defend womens rights? That might lead to his downfall Musharraf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Republicans and evangelicals God is $$$$$. Go to one of there get togethers these mega churches. Sham Sham Sham. They're hypocrites. you consitently paint too many with the same brush. just as it would be incorrect to say that all mega churches are a sham and filled with hypocrites - it is incorrect to say that all Muslims think Americans are wrong in their efforts to rid (more likely curb) terrorism. if Bush does nothing - he is criticised for being a Big Brother who neglected the world population suffering under dictatorships and bad leadership --- if he tries to do what the UN should be doing (but are too 'politically correct' to make a strong stand and action on anything) he is criticised for being a meddling Big Brother who should mind his own business. either way - EVERY nation is essentially about self-interest. the problem is when one's self-interest actually infringes on the self-interest of another nation. as far as i'm concerned - the US didn't start this war (9-11 and misplaced religious fervor did), and i hope the US finds terrorist leadership WHEREVER they are (Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, even Canada!) and doesn't stop until the job is done (i'm guessing NEVER). as an aside --- i do find it interesting that it seems the Muslim reaction in the Middle East to the Pope's words was ....... violence! ironic, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 Thats just it revvrob, this is endless war. Or as I like to put it its the chink in the US's armor that could very well signal its demise. It happend to Rome remember it can happen to us, we as a country are not invisible or immune. This war is already bankrupting the country and I don't think it can take anymore. Sooner or later I think things are going to start to fall apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 big deal... posturing, that's all. Do you think that the US government was stupid enough to carry that out considering the backlash that would come for it all? In my mind, words like that are only rhetoric. :king: :hlogo: :king: I don't understand your skepticism. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush could have done just about anything and got away with it. If Pakistan didn't come on board in the fight, he would've been branded as a supporter of bin Laden. That would have been even easier than the later branding of Saddam (which the U.S. public eagerly bought into), since bin Laden was rumoured to be criss-crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 I don't understand your skepticism. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush could have done just about anything and got away with it. If Pakistan didn't come on board in the fight, he would've been branded as a supporter of bin Laden. That would have been even easier than the later branding of Saddam (which the U.S. public eagerly bought into), since bin Laden was rumoured to be criss-crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Pakistan would have been put in the axis of evil speech. Plus George would have gotten more dilusions about helping out the US ally in India and fixing the Kashmir problem. I swear the more and more you look into this guy it makes you think he thinks he's some kind of messiah messanger of God. (He has already said God told him to invade Iraq). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Ever hear of a place called Darfur, in Sudan? A lot of people are getting killed there by a genocidal government, but ah shucks, that region of Sudan has no oil. Result: a lot of press coverage--in some countries at least-- and no action. If you actually believe that there was any philanthrophic sentiment behind the US's recent follies in the ME you seriously need to give your head a shake. And has the rest of the world done anything for Darfur? Has anyone in the UN volunteered to send troops to Darfur to stop the killing? If you want to talk about self-interest, this is a great example. The US isn't the only one not doing anything about Darfur. The genocide in Darfur is the perfect example of how ineffective the UN is. you consitently paint too many with the same brush. just as it would be incorrect to say that all mega churches are a sham and filled with hypocrites - it is incorrect to say that all Muslims think Americans are wrong in their efforts to rid (more likely curb) terrorism. if Bush does nothing - he is criticised for being a Big Brother who neglected the world population suffering under dictatorships and bad leadership --- if he tries to do what the UN should be doing (but are too 'politically correct' to make a strong stand and action on anything) he is criticised for being a meddling Big Brother who should mind his own business. either way - EVERY nation is essentially about self-interest. the problem is when one's self-interest actually infringes on the self-interest of another nation. as far as i'm concerned - the US didn't start this war (9-11 and misplaced religious fervor did), and i hope the US finds terrorist leadership WHEREVER they are (Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, even Canada!) and doesn't stop until the job is done (i'm guessing NEVER). as an aside --- i do find it interesting that it seems the Muslim reaction in the Middle East to the Pope's words was ....... violence! ironic, no? Great post. Once again, someone says exactly what I want to say, but does a much better job than I could have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 big deal... posturing, that's all. Do you think that the US government was stupid enough to carry that [attack on Pakistan] out considering the backlash that would come for it all? In my mind, words like that are only rhetoric. Yes I believe they were/are. And what backlash, from the international community, because I really don't believe the current US gov't cares about that. Domestic backlash? Hey in the "War on Terror" who would backlash against, they would be fired/jailed/ostracized if they did. And Shorts I think you are overestimating the understanding of the region -- most Americans didn't have a clue where Afghanistan was even located Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 And has the rest of the world done anything for Darfur? Has anyone in the UN volunteered to send troops to Darfur to stop the killing? If you want to talk about self-interest, this is a great example. The US isn't the only one not doing anything about Darfur. The genocide in Darfur is the perfect example of how ineffective the UN is. Just to play Devil's Advocate, Fanpuck... No one agreed to invade Iraq either - in fact, the UN voted no yet the US did anyhow. If the US were really looking out solely for the best interests of others, wouldn't they have invaded Darfur? I'm not criticizing the US for not going into Darfur, I'm just pointing out a slight inconsistency in the logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 All the troops that are in Iraq should be in Darfur. Especially now since the African Union is pulling out in 8 days. The rebel forces will once again reign terror on the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Just to play Devil's Advocate, Fanpuck... No one agreed to invade Iraq either - in fact, the UN voted no yet the US did anyhow. If the US were really looking out solely for the best interests of others, wouldn't they have invaded Darfur? I'm not criticizing the US for not going into Darfur, I'm just pointing out a slight inconsistency in the logic. If the US had felt threatened by the Sudan, then they'd have gone there instead. I don't think anyone, including myself, thinks that the US is "solely looking out for the best interest of others." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 If the US were really looking out solely for the best interests of others, wouldn't they have invaded Darfur? I'm not criticizing the US for not going into Darfur, I'm just pointing out a slight inconsistency in the logic. there are SO many nations in turmoil. so many dictators. so many people who don't know what representative leadership is. so many hungry. so many sick. very few nations enjoy the riches that nations like the US and Canada take for granted. so - understanding that as a 'have' nation, we should help the 'have-not' nation - where do you start? as a parent of 3 children - generally, i start with the child making the most noise. yes - it is in my self-interest (cuz i'm getting a head-ache) to help the child who is making the most noise. all 3 children need help - but the one crying the loudest (rioting?) or the one about to do the most damage (nuclear weapons?) or the one about to throw the toy at my head (terrorism?) gets the attention first. self-interest. it is debatable whether i should help the rioting or nuclear weapon or terrorist child first --- but the one option i don't have is to sit idly by and do nothing. the US is to be applauded for not being so isolationist that they ignore the issues surrounding them (in the case of 9-11, the world DEMANDED the attention of the US - IMO because President Clinton ignored the REAL world issues). the US can be questioned for attending to one child and not the other at times, perhaps even questionned for what was done with that child or not done for that child. but, i, for one - am glad that the US got more involved in world issues and stopped sitting back and watching the world go by - even if it took 9-11 to give the US the wake-up call it needed (i only wish the wake-up call never happened and the US had been moving away from isolationist thinking sooner - many lives would have been spared). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Let's repeat this for the slow learners: 1. There was no threat from Irag towards the USA. Bushie wanted to invade and "found" the intel that supposedly supported that desire. The mythical WMD never existed. 2. If the USA had stuck to the mission in Afghanistan and found bin Laden and put him on trial, the good will generated by the American suffering of 9/11 would not have been dissipated. Also, the Taliban would not be a threat now if the promises made to the Afghans in 2001 had been kept. "Dissidents" in Afghanistan are now using Al Quaida methods that were perfected in Iraq. 3. Osama and the rest of his boys must be overjoyed at the carnage in Irag. Bush is the best recruitment agent they could have wished for. 4. Yes, most Muslims, even the moderate ones, believe that the US and the West in general is anti-Arab and especially anti-Islamic. Why? Do the words Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine ring any bells?! 5. Sunni muslims don't generally like, respect or trust Shite Muslims and vice versa. Saddam was able to keep peace only by harshly punishing dissent. Was he a good leader? no. Do the Iraqis deserve better? Of course. IS GW Bush going to deliver that? Not in the forseeable future. 5. PMAC knows so much what is the answer? No idea. The Bush invasion of Iraq is like trying to settle a family feud. Either side will love you as long as they see an advantage, but sooner or later they will start to hate you more than they hate each other. Then you will be seen as causing all of the problems. 6. Agree or disagree, I don't care, but I live in a Muslim country and I've studied the history and culture. I might be wrong on these issues, but Bush's advisors were moronic. Anyone who knew anything about the ME or had lived here for five minutes could have predicted what was going to happen in Iraq. There is old saying in Arabic that goes s.t like this: me and my brother against my cousin; me and my family against the tribe; me and my tribe against everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 It still blows my mind that this was written in 1990 before the Gulf war, Roger Waters gets it right: What God wants God gets God help us all What God wants God gets The kid in the corner looked at the priest And fingered his pale blue Japanese guitar The priest said God wants goodness God wants light God wants mayhem God wants a clean fight What God wants God gets Don't look so surprised It's only dogma The alien prophet cried The beetle and the springbok Took the bible from its hook The monkey in the corner Wrote the lesson in his book What God wants God gets God help us all God wants peace God wants war God wants famine God wants chain stories What God wants God gets God wants sedition God wants sex God wants freedom God wants semtex What God wants God gets Don't look so surprised I'm only joking The alien comic cried The jackass and hyena Took the feather from its book The monkey in the corner Wrote the joke down his book What God wants God gets God wants boarders God wants crack God wants rainfall God wants wetbacks What God wants God gets God wants voodoo God wants shrines God wants law God wants organised crime God wants crusade God wants jihad God wants good God wants bad What God wants God gets Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 It still blows my mind that this was written in 1990 before the Gulf war, Roger Waters gets it right: Well, although violence in the middle east had been going on for sometime, the album came about a year after Desert Storm first started (Jan '91) while the cd (Amused to Death) was released in Sept '92. Chronology doesn't make the album any less relevant, but given Roger's advid anti-war stance (The Final Cut, and even Radio KAOS) it isn't surprising. The whole release is very good, but I especially relate to "The Bravery of Being Out of Range." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 He wrote the lyrics before the war started actually. The Bravery is awesome. How about "Too Much Rope"? I wonder which "species" (that has "too much rope") he is referring to. Might it be Uncle Sam? Sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 He wrote the lyrics before the war started actually. The Bravery is awesome. How about "Too Much Rope"? I wonder which "species" (that has "too much rope") he is referring to. Might it be Uncle Sam? Sarcasm I like the whole album. Give any one species too much rope, and they'll f**ck it up... He's touring this fall, too. Too bad he isn't stopping in Colorado. Boo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Let's repeat this for the slow learners: 1. wow - i always thought Hussein used WMD on the Kurds - but - clearly PMAC is right cuz he says he is right - that Iraq never had WMD! WOW. i did not know that - kindly inform the Kurds that WMD never existed in Iraq. thx. 2. pity that bin Laden's supporters did such a fine job of hiding him. surprising, really - you'd think they would have given him up. you'd think the Muslim boarder nations would have informed the US of bin Laden's entry to their nation - i never would have thought that they would try to play both sides - seem cooperative with the US, while harboring the target of US aggression. 3. i kinda think bin Laden et al started their celebration on 9/11 - NOT the day the US launched an offensive on their nation. i kinda think the Taliban forces were kinda organized and drawing a decent amount of support even BEFORE the US attacked Afganistan or Iraq - all that really happened is what was going on underground starting becoming more public - and possibly only public in a US sense, may have been very public in ME - i mean - the Taliban did run Afganistan, so, recruitment shouldn't have been too difficult there - but - then again, i'm not PMAC, so - what do i know. 4. very true that most Muslims would feel that the US is anti-Arab, anti-Islam - of course, there are many Muslims in the US whom President Bush has sworn to protect - i guess he didn't really take that part of his oath seriously. also, we should note that 9/11 has gone a long way to encourage the US to become even more anti-arab, anti-Islam than ever before! 5. Hussein was not the answer for good leadership in Iraq - and - i agree that Bush (or any other American - even the beloved Clinton) would be a good leader for Iraq. but - Hussein gone, Bush in, is better than Hussein in. 6. i seem to recall Bush saying the war on terror would be over in a few weeks - or by Christmas of 2001 at the latest - oh well - guess he lied about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 (edited) 1. wow - i always thought Hussein used WMD on the Kurds - but - clearly PMAC is right cuz he says he is right - that Iraq never had WMD! WOW. i did not know that - kindly inform the Kurds that WMD never existed in Iraq. thx. I said that the so-called WMD that showed Irag was capable of directly threatening the USA --which was put forward as a reason for the invasion --was proven false. Don't believe me, but I suppose that Colin Powell, the UN Weapons inspectors and others that admitted these did not exist were wrong too? BTW, the USA continued to support Saddam and provide him with weapons long after he gassed the Kurds . 2. pity that bin Laden's supporters did such a fine job of hiding him. surprising, really - you'd think they would have given him up. you'd think the Muslim boarder nations would have informed the US of bin Laden's entry to their nation - i never would have thought that they would try to play both sides - seem cooperative with the US, while harboring the target of US aggression. What does this comment have to do with my post? My point was that if US forces were not spread too thin by being in Afghanistan and Iraq they would have made better progress on the WOT and not sullied their international reputation by inventing reasons to invade Iraq. The USA is in Iraq because GW wanted to depose Saddam and secure the Iraqi oil supplies for US interests. It wasn't and isn't about terror or toppling a corrupt regime or any of those tired justifications 3. i kinda think bin Laden et al started their celebration on 9/11 - NOT the day the US launched an offensive on their nation. i kinda think the Taliban forces were kinda organized and drawing a decent amount of support even BEFORE the US attacked Afganistan or Iraq - all that really happened is what was going on underground starting becoming more public - and possibly only public in a US sense, may have been very public in ME - i mean - the Taliban did run Afganistan, so, recruitment shouldn't have been too difficult there - but - then again, i'm not PMAC, so - what do i know. I'm saying that "Collateral damage" in Palestine, Lebanon, Irag and Afghanistan creates eager recruits for bin Laden and his ilk. If you read international commentary--that is, not the crap on CNN and Fox news, but real commentary-- you would find that most of the experts in this field agree with what I said, because they said it first Edited September 24, 2006 by PMAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.