historians > dubya
i support the pointy headed college types
i support the pointy headed college types
Bush was still a better choice than Kerry, but the problem with the republican party lies mostly with the far right christian groups.
I support an abortion ban and I'd like to own a gun someday, but arguing for creationism/Intelligent design makes a politician look like a fool. You simply can't deny 5 billion years of solid archeological evidence and retain my respect. The bible is a good reference for how to behave, but when you start interpreting it literally, you get problems. Besides, practice your religion on your own time, not mine. I don't care if you choose to believe that the world is 5000 years old (even if there are trees that are older than that), but don't you dare teach it in my school as fact.
I support an abortion ban and I'd like to own a gun someday, but arguing for creationism/Intelligent design makes a politician look like a fool. You simply can't deny 5 billion years of solid archeological evidence and retain my respect. The bible is a good reference for how to behave, but when you start interpreting it literally, you get problems. Besides, practice your religion on your own time, not mine. I don't care if you choose to believe that the world is 5000 years old (even if there are trees that are older than that), but don't you dare teach it in my school as fact.
Who called me out on the Godwin? I demand answers damnit!
I did, what's wrong ?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who called me out on the Godwin? I demand answers damnit!
I found funny that Hitler was cited in the first page of a thread.
nothing at all. I just wanted to knowLost Hope wrote:
I did, what's wrong ?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who called me out on the Godwin? I demand answers damnit!
I found funny that Hitler was cited in the first page of a thread.
edit: I would expect nothing less in regards to Bush's reign (flame on!).
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-22 09:58:32)
Bubbalo wrote:
In answer to your question: unchecked militarism combined with a lack of focus on domestic issues.
I'm conservative (no shit? guess you guys never figured that out) but I would much rather support a moderate (center position) then either of the parties representatives because they don't have to deal with a party agenda.blisteringsilence wrote:
Do either of you actually know anything about Perot, or his proposed policies? Hell, he represents the center position better than any president in American history.S3v3N wrote:
/agreeCoronadoSEAL wrote:
*puke*
He was all about balancing the budget, an increase in gasoline taxes, reforming the corruption in Congress, against NAFTA, pro-choice, opposed to gun control, protectionist in trade, and supported the work of the EPA.
Hell, what DO you actually disagree with, other than your parent's didn't like him?
Post more, then you can be pigeon holed into a category.
Well, Clinton had done awesome things with the American economy, and he had established excellent relations globally. The Bush came in. He undid a lot of the good work Clinton had done with the economy, and nearly all Clinton'd done with international relations.ATG wrote:
How did the republican party fall so far so fast?
The big problem I see is extremism. In this case it's extremism in the form of right-wing Christian Fundamentalism. Extremism of any kind leads to problems, and for a country the size and power of the USA, I honestly think that a more centrist approach to government would be the way to go.
The buck stops with Bush. That's the downside of being the most powerful man in the world. He's the one who was giving the orders at the top that lead to the screw-ups. He's the one who allowed the creation of places like Camp X-Ray. Can you imagine the outrage amongst right-wing America if an American citizen was captured by a military force and then held without trial or any due process for years on end? They'd demand to send in the SEALs or something, and rightly so. The internment camp at Guantanamo bay exploits a dispicable legal "loophole" that the current administration says keeps it outside of the limitations of international law, and it's behaviour like that, the crushing of individuals rights while claiming to "fight for freedom" that I think has really done the damage.
The hypocrisy of using Christian fundamentalism while at the same time condemning Islamic fundamentalism. The hypocrisy of a nation that (quite rightly) prides itself on the rights of the individual running riot over the rights of individuals. The Republicans, lead by Bush, have regressed the USA back at least 20 years. Clinton had the country going in the right direction, the nation was flourishing internally and developing excellent relations externally. Bush and his hypocrites have managed to reverse Clinton's hard work internally and utterly demolish the good will the USA had built up overseas.
Hmmm... seem to have gone on a bit of a rant there, sorry. It's the Guantanamo Bay bit, gets my blood up every time I think about it.
O' Rly?MrE`158 wrote:
Well, Clinton had done awesome things with the American economy, and he had established excellent relations globally. The Bush came in. He undid a lot of the good work Clinton had done with the economy, and nearly all Clinton'd done with international relations.
So you think Taliban fighters should be tried in American courts with American rights?
Didn't think so. That's why there is a camp X-ray.
My preference would be to push them out the cargo door from a plane somewhere over the ME.
Didn't think so. That's why there is a camp X-ray.
My preference would be to push them out the cargo door from a plane somewhere over the ME.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ … tory/print
There you go. Rolling Stone last year. I was told how Rolling Stone is a liberal rag not worth the money it takes to print when I posted it. Oh well.
There you go. Rolling Stone last year. I was told how Rolling Stone is a liberal rag not worth the money it takes to print when I posted it. Oh well.
I think they should be tried/taken care of with certain International Human Rights, yes.ATG wrote:
So you think Taliban fighters should be tried in American courts with American rights?
Didn't think so. That's why there is a camp X-ray.
My preference would be to push them out the cargo door from a plane somewhere over the ME.
I think there should be some sort of transparency in regards to their living conditions/treatment, yes.
I think there should be some sort of transparency in regards to their trials/convictions, yes.
What is the difference between Taliban Fighters (fighting for the Taliban regime, not to be confused with Al-Qaeda operatives) and US Soldiers?
Is that difference ^^ enough to warrant them (the Taliban Fighters) being treated worse than domesticated animals?
Didn't think so.
edit: Terrorists should be handled with extreme force. What is the percentage of known terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? What is the percentage of people charged in Guantanamo Bay?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-22 11:55:11)
They set foot in an American court room they have the same rights as you and me.
Duly noted. Same with Illegals, right? Maybe we should set up Military Tribunals for illegals too, those evil terrorist bastards!ATG wrote:
They set foot in an American court room they have the same rights as you and me.
Well, I think that they should be given at least some rights. I'd be perfectly happy with military trials. I'd be happy with a special court set up just to deal with X-Ray's prisoners. But to hold someone without charge, without any kind of trial, without access to any legal counsel, without even allowing the Red Cross to visit them, is, I believe, dispicable behaviour.ATG wrote:
So you think Taliban fighters should be tried in American courts with American rights?
Didn't think so. That's why there is a camp X-ray.
My preference would be to push them out the cargo door from a plane somewhere over the ME.
That's the 4th and 6th Amendments in tatters, if they're being held as civilians, and the 1945 Geneva Conventions (which the USA is a signatory of) made a mockery of if they're being held as soldiers. Instead, the administration has simply decided that a new category exists, that of "illegal combatants", and they don't get to have any protections whatsoever.
America has always afforded its internal terrorists due process. Timothy McVeigh was arrested, tried, convicted and executed in accordance with American law. Why do Taliban fighters not get the same treatment? How are they different from McVeigh? How are they different from Ramzi Yousef, who was arrested, tried and convicted for the 1993 WTC bombing?
The Bush administration claims to be defending America and the American way of life by fighting terrorism. That's fine by me. But they have set about it in such a way as to make a mockery of those very values that they claim to be defending. The 4th and 6th Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights, one of the cornerstones of what it is to be American, yet they are completely ignored. The Geneva Conventions are a result of WWII, another key time in American history, yet they too are ignored.
I'd like to think that those fighting for beliefs and ideals would not, in the process of that fight, abandon those beliefs and ideals. I think the notion that the US government would hold anyone no matter how vile a murderer they might be, without trial or due process, would disgust the founding fathers of the country.
The founders would have tomahawked them on the field of battle.
I'd like to think foreign nations wouldn't send uniformless fighters to our soi to kill civilians, but they did.
I'd like to think foreign nations wouldn't send uniformless fighters to our soi to kill civilians, but they did.
Last edited by ATG (2007-05-22 12:08:43)
Al Qaeda is a foreign nation?ATG wrote:
The founders would have tomahawked them on the field of battle.
I'd like to think foreign nations wouldn't send uniformless fighters to our soi to kill civilians, but they did.
Oh, that's right, Iraq provided material support to Al-Qaeda
Interesting use of the word tomahawk in regards to founding fathers and terrorism.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-22 12:14:50)
I hold Saudia Arabia responcible for 9-11.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Al Qaeda is a foreign nation?ATG wrote:
The founders would have tomahawked them on the field of battle.
I'd like to think foreign nations wouldn't send uniformless fighters to our soi to kill civilians, but they did.
Oh, that's right, Iraq provided material support to Al-Qaeda
Interesting use of the word tomahawk in regards to founding fathers and terrorism.
In that regard, they are just as responsible as the U.S.ATG wrote:
I hold Saudia Arabia responcible for 9-11.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Al Qaeda is a foreign nation?ATG wrote:
The founders would have tomahawked them on the field of battle.
I'd like to think foreign nations wouldn't send uniformless fighters to our soi to kill civilians, but they did.
Oh, that's right, Iraq provided material support to Al-Qaeda
Interesting use of the word tomahawk in regards to founding fathers and terrorism.
I will edit in and expound when I return from lunch.
Will it be pistols or swords?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
In that regard, they are just as responsible as the U.S.ATG wrote:
I hold Saudia Arabia responcible for 9-11.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Al Qaeda is a foreign nation?
Oh, that's right, Iraq provided material support to Al-Qaeda
Interesting use of the word tomahawk in regards to founding fathers and terrorism.
I will edit in and expound when I return from lunch.
I'll be outside, waiting.
I believe the word you are looking for is proxy.ATG wrote:
The founders would have tomahawked them on the field of battle.
I'd like to think foreign nations wouldn't send uniformless fighters to our soi to kill civilians, but they did.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
taken from http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htmAl-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries....Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries–particularly Saudi Arabia.
In reference to Al-Qaeda/OBL's founding principles
His exposure to the teachings of conservative Islamist scholars in Saudi
Arabia and his work with Arab militants in Afghanistan provided the theological and
ideological basis for his belief in the desirability of puritanical Salafist Islamic reform
in Muslim societies and the necessity of armed resistance in the face of perceived
aggression — a concept Al Qaeda has since associated with a communally-binding
Islamic principle known as “defensive jihad.”5 After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in
1990, Bin Laden expressed these views in opposition to the introduction of foreign
military forces to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden characterized the presence of U.S. and
other non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War as cause for
renewed commitment to defensive jihad and the promotion of violence against the
Saudi government and the United States.
Declaration of Jihad. In the early 1990s, Bin Laden emphasized his desire
to secure the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from Saudi Arabia at all
costs. Bin Laden criticized the Saudi royal family publicly and alleged that their
invitation of foreign troops to the Arabian peninsula constituted an affront to the
sanctity of the birthplace of Islam and a betrayal of the global Islamic community.6
Finding his rhetoric and efforts rebuffed by Saudi leaders, Bin Laden was expelled
from Saudi Arabia and his ire increasingly focused on the United States.
Taken from the Congressional Research Service Report For Congress: Al-Qaeda's Statements and Evolving Ideology, which you can find here
Clearly OBL and Al-Qaeda focused more intently on the US AND Saudi Arabia as a result of our foreign policy actions in the Middle East.
Not to mention the support a lot of Al-Qaeda figures (OBL and KSM) received from the CIA during the '70s/80's.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-22 14:27:22)
What about India, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Chechnya, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Thailand, Egypt, Bangladesh, Turkey, Morocco, Lebanon? Are they all responsible also?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Clearly OBL and Al-Qaeda focused more intently on the US AND Saudi Arabia as a result of our foreign policy actions in the Middle East.
Not to mention the support a lot of Al-Qaeda figures (OBL and KSM) received from the CIA during the '70s/80's.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Did they send in and house troops in Saudi Arabia during the '90s (particularly the 'Gulf War') (and are they still there)?Kmarion wrote:
What about India, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Chechnya, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Thailand, Egypt, Bangladesh, Turkey, Morocco, Lebanon? Are they all responsible also?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Clearly OBL and Al-Qaeda focused more intently on the US AND Saudi Arabia as a result of our foreign policy actions in the Middle East.
Not to mention the support a lot of Al-Qaeda figures (OBL and KSM) received from the CIA during the '70s/80's.