BF2S Forums British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il

Turquoise wrote:

*shrugs*  Well, the good news is...  He'll be gone by 2009.  I have a feeling that, regardless of who wins the next election, our reputation in world affairs will greatly improve with a new president.

As long as it's not that stupid bitch Hilary Clinton.

Anyone who thinks Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Kim Jong-il is out of touch with reality. For those of you who don't live in the US, do you honestly fear a US attack more than a North Korean one? Do you wake up in cold sweat every night because you think the US is about to drop a nuke on your country...or sell a nuke to terrorists who would not hesitate to?

Many people, including myself, disagree with what Bush has done while in power. However, anyone who thinks the US is not essential to keeping world peace, much less threatens world peace, needs a reality check. The very reason why all of us are not speaking German, Russian, or whatever right now is because of the US. The reason whatever nation you live in exists right now, quite frankly, is because of the US.

Now, can you think of a US military operation that wasn't in the interest of world peace? Did we ever pull a Nazi Germany and attempt to take over the world or exterminate a race? I know many of you are foaming at the mouth ready spew out whatever nonsense about Iraq you can think of, but hear me out. We invaded Iraq initially because of WMDs. I think we can all agree Saddam should not be allowed to have possession of such weapons because it would, in fact, threaten world peace. So it turns out that we made a mistake based off of bad intelligence. Does that suddenly mean Bush invaded Iraq to create a 51st state (I mention this because many of you accuse America of being an empire)? Now look at today's situation in the Middle East. Iraq is on the brink of civil war and then you've got your everyday animals blowing themselves up in civilian areas in the rest of the Arab world. Whether or not you agree with Bush's decision to remain in the region, one fact remains. Something needs to change for there to be peace in the region. The US, right now, is trying to force that change, but is failing. However, what the US is trying to achieve is the only solution to peace. Simply put, radical Islam, dictatorships, and the old-minded ways of many Middle Eastern nations' leaders can no longer exist for there to be peace. Either these will disappear through time and evolution or through military intervention. If you want my personal opinion, I don't see that evolution coming anytime soon if we choose to pull out.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-04 08:27:47)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Anyone who thinks Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Kim Jong-il is out of touch with reality. For those of you who don't live in the US, do you honestly fear a US attack more than a North Korean one? Do you wake up in cold sweat every night because you think the US is about to drop a nuke on your country...or sell a nuke to terrorists who would not hesitate to?

Many people, including myself, disagree with what Bush has done while in power. However, anyone who thinks the US is not essential to keeping world peace, much less threatens world peace, needs a reality check. The very reason why all of us are not speaking German, Russian, or whatever right now is because of the US. The reason whatever shithole nation you live in exists right now, quite frankly, is because of the US.

Now, can you think of a US military operation that wasn't in the interest of world peace? Did we ever pull a Nazi Germany and attempt to take over the world or exterminate a race? I know many of you are foaming at the mouth ready spew out whatever nonsense about Iraq you can think of, but hear me out. We invaded Iraq initially because of WMDs. I think we can all agree Saddam should not be allowed to have possession of such weapons because it would, in fact, threaten world peace. So it turns out that we made a mistake based off of bad intelligence. Does that suddenly mean Bush invaded Iraq to create a 51st state (I mention this because many of you accuse America of being an empire)? Now look at today's situation in the Middle East. Iraq is on the brink of civil war and then you've got your everyday animals blowing themselves up in civilian areas in the rest of the Middle East. Whether or not you agree with Bush's decision to remain in the region, one fact remains. Something needs to change for there to be peace in the region. The US, right now, is trying to force that change, but is failing. However, what the US is trying to achieve is the only solution to peace. Simply put, radical Islam, dictatorships, and the old-minded ways of many Middle Eastern nations' leaders can no longer exist for there to be peace. Either these will disappear through time and evolution or through military intervention. If you want my personal opinion, I don't see that evolution coming anytime soon if we choose to pull out.

No they just put the information up free on how to build it themselves on the internet..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-04 08:27:31)

SoC./Omega wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

come on i want an american to honestly say that they think Bush is a threat to world peace, there has to be someone out there

Bush a threat?! Well were sorry for attacking terroists who killed 3,000 of our people and knocking down one of our best buildings. Tell me if you fucking brits were attacked you would just sit there and let them keep attacking you, EH?! You guys don't see things Americans do. You don't see what good he has done also, you don't see anything good about Bush over there because BBC is liberal and only reports the bad shit.
sergeriver any shutting up from you about Bush? Its getting old and stupid, knock it off argintine.

well tell me what good he have done?

IG-Calibre wrote:

No they just put the information up free on how to build it themselves on the internet..

If you knew anything about this would realize that building a nuke is fairly simple and common knowledge to most nations. What is not simple is obtaining and producing the materials required to do so. Care to interject any more irrelevant points?

silo1180 wrote:

You know there were terrorist attacks in London recently

There has been a terrorist threat in the UK & Ireland for far longer than last year.

Maybe that's why we have different attitude towards it.

Because we know, from bitter experience, that terrorism does not solve terrorism.

I agree; he is dangerous and extremely dumb

If Bush really wanted to stop the creation of nuclear WMD, he would have approved the 10Billion to buy the essential element  required to produce a nuclear blast. Seriously, 10Billion is all it would take. That's less than NASAs yearly budget(which is 14Billion).

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Anyone who thinks Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Kim Jong-il is out of touch with reality. For those of you who don't live in the US, do you honestly fear a US attack more than a North Korean one? Do you wake up in cold sweat every night because you think the US is about to drop a nuke on your country...or sell a nuke to terrorists who would not hesitate to?

I think a more calculated assessment of Bush would state that Bush is more likely to invade someone than Kim Jong Il.  Bush is a triggerhappy interventionist, but Kim Jong Il is a nutjob who just wants attention.

On the other hand, Bush is a temporary problem (being thankfully out by 2009), while Kim will likely reign until his death.  In the short run, Bush is more worrisome than Kim, but in the long run, Kim is the threat.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Many people, including myself, disagree with what Bush has done while in power. However, anyone who thinks the US is not essential to keeping world peace, much less threatens world peace, needs a reality check. The very reason why all of us are not speaking German, Russian, or whatever right now is because of the US. The reason whatever nation you live in exists right now, quite frankly, is because of the US.

I disagree.  The U.S. was formerly essential to world peace during the Cold War, but afterwards, things have changed.  Now, the greatest threat to the Western world is terrorism (and more specifically, Islamism), so it's going to take more than just America to deal with this issue.  America is still an important force in maintaining order, but I think our bloated self-esteem is what has dealt us some painful blows in the last few years.  When Bush basically told the U.N. "our opinion is the only one that matters," he successfully ensured that only a small share of the world would aid us in invading Iraq.

I think we can agree that the U.N. is often a worthless institution, but it's basically a necessary evil when dealing with terrorism.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Now, can you think of a US military operation that wasn't in the interest of world peace? Did we ever pull a Nazi Germany and attempt to take over the world or exterminate a race? I know many of you are foaming at the mouth ready spew out whatever nonsense about Iraq you can think of, but hear me out. We invaded Iraq initially because of WMDs. I think we can all agree Saddam should not be allowed to have possession of such weapons because it would, in fact, threaten world peace. So it turns out that we made a mistake based off of bad intelligence. Does that suddenly mean Bush invaded Iraq to create a 51st state (I mention this because many of you accuse America of being an empire)? Now look at today's situation in the Middle East. Iraq is on the brink of civil war and then you've got your everyday animals blowing themselves up in civilian areas in the rest of the Arab world. Whether or not you agree with Bush's decision to remain in the region, one fact remains. Something needs to change for there to be peace in the region. The US, right now, is trying to force that change, but is failing. However, what the US is trying to achieve is the only solution to peace. Simply put, radical Islam, dictatorships, and the old-minded ways of many Middle Eastern nations' leaders can no longer exist for there to be peace. Either these will disappear through time and evolution or through military intervention. If you want my personal opinion, I don't see that evolution coming anytime soon if we choose to pull out.

Vietnam was not in the interest of world peace.  Iraq was not in the interest of world peace.  Those are the two most notable wars America has participated in that did not benefit the world.  They may not have been like a Nazi blitzkrieg or a Japanese assault on Manchuria, but they certainly weren't very humanitarian.

In summary, I think America's importances in the world are as a powerful trade nation and as a military for international interests.  When we work more cooperatively with the U.N., our missions tend to be more successful.  As it currently stands, we have the most powerful and suitable military for international invasions, but we need several other resources for nation-building.  Gaining the aid of the Middle East provides us with necessary translators and cultural advisors.  Gaining the aid of Europe provides us necessary funds.  Without all of these things together, invasion becomes very expensive for us -- like in Iraq.

Turquoise wrote:

Vietnam was not in the interest of world peace.  Iraq was not in the interest of world peace.  Those are the two most notable wars America has participated in that did not benefit the world.  They may not have been like a Nazi blitzkrieg or a Japanese assault on Manchuria, but they certainly weren't very humanitarian.

You blatantly state that U.S. involvement in Vietnam and Iraq were not in the interest of world peace yet fail to provide any reasoning beyond that which actually addresses it.

Vietnam: U.S. intervened to stop the spread of communism and combat the VC attacks.

Iraq: U.S. intervened to liberate Kuwait (first Gulf War). U.S. invaded to remove WMDs and are currently in Iraq to establish a democracy (after overthrowing a dictator guilty of genocide).

Whether or not the U.S. has succeeded, please explain how either of those were not in the interest of world peace. Your logical is circular. It's like saying that we went into the country in the interest of world peace, but since we failed in our mission of creating that peace, our interest for initially going there suddenly is not one of peace.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-04 09:06:55)

The problem with this debate is that many users here are not able to make the distinction between intent and consequence, and as a result, end up arguing something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Vietnam was not in the interest of world peace.  Iraq was not in the interest of world peace.  Those are the two most notable wars America has participated in that did not benefit the world.  They may not have been like a Nazi blitzkrieg or a Japanese assault on Manchuria, but they certainly weren't very humanitarian.

You blatantly state that U.S. involvement in Vietnam and Iraq were not in the interest of world peace yet fail to provide any reasoning beyond that which actually addresses it.

Vietnam: U.S. intervened to stop the spread of communism.

Iraq: U.S. intervened to liberate Kuwait (first Gulf War). U.S. invaded to remove WMDs and are currently in Iraq to establish a democracy.

Whether or not the U.S. has succeeded, please explain how either of those were not in the interest of world peace. Your logical is circular. It's like saying that we went into the country in the interest of world peace, but since we failed in our mission of creating that peace, our interest for initially going there suddenly is not one of peace.

Well, I suppose I should clarify.  I don't doubt that many people could find a justification for invading anyone in the interest of world peace.  The human mind can rationalize just about anything, and we've seen a lot of that with respect to the second Iraq invasion.

However, looking at the context of each war, Vietnam was a shitty situation to begin with.  Before the Communists invaded Vietnam, it was oppressed by the French.  Understandably, the people saw the potential for a better life in Communism.  In hindsight, it kind of looks like the Vietnamese were screwed either way, by trading one oppression for another.  However, at the time, a lot of Vietnamese had a logical reason to trust the Communists more than the French.

In the beginning, the French lobbied for our support in fending off the Communists.  Ultimately, we didn't really do much at that point.  When the French had basically lost control of the country, we finally started attacking the Communists in significant assaults, but LBJ proved to be an exceptionally incompetent leader.

Yet, was this really a fight for world peace?  One could argue at the time that the Communists could have provided a better life for the Vietnamese than the French had.  Undoubtedly, we entered Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism, but that doesn't necessarily equate to aiding world peace.

We supported Pinochet against the spread of Communism in Chile, despite knowing that he was a brutal dictator.  Was that really beneficial to world peace?  I don't think so.  I see Vietnam in a similar way.

You are correct in saying that invading Vietnam was something many of us supported for aiding world peace, so I will relent on your suggestion that its intentions may have been noble.  However, to me, intentions really mean jack shit compared to results and repercussions.

I supported the first Iraq war, because we were defending another nation from being invaded.  I didn't support the second one, because we were the invaders.  Iraq was yet another case of wishful thinking on the part of our government, and I guess you could argue that Bush might have intended to aid world peace with it.  Once again, I don't see how that really matters much, because it illustrates a chronic problem with modern American foreign policy....

The people in power often desire to engage in war for ulterior motives.  War is a very profitable activity for certain industries.  When these same industries have close connections to the people in power, then it becomes easy to see how a president may favor war, regardless of its overall effects on a country.  I have a feeling that Bush probably convinced himself that invading Iraq would better world peace, even if the facts of the situation contradicted this.

I don't see how anyone could logically believe that removing Saddam would bring stability to the area, when you consider the chaos that preceded Saddam's reign.  Sunnis and Shiites had been killing each other for years before Saddam took power.  It was only through his brutal rule that he was able to create some sort of order in the region.  I'm not saying he was benevolent or trustworthy by any means, but he did what was necessary to make Iraq function as one country.  As I've said before, he was basically the Vlad Tepes of the Middle East.

To think that removing a brutal leader in such a chaotic region would bring peace is just an asinine idea.  Yet, to make invasion a more comfortable prospect, Bush sold the idea on the principle of liberating these people.  Too bad that's only a half-truth of the reality....

My argument is that intent doesn't mean anything if the basis for the intent is fallacious at best...

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-04 09:25:59)