I don't feel quite so mad at Bush anymore.

Post Reply New Topic

politics...whats is this word you speak of

Sean?

I've been a member of this forum for some time now and sometimes, I just have the urge to ask you.....Do you, by any chance, have as part of your wardrobe, a white sheet with a pointed hood with eye-holes? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, you tend to lean so far to the right I hope you wouldn't want Bush to nuke me much less another country. You have, after all, made some very inflamatory remarks about certain *coughblackcough* individuals who have a "defect in their culture" and frankly, your insensitivity is getting on my last nerves.

I should've addressed it the first time but I figured you just didn't know any better. But the fact that you see destroying human beings as "pacifying" them........That's just....sick. I know one thing, you say your a Christian? Then I hope someday, its founder's words finally sink into you.

Last edited by nirrti_rachelle on 12 Sep 2005, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They wrote a paper about wanting to nuke terrorists. That's stupid.

Really stupid.

I like how they called it a "doctrine".. sounds so serious!

Gee. My names George W. Bush.

You know what would be a really good idea, putting my buddy from college in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Association.

Is he qualified?

Heck no. I mean he's totally unqualified.

He's never been to a single high level training on logistics, public health, or disaster preparedness.

In college we were too busy dreaming of taking over the world to even bother to volunteer on anything even close to disaster relief, and the Red Cross, hah, I may have given blood once or twice, but who wants to volunteer for that, sit in a shelter all day taking care of the poor and disenfranchised, pff. I've got wars to create, and oil to steal.

So, I'm going to give him the job.
He's my friend, and he needs something to do.
If something does go wrong, the rich will get out of the way, we can label the poor as sluggards who were too lazy to bother leaving, and the people of America will still love me.

Go George go!

You're right; I'm totally not worried about George W. anymore,
I'm terrified.

I have never had any association with any white supremicist group.


I am a Christian. However, I don't recall ever saying that I make a good one and I really don't want to go back to depending on my own devices. You only think I'm insensitive and hostile now.

Sometimes you have to fight for your existence. The doctrines of radical Islam are built around the elimination of other religions as well as cultures incompatible with Islam. Therefore, there can be no peace treaty with them that would be worth the paper it is written on. Radical Islam must be destroyed before they destroy us.

This is why I also voted for Bush twice and this is also why I believed and still believe that Iraq was a good decision. There's a lot of people very very sick of religious tyranny over there and we were really hoping to inspire them to societal changes in the surrounding countries via democratizing Iraq and letting the people of those countries see something materialize that they wish they had for themselves. As for all the terrorists and insurgents, that's exactly why they're there - not because they're fighting the evil GWB imperialism like a lot of people love to think but because they know exactly what we're trying to do in terms of dismantling radical islam. By picking a strategic location like Iraq which has been semi-secularized for years, we're doing this Sun Tzu 'Art of War' style and using psychology to help lower the need to gepardize lives rather than just be on the march everywhere and try to overthrow all 7 of the axis of evil countries [in that last choice a). we really would be disrespectful of international sovereignty b.) the world would scream bloody murder at us in ways we haven't even seen].

I think what's really bugged me about Bush lately though is this whole thing about Katrina. He did cut funding, FEMA did get reorganized, they did never get the money to better the levies, it WAS the state's responsibility, but the way he handled the politics of that situation goes to show that he really is the velcro president (and while I'll defend him on the war in Iraq, Kat is something where there's just no hope). Lol, seems like most aspies probably do a better job of glossing over their mistakes than this guy...

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 13 Sep 2005, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

My thought on nukes though, like a lot of other people said, the full fledge nuke option isn't viable in this case. The only place where it's that condensed is Saudi Arabia and we definitely aren't attacking the holy land and insighting an uprising from every muslim radical down to secular throughout the world.

In the end I think those are powerful words out of Bush and I think if anything those words are to scare terrorists, especially since we've already proven we aren't the paper tiger they thought we were (and yeah, most anti-war people in this country still cognitively block out Bin Laden's comentary on how our apparent weakness inspired him to push harder). That may be a brash move, especially when a lot of em know how the media is worked all too well and use it to their advantage - ie. Gitmo hunger strike.

What I have at least seen articles and commentary on are new much higher grade non-lethal weapons we have. I think those could go a lot farther in terms of breaking their moral because the know we could get at em almost no matter what and not have an international media crisis on our hands. They're old methods of hiding behind innocent people and the media are dwindling pretty fast.

Sounds like a pretty fundamentalist attitude coupled with a somewhat false dilemma.

Dehumanizing another group of individuals to persue limited goals for a limited number of people is morally reprehensable.

Another thing you can be sure of, until US tanks are sitting in Mecca and Madina, and heavy financial sanctions are placed on certain members of Saudi Arabia's elite, whatever Bush is doing can not be considered a true attack on militant Islam.

Then I better start drafting the proposal to send to the White House.

absolutely, irishmic. it's the basis for all isms.

That argument underminmes the case for communism, socialism, democratic socialism, and liberalism as well.

thanks for the flippant pedantry, sean. i'm not sure if that makes my case or yours stronger.

It makes your case stronger, ViVi... after all, looky here.... List the enemies of the US in recent years?

Facism
communism
Fundamentalism

Now, lets look at Bush....

He admits to being a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST.....

Yes, Fundamentalist, from fundamentalism.

and, in other news, SKY NEWS GOT IT RIGHT

Well, I suspected that your original argument was aready aimed at me, so I'm just pointing out how works against the left wing groups as well.

Lol, this threads getting hysterical. I guess it just goes to show that politics are more than just differences of opinion on what should be done, a lot of times they're complete differences in personal sense of reality. Hard to argue any point when you can't even agree on the basics.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 14 Sep 2005, 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sean, if you're going to publicly announce your points of view, you have to be willing to argue them. So far, I've only seen you latching onto irrelevant facts to derail the thread.

So without further ado, I'll restate my question: if you support the use of nuclear weapons against Islamic extremists, where do you suggest the United States use them in order to achieve any result other than utter global destruction?