Bush is at it again

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
I was attempting to make the point that the fact that he’s British, “safe” (whatever that might mean), and 15 has little to no bearing on what he’s saying. If that’s all it takes to discredit him, it’s not hard to do the same to Bush.

I meant that the fact that he’s not directly involved with making decisions in the American government makes him biased in calling Bush an asshole. Don’t get me wrong, he may very well be (I don’t follow the news and politics much, nor am I American)

It seems everyone is making this claim these days without providing some insight on why they say so.

By safe, I meant he’s not fighting any war, not making any decisions and is basically on the sidelines dropping one liners and should be thankful, since the situation for him could be much worse, as it is for people caught in the middle of the whole thing.

I wasn’t picking at his opinion, but at the bluntness in which he was saying it in.

Originally posted by Evangelion
[b]And government records state you as Christian? Huh? I wasn’t aware that they recorded what you believe in…what should that have to do with anything the government is interested in? Not to mention that anyone’s beliefs is subject to change any time…and you’d have to be more specific than putting down “Christian”. Can someone fill me in on this?

Epic is right, you’re either one or the other. [/b]

Census forms typically ask your religion - and parents fill out your census forms for you usually if you aren’t legally an adult. So his parents are probably christian, and probably list him as christian as well. That’s how I interpreted it anyways.

As for the article, yeah. Sin’s right, politicians are sleazy fucks most of the time. Bush is no exception.

And Chris, dude…just because you’re drawing some weird connection between the US’s involvement in the UN, and the UN’s continued existence, doesn’t mean that the US has the right (in terms of international law) to just bypass the rulings of the UN, which it supposedly endorses.

Of course, the US can just say, fuck the rest of Europe, but aside from just being an assholish thing to do, stuff like that also has consequences, such as being thought of as a brutish warmongerer by the rest of the world and a lot of people in America. Regardless of whether or not you think he IS one, you can’t deny that his actions easily justify other people’s thinking that he is one.

“Then there is the question of how the U.N. is organized; some people (in my local newspaper) were complaining as to why France has a permanent council position. Perhaps some kind of criteria such as population, length of national history, national average IQ and/or military strength should be used to dictate who is and who is not a permanent member?”

Said people in your local newspaper, no offense, have no idea what they’re talking about. A. France is one of the more populous countries of Europe, B. they boast a national history WAY longer than the US’s, C. what the fuck are you talking about? D. They’re a nuclear power. Don’t be a dumbass.

-Mazrim Taim

Originally posted by Evangelion
I meant that the fact that he’s not directly involved with making decisions in the American government makes him biased in calling Bush an asshole.
One doesn’t have to be in the American government to know about its actions and their results, though one would doubtless know more if one were. Still, it’s perfectly possible to be sufficiently well-informed about current events to draw one’s own conclusions about them without being part of the government. As for being “biased,” everyone who has any opinion on any matter whatsoever would be “biased” by this definition.

Originally posted by Evangelion
By safe, I meant he’s not fighting any war, not making any decisions and is basically on the sidelines dropping one liners and should be thankful, since the situation for him could be much worse, as it is for people caught in the middle of the whole thing.
No one has any obligation to just “be thankful.” The government isn’t just making those decisions out of niceness. The government is our employee. We hire it and we pay all of its salary. Those people who are making the decisions knew what they were getting into (one should hope) when they asked us to hire them. It is the government that is obligated to us.

Keep in mind, I have nothing against your attack on some perceived lack of substance in whatever he’s saying, but I think the above assertions are unfounded and the wrong way to carry out that attack.

Yeah, touche. I was more along the lines of “what would you do?” though. Most of the opinions I have read on the net and have heard from people I know is that war is wrong, the Americans are evil, etc. THank you for clarifying about the government isn’t acting out of niceness, which is obvious, but your statement still provided information for my understanding…as I have said I know next to nothing about this war, and politics so I am speaking solely on what I have been observing rather than bring up facts and statistics, etc.
But this is the question I like to ask people when they just throw out that “omg humanity is doomed” “Bush is an asshole and doesn’t know what he’s doing” and “war is wrong” etc. Not many people sit and reflect on what <i>they</i> would do if they were in the same position, though I guess this is just since they probably never will be directly involved in such matters. Though i wasn’t attacking, just really miffed from seeing the same thing being said over and over again with no basis to it.

Commenting in no particular order…

Mazrim Taim: The U.S. is already thought of as a brutish warmonger, so I don’t think it makes a damn bit of difference whether or not we engage in this war or just go home and keep our borders clean.

If we just go home and keep the borders clean, then we are ‘isolationist’ if we do ANYTHING regarding the outside world, we become either ‘imperialist’(commercially) or ‘imperialist’(militaristically).

Furthermore, I don’t think being THIS close to the other nations is particularly a good idea, especially as the U.N. imagines itself to be the world government.

Let the Swedes rule the Swedes, the French rule the French, the British rule the British, the Iraquis rule the Iraquis…

And let the Americans rule the Americans. (as for the Iraquis we’ll be returning control over to them as soon as we find where all those dang suiciders are coming from… if we leave now we might as well put it up for auction to the strongest overlord)

Sephiroth Katana:
In the section where you refer to the government as our ‘employee.’ They apparently don’t see it that way. There’s a guy in jail because he refuses to pay his taxes. Clearly, it seems the government views itself the opposite way.

Vyse:
(in Vader voice): I find your continual sarcasm disturbing.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
Mazrim Taim: The U.S. is already thought of as a brutish warmonger, so I don’t think it makes a damn bit of difference whether or not we engage in this war or just go home and keep our borders clean.
What is this based on? Whenever people are asked about why they view the United States as an aggressive bully, they invariably point to things like our unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. But even aside from that, this is wrong because it basically refuses to accept any accountability for our actions. If we do things in the rest of the world, outside the United States, then we are damn well responsible to the rest of the world for them.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
especially as the U.N. imagines itself to be the world government."
If anyone “imagines themselves to be the world government,” it’s the country that starts wars with no provocation, based on a bunch of lies and fabrications. If the UN is somehow lording it over us by, heaven forfend, telling us that starting a war for no reason is wrong, then what we’re doing is far worse. And the UN is not a single entity that can imagine “itself” to be anything, much less a single unified government (a statement that isn’t backed up in the least). It’s the voice of multiple countries, including ours, and we’ve used that voice many times before.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
And let the Americans rule the Americans. (as for the Iraquis we’ll be returning control over to them as soon as we find where all those dang suiciders are coming from…
“As soon as…”? You mean a few years from now, like many people in the British and American governments are predicting?

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
In the section where you refer to the government as our ‘employee.’ They apparently don’t see it that way. There’s a guy in jail because he refuses to pay his taxes. Clearly, it seems the government views itself the opposite way.
Someone who uses the government’s services and then refuses to pay for them is committing theft and should be held responsible for it just as much as an employer should be held responsible for refusing to ever pay his employees for their work.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
As to oil drilling in Alaska, what’s wrong with drilling in Alaska? The arabs have been drilling in their territory forever, what’s wrong with us drilling in our territory? As long as these things get transported safely (remembers the Exxon incident) then things should go smoothly.

Because Alaska is a much more vournable environment, and have more of it worth safe keeping than the oily deserts of the Middle East.

Sephiroth Katana: Believe it or not the U.S. was viewed by some as a bit of a warmonger prior to all this war on terror bussiness. My question is: If they call us warmongers can we call them peace nics?

My point about the Iraquis is, while it is being handled poorly (I don’t deny that it could have been done a helluvalot better) if we leave now Saddam or some other wacko will take over. Even if ‘weapons of mass destruction’ proves to be false, you cannot deny the massive graves where Saddam’s political enemies lie dead. How many more would there be if we hadn’t gone in? How many might have been prevented if we’d tried this sooner?

Meh, whatever…

Nulani: Actually, it seems to me that a good portion of Alaska is a desert. All a desert is is a place that gets only a little precipitation each year. The fact that this precipitation is snow that sticks for a long time is irrelevant.
yawn I suppose we can forget oil entirely and go back to coal.

I believe her point is that Alaska’s ecosystem is much more fragile and liable to be affected by oil drilling operations than that of a desert’s, not whether it gets much precipitation or not.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
Sephiroth Katana: Believe it or not the U.S. was viewed by some as a bit of a warmonger prior to all this war on terror bussiness.
So what is that meant to prove? “Some” did not, at that time, comprise such a large part of the world. Otherwise we would not have had as much goodwill from the world as we did shortly after Sept. 11.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
My question is: If they call us warmongers can we call them peace nics?
What is this even supposed to mean? It’s not about who calls who what, it’s about being responsible for one’s own actions and not sending American troops to die and kill other people for no reason.

Originally posted by Chris StarShade
How many more would there be if we hadn’t gone in? How many might have been prevented if we’d tried this sooner?
That question is as good as rhetorical, and certainly not something that any of our armchair warriors and policy wonks have the right to decide. No one has the right to juggle with the lives of people halfway across the world, and pretend that they have some kind of authority to do so because they claim that they’re going to “save” an unspecified amount that they made up to compensate for killing a very real amount. Especially not when that’s used as a cowardly excuse by people who first lied us into war, and now are unwilling to accept any accountability for it. That’s the whole reason why it’s being used, in fact - because it has no answer and thus provides a convenient cover for those who wish to avoid that accountability.

If SK ever runs for any office, I’m moving there and voting.

We need to stay in Iraq and pay everything they ask for, because it is the only responsible course of action. If we leave, things will only get worse, but if we stay and realistically try to solve the problems there, things will get better.

We should have formed a coalition with our European allies to go into Iraq - but its not going to kill us that we didn’t. I want to point out that when people talk about multi-lateralism, all they’re really thinking about is us and Europe. Is the U.S. dominating the world any better than the West dominating the world?

Ultimately, I don’t think multi-lateralism can work anyway. Globalization is pulling the world closer together, and eventually one nation, probably the U.S., will use its might to dominate the others. If you look at human history, you see smaller societies coming together to form larger ones, and then even larger ones than that. In each case one of the previously smaller units unites the others through force… so it will be the same with nation-states.

Originally posted by Sinistral
If SK ever runs for any office, I’m moving there and voting.

Agreed, finally someone who sounds like a politition and makes sense

Originally posted by Sinistral
If SK ever runs for any office, I’m moving there and voting.

Unfortunately, Americans (generally) don’t vote for people that tell the truth.

Originally posted by Curtis
If we leave, things will only get worse, but if we stay and realistically try to solve the problems there, things will get better.
That’s not certain at all. How do you know that the violence won’t just escalate instead, like it did in Vietnam, or that we won’t be loathed and resented by the Iraqis like the Japanese were by Koreans prior to World War II? What if the choice is between leaving voluntarily now and leaving involuntarily later after having wasted who knows how many lives? In order to discuss that issue, we need at the very least a clearly defined timetable for reconstructing the country, as well as a well-outlined exit strategy. We still don’t have that.

How would be go about fixing things in Iraq then if were not even there…

Can we make SK world leader?

Don’t blame me; I voted for Gore.

Problem with politicians, it doesn’t matter who you are, automatically corrupt upon reaching the office.

Nah, you have to be corrupt to GET to office… unless your a member of a third party, then you have to be lucky.