Is the president loosing it?

[KevinWan]

You can hardly say that Clinton is to blame for 9/11 anymore than George Bush. That's just outlandish. Are you insinuating that Clinton would have known about the terrorists plans to crash into the WTC's, and then not told Bush?? That's ridiculous.

9/11 was a godsend for the Bush administration. If anyone had an interest in letting 9/11 happen it was Bush. If he didn't have this "war on terror" BS (what an absurd idea) it's ridiculous to even think he would have had a platform to run on for his 2nd election - He barely squeeked by as it was, even as the media totally endorsed his campaigne while painting Kerry as a flip-flopper.

Clinton had the information for nearly 5 years... HE DID NOTHING.... Bush had it for 8 months. True both are to blame, but Clinton bears much more responsibility. Terrorism was hardly even on his agenda.

I disagree that 9/11 was benefitial to the President. The War in Iraq, during the election, being a war was not nearly as popular as it needed to be. There was controversy over the Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc etc. All of these actions the President has taken in the War on Terror have not been benefitial to him. Had he been a "domestic-issues" President his re-election would have been more easy. The economy wouldn't have taken a hit from 9/11. He would talk of education, Social security reform, tax reform, all of these things which Kerry was bankrupt of ideas.

Where you serious when you said "this war on terror BS???" Do you not recall that 3,000 of our own died on 9/11... that seems to me to be firm grounds for war.

Can I ask where you get your information from? Like a source for any of these claims, or the name of your fathers union, just to see what the President has done for(to) it recently? And are you a Christian, only I noticed you mentioning religion and the 'degrading' of culture but I just noticed you happened to be against "welfare for the poor", does this mean you are for welfare for the rich, and of course your own family, obviously. Does this also mean you are not poor, and so should be eligible for welfare? What would Jesus say?

Are you asking for information about my father?? Well my fathers in a PACE union... he only manufactors paper. And I have a few uncles who are in the Carpenters Labor Union.

I'm not for welfare for anybody... not in the US of A at least. In Africa or S. America or another opressed region I would be in support. If one is poor in America, I have no sympathy, you must be simply a lazy fool. You must have taken a mistep somewhere along the line... and can get back on your feet without government support.

 

[freethought6t9]

If one is poor in America it could be for any number of reasons, and most of them wouldn't be lazy fool, you could work 2 jobs and still be poor, the U.S. is a land of great inequality, and it's rising with the likes of Bushs tax cuts for the rich. Welfare comes in many forms, not just a cheque in the mail, in Britain the Welfare State provides public education, health, unemployment and disability benefits (forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't your father collect some of these) as well as providing help to many underpriviliged people. To say that because you're poor then you're a lazy fool is not only incredibly obnoxious but if you look at the facts then it can also be said to be a non sequiter.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

True both are to blame, but Clinton bears much more responsibility. Terrorism was hardly even on his agenda.

The WTC's fell on BUsh's watch, not Clintons. How is Clinton more to blame?

Where you serious when you said "this war on terror BS???" Do you not recall that 3,000 of our own died on 9/11... that seems to me to be firm grounds for war.

Yes I am serious, this war is B.S. 9/11 is without a doubt the worst tragedy I've witnessed. However, we should be emphasizing improving our intelligence on terrorists - a practicle idea, wouldn't you agree? Rather than declaring a holy war / "war on terror" - which is completly anti-productive as we are only upsetting more people. Think about it. With all of the technology we have today, we were still unable to prevent "profilable" terrorists from carrying out a successful mission on our own turf. We can't even detect sleeper cells in our own nation!! So, how can you logically justify that anything we do overseas will prevent terrorists from operating? In fact, by meddeling in the middle east, we are likely to stir up more resentment, hence we make ourselves even bigger targets. Isn't that just opposite of what we are trying to accomplish?

 

[KevinWan]

If one is poor in America it could be for any number of reasons, and most of them wouldn't be lazy fool, you could work 2 jobs and still be poor, the U.S. is a land of great inequality, and it's rising with the likes of Bushs tax cuts for the rich. Welfare comes in many forms, not just a cheque in the mail, in Britain the Welfare State provides public education, health, unemployment and disability benefits (forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't your father collect some of these) as well as providing help to many underpriviliged people. To say that because you're poor then you're a lazy fool is not only incredibly obnoxious but if you look at the facts then it can also be said to be a non sequiter.

If you're working 2 jobs, and still living in poverty... it is most definately YOUR fault... you probably dropped out of high school, got in huge credit card debt, had kids in your teens, never married... the list goes on... I call it foolishness. I'm not rich, and my family recieved a tax break, we're doing just fine... even when my father was unemployed. He recieved hardly anything, it was like 50$ a month if I remember... he was unemployed for like 5 months, and we lived off his SAVINGS, my mothers income and her savings. Life was fine. We coudl have easily gone without the unemployment "benefits."

Yes I am serious, this war is B.S. 9/11 is without a doubt the worst tragedy I've witnessed. However, we should be emphasizing improving our intelligence on terrorists - a practicle idea, wouldn't you agree? Rather than declaring a holy war / "war on terror" - which is completly anti-productive as we are only upsetting more people. Think about it. With all of the technology we have today, we were still unable to prevent "profilable" terrorists from carrying out a successful mission on our own turf. We can't even detect sleeper cells in our own nation!! So, how can you logically justify that anything we do overseas will prevent terrorists from operating? In fact, by meddeling in the middle east, we are likely to stir up more resentment, hence we make ourselves even bigger targets. Isn't that just opposite of what we are trying to accomplish?

The war in the Middle East is not at all counter-productive. Islamic terrorists come from the middle east... It is a result of oppression by their own governments. By changing them... well read my post from before... and get the picture.

The ultimate goal of terrorists is to change our way of life at home. America wasn't a land of huge security prior to 9/11. They want that to change. We should be more aware, and yes intelligence needs to improve, but we shouldn't be jumpy and on our knees every second, and we aren't. And face it, even as we try to hightened security in the slightest ways, the ACLU and its liberal friends cry fowl... Liberals try to have it both ways - NO WAY for war in the middle east, and NO WAY for security here at home... its just a continuing bankruptcy of ideas.

People all around the world hate America... you don't see Europeans bombing U.S. Cities... The terrorists hate for us is based not on resentment but rather a perverted form of Islam. They started the holy war, not us.

 

[freethought6t9]

You really need to do some research, like into the number of children living in poverty in the U.S., corporate welfare, deregulation, outsourcing, a rising level of inequality, corporate war on unions, media cosolidation, U.S. foreign policy (especially U.S. support for oppressive regimes in the middle east), I could go and find all the relevant information and post the links here, but I haven't got that kind of time, so I suggest you use the internet for something other than arguing on subjects you have only the smallest amount of relevant information outside of your own sheltered information.

You really think Islam started this war? Do you think the victims of 9/11 were the first of even the Islamic extremists. The U.S. has been supporting and conducting a war on the middle east since the 1940's, you should be glad it took them nearly 60 years to strike back, but then they needed American help to organise and create the terrorist networks used to perpetrate the 9/11 atrocities.

And once again I must comment on your atrocious attitude to the poor, it has more to do with an economic system, the main principle of which is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and very little to do with foolishness.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Islamic terrorists come from the middle east... It is a result of oppression by their own governments. By changing them... well read my post from before... and get the picture.

I think your talking about a very small precentage of musilm extremists. They can opperate anywhere, even in the U.S. and go undetected for the most part. Until we have the technology to detect them domestically, I don't think it's a smart idea to try and root out terrorists all over the world. And it's definitely unethical to unilaterally overthrow governments based on faulty intelligence.

The ultimate goal of terrorists is to change our way of life at home. America wasn't a land of huge security prior to 9/11. They want that to change. We should be more aware, and yes intelligence needs to improve, but we shouldn't be jumpy and on our knees every second, and we aren't. And face it, even as we try to hightened security in the slightest ways, the ACLU and its liberal friends cry fowl... Liberals try to have it both ways - NO WAY for war in the middle east, and NO WAY for security here at home... its just a continuing bankruptcy of ideas.

People all around the world hate America... you don't see Europeans bombing U.S. Cities... The terrorists hate for us is based not on resentment but rather a perverted form of Islam. They started the holy war, not us.

I think the muslim extremeists hate us because we support various corrupt and illegitimate govenments, in the name of profit. Sure, Saddam gassed his people. Where did he get the gas? I think we need to own up to the problem, rather acting like cowboys. This isn't the wild west. We are supposed to be a nation that relies on reason. This attitude Bush has, makes us look like a nation of bullies. And if anything, he's going to stir up more opposition than love.

 

[KevinWan]

I think your talking about a very small precentage of musilm extremists. They can opperate anywhere, even in the U.S. and go undetected for the most part. Until we have the technology to detect them domestically, I don't think it's a smart idea to try and root out terrorists all over the world. And it's definitely unethical to unilaterally overthrow governments based on faulty intelligence.

I've mentioned before that the Patriot Act battle terrorism here at home... I understand fully that terrorists can live anywhere in the world... the majority, however, live in the mid east. It is unethical to overthrow governments based on intelligence that isn't known to be faulty... If you know its faulty, then your right, but if you don't then you act assuming its correct.

I think the muslim extremeists hate us because we support various corrupt and illegitimate govenments, in the name of profit. Sure, Saddam gassed his people. Where did he get the gas? I think we need to own up to the problem, rather acting like cowboys. This isn't the wild west. We are supposed to be a nation that relies on reason. This attitude Bush has, makes us look like a nation of bullies. And if anything, he's going to stir up more opposition than love.

I don't understand where you people get this idea that the fact that the U.S. supports certain gov ernment in S. America and elswhere is somehow a motivation for terrorists. That has very little to do with terrorist motivations. Terrorism is a result of islamic EXTREMISM... fundamentalism, a perverted form of a religion. Religion has great influence on people, and can bring people to do things that they wouldn't do otherwise; things both good and bad. Terrorism is a result of a bad view of a religion.

The weapons given to Iraq and other nations was simply a matter of Cold War foreign policy. The world was dramatically different then. Our focus was entirely on demeaning and crumbling the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was detrimental to long-term post-Cold War America, but at the time our focus was entirely COLD WAR.

 

[KevinWan]

I've mentioned before that the Patriot Act battle terrorism here at home... I understand fully that terrorists can live anywhere in the world... the majority, however, live in the mid east. It is unethical to overthrow governments based on intelligence that isn't known to be faulty... If you know its faulty, then your right, but if you don't then you act assuming its correct.

I meant "it is *ethical* to overthrow governments... Sorry about that.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

I've mentioned before that the Patriot Act battle terrorism here at home... I understand fully that terrorists can live anywhere in the world... the majority, however, live in the mid east. It is unethical to overthrow governments based on intelligence that isn't known to be faulty... If you know its faulty, then your right, but if you don't then you act assuming its correct.

Well, I think it's more complicated than taking the benefit of the doubt when it comes to acting on intelligence. Espescially when it comes to spending the blood of thousands of young people and billions of dollars. If the president is going to commit to the most heinous gesture of humanity, he better be 100% positive that he has the right intelligence. The fact that his intelligence failed, and he failed to act with the interest of the international community suggests some serious shortcomings of the president. He's failed to deliver, failed to protect thousands of lives, and failed act with the integrity someone in his position should possess.

I understand you percieve that a majority of terrorists come from the middle east. But, that's not true. They are all over the place. We hear about the one's in the middle east all of the time because we are major supporters of Isreal, and because of 9/11.

I don't understand where you people get this idea that the fact that the U.S. supports certain gov ernment in S. America and elswhere is somehow a motivation for terrorists.

I think this is an appeal to common sense. If a foreign nation invaded my homeland, and imposed changes that did not suit my lifestyle preference, I would be the first to sign up for guerilla warfare. Seriously. What would you do if the role was reversed? Say, Saddam captured Bush. And imposed totalitarian rule on you and your family. Would you bow down? I know you think its different, because we are a democracy. Well, it's not. The people in Iraq did not ask for our help. We are obviously not welcome there.

That has very little to do with terrorist motivations. Terrorism is a result of islamic EXTREMISM... fundamentalism, a perverted form of a religion. Religion has great influence on people, and can bring people to do things that they wouldn't do otherwise; things both good and bad. Terrorism is a result of a bad view of a religion.

I agree, muslim extremists are perverted. I also think that people who call themselves christians yet maintain this war is justified are preverted. Call me crazy, But I maintain that war is to be used as a last resort. If there was a full scale invasion happening, I would be signed up for the military ASAP. But, nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[freethought6t9]

"I don't understand where you people get this idea that the fact that the U.S. supports certain gov ernment in S. America and elswhere is somehow a motivation for terrorists. That has very little to do with terrorist motivations. Terrorism is a result of islamic EXTREMISM... fundamentalism, a perverted form of a religion. Religion has great influence on people, and can bring people to do things that they wouldn't do otherwise; things both good and bad. Terrorism is a result of a bad view of a religion. "

How do you not understand that it is U.S. support for brutal and repressive regimes that creates the situation in which terror breeds, sure the terrorists themselves use Islam as a rallying point and recruitment tool, but for the most part the general population are in support for the terrorists agenda of removing repressive regimes backed by the U.S. but do not wish to see them replaced by even more fundamental theocracies. It is anti-Americanism and an anti-Western sentiment that is the problem here, it is widespread, extreme but far more crucially there are legitimate grievances that the U.S. and perhaps the West in general are simply not addressing. These include support for brutal, repressive and in some case genocidal regimes such as Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The Israeli issue is in fact crucial as unequivocable support for atrocities committed against Palestinians by the IDF with U.S. gunships and arms is a major propaganda tool for recruitment although equally important as a recruitment tool is the proximity of U.S. troops to some of the holiest sites in Islam, and by this I mean the permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. Of course U.S. support for this, perhaps the most brutal, repressive and fundamentalist Islamic theocracy in the world further increases anti-American sentiment in the region.

Terrorism cannot be so easily narrowed to simply Islamic terrorism so to say that terrorism is caused by 'bad religion' is to ignore other kinds of terrorism, including that practised by the U.S. and its allies. There are many reasons for terrorism, and while religion can be blamed to a certain extent in some cases, in terms of the terrorism coming out of the Middle-East to say religion is the only reason for terrorism is to ignore history.

As to the region being ruled in a tribal fashion beforehand, well this just ignores the Imperial rule of the British as well as the existence of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[kal-el]

oroginally posted by KevinWan
Terrorism is a result of islamic EXTREMISM

I find a fault in that. Yes, most of terrorism stems from Whabbism, or Islamic extremism, but The IRA, are considered by many "terrorists" and they are Not of the Islamic faith. Or for that matter the ERA. True, these rougue groups only contain a few hundred members, but my point is Terrorism is Not limited to Islam.

 

[cnredd]

How do you not understand that it is U.S. support for brutal and repressive regimes that creates the situation in which terror breeds, sure the terrorists themselves use Islam as a rallying point and recruitment tool, but for the most part the general population are in support for the terrorists agenda of removing repressive regimes backed by the U.S.

[SARCASM]All the while the European Union and many other parts of the world took agressive action against this "horrible" US foreign policy...

In fact, they have NEVER reaped the benefits of what the US has done and have been rallying against this notion ever since FDR made agreements with the Saudi Government instead of sitting on their hands...

It's good thing that these regimes that the US support weren't a result of Europe carving up the Middle East during their "colonial" period...[/SARCASM]

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

The patriot act does not battle terrorists at home. It battles citizens at home. It does not say anything about a terrorist. It talks about what they can do to you now with or without a hunch. Hope you dont like peanutbutter sandwiches you may be the next/first political dissident. The rights you may/may not have grown up in school learning about are now null and void. All that **** about search and seizure, due process, freedom of speech etc etc etc is nothing now but ****. Glad you support the bill.

 

[KevinWan]

If terrorists are so angry over repressive regimes supported by the US, why would they oppose the ousting of the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein?? The terrorists want Islam to be at the forfront of Middle Eastern countries... they are fundamentalists, and love Islam. They want it shoved down everyones throat. If the terrorists are so opposed to oppressive governments why do they SEEK SUPPORT FROM THEM, such as the Taliban, Syria, Iran etc. And as to the Saudi issue which many allege is the cause of 9/11... the Saudi government doesn't have a problem in the world with us being there. I'm not going to give in to a bunch of terrorists who kill my own people, especially if its over a circumstance of peaceful, mutual work between two nations. The terrorists want us to change our ways, and I'm not going to do that.
The base there was to protect the Saudi people from the OPPRESSION of Saddam Hussein...

 

[KevinWan]

The patriot act does not battle terrorists at home. It battles citizens at home. It does not say anything about a terrorist. It talks about what they can do to you now with or without a hunch. Hope you dont like peanutbutter sandwiches you may be the next/first political dissident. The rights you may/may not have grown up in school learning about are now null and void. All that **** about search and seizure, due process, freedom of speech etc etc etc is nothing now but ****. Glad you support the bill.

I think if we all look at the circumstances of what happened in London... we can understand that the patriot act does, indeed, battle terrorists at home.

 

[freethought6t9]

Hey, when I say U.S. action I am in no way discounting support of other Western leaders, just saying that the U.S. is the lead participant, but hey you guys claim to be the leaders of the free world and my own government are 100% supportive of U.S. foreign policy and in fact major participants in it. The rest of Western Europe is guilty of the same thing, although at times there have been small disagreements, the majority of the time the U.S. acts at best with European complicity and at worst support. But once again as Bush has proven, the U.S. are prepared to act unilaterally, a stance most governments cannot take without U.S. approval.

So are the U.S. the only guilty party, hell no, they barely paid any attention to the world outside the Americas before the end of WWII, it was mainly European Imperialism repressing and brutalising the world, but this is the here and now, and America are indeed Number 1.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

The terrorists want us to change our ways, and I'm not going to do that.

We already have. It's called being molested at the airport by overzealous security. Machine gun carrying gaurds. And the Patriot Act, which someone wisely pointed out earlier does not differeentiate between terrorists and it's own citizens. How UNPATRIOTIC is that!?! 4000+ newly placed, ominous cameras have been counted in lower manhattan alone, by an NYU student group. Nearly everyone in america owns a computer capable of being electronically monitored by the government (or anyone else for that matter!). Hail, George Orwell the profit.