[Kamikaze]

That wasn't my point at all. I'm saying he *isn't* one, hence we've no reason to respect him like we would for an emperor or king in a feudal government.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I didnt say the kind of respect like fear him, I mean respect him as a person. He an old man, show some sympathy and compasion.

[Flipside]

Micheal Moore may not be saying what you want to hear. But that does not mean that every word he is saying is a lie, it's just easier to believe that than accept that the world is far more complex and unpleasant than we like to believe. Yes, I'll freely accept that Michael Moore talks some complete crap about some things, he also talks sense about other things.

If I'd said the Very Hungry Caterpillar thing about, Chirac or Putin, you'd would not even have mentioned it. Equality is the great Equaliser, nothing else.  

Yes, he has a very difficult and responsible job, but he's not doing it very well, it's as simple as that, a Drill Seargent who get's his men killed won't keep their respect for long The reason, even in the US, that people are jumping on his every little hiccup is the same reason the same thing is happening to Blair in the UK. His popularity has gone.

Like freedom, respect is something that is earned, fought for, and to my own Phsyche, Bush has done nothing in his Presidency, of world awareness, that I would consider admiring him for. That is not because of bias, it is because of the facts.

As far as the voting thing is concerned, have a look at this....

Check http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

by your own civil rights commission, and read about thousands of blacks who shared surnames with known criminals to be struck off the voting list, people who would have voted Gore oddly enough. Read how whilst a black woman was having her name checked, she saw an elderly white man allowed to vote despite not being on the list, and yet she was refused the right when hers wasn't. That was arranged by Katherine Harris, Bushes electorial co-adviser, at the behest of Jeb Bush, paid $4 million dollars for Database technologies to remove anyone who was a possible felon from the electorial roles. (Please note that Jeb Bush's wife was prosecuted for smuggling $19,000 dollars of jewellry into the country, and yet was NOT removed from the rolls). The instructions were specificly to remove even people with 'similar' names to known felons to cast as wide a net as possible.

This removed 66% of all Blacks and Hispanics from the electorial roll, of those that voted, 95+% voted for Gore. Of the excluded people, they even managed to include a lady by the name of Linda Howell, who was black, oh yes, she was also the elections supervisor of Madison county.

So yes, we will derise him, because he is the most powerful man in the world and his own family are so corrupt it's terrifying.

One final thing, Fox announced Bush's victory before it had been declared in the court of law. Who was in charge of Fox's election coverage? A man named John Ellis, George W Bush's first cousin.

Edit : And sorry to hear about the problems Admins are normally such nice people

[karajorma]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I didnt say the kind of respect like fear him, I mean respect him as a person. He an old man, show some sympathy and compasion.

So by that logic we should also respect Saddam, Pol Pot and Hitler since they are also rulers.

What absolute nonsense. When Bush does something right I'll agree with him (For instance the mission to Mars thing). The problem is that I don't see him doing anything right at all.

I see him making mistake after mistake. When someone I know in real life does that I see no reason to go on pretending he's a great guy. If I see someone cleaning their car with petrol I decide right there and then that it's cause he's an idiot and can't see the concequences of his actions.

And Bush is precisely that sort of idiot. He has made mistake after mistake and yet you still think that he's worth your respect. You'd probably be telling us that he was worth our respect if he was arguing to push the button to nuke california.

 He's led America into a war in Iraq that had nothing whatsoever to do with the causes he claimed when he proposed it. He's taken billions of dollars of tax payers money and given it away to the rich in tax cuts that only benefit millionaires.

And despite this and hundreds of other stupid policy decisions you're still telling us he's worthy of our respect.

Seriously TC, how far does this guys dick have to be up your arse before you realise that he's f**king you?

[Ghostavo]

All the way?

[.::Tin Can::.]

Hitler, Sadaam, and Pol Pot harmed people with an intent. A bad intent, something you could call, oh I dont know, torture and murder? Not to mention purpousfully cause torture and murder?

President Bush doesnt kill people, the army does. Bush just wants it done, they do it however they feel best fits the situation. We still have rules. Those guys broke all the rules. How can you compare Bush to Hitler and Sadaam? Those two were murders, and Hitler was creating Genocide here... Your comparisons suck

He has made mistakes, but he has made good changes too. Liberals just LOVE to place the bad over the good...

On the note of "If I said Putin had read that book you wouldnt have brought it up" because I dont hear idiotic and stupid critism about those kind of people. If I did, I would have told you to cut them some slack.

[Ghostavo]

Hitler, Sadaam also never killed... they made their armies do it. Your point?

[Flipside]

Let's put it this way, when you come onto this board and say people are haters etc, you are passing on your opinion of them, which is, though not normally in that manner, what this board is for.

Whenever someone posts his or her work up on this board for people to see, They are presenting a statement, an object for appraisal, we see it, we judge it. The same thing is the case for George W Bush, I have seen his actions, and I have judged them. I am not American, by opinion will not affect W in the slightest, and Americans may feel perfectly free to ignore it, but I'll still have it. And since it is foolish to have opinions without giving the reasons so you can debate them, I include my reasoning as well

Was it Roosevelt who made a quote regarding criticising the President?

Edit : I don't so much hate Bush, as worry about his actions, and those of his cabinet. In the UK, it is common to rile the leader of the opposite party

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Hitler, Sadaam, and Pol Pot harmed people with an intent. A bad intent, something you could call, oh I dont know, torture and murder? Not to mention purpousfully cause torture and murder?

President Bush doesnt kill people, the army does. Bush just wants it done, they do it however they feel best fits the situation. We still have rules. Those guys broke all the rules. How can you compare Bush to Hitler and Sadaam? Those two were murders, and Hitler was creating Genocide here... Your comparisons suck

He has made mistakes, but he has made good changes too. Liberals just LOVE to place the bad over the good...

On the note of "If I said Putin had read that book you wouldnt have brought it up" because I dont hear idiotic and stupid critism about those kind of people. If I did, I would have told you to cut them some slack.

If Bush is so 'good' (or even just average) at his job, why would people like me dislike him?  Seriously, I've never cared about any US president, but even I can see we're staring into the abyss with this guy.

I don't care about what he's done in the US.  What I care about, is what he's done to the rest of the world - and that is to make it a far more dangerous place for everyone.

A good leader wouldn't have invaded Iraq without considering the global ramifications, and sure as hell wouldn't have done so expecting to be greeted in the streets.  A good leader wouldn't have alienated the vast majority of the UN by plunging forward into a war that was already proving massively divisive by it's possibility, either.

He's lied to the American public, and he's lied to the rest of the world.  We were told Iraq was a serious current threat, that it had WMD and active connections to terrorist group.  Neither has been proved, yet we sacrificied hundreds of troops and god knows how many innocent Iraqis in persuit of nothing more than a strategic oil supply.

We were told the 'war on terror' would be unconventional.  It's been anything but - the number one target is still on the loose, and terrorists have been boosted by supporters as a result of what is seen to be American empire building.

Bush has achieved nothing for us - the British - yet we are supposed to be in a special relationship.  So why I should have any respect for a man with the mental ability of a cucumber?  and somehow, i don't think that's misunderestimating him.

[Rictor]

Tin Can, my metric is very, very simple.

If a person, President or otherewise, cause innocent people to suffer or die, he is an asshole. Just that. No excuses, thats the standard. Break it, and I'm going to dislike you.

Now, lets get into some specifics, and you can refute them as we go.

1. Did Bush knowingly lie about WMD evidence before the war?
In all probability, yes.

2. Did the war in Iraq kill over 10,000 civilians and injure countless others?
Yes

3. Was the war, according to international law, illegal?
Yes, Bush commited a felony, and on this scale that is called war crimes or crimes against humanity.

4. Has America, under Bush, illegally occupied, and continues to occupy, two foreign nations?
Yes.

5. Is the Bush administration illegaly detaining several hundred prisoners in Guantanmo Bay and elsewhere?
Yes.

6. Has the Bush administration rolled back civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism? Have they frequently misused those laws  to pursue other agendas and target innocent people?
Yes and yes.

7. Has Bush, for lack of a better description, given the finger to the environment?
Yes.

8. Has Bush created taxes which quite plainly benefit only the rich, and hurt the poor?
Yes.

9. Has Bush poured insane amounts of money into military spending, way out of proporation to any need for self defense. Is there a very strong probablity that this has been done to stuff the pockets of his friends in the "defense" industry?
Yes and yes.

10. Has the Bush administration worked tirelessly to cut social programs, healthcare and education, thereby hurting many American, especially the poor?
Yes.

[Rictor]

But don't feel bad, half of that list can be applied to every US president in the past 60 years. I'm not just picking on Bush, I'm picking on the system that created him.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
If a person, President or otherewise, cause innocent people to suffer or die, he is an asshole. Just that. No excuses, thats the standard. Break it, and I'm going to dislike you.

The Kim Sun-Il beheading video is now available on the Internet in it's entirety.  No edits, no blackouts, and full sound.

You should go watch it.  You should listen to that poor soul beg for his  life while his captors stand behind him, proud, and masked.  You should hear him bawling himself hoarse about how this is all a mistake and he just wants to go home.  You should hear him beg forgiveness for doing his job.  You should listen to him beg his country to save him.

Then you should listen to his captors give a speech in Arabic about the Great Cause Of Freedom, and the nobleness of their movement, and the consequences of opposing it.

Then you should listen what it sounds like to have your head sawed off by a blade.  You don't die quickly.  It is a sound that will burn in your little head forever.  I find it doesn't suit me to describe it beyond that.

Then you should watch them praise God with their actions as they stack his head on what's left of his body.

Then maybe you'll have some idea of exactly who we're fighting, and who we're really fighting for.

[Rictor]

two things, if I may.

1. I never, ever claimed to support people like that. They can all go to hell right along with Bush. And no, criticsing one side does not equal supporting the other.

2. We've been over this before, but lets do so again.

Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+. If killing one man makes you a barbarian, killing 10,000 (and close to a million more with sanctions) makes you the High Emperor of the Infinite Kingdom of All Barbarians.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
two things, if I may.

1. I never, ever claimed to support people like that. They can all go to hell right along with Bush. And no, criticsing one side does not equal supporting the other.

2. We've been over this before, but lets do so again.

Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+. If killing one man makes you a barbarian, killing 10,000 (and close to a million more with sanctions) makes you the High Emperor of the Infinite Kingdom of All Barbarians.

Wow.  Well, that definately answered any questions I had.

And yes, you did claim to support people like that on many occasions, in principle if not in method.  That's disturbing beyond description.

Oh wait, I get it.  what was that you said?  lessee here...

Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+.1,000,000 due to sanctions.

So you say Saddam has no accontability for what happened.  I knew it.  Sounds like 'supporting the other' to me.

All you're saying is, the butchering of Kim Sun-Il was absolutely justified.  And you call yourself a liberal? I'm stunned.  And they call ME a warmonger...

Of course, if it were your mother or other assorted loved one, you'd be singing a very different song.  no doubt.  As it's easy to support the war by having no concept of what war is really like, it's even easier to oppose it.

[Rictor]

First, you never asked a question. Secondly, what I probably said is that I support the Iraqi insurgency. That is not the same as supporting this beheading, or any other. The people doing this are foriegn terrorists, and from what I'm reading lately, don't have the support of the Iraqi insurgency. The recent killing of over a hundred Iraqis by foriegn groups supporting the insurgency has mightily pissed of the Iraqi rebels.

As well, I may suppport the principle of liberation, without supporting every single act to accomplish it. I also support the concept of world peace, and will not stop supporting it if some wacko deicdes that the best way to achieve it is by gunning down people in the street. The concept is still good and valid, despite the actions practiced in its name. And since I support the concept of Iraqi freedom, and since the insurgency seems the best and only way to achieve it, I therefor support the insurgency. If there was some other, less violent way to achieve it, I would support that instead.

You other arguement, about how the loved ones of the victim feel different than I do, is pretty stupid. Guess what, most people on Earth hae a family and loved ones. That includes those killed in the bombing, the occupation and by the sanctions. I can bet you that the family of an Iraqi killed by cluster bombs feels every bit as bad as the family of the murdered Korean. Placing on in value over another is absurd, they were both equally innocent, and their lives were of equal worth.

I also don't understand your comment regarding war. I agree that its easy to support it without knowing what it truly is, but I don't agree about opposing it. Tell me, with the vast hindsight that we have now, can you honeslty tell me that any lasting good was achieved by war? Opposing war without knowing what it is really all about implies that there is some hidden good that I'm not seeing. Is there?

You're right of course, that I don't know what war is. And I hope never to find out. I will strive towards a world where no one knows what war truly is. I really don't see what thas such a bad thing.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23
So you say Saddam has no accontability for what happened.  I knew it.  Sounds like 'supporting the other' to me.

All you're saying is, the butchering of Kim Sun-Il was absolutely justified.  And you call yourself a liberal? I'm stunned.  And they call ME a warmonger...

Of course, if it were your mother or other assorted loved one, you'd be singing a very different song.  no doubt.  As it's easy to support the war by having no concept of what war is really like, it's even easier to oppose it.

What the hell?

C'mon that pushing it, even for you. This goes way beyond intentional misinterpretation.

1. Saddam was partly responsible for the sanctions, sure. And he ought to be shot for his part in it. But I believe that the US bears the bigger burden, for barring humanitarian suplies and infrastructure equipment fro entering Iraq. I would like to know how Saddam could have used water treatement equipment for military purposes?

2. When did I say it was justified? Shut the hell up already, I have made it quite clear that I do not support the killing of civilains, including this.

Its not justified, for the simple reason that he had nothing to do with it. It was not justified, not even to as a means to ending the occupation, which I did not help at all incidentally. Not justified. Clear enough?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor


What the hell?

C'mon that pushing it, even for you. This goes way beyond intentional misinterpretation.

1. Saddam was partly responsible for the sanctions, sure. And he ought to be shot for his part in it. But I believe that the US bears the bigger burden, for barring humanitarian suplies and infrastructure equipment fro entering Iraq. I would like to know how Saddam could have used water treatement equipment for military purposes?

2. When did I say it was justified? Shut the hell up already, I have made it quite clear that I do not support the killing of civilains, including this.

Its not justified, for the simple reason that he had nothing to do with it. It was not justified, not even to as a means to ending the occupation, which I did not help at all incidentally. Not justified. Clear enough?

Oh yes, crystal clear.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23

[SNIP]

Then maybe you'll have some idea of exactly who we're fighting, and who we're really fighting for.

Except that Saddam, for all his millions of other faults, actually kept the fundementalism DOWN in Iraq.

It was the invasion and the power vacuum it left that allowed fundementalists like that in.

If the americans really were after terrorists they would have sent the troops they sent into Iraq into Afghanistan instead where they may actually have done some good.

I'm all for wiping out the terrorist scum but the invasion of Iraq didn't help the cause. If they were after terrorists Saudi Arabia has more.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Except that Saddam, for all his millions of other faults, actually kept the fundementalism DOWN in Iraq.

It was the invasion and the power vacuum it left that allowed fundementalists like that in.

If the americans really were after terrorists they would have sent the troops they sent into Iraq into Afghanistan instead where they may actually have done some good.

I'm all for wiping out the terrorist scum but the invasion of Iraq didn't help the cause. If they were after terrorists Saudi Arabia has more.

Hit the nail on the head .

No-one here is for terrorism, but it's obvious that the US 'war on terror' has failed miserably.  Hell, they even diverted some of their best Arabic speaking special ops people from the search from bin Ladin in order to operate in Iraq.  

The only real victories against terrorism are those won by the domestic security services when they catch a bomber or foil a plot.  All military action has achieved is creating martyrs and sowing the seeds of dissilusionment amongst the Arab world - i.e. creating the conditions which foster, rather than prevent, terrorism.

It's a strange assumption to make that the only way to fight terrorism is the Bush strategy.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
All military action has achieved is creating martyrs and sowing the seeds of dissilusionment amongst the Arab world - i.e. creating the conditions which foster, rather than prevent, terrorism.

In Afghanistan the military option worked reasonably well by making it so that no country would harbour Osama any more. It also had the effect of disrupting the terrorist cells.

Then instead of delivering the knock-out blow Bush decided to invade Iraq instead (Something he had actually been planing before 9/11!). This gave Osama a chance to reorganise himself in Afghanistan and the wilder parts of Pakistan.

You'll notice that almost the entire UN agreed with Bush on the invasion of Afghanistan. So it's not the case of everyone going against Bush just cause of who he is. I may think that he is a dick but I agreed 100% with why he had to go into Afghanistan and supported the entire campaign.

If you look you'll find that most of the people arguing against Bush now agreed with him over Afghanistan. What we disagree with is his current policy. Invading Iraq has done NOTHING to stop terrorist attacks in any country. It was a stupid idea poorly executed. The sooner Americans realise that and replace Bush with someone who can actually do something to even lessen the danger the better off they'll be.

Originally posted by aldo_14
It's a strange assumption to make that the only way to fight terrorism is the Bush strategy.

It's the propoganda line put out by Bush and his followers. They honestly believe that if you don't agree with Bush on every single bit of his foreign policy ideas you must support the terrorists.

Even when you point to the fact that the invasion of Iraq did absolutely nothing to stop terrorism they'll just keep spouting the rhetoric back at you.

Yet another example of how people will swallow The Big Lie if they hear it often enough.