[Kazan]

Rictor: when war is needed i don't disagree with it.  War wasn't needed in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia openly funds terrorist organizations and has done so for years.  The state religion is Wahhabist Islam - the most anti-western extremist sect.

"Saudi Lives are simply worthless" is appeal to emotion - sometimes war is neccesary that's a sad, but simple, fact of reality.  If things are done right those lives that are inevitably lost and not lost in vain, and a better life is created for both sides

[Ford Prefect]

Did anyone happen to see the documentary that Frontline did called "Rumsfeld's War"? It illustrated with great clarity the process by which Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz bulldozed their war plan past all the military officials who actually knew what they were talking about. These people had an agenda before they even came into office, and they were not about to let the facts get in the way of their grand scheme, so they mapped out a cheap war and let Bush handle the publicity. Bush himself had little to do with it.

These people are political chess players for whom lives are calculator digits, and if they want two plus two to equal five, they'll pound it into the heads of the masses until it becomes true. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are the kind of people who rule empires, and they know it.

The point: It's not Bush I'm afraid of.

[Akalabeth Angel]

...just so we're clear. You know, it makes sense, Saudi lives are simply worth less, so while Iraq is indeed a tragedy, doing the same to Saudi Arabia would be perfectly legitimate.

     Frankly I don't think the American Administration has much regard for the lives of the citizens of either country, and I'm not sure that the concern of the American public is that much greater. During the invasion of Iraq, Al-Jazeera showed daily pictures of bloodied Iraqi civilians and children, and no one gave a damn. Then one days the gruesome pictures weren't of civilians but of dead american soldiers and the entire country of the US was outraged that such pictures would even be broadcast, etcetera etcetera.

     In a similar fashion, later on in the war the US targets and kills journalists (including Al-Jazeera) in three seperate attacks and for a moment, people start to loose confidence in the US Administration. But the next day the US stages some event in central Baghdad where they bring in some guys, pay 'em to dance around and pull down a statue and suddenly who cares about journalists? Who cares about the censorship of independent media, instead let's eat up some more US propaganda. After all, when US news media outlets are relying on information filtered through the US military, such information has to be unbiased and impartial right? haha.

[Rictor]

Well, consider that the Saudi royalty aren't all that unassaible. If they weren't provided with poitical backing by Uncle Sam, they'de have some real problems on their hands. War is sometimes necessary, but if you're trying to get rid of a dictatorship, assuming you even have the right to do so, then there are better ways of going about it.

I support reform in Saudi Arabia, and cutting the royal family loose to face the world alone. Freeze their foreign assets, then see how long they'll hold out. And you can't honestly say that "Saudi Arabia" funs terrorism becuase however many people do it, its unreasonable to say that they are the majority.

Whitout political and economic backing, and international pressure for greater reform, the Saudi royalty would be forced to compromise. Not to mention that if the US invaded, you could expect military bases and foreign control over the oil, not to mention a puppet regime like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree with humanitarian interventions IN THEORY, but every single case so far has been a cover for dominating the "liberated" country.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor
And you can't honestly say that "Saudi Arabia" funs terrorism becuase however many people do it, its unreasonable to say that they are the majority.

yes you can - when the House of Saud itself does it

[Akalabeth Angel]

The point: It's not Bush I'm afraid of.

         Nor am I. After seeing a few independent documentaries, it seems that greatest problem with Bush is his lack of knowledge, and thus his ability to be manipulated. As one CIA agent guy noted, Bush didn't even have a passport before he became president, how the hell can he know anything about foriegn countries and foreign policy?

         One of the neo-cons, Wolfowitz or maybe that Richard Perl guy has an office in the pentagon near Rumsfeld's or Cheney's, despite having no official duties. As the documentary guy remarked, he's in a great position to influence the administration without being the slightest-bit accountable.

[ionia23]

Myself and 15 friends including 3 who'd never voted before handed our votes to Kerry yesterday.  I'm sorry it wasn't enough.

[Rictor]

well, do you really think that the neocons are the begginging and end of aggressive US foreign policy? Think back to Reagan, Ford, Clinton, Bush 1...pretty much every administration in the past 60 years.

There's just a different set of people running the show this time, but its the same show.

Originally posted by ionia23
Myself and 15 friends including 3 who'd never voted before handed our votes to Kerry yesterday.  I'm sorry it wasn't enough.

Never would have figured you as a Kerrycrat.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Kazan
RUMORS! it's RUMORS!

Nothing official from him

get over it.  bush won...

[Getter Robo G]

In fact, I'm almost borderline devestated. What about the military vote? (support the troops people).  All the familes and friends of the troops (as well as us soldiers). I'm here in country but bring my brothers and sisters overseas home!

   People say the Democratic party is upset, well screw the Democrats I just hate Bush!  I never follow politics and the very first time in 1988 I registered as Republican but voted Democrat, why? Lesser of two evils. Been the same ever since until this time around (I registered Democrat last month).

   BTW if things continue to get worse I would advicate someone in the military to take action, part of our oath is to defend this nation against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC!

   My religion and sexual orientation are private as a citizen but a politician needs to do the best job for ALL the people (and think about them an SERVE them, NOT enforce your views or opinions on thier lives). So I say keep Jesus in your heart but out of the White House! (as the founding fathers preached!). Meanwhile our nation will fall behind in critical medical research and technology, I still have a ****ty job and no health care (reserve benefits are minimal to none. The Best era of my life professionally and economically was the clinton years.
  I was in the Army during Gulf War I and Now Air Force Reserve.

   BTW all this talk in the media about healing the nation is a joke. I was angered at Florida in 2000 and now with real issues on the line it's absolutely insane...

   (as I write this) Bush just made a statement that this is a "historic victory". But excuse me, 59 million said we love you, but 55 million just said pike off. That is not "historic" that is by the skin of your teeth. get 75% or Higher and you will impress me, NOT 51%...

  And don't start with the "popular vote" 3 mill is NOT a large number to win (or lose) by, more like a small to medium city...  (compared to the TOTAL population of the United States).

  One final word... Long ago I heard that there were about 270 Million american families. so far around 114 million votes cast. Where the hell are the rest of the people that could have voted? Lazy bastards (like my pot head 19yo co-worker, he says it doesn't make a difference). I quoted a week ago to him, "a non vote is a vote for Bush"...

[Kazan]

just when i thought the immature comments from the christo-fascists were over


Someone winning a popularity contest doesn't mean they're right and it doesn't mean they're good for the country.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan


yes you can - when the House of Saud itself does it

And since when does "the government" and "the people" mean the same thing? Especially in a country where there are no elections, so you can't even claim the people chose the governement like in the US.

The government is always the last to loose, its the people that almost always suffer during an invasion/occupation.

[Kazan]

Rictor:When people support a government (or administration) that is corrupt/supports terrorists/etc the people supporting it are also corrupt/terrorist supporters/ etc

[Rictor]

how can you say "the people" like that. First of all, realize that a war would affect all the people in the country, regardless of whether or not they support the Saudi royalty and/or terrorist. Next, realize that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, so you have no way of knowing how many people support the government, because they have no way of showing their lack of support. And finally, realize that Saudi Arabia is a country of 25 miliion people, and if you believe that a majority actively support terrorists, you need to sit down and consider your views on the rest of the world.

oh and, after you have realized all that, it might also be helpful to realize that by any meaninful standard, Bush and Co are terrorists, if not the far more severe agressors, so any country that feels like invading the US (say, Nicargua, Iraq, Lebanon and so forth) would be justified in doing so, especially given that evidently, so many people support Bush (or Kerry, who also voted for the war). Its not wise to chastise others for supporting terrorism when you don't have the moral high ground.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Rictor
Shrike: see, thats the thing, Bush and his bunch aren't really conservative. They're just imperialists and fascists (by the true meaning of the word, not the politicized crap). Conservativism calls not only for fiscal responsibiity (ha!) but also a small government (ha!) and a non-interventionist foreign policy (ha!)

So they're slightly more conservative than the democrats?  Ultimately no US government can realistically be fiscally conservative any more.  There's simply too much money and influence tied up for someone to say 'Ok, we're cutting everything by half' or however you wish to deal with things.

[Rictor]

So conservatives are stuck voting for the slightly more conservative party, while progressives are stuck voting for the slightly more progressive party, but neither is truly conservative or progressive.
Awesome.

[ionia23]

Fact:

Conservativism at the level required to actually entertain the current President as 'good' or 'worthy' requires a seed of bigotry and/or racism present.

People like Bush will continue to win so long as people continue to view Muslims and homosexuals as Walking Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

Voting for Bush is like taking Tool seriously: Both are indicitive of serious brain damage.

[Sandwich]

I'd just like to point out that - according to the national exit polls - the deciding factor of the candidates according to the largest amount of people (22%), was "Moral Values". And in the category of "Moral Values", fully 80% of the people polled preferred Bush over Kerry.

And now, back to your regular bickering.

[Rictor]

Sorry, doing cocaine, driving drunk, causing the deaths of 100,000 proplr, lying to the country and the world, cracking down on petty crimes and minor criminals, thats moral behaviour?

No, thats just the appearance of moral behaviour, because thats the way the strategists chose to spin Bush. It has little to do with reality.

[ionia23]

Moral behaviour - putting Profit before Principle

Immoral Behavior - anal sex

Bushisms, gotta love 'em.