Bush takes large lead on Kerry: latest polls

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 7 2004, 03:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 7 2004, 03:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 03:05 AM
I don't see someone on the USA campaign trail yelling from the rafters that Muslim-Americans need to be rounded up in the middle of the night and put in concentration camps in Nevada!!

I also don't think that saying the Bush Administartions actions of late are comparable to that of the Nazis in the mid 30's as saying that Bush wants to round up all Muslims, imprison them in concentration camps and perform mass murder (hell do that using percission munnitions!). I know when I say that I see parrallels I refer to the militaristic buildup, the exportation of ideology and the nationalistic furor that the Republicans are using to their advantage. The minute the Bush administration starts rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps in Nevada is the day he and his cronies get gunned down. Americans are slow on the up take when whipped into a patriotic frenzy, but even that would be extreme to them and would require action on their part. As I've repeatedly said, Americans are great people, its their government that needs its head examined at the moment. [/b][/quote]
Now Cow, you know your history better than that. Hitler did not round up the Jews until after he was elected and was then on his way to getting WWII started.

I said in my post: I don't see someone on the USA campaign trail yelling from the rafters that Muslim-Americans need to be rounded up in the middle of the night and put in concentration camps in Nevada!!

As you will note, I said there was no one on the campaign trail calling for it as part of an election platform. I wasn't referring to a fait accompli.

Also, I was referring to the rounding up of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

Would a candidate appealing for similar treatment of Muslim Americans find broad appeal with a position like that? Or would he/she quickly slip into Ralph Nader territory?

Cowperson

[Clarkey]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 7 2004, 03:13 AM
Hey Clarkey, how about you butt out in regards to where I live. You know nothing about me, nothing about my situation, so I'd advise you to stick to the subject matter. And I don't have contempt for the people of the United States, even though a lot of them are not the brightest bulbs in the socket, I have a strong contempt for their present administartion and their foreign policy.

See, the nice thing about living in a democracy is having the right to disagree with the people running the show and discuss their short comings publicly. As a matter of fact, that is one of the foundations of the United States and is protected by their Bill of Rights, of which I am protected by. It is our responsibility to openly debate the job that our elected officials do and keep them in check. If they don't do the job they are supposed to do, they lose their jobs come election time. That is democrasy in action.

Now, care to add to the topic at hand?

I'm just suprised that you choose to live in a place that is, in your opinion, run by a government comparative to that of Nazi Germany.

[transplant99]

Holy double standard. So its hard to believe that the American executive could be motivated by money for their reasons to go into Iraq, and to think so would be a conspiracy theory, but its easy to consider that the international community is responsible for a multi-national conspiracy to keep the United States out of Iraq???

Uhhh...Lanny?

The security council...15 countries that make it up....are the ones that didnt vote to support the action. That included Russia....the ones who supplied Hussein with planes, weaponry of all kinds, as well were purchasing oil, and had many a contract with Hussein to keep the oil flowing that they could. This isnt a guess on my part, its plain and simple fact. Germany, whom also were skirting the oil for food program and France the country that was also selling weaponry along with buying oil. They all voted against the action. Others on the Security council actually voted FOR it, so dont be sounding like it was some unanimous decision from the international community...it wasnt.

And I thought they okayed these resolutions based on what transpired during the Gulf War, and supported these same resolutions for search purposes. If they were sure of the data that was presented they would have okayed the military action in Iraq. They thought what Powell presented was BS and voted to not support him.

No, the last resolution occurred in 1998 when Hussein booted the weapons inspectors OUT of the country. When he refused to ALLOW searches. Its in those books you read somewhere...have a look. Powell talked to the UN...so did Bush.

The UN should be the all saying power in regards to interventions into other countries, especially when one of the permanent Security Counsel members are involved. How else does the world prevent the Super Powers from dancing all over the globe at will?

Is this the same UN that allowed the whole Iraq situation to get to where it was in the first place? Is this the same one that has you yelling off the rooftop right now about Sudan?

So you want them to go into Sudan...but not Iraq? Wow, nice double standard there my friend...unfortunately it blows your entire argument to smithereens. I would love to see the US go into Sudan and stop senseless deaths....but they are somewhat busy elsewhere in the world...so why not have the UN take care of that? I know why and so do you...they are an outdated and useless diplomacy orginization that has the backbone of a jellyfish. Thats why.

Nice double standard again. You preach containment with North Korea, which is an actual threat and HAS WMDs they could use right now AND are developing a missle system capable of reaching the United States, but say containment was not working with Iraq and invasion was needed to flesh out WMDs that had not been found in a decade of searching and did not have a delivery mechanism that could guarantee delivery to Isreal let alone the United States?

What freaking containment Lanny??? They were BOOTED OUT of Iraq in 1998. WTF are you talking about. Where exactly was the military presence of the US in the middle east to contain him again? Geezuz...now your making stuff up.

Well numbnuts, a lot of these guys have already survived through the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, are through to the Bush 43 administration, and are running the show, so what is so hard to believe that they would not make it through to the next administrations? Hey, I'm not the one who sees an international conspiracy to keep the US out of Iraq.

See, im not buying the whole "conspiracy" theory you are losing your mind about, and do not believe for a minute that they are controlling the entire freaking government. For me to believe that, it would mean that somehow they convinced the entire senate of the US to vote for military action...including democrats, and in particular, one named John Kerry who also supported the action.
Numbnuts.

Holy thick as a brick Batman! What part of the United Nations NOT backing the US in Iraq don't you get? If they were sure there was a need to have a military intervention they would have supported the US. They didn't. They thought the US case was horsesh*t. They felt that inspections were more than enough to weed out any WMDs, even though in a decade they had found jack. Oh wait, we do have to take into consideration the international conspiracy that is going on to keep the US out of Iraq!

Who is thick here? I am well aware the Security Council voted NOT to support a US led invasion...i got that. I have explained why numerous times, aint spelling it out again for you.

And exactly WHAT inspections " were more than enough to weed out any WMDs"?? There were NONE going on UNTIL the threat of invasion from the US ya twit. Good grief....read your books again.

BTW... I guess the US didn't think that the sanctions were near enough? That's funny, because it didn't stop the US from keeping sanctions in place against Cuba for 40 years. Again, the US does have an interesting way in dealing with these double standards.

The sanctions in Cuba are working and have for a very long time. The ones in Iraq were not working..because UN MEMBERS were breaking them. Geezuz.

Yeah, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are thankful you lost that remote control.

Huh? Nice judgement there pal...and yet another double standard you use when backed into a corner. Didnt you pen this earlier tonight to someone else?

Originally posted by Lanny Macdonald
how about you butt out in regards to where I live. You know nothing about me, nothing about my situation, so I'd advise you to stick to the subject matter.

Nothing like contradicting yourself....as I can apply it to you.

I love how you have competely dodged the issues.

ive dodged nothing. Nothing. You on the other hand have YET to answer for that David Kay latter i posted weeks ago as to the existance of WMD in Iraq. You know, the guy that was head inspector in Iraq FOR the UN?


Once again, how is the United States actions in Iraq any different from those of the Nazis and the Soviets? How?


Its answered above...but way to dodge the answer...again.


Unilateral intervention with a bullsh*t coalition is hardly a quality excuse. Then again, which excise are we using this week? WMDs? The tyranical dictator? The threat to the region?

Those were all reasons BEFORE the war Lanny, again as i have pointed out and you have ignored because you cannot refute it.

You are truly hilarious. Bald face denials of things sitting right there for your reading enjoyment.


Oh and because its OK for you to point out how its OK to be a prick with smiley faces when dealing with others on this board.

heres one for you.

[CaramonLS]

Guys I think we are going a bit over the top here on our critism of lanny.

I THINK I get what hes trying to get at with this whole bush/nazi germany stuff.

Bush is Running a Campaign based on fear, fear of safety, fear of terrorism. The whole "Terror alert" level is just a bunch of bullsh*t to feed the media.

Lanny is trying to compare Bush Scapegoating people like Saddam who might very well have had absolutely nothing to do with the terror attacks that happened on 9/11 much like Hitler did with Scapegoating the Jews, the rounding up of prisoners in camps (Guantonomo Bay).

Bush and Hitler are/were both diverting attention from real issues by blaming people, if it isn't Saddam, its someone else, but keeping the attention away from the issues at home in particular.

Now I am not trying to say terrorists in this case are entirely innocent, this is just the point I think Lanny is trying to get across.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

After Sept. 11th, the USA had the sympathy and empathy of most of the rest of the world. 3 years later and anti-Americanism is higher than it's been in a long time, or even ever. So how has Bush made the world a safe place for Americans again? How has he weakened terrorism??

This rampant anti-Americanism is what causes some terrorism. Going to war over evidence that has yet to reveal itself doesn't help the cause either as a big barrel for people to come shoot at Americans and Iraqi's is all that has really been created thus far.

So i'm really baffled by this mentality that Bush is the man best suited to fight terrorism. People seem to think his 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude towards the fight is the way to go, when it seems to causing more anti-Americanism and terror than it is stopping. Afghanistan was alright (in my books at least, but it seems the most of the rest of the world thinks so too) because the enemy was clear, as was the evidence that showed links between the Taliban and al Qaeda. But after that, things have pretty much gone south it seems.

So that's my big question. How has Bush done a good job in fighting terror between Sept. 11th, and now??

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 7 2004, 05:27 AM
Guys I think we are going a bit over the top here on our critism of lanny.

I THINK I get what hes trying to get at with this whole bush/nazi germany stuff.

Bush is Running a Campaign based on fear, fear of safety, fear of terrorism. The whole "Terror alert" level is just a bunch of bullsh*t to feed the media.

Lanny is trying to compare Bush Scapegoating people like Saddam who might very well have had absolutely nothing to do with the terror attacks that happened on 9/11 much like Hitler did with Scapegoating the Jews, the rounding up of prisoners in camps (Guantonomo Bay).

Bush and Hitler are/were both diverting attention from real issues by blaming people, if it isn't Saddam, its someone else, but keeping the attention away from the issues at home in particular.

Now I am not trying to say terrorists in this case are entirely innocent, this is just the point I think Lanny is trying to get across.

Nice try.

Most of what you are saying is simply not true. Bush's stump stop speeches have been DOMINATED by domestic issues. How is that keeping attention away from the problems at home? Comparing the detainees at Gitmo to Jews in Nazi death camps should be a crime. How freaking pathetic.

You have no clue what you're talking about and you're coming to the defense of someone who has clearly demonstrated he has no perspective except paranoia.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 7 2004, 05:42 AM


So that's my big question. How has Bush done a good job in fighting terror between Sept. 11th, and now??

3/4 of the known Al Qaeda leadership has been killed of captured. Their finances have been severely disrupted. A dictator who harbored terrorists (Abu Nidal, Zarqauwi) and who funded Hamas suicide bombers in Israel has been put in check.

None of this has made a difference in your eyes?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 7 2004, 05:42 AM


So that's my big question. How has Bush done a good job in fighting terror between Sept. 11th, and now??

3/4 of the known Al Qaeda leadership has been killed of captured. Their finances have been severely disrupted. A dictator who harbored terrorists (Abu Nidal, Zarqauwi) and who funded Hamas suicide bombers in Israel has been put in check.

None of this has made a difference in your eyes? [/b][/quote]
Yeah but 3/4 of those have been done by coutries other than the US. Spain, UK Germany, have all made large arrests. If perhaps they were more into fighting terror as opposed to fighting Arabs, they might make bigger arrests. Oh perhaps Osama Bin Ladden....oh yeah that guy! The US have what, fewer than a third the troop numbers out looking for him while they capture, oooh Sadam's second hand man, while in Iraq. Whatever, you vote for him do what you want it's not my country. I just like to question a bit more maybe. Perhaps you like to swallow everything fed to you and take it all at face value, heaven knows no US government would ever be anything but above board, but it's your vote, you have every right.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

The security council...15 countries that make it up....are the ones that didnt vote to support the action. That included Russia....the ones who supplied Hussein with planes, weaponry of all kinds, as well were purchasing oil, and had many a contract with Hussein to keep the oil flowing that they could. This isnt a guess on my part, its plain and simple fact. Germany, whom also were skirting the oil for food program and France the country that was also selling weaponry along with buying oil. They all voted against the action. Others on the Security council actually voted FOR it, so dont be sounding like it was some unanimous decision from the international community...it wasnt.

Bottom line is the UN did NOT back the United States in this intervention. Get over it already. Its done. All the "international conspiracy theories" you want to dream up are not going to change the fact that the international community did not believe the evidence presented was reason to invade. Hell, the US military did not believe the intelligence and were against a movement into Iraq. They were for containment and saw Hussein and Iraq as no threat to anyone in the region, including his own people.

Face it, the US went in on their own accord, against the wishes of the military and lead by the Pentagon civilian group, and have looked like warmongering fools ever since. Everything Bush wanted to achieve in regards to terrorism after 9/11 he has washed away with the action of going into Iraq. He has lost world sympathy. He has lost world support. He has failed to stem the flow of support to the terrorist movement. He has INCREASED the numbers of Arabs volunteering to join the fight. Just admit that this was the dumbest move possible by Bush and has blown up in his face big time. The world is not a safer place, as Bush likes to say. The action in Iraq has made it a lot more dangerous as more and more scores are now to be evened by the Arabs.

No, the last resolution occurred in 1998 when Hussein booted the weapons inspectors OUT of the country. When he refused to ALLOW searches. Its in those books you read somewhere...have a look. Powell talked to the UN...so did Bush.

Hussein allowed weapons inspectors back into the country after the last resolution was passed, so don't make it sound like Iraq was completely non-compliant. The weapons inspection teams were all saying that they wanted more access, but they were satisfied with the way things were going and felt progress was being made. The fact of the matter is that nothing had been found in almost a decade of searching. It took Bush lying about "mobile chemical weapons factories" to scare congress and the UN into even listening to the bullsh*t evidence they wanted to present. Good lord man, even the Whitehouse is now admitting they screwed the pooch and presented bad intelligence. When are you just going to acceot the fact that everyone with a brain saw through this garbage and didn't believe it. Move on already. Even the administration is trying to distance themselves from the intel you are trying to use as proof of a smoking gun.

So you want them to go into Sudan...but not Iraq? Wow, nice double standard there my friend...unfortunately it blows your entire argument to smithereens.

Uh no, I don't want the US to go into Sudan. I want the US to stay the hell out other countries business, unless called upon by the United Nations. My point is that if the US is hell bent on removing bloodthirsty dictators, like you say they are, then should they not also be in Sudan removing a maniacal dictator who IS killing his people RIGHT NOW. It has nothing to do with me having a double standard, its me pointing out how bad the US' double standard is. If it were up to me the US would have an isolationist foreign policy and respond only to requests directly from the UN. No double standard there. Just a simple process that takes the responsibility off the shoulders of the United States and places it directly on the shoulders of the International Community as a whole. That is called covering your ass and transfering accountability to a shared body. If someone wants to get p*ssed off about an intervention they then have to blame the whole world rather than one nation.

What freaking containment Lanny??? They were BOOTED OUT of Iraq in 1998. WTF are you talking about. Where exactly was the military presence of the US in the middle east to contain him again? Geezuz...now your making stuff up.

What containment? How about the containment that the US and British forces had provided for a decade? Retired CENTOM commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni, outlined exactly how containment worked when he appeared before a congressional committee on the matter. He outlined how US forces had developed a coalition of forces in the Gulf and were sharing responsibility with local governments and forces. The US had personnel on bases in six different countries prior to the invasion of Iraq. There was an understanding and good will between the Arabs and the Americans. Hussein was a threat to no one in the region let alone a threat to the United States. Or are you saying that the commander of CENTCOM at the time was lying? Seems like YOU are the one making sh*t up my friend.

And exactly WHAT inspections " were more than enough to weed out any WMDs"?? There were NONE going on UNTIL the threat of invasion from the US ya twit. Good grief....read your books again.

There were none were there? Who is making sh*t up again? Maybe you should do some reading. Try a book, a web site, the Sunday funnies, one of your coloring books, I personally don't care what you read, but try getting somewhat informed before jousting. Its embarassing. Blix had inspection teams right up until the US went into Iraq. You don't remember how the inspection teams were warned to get out of Iraq a couple weeks before the invasion, and then the fear that the Iraqis may hold the inspection teams as hostages to prevent an attack? If you want I'm pretty sure I can find an article that supports the FACT that inspectors WERE in Iraq in early 2003, just prior to the invasion. In fact I'm pretty sure that there was a big stink raised by Bush over an empty warhead found in Iraq at the time and he used that as a lobby mechanism. Or would that be making stuffup on my part?

ive dodged nothing. Nothing. You on the other hand have YET to answer for that David Kay latter i posted weeks ago as to the existance of WMD in Iraq. You know, the guy that was head inspector in Iraq FOR the UN?

Head of UN Weapons inspections? Uh, that was Hans Blix. David Kay was an inspector. Don't be padding his resume too much (nee making sh*t up) there Tranny. And Kay's testimony was hardly major news. He repeated what inspectors had been saying for years. That there were facilities and plans, but no sign of WMDs themself. He believed more inspection was needed. That's basically what he said to congress. To me, the most damning aspect of Kay's testimony was that there was a procurement network that allowed the technology to develop programs like Iraqs. Unfortunately Kay did not say where that network began (THAT would have been interesting to know).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 7 2004, 05:42 AM


So that's my big question. How has Bush done a good job in fighting terror between Sept. 11th, and now??

3/4 of the known Al Qaeda leadership has been killed of captured. Their finances have been severely disrupted. A dictator who harbored terrorists (Abu Nidal, Zarqauwi) and who funded Hamas suicide bombers in Israel has been put in check.

None of this has made a difference in your eyes? [/b][/quote]
Its a great start Dis, but how do you stem the flow of new recruits? Wasn't going into Iraq and p*ssing off the Arab world a massive mistake? All the US has done is accelerate the recruiting efforts and force more and more young Arabs into al Qaeda IMO. The large scale invasion of a contained threat (and that's a real strong word) is a bad strategy. I think the US should go to smaller, more reactive, special forces units who are hunter/killers. They would be much easier to move and less conspicuous. I think that if you cut off the head, the body will die, so these units should be assigned to track and capture or kill targets. I think that would be most effective and cause the least amount of trouble around the globe.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 06:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 06:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 7 2004, 05:42 AM


So that's my big question. How has Bush done a good job in fighting terror between Sept. 11th, and now??

3/4 of the known Al Qaeda leadership has been killed of captured. Their finances have been severely disrupted. A dictator who harbored terrorists (Abu Nidal, Zarqauwi) and who funded Hamas suicide bombers in Israel has been put in check.

None of this has made a difference in your eyes? [/b][/quote]
I can't help shake the feeling that for every terrorist that's rounded up or killed, 2 more are created because of Bush's way of fighting terror.

Alot of people may have only disliked the USA before Iraq, but then seeing your country or another arab country invaded by the USA (depending upon your residence) may be enough to turn dislike into blind hatred and thus turn mere talk of how bad the USA is into firing an RPG at a convoy or something akin to that.

These radicals in the Middle East seem to have quite a crop of people to pick from as new recruits. Couple that with what I said above and the fact that most of the media sources over there have a distinct anti-American slant to them, and it's not that hard to imagine my initial statment: that for every terrorist that's rounded up or killed, 2 more are created.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts. I have no idea how people can think Bush is doing a great job fighting terror when you compare the USA's standing in the world right after 9-11 and now. Think of all the money that could have gone into intelligence, homeland security, the FBI, etc, that is instead going into fighting a war that can't be won in Iraq. And think of the higher esteem the USA would be held in on the world scale as well...

[Reggie Dunlop]

[quote]Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 7 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay,Sep 7 2004, 05:42 AM

These radicals in the Middle East seem to have quite a crop of people to pick from as new recruits. Couple that with what I said above and the fact that most of the media sources over there have a distinct anti-American slant to them, and it's not that hard to imagine my initial statment: that for every terrorist that's rounded up or killed, 2 more are created.

So?

Go out and kill them too. Keep killing them until they surrender.

It's not like they're the Junior Chamber of Commerce or anything

[Flame On]

[quote]Originally posted by Reggie Dunlop@Sep 7 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay,Sep 7 2004, 09:30 AM

So?

Go out and kill them too. Keep killing them until they surrender.

It's not like they're the Junior Chamber of Commerce or anything

Works well for Israel etc. doesn't it.

[RougeUnderoos]

So the answer, Reg, is just "kill kill kill"? That's it just keep killing them?

It's going to be a long one then. However long it takes to kill everyone over there I guess.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

[quote]Originally posted by Reggie Dunlop@Sep 7 2004, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay,Sep 7 2004, 09:30 AM

So?

Go out and kill them too. Keep killing them until they surrender.

It's not like they're the Junior Chamber of Commerce or anything

Kill them until they surrender? They'll never surrender. Terrorism is based on ideals or religion or a cause of somesort. As long as that's kicking around, there'll always be people willing to follow it. Going in with guns a blazing only strengthens that, in my mind.

Besides, if Iraq is any real indication, an all out attack with a large, state of the art, artillery backed military isn't working out so well. Maybe against dictators and their armies where the enemy is clear as well as their location, but not against terrorism. They can just scurry across the border into some other country or go into hiding for awhile. And they fight dirty too, so tossing a group of marines in a crowded street only makes a nice target for a suicide bomber. So unless you're prepared to blow the crap out of cities and towns where these terrorists might be holed up in a church or something, I don't think conventional military means is the way to go.

But that's just me...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 7 2004, 04:50 PM
So the answer, Reg, is just "kill kill kill"? That's it just keep killing them?

It's going to be a long one then. However long it takes to kill everyone over there I guess.

Maybe the answer is the Bill Maher Method - hire other people to kill them.

Sponsor right wing dictatorships that co-operate with your geo-political aims and allow them to brutally suppress their people.

That's what Maher said in a recent interview the USA should get back to doing. That way they wouldn't have to invade places. They could keep out of other people's affairs by keeping dictators in power.

Kind of keeps your hands clean. No muss, no fuss.

I guess the USA, rather than leading the way to free Kuwaiti's - and their oilfields - in 1991 with a broad UN sponsored coalition, should have instead cozied up to Hussein instead.

Maybe they would have if he hadn't had Saudi Arabia on his radar.

EDIT to add:

Couple that with what I said above and the fact that most of the media sources over there have a distinct anti-American slant to them,

That was true pre-Iraq. Its actually not necessarily true post-Iraq.

In an editorial on the hostage crisis in Beslan, Abdelrahman al-Rashid, the managing director of the satellite channel al-Arabiya, wrote: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

Mr Rashid's article, which appeared on Saturday in al-Sharq al-Awsat, singled out the controversial and influential Egyptian cleric, Yousef al-Qaradawi, whose views are aired regularly on the Qatari satellite channel, al-Jazeera.

"A man of his advanced age incites young men to kill civilians, while his two daughters are studying under the protection of British security in the "infidel" United Kingdom," Mr Rashid wrote. The implication is that Mr Qaradawi is a hypocrite.

"We [Muslims] cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3632462.stm

Cowperson

[Lurch]

So?

Go out and kill them too. Keep killing them until they surrender.

It's not like they're the Junior Chamber of Commerce or anything

That's one approach, certainly. However, the US does not seem to taking this approach with their half-assed war to date. I've been trying to find a book (which I can't remember the title of unfortunately) by the former head of the 'Osama' desk at the CIA that suggests the only way to cure the terrorist problem is to bomb them back to the stone ages. IIRC, he suggested so called humanitarian wars were counter productive and only make the US look weak in Muslim eyes.

The other approach is to address the problems at the root cause and design foreign policy that reduces the number of greivances Muslims have with the US. I doubt anyone can seriously suggest US foreign policy is logical and even handed towards Muslims since GW took office and not much better prior to that. Even if you care to suggest that it is, I doubt you'd find enough Muslims to fill a room to agree with you.

The world has become such that being a superpower is not all it used to be. Destructive power has been dispersed to ever smaller groups, and it's time policy explicitly recognized this. Historically, governments with big armies have extracted benefits from other governments (see the different treatment of Iraq and North Korea). Somehow, it is not surprising to me that terrorists are now seeking to extract the same sort of treatment by directly threatening citizens.

Given this, there are two solutions to conflict in today's world IMO, neither of which is being embraced. One, you can bomb the living sheet out of countries and end the threat entirely by wiping out nations. Unpopular, immoral and downright wrong IMO. Two, you can move towards a legitimate world government (I think the EU model is pretty good to start with though it has typical cumbersome European flaws that make it slow and less effective than it could be) that legitimately cuts across borders to control threats and resolve disputes - with the proliferation of technology, I doubt terrorism is going away. Economy, power and safety are drivers of government - since these are now all becoming global in nature, it seems pretty logical to me that a global body needs to be in place to deal with these issues. Killing the UN was not a good start.

My problem with US policy is they believe they deserve the right to unilaterally impose 'solutions' b/c they are the biggest. My problem with terrorists is they believe they have the right to unilaterally threaten people to get 'solutions' to their problems. Call me naive, but I think it would be pretty easy to show via mathematics or simple logic (which gov'ts use extensively to assess threats so don't dismiss the idea based on the fact that it uses math) that unilateralism loses effectiveness as power is dispersed via modern weaponry that is ever smaller and more deadly.

[Lurch]

I guess the USA, rather than leading the way to free Kuwaiti's - and their oilfields - in 1991 with a broad UN sponsored coalition, should have instead cozied up to Hussein instead.

Are you trying to be ironic here? The US did sponsor Hussein for a long time, and only turned on him after he screwed them over.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 06:51 PM

Are you trying to be ironic here? The US did sponsor Hussein for a long time, and only turned on him after he screwed them over.

Yes, I was being ironic and sardonic but, I hope, not moronic.

Saddam fell off the client list when he couldn't control himself.

Lastly, having lost a formerly useful puppet, the Bill Maher Method would have the USA replacing him with a right wing dictator and give him the muscle to wipe out their enemies in his midst.

Is that the right way to go?

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 7 2004, 12:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 7 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 7 2004, 05:27 AM
Guys I think we are going a bit over the top here on our critism of lanny.

I THINK I get what hes trying to get at with this whole bush/nazi germany stuff.

Bush is Running a Campaign based on fear, fear of safety, fear of terrorism. The whole "Terror alert" level is just a bunch of bullsh*t to feed the media.

Lanny is trying to compare Bush Scapegoating people like Saddam who might very well have had absolutely nothing to do with the terror attacks that happened on 9/11 much like Hitler did with Scapegoating the Jews, the rounding up of prisoners in camps (Guantonomo Bay).

Bush and Hitler are/were both diverting attention from real issues by blaming people, if it isn't Saddam, its someone else, but keeping the attention away from the issues at home in particular.

Now I am not trying to say terrorists in this case are entirely innocent, this is just the point I think Lanny is trying to get across.

Nice try.

Most of what you are saying is simply not true. Bush's stump stop speeches have been DOMINATED by domestic issues. How is that keeping attention away from the problems at home? Comparing the detainees at Gitmo to Jews in Nazi death camps should be a crime. How freaking pathetic.

You have no clue what you're talking about and you're coming to the defense of someone who has clearly demonstrated he has no perspective except paranoia. [/b][/quote]
Whoh whoh whoh

This is what I THOUGHT Lanny was trying to say... if Lanny wants to correct me then go ahead. I am not say its 100% true, but I can see the connections.

Also Bush Stated that the Geneva Convention rules for Detainees do not apply at Guantonomo Bay - there wont be any camera coming out of there I can promise you that.

Did you watch speeches of the Republician national convention? These people are whoring September 11th to death.