View Full Version : GW Bush is a hyprcrite

04-06-2002, 11:57 AM
i was rather suprised to see president bush telling the isralie government they need to back off their war on terror, in their own country, while he has no problem traveling all over the world to fight terrorists who attack the united states.

i didn't vote for bush as president(i did vote for him as governor), but on the most part, i think he has handled the "war on terrorism" well. but,dosen't it seem wrong for him to be telling israel what to do? isn't this like france telling us to leave afganistan?
i think he's worried about upsetting OPEC and a possible oil embargo that would cause the economy to tank. but then again, i shouldn't be suprised. he's a republican who acts, and signs laws, like a liberal.

04-06-2002, 12:12 PM
I think he's worried about WWIII. I am. Because, at this rate, it won't be long at all before all of the arab countries decide to attack Israel. When that happens, well, let's hope it doesn't. Who knows what the answer is now. I cetainly don't. I don't think anyone does. It's gotten to the point where someone has to bite the bullet and say, I am not going to retaliate. But, it doesn't look like either side is willing to do so.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate, leads to suffering.

04-06-2002, 12:29 PM

i'm not a war monger, but war with the arab countries does not worry me. they know the U.S., israel, and England would wipe them out, occupy their land, and seize their oil fields. i think they will behave themselves.:)

i just think bush is trying to cover his a s s so the economy does not tank and he gets sent back to texas in 2005.

04-06-2002, 12:33 PM
It's not the arab countries that worry me as much as countries like China, who would support them when it came down to it, because they hate the US too. Many countries hate the US, because they find us arrogant, and think we try to force our will on everyone, which I can't argue with too much.

But if Japan, China, or other countries get into the fold, that can mean trouble.

04-06-2002, 01:09 PM
I don't think Bush really cares about re-election at this point. Sure we can all assume that he is just like every other career politician, but that would be closed minded and paranoid.

What Bush really wants to do right now is get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq, via a full scale military offensive. This will be much easier to do if he has the support of one or more Arab nations. However, the Arab nations that helped us in the Gulf War, like Saudi Arabia, will not do anything while there is still fighting going on between the Israelis and Palestinians. Thus, Bush tells Israel that maybe they need to work towards a peace agreement.

I'm actually happy with the level of uninvolvement we have had concerning this whole mess in Israel. I would have been so easy to just start sending in US troops to enforce peace. Fortunately, Bush is smarter than that.

It's just like when we had two guys who just hated each others' guts in the Army. You simply lock them in a room together, let them fight it out and let the chips fall where they may.

We need to just stand back, let Palestine and Israel resolve this conflict themselves and whoever wins gets to keep the country.

I will say this, though, I will never feel any sympathy for Palestine's "plight" as long as they continue to use suicide bombers to make their point.

Your personal views of Bush notwithstanding, derek, I think we all can agree that he has done an awesome job in the wake of Sep 11th. I shudder to think of how Clinton, or even worse Gore, would have reacted to such a tragedy.

04-06-2002, 01:29 PM
big barada,

you make some good points about the coming iraq offensive, but israel and palestine have already had a few wars, and israel won them all. why israel trys to deal with irrational people, i'll never understand. you can't talk peace with someone who want's to blow you up.


i never understood why china would get invovled in this. i'm always hearing this from my dad, who likes to quote the book of revlations and cite "end of the world" theories.:)

everyone is afraid of china because they have a billion people in their country. maybe a hundred years ago, a huge army like that have would mattered, but with our military might, i don't think there isn't anyone we couldn't defeat. keep in mind, i don't want war, i just think the power of china is over stated. it's clear now, russia was an inferior foe we overly feared.

04-06-2002, 01:44 PM
I don't know what to make of all this, but here's a few thoughts . . .

I don't worry about China from a Middle Eastern standpoint, I think capitalism is creeping in continuously and their interests in the long run will not line up with religious fanaticism (remember, they are communists - officially atheist). Long term, China will benefit from western relations.

Revelation - it's unfortunate that people are trying to read it like tea leaves. I put NO faith in it as a look to the future, but it is a great book of coded messages of hope to people who lived almost 2 thousand years ago.

To me the wildcard is rogue use of massive weapons. I agree derek, the population of China is meaningless from a militaristic point of view, and as I inferred earlier I don't know why China would use something on the west. But there are some people who don't care about what happens to them after an attack, and THAT worries me.

Just a few thoughts . . . :)

04-06-2002, 01:50 PM
It's not like a conflict with China would be just a ground war. Fact is, China has technology close to ours, and definately has nuclear capabilities. If they were to align with Iraq, or soem of the other arab countries against us, and supply them with technology, and weapons, or even troops, things could get messy quick.

To underestimate China and their potential involvement in any conflict is ludicrous. As far as Russia, they destroyed themselves. To say they weren't capable of defeating us may or may not be true, and thankfully, we may never know. However, they were a country divided, and because we tried to avoid conflict with them, instead of encouraging it, they finally fell under their own weight. But to say, that in the heart of the cold war, if we had said, just bring it, that they weren't a legit threat, would have been ridiculous too.

I feel our forces are the best in the world, no question. However, the last thing I or anyone wants to have to do is prove it. To say we ccould beat China, so they are no threat, I dunno.

So if we kill 50 million of their people, and they only kill 10 million of ours, is that a victory?

Sorry to rant. Just my thoughts. :)

04-06-2002, 01:58 PM
I'm a pacifist by nature, but I am so sick of hearing about the war between Isreal and Palestine. There war goes far back beyond the creation of Isreal after WWII. Obviously neither side will be happy until the other side is completely desolated. They have had plenty of chances for peace, but they obviously don't care about peace anymore. I say as long as the war stays between them two, let them kill each other.

I think Bush has done a good job so far, too. I don't think China is trying to provocate a fight with us either. And I seriously doubt they'll ever side up with the Arabs for anything. There is really nothing the Arabs can offer them in return, China is pretty self-sufficient for the most part. And I don't think either side wants a devestating war either.

Just another example of religious fanaticism being responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

04-06-2002, 02:05 PM

i gotta disagree with you. i do think israel would at least try to get along with the palestine people. they have proved this by trying to engage in peace talks for years now. it's the arabs who want to destroy the jews.

but i do agree that they should settle this. we need to stay out of it. the whole problem here is religion. if both groups of these people would act in a rational manner, instead of trying to establish a religious government of their favor, this would not be happening.

04-06-2002, 02:07 PM
China also has their own internal divisions, with the hardline old timers on one end and younger capitalist interested future leaders.

Good discussion everyone, I too am tired of the fighting. Kids can't even go to a nightclub without the very real threat of being blown up. :cry:

04-06-2002, 02:13 PM
Oh how I wish I wasn't the only moderator of this section... Thanks for keeping it clean so far gang (not kidding or being sarcastic).

04-06-2002, 02:18 PM

Both sides had numerous peace talks while Clinton was in office if I remember, and nothing came of it. Neither side could ever reach an agreement.

Now, your right in that the Arabs usually are the ones to fire first, but I think that if Isreal truly wanted peace, that they would've done what it took by now. Isreal doesn't want to give up any more land, especially Jeruselam (sp?) and the Arabs have stated that's what they want most.

I think the Arabs here are the ones who need to be calmed down here though. This is really getting out of hand, IMO.

04-06-2002, 02:25 PM
I'm not going to credit arguments laid out before, just assume that I'm referring to you when I address your points.
The US gov't is currently doing a LOT of PR with regards to Israel. IMO, the gov't is made up of enough who would profit from the oil shortage that Irans proposed embargo would create (think Cheney). The gov't can't just "allow" this to happen, so they let it happen and then characterize it as terror. This creates an excuse to slap the "new" definition of "terrorism" on the embargo and helps the US to further the "with us or against us" concept.
If this is indeed the case, China would likely get involved, especially since China sells plenty of military equipment to Iraq, and the US would not allow that kind of activity under the "peaceful new regime" which they want to install in that country once saddam hussein is "eliminated".
The US is now finding out how difficult the whole "war on terror" has made their self-proclaimed role as "global police" is to uphold while making it look like they're trying to make the whole world better for everyone. They can't touch Israel, and it's getting harder for them to do anything without showing the cards. Sorry for the rant, but as a politically "aware" Canadian, life is getting a lot scarier(and I lived through the reagan presidency!)
If nobody does anything, we're in trouble, and since Wubbya came out and said that the US was gonna lead the war on terror, he doesn't have any choice. May the Force be with us, and if anyone here needs directions to the great white north, let me know. WHEW.

04-06-2002, 06:31 PM
bb: "we can all assume that (bush) is just like every other career politician, but that would be closed minded and paranoid"
-would not assuming that he Isn't like every other career politician also be closed-minded? only the situation he finds himself in differs. that doesn't automatically make Him different.

"I shudder to think of how Clinton, or even worse Gore, would have reacted"
-closed-minded indeed; does anyone seriously think there's That much difference between repooplicans and demmycraps? they're both beholden to similar interests. and just as dubya's opportunistically using war-derived support to ram thru any partisan agenda he wants in the guise of patriotism, so would a democratic presidency.

"I will never feel any sympathy for Palestine's 'plight' as long as they continue to use suicide bombers"
-as if terrorism were a somehow less noble tactic than any other kind of warfare. it is not. war is ugly, amoral business no matter how it's waged. the big use armies, while the small use terror. both get results, and results are all those who wage war really care about, and that includes us. the distinction between targeting "innocent" (:rolleyes: ) civilians and soldiers is irrelevant. someone wins, someone loses. people die either way.
the u.s. has no choice but to eventually move against iraq, but doing so isn't going to bring or prevent anything that's coming. geopolitically, iraq's a trifle, merely one of many flashpoints.

"simply lock them in a room together, let them fight it out and let the chips fall where they may"
-that doesn't work when more than one man comes out of that room alive. a grudge will fester regardless of some harmless little fistfight's outcome. there's no such thing as "pounding sense into someone". there is only revenge (which i approve of), and permanently preventing your opponent from retaliating. which is why aristocracies used pistol duels. the only thing that really settles scores is death.
i agree that our partisan loyalty to israel has been a misguided experiment that must end. in the face of no possible peace, we should remain Neutral. we claim we're their allies cuz they share our democratic values, but we should face the facts about their ruthless fanaticism, what they've been willing to do when push comes to shove. both sides are so fanatical the rest of the world should simply declare the area a no-man's land, turn a blind eye and let extremists on both sides who insist on fighting for their "holy ground" exterminate each other to the last upon it.

derek: "if both groups of these people would act in a rational manner"
-don't hold your breath; judge them by their actions, not their words.

"war with the arab countries does not worry me"
-it should, cuz it wouldn't just be arab countries, it would be the islamic world in general, a billion strong. as we have seen in the last few months, this conflict is widening, factions are polarizing.
conquering and occupying a united islam would hardly be easy for the us and its allies.
bin laden's dead but his dream, his plan- to trigger war between the west and islam- is alive and well.

qld: you needn't worry about china just yet; they hate islam as much as they hate us. so for the next 50 years, they'll shrewdly do everything they can to remain firmly neutral and isolationist, until after the west and islam devastate each other in abovementioned war. THEN they'll take power-

04-06-2002, 07:52 PM
you can't talk peace with someone who want's to blow you up.

That is avery true statement, one that applies for both sides.

I have to say that I think I disagree w/ most of you. Evrey night I see this stuff in the news it bothers me, almost to the point of writing my elected leaders, but I'll share w/ you.

1. I don't think the violence either side is commiting is right, but I see Israel as the aggressor in this situation. They are a larger country, they have more weapons and technology to fight and kill the Palestinians. They claim they want peace and yet use helicopters and tanks to hunt and asassinate Palestinian's. They claim that the are "morally" right. Let's see them act morally. Stop commiting acts of war and violence against the Palestinians, sit down and have meaningful peace negotiations. Turn the other cheek.
Will the Palestinians stop their acts of violence if Israel does this? In the short term, no. But if Israel stopped the fighting, then Palestine would lose their "moral" support. Once their moral support fades, so will their political support.

2. There is no comparison between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the so-called War on Terrorism. With the WoT, al-quayda (there are, like, 50 different spellings for that name) came hijacked a bunch of planes and flew them into buildings (please don't be offended by that, I'm not trying to minimize the events of 9/11) because we're the Great Satan! In the I-P conflict, the Palestinian's are fighting for statehood and sovereignity, to stop the encroachment of the Israeli's into their lands. You say that a suicide bomber is a terrorist. What other weapons do they have? They don't have American-made tanks and jets and helicopters. There are individuals now becoming, or thinking of becoming, suicide bombers b/c of how the Israeli gov't is terrorizing Palestine, ALL Palestinians. They're willing to fight and die for the country that they deserve, that they have a right to. Now, I'd also like to point out that the Arab's/Muslim's who think we're the Great Satan feel that way b/c we blindly support Israel.
What If...?
What if Americans were now expanding westward, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, pushing the Indians further and further back? And the Indians don't have the technology the US has? How do you think they would fight us?

3. I think that W is doing a terrible disservice to the American people, and to the world, by not intervening and suing for peace.
As a society we have laws and a police force to uphold those laws, and we call ourselves civilized. The police don't let rival gangs fight it out until one side or the other is dead. Why should we stand by while these two people's fight? Allowing this to continue without doing anything to end the violence minimizes our humanity (and it also stregthens the Great Satan theory).

The US, as a member of the "community of nations" has a moral obligation to help put out that fire. If we do, we'll gain respect, and the Israeli's and Palestinian's will, hopefully, see each other w/ respect.

04-06-2002, 09:36 PM
a VERY impressive display of well-presented thoughts in this thread.

back on 3/29, I posted thoughts very similar to many of those stated today about Israel & Palestine... (http://home.adelphia.net/~jr44772/randomthoughts.htm#03/29/2002_Israel/Palestine)

...and about China (http://home.adelphia.net/~jr44772/randomthoughts.htm#04/02/2002_China_aims_more_missiles)

04-07-2002, 03:30 AM
vt: you have a great knack for beating people over the head with their own words, you almost had me thinking I had made a judgement error in ref to Bush. I made no assertions to what I believed Bush was thinking other than that he wasn't concerned about re-election "at this point." As in, not while this crisis in Israel continues to escalate.

My defense of Bush is based on what we have seen of his leadership skills so far. I believe that the way he has handled the 9/11 crisis was exemplory; but that is my personal belief.

My derision of Clinton and Gore was based on what I percieve to be 8 years of lies, scandals and half-measures when it came to terrorist acts. I don't believe that those leopards would have changed their spots after 9/11. But perhaps I was being too hasty, as Rudolph Guliani surprised everyone with his actions. Or so I read, I never really paid much attention to him before 9/11.

Anyway, the issue at hand is one that I am very biased about. I will always side with Israel when it comes to the Palestinians and I see what Israel is doing as justified in the wake of the suicide bombing outbreak.

Feel free to deride and insult me for ignoring the 'facts' and going with my gut; but that's the only way I know how to act.

Rollo Tomassi
04-07-2002, 09:05 AM
Wow! Excellent thread you guys.

China. I think China's "Communist" Dictatorship (Communism is laughably in quotes. There has never been a truly functioning Communist country on the face of this planet. The "haves" rule the country and the "have nots" suffer under them) will crumple in the next 25-30 years as younger capitalist minded politicians take over. If a war DOES break out in the Middle East, China will look at the long term results and realize the winning side (U.S. and allies) will control all that oil. They'll want in on that action and side WITH us, not against us.

Bush. I agree with bigbarada. I cannot see Gore handling this crisis as well as Bush has been doing. The man has been doing an exemplary job through all of this.

Israel/Palestine. Forget two guys in the army. These guys are acting like Kindergartners. How many of their children on both sides have to die before they realize the futility of their conflicts? The whole situation makes me want to personally go over there and slap each and every one of them around and yell "Look what you are doing!!":mad: I made a comment in another thread that if you can't share your toys, then NOBODY gets it.

U.S. Involvement. I know there's a shody outlook towards U.S. foreign policy across the globe. it seems we are always sticking our noses in other countries business. I think we tried isolationism once or twice before with dire consequences. So forgive me if I think it's a good thing we stamp out the "brushfires" before they become "conflagrations." That's my personal insight on everything.

So who's excited to see Star Wars in May!?!:p :D

04-07-2002, 02:03 PM
-the right tool for the right job, i always say ;) but need i bother? re "the issue at hand is one that I am very biased about", you're doin a good job without any help from me ;)

"the way (bush) has handled the 9/11 crisis was exemplory"
-imo his foreign war policy's been marked by a surprisingly admirable degree of restraint, deftness and surgicality. clearly someone in his camp is taking the long view and seeing that this is a lesser-of-multiple-evils situation and that the best we can hope for is to minimize or delay the coming ww3 between west & islam. being unable to imagine we would get the same shrewd process under a democratic administration is what I'D call "closed-minded and paranoid" :eek:
his domestic policy's another story. throwin sdi money at defense contractors? checkin old ladies for shoebombs? indulging john ashcroft's covering of a nude justice dept. statue? allowing his spokesmen to brand mere questions of his policy as traitorous? deficit-raising tax breaks for fatcats in the name of economic patriotism? what the hell's any of that mindless junk got to do with preservin what america stands for?
re giuliani, he may be the kind of leader who's only good in a crisis, a la churchill, who was voted out as soon as ww2 ended. before 9-11 rudy's tenure was "distinguished" by such things as hypocritically attacking anti-catholic art exhibits while steppin out on his own wife, closin strip clubs & disneyfying times square. guys like churchill & guiliani (& dubya?) need somethin Really big to keep them occupied, otherwise they end up makin big unneccessary messes imposing their personal views on inappropriate areas.

"I will always side with Israel when it comes to the Palestinians"
-it is exactly such unconditional loyalty which prolongs that eternally pointless conflict. if the resta the world would wash their hands of the mess, stop paying attention to it and Stop Taking Sides, it would die out soon enough.

"you almost had me thinking I had made a judgement error"
-i spose i can't win em all ;)

de22: "police don't let rival gangs fight it out until one side or the other is dead"
-in fact, sometimes they Do, when it can get Results no other approach would.

"Allowing this to continue without doing anything to end the violence minimizes our humanity"
-this is an imperfect world, so a certain degree of "humanity minimization" is inevitable.
as a former emt you are certainly familiar with the concept of Triage. one must pick one's battles. experience has shown that taking any side or intervening in israel/palestine is a bad pick, one that's only made things worse.

"we'll gain respect"
-no one respects a government when it doesn't learn from its mistakes. our partisan israel/palestine involvement has been a fiasco that's made a laughingstock out of our professed ideals. it's time to learn and adapt. the world will respect That.

rt: "There has never been a truly functioning Communist country"
-true enough, but the chinese government's not just about communism; it's also about control, conformity, order. philosophy which emphasizes such values (primarily confucianism) has been ingrained into chinese society for millenia, which has yielded a people much more suited to living under the chinese brand of communofascism than western notions of freedom and individuality. but don't hold yer breath waiting for our government Or theirs to wisely realize "to each his own". a clash is inevitable, and time is on china's side-

04-07-2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by vulcantouch
indulging john ashcroft's covering of a nude justice dept. statue?

That really happened? Wow, when I heard about it I just assumed someone was making a joke. :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

04-07-2002, 03:07 PM
While I won't apologize for my unconditional support for Israel, I don't really have a militant attitude about the whole deal. I just feel that if anyone should come out as the victor in this whole mess it should be Israel. Mainly because I don't think for a minute that the extremist Palestinians will rest until the Israelis are completely ousted from that land. Of course, the same can be said for the extremist Israelis, and I am not naive enough or so blinded by my religious convictions as to believe they don't exist.

Basically, like all of life, it boils down to the 10/90 rule. There will always be that 10% that screws everything up for the other 90%. Meaning I don't believe every Israeli or every Palestinian is an extremist war-monger. Unfortunately, just the people in charge at the moment.

The US being the world's policemen? Bad, bad, bad idea! If the US makes a policy of sticking it's finger in everybody's pie whenever there seems to be a conflict, it will foster nothing but more resentment and hatred of our country. I'm not saying turn a blind eye, we should just choose our battles carefully. The triage example is an excellent one, vt! (Wait a minute, do we actually agree on something?:eek: )

04-07-2002, 04:13 PM
I have tried to stay away from this thread for fear of being misunderstood.I think I can handle it now :)
Can I personally view the current situation without my personal Faith not making me appear not biased?No I cannot.As a struggling Christian I side with the Isrealis.Does that mean I agree with their tactics or find them blameless in this.By no means!!
Do I believe it's their land? yea wholeheartedly.
And that is because of my faith in the bible.No way around it!!! Is that religious fanatisizm?I don't think so.My faith in Christ would not permit me to try and justify the actions of either side completly. Isreal has a right to defend itself.As do the Palastinians.
But there is a difference between defense and constant provacation.As there is a difference between killing innocents in a war time atmosphere and deliberately targeting them.The latter is what I feel the Palastinians have been about.The whole "drive them into the sea" thing. You are absolutely right when you say war is dirty.And it is silly to try and bring some kind of morality into it.But we do.Because there are unavoidible times when you have to respond to a threat or action in a measured,level headed manner as "cleanly as possible.There are somethings so distasteful that almost everyone can agree with the idea it's unacceptable.Deliberately targeting women and children is one of them.
I do not find that being out gunned or being the "Underdog" justifies becoming lower than an animal in your tactics.I would rather die oppressed and a virtual slave than ever target innocents just because that's all I could do.
My question is will they ever really be satisfied? the answer is not humanism,globalism or more watered down empty religion.
I really do tire of Religion being blamed for all the ills of the world.
quote history all you want,but honestly it doesn't change anything for me.Human ego and ignorance is to blame for all of it.

Now we can stray from there into if religion is a cause of that ignorance or not but that would be pointless IMO.I don't know.
I just had to pipe in.Still Friends?:)

04-07-2002, 04:15 PM

somewhere in washington, probably where the justice department has it's offices, there are two greek style statues. i guess they represent liberty and justice. anyway, one of the statues is a female and is wearing a toga style dress and one of her breasts are exposed. the justice department under john ashcroft spent something like $8000 to put curtains over them.

the attorney general gives a lot of news conferences in this part of the building, and i guess he didn't want to be photographed with them.

the ironic thing about this is a while back one of the AG's was having a news conference about pornography, and the photographers went out of their way to get the AG in the same frame with the boob statue.:)

04-07-2002, 06:35 PM
Dryanta brings up a valid point, many of us cannot remain unbiased and uninvolved in this conflict because of our religious beliefs. However, just because we have religious beliefs doesn't mean we should be painted with the same brush as the Muslim extremists who carry out these terrorist attacks? There is a huge difference between a person with a strong spiritual conviction and a religious zealot.

Personally, I don't subscribe to any established religion; but I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins. He opened up a path into heaven that didn't exist before. Whether you choose that path is between you and God.

Not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, just want to lay the cards out on the table so everyone knows exactly where I am coming from. If you feel the need to snicker and jibe, so be it.

I heard some "learned" person saying on the radio that if we didn't have religion we wouldn't have terrorist attacks like those we witnessed on 9/11. Perhaps, but using that line of reasoning we can make other assumtions:

If we didn't have parents, we wouldn't have child abuse.

If we didn't have doctors, we wouldn't have medical malpractice.

If we didn't have the male sex, we wouldn't have rape and sexism.


Religion has it's purpose, while many can't see that now. Unfortunately the beauty in religion is being far outweighed by the ugly right now. (The 90/10 rule again) And to assume that all religious people are potential terrorists is exactly like saying that all parents are potential child abusers. Or all men are potential rapists.

04-09-2002, 03:10 PM
On China...

Don't underestimate the power of belief. The Chinese have lived with their manner of thinking since before Christ. It is the oldest society in existence currently and has survived dynasty upon dynasy upon dynasty. One thing is clear, the concept of indentured servitude has been engrained into those people for over two thousand and while it may be true that capitalism is slowly finding its way into their culture it will take a long time for the assimilation to be complete and two undo two thousand years of philosophy. The only mechanism that could speed this along is a revolution. Unfortuneately the chinese government has such a tight leash on its people that movements on that grand a scale rarely go unnoticed. It is a powerful government to be sure and even managed to percolate into our government in the 90s.

Read the book "Seeds of Fire" and you will see that the Chinese are not a force to be taken off-handedly. Its delusions like "We America can crush anybody" is the entire reason we are in the mess we are in. Bush has handled the situation remarkably well and even if our economy tanks (which has very little to do with Bush anyway - he has no authority over Greenspan who controls the interest rate; yes Bush can cut taxes but I'm not even going to into how this helps the economy) I will vote for him again because I trust him. Hillary, Daschle, Gephardt can go back to Mordor - where the shadows lie...

04-09-2002, 10:33 PM
Whoa, Whoa,


Exqueez me, vulcantouch, did you say Salami Balony (Osama Bin Laden) is dead?

04-10-2002, 01:32 PM
PREACHER - way to go! I've been trying to raise awareness of China's goal to become the dominant military superpower for years among family and friends. Seeds of Fire has been on my list to read for a while now. Have you read The China Threat, Tiger on the Brink, or Red Dragon Rising? All are very interesting, if not alarming, reading.

I have some informative links (http://home.adelphia.net/~jr44772/news__views.htm) on China, and other U.S. defense-related issues, if you're interested.

04-10-2002, 01:46 PM
America's arrogance and own self-importance reminds me of a saying a certain star wars character that is very applicable in this case.

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force."

replace "destroy a planet" with "carpet bomb an enemy"


replace "force" with "belief"

04-10-2002, 02:21 PM
Underestimating China is a serious mistake. Wars are not won in the air or with bombs, every war in the history of mankind has been won simply by men on the ground killing more of the enemy than they kill of you.

The combined Army manpower of China and North Korea is 3 million men. The US' Army has less than 450,000 men and women. Thats more than six soldiers of theirs for every one of ours. If you had a gun do you really think you would win in a fight with six guys carrying steel pipes? No, because while you are shooting one or two, the rest are bashing you over the head from behind. Even if we were to wipe out their entire military, we would still be facing a population of over a billion people, that's more than four times the entire US population. Sure we could carpet bomb our way through China; but we better make sure they are all nuclear bombs and that we leave no one alive.

Technology is notorious for failing at critical moments, brute strength is what wins a war. Which is why war is so brutal and barbaric and ugly.

This is one of the points GL was trying to make when he wrote a script with John Millius which would eventually become Apocalypse Now; how a technologically inferior group of people could so easily defeat a technologically superior foe. When he abandoned Apocalypse Now due to lack of studio support, he incorporated that idea into Star Wars.

04-10-2002, 05:04 PM
. . . i "know" bin laden's still dead the way vader "knew" obiwan was on ds1, or atreides "knew" the emperor & harkonnens were conspiring against his house. just call me the Oracle At SSG :cool:
if that's not good enough: does anyone really think that, if he were alive, a publicity***** like bin laden would've gone this long without Gracing the world with yet another VTape manifesto? of course not: that alone tells my cardassian-trained mind he's outta the picture :dead:
not that it matters much; "osama"'s currently the #1 name for newborns in the arab world-
np: Sorcerer's Apprentice

04-10-2002, 07:59 PM
VT, your intuition has been noted by The Powers That Be....

04-11-2002, 12:15 PM
say, that bbc staff writer trevor holtz is one good-lookin guy ;)

04-11-2002, 12:42 PM
So what are you going to do with all the money, VT? $25 million will buy an awful lot of Micro Machines.:p :D

04-11-2002, 02:14 PM
Who are YOU calling a Crate of Hippos? :crazed:

Trevor who?

Haley Joel Osama?

UseMeAsa Bin-Liner?

So here we are. Once again... a ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch. :cry:

04-11-2002, 05:07 PM
yea, with all that dough, you'll have enough money to start your own scalper store.:D

04-11-2002, 07:29 PM
. . .i think i'll use it to join mega galoob collector baal in bringin back trek micromachines (http://www.artasylum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000047)! Yeah!! who's with us? :cool:
at this point it looks like we'll need a similar campaign to get any aotc mms too :frus:

04-12-2002, 12:56 AM
Too bad, lots of the AOTC vehicles seen in the trailer would make perfect MMs. It's doubtful Hasbro will make even half of them into toys because of cost concerns. So MMs and Action Fleet would have been perfect.

ahem, what was the topic of this thread again?:)

04-12-2002, 11:03 AM
I like elephants better...

yeah... what? what??!!

Oh... that's different.

Never mind... :D

Man In The Box
04-13-2002, 09:10 AM
I have to side more with the palastiniens on this. Compare the death tolls, the Isearalis are in the hundreds, the Palastinens are in the thousands. The Israleis are being way too agressive and are just making things worse with this operation. Why are they still occupiying these territories?( sorry, I dont know as much about that question as I should)

By the way of the Isreals operation, it seems more like that Sharon wants to wipe out the palastiniens than any peace. That idiot doesnt seem to see that he's just making the pile of @#$! bigger than it already is.

04-13-2002, 05:02 PM
man in the box,

anti jew, and from germany? i wonder........

sorry i couldn't resist.

since you admit you don't know much about this subject, do a little research. i recommend www.aynrand.org/israel/

the PLO is clearly the agressor in this dispute. the isralies have two choices here. pick up and leave the region, or go after the terrorists that keep killing women and children. i don't think they are gonna leave....

Man In The Box
04-14-2002, 05:50 AM
No...I'm not even German. Just cuz I'm not pro-Iseral doesnt make me anti-semite. The Israilis are not exempt from wrong doing just becasue they are Jewish. I know your kidding anyway...

My main concern is that Sharons operation is really gonna bring some you know what down and dare I say WW3. And with me very close to draft age...If WW3 does start cuz of this I'm blaming that fat fatherless man more than anyone(even though it's a multiable blame story)

04-14-2002, 09:39 AM
man in the box,

i'm glad you have a sence of humor.:)

i understand you concerns, but i think you don't have to worry about a draft. i look upon the draft as a kind of slavery. once it has been repealed, it would be very difficult to start again.

are you living in germany with your family? are your parents u.s. military?

Man In The Box
04-14-2002, 12:19 PM
Yeah i'm in germany with y family. We aint actually military, but by Dad is a GS and we've been in Germany for years(10 years this May)

04-19-2002, 01:24 PM
The Emperess Strikes Back.... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13965-2002Apr19.html)

04-19-2002, 04:09 PM
I wanted to start a new thread after the events of the last couple of days regarding the whole "war on terror". I am personally worried sick about what stupid thing W might bring down upon us (Canada).
One day, he gives a speech straight out of GI Joe, with statements like "no one can be neutral" and "with us or against us".
The next day a US aircraft bombs (from a high altitude, I've been lead to believe) a group of OUR troops operating in a thoroughly restricted/designated training area because the pilot believed he was receiving GROUND FIRE???
I'm sorry, I'm trying to keep it cool. I'm personally not impressed with anything that has happened in the last few months on the global political scene, but I honestly don't see how any country can be so "above the law" as W seems to believe of the US, and then be so random and seemingly incompetent at the same time. Or maybe it's just me.

Jedi Clint
04-19-2002, 05:37 PM
I didn't hear anything about us killing Canadians. Can you provide a source? I'm sorry. How is that you are blaming an individual soldier's screw up on our President? He is going to receive criticism from supporters on both sides of this issue if he does what is right. And that seems to be exactly what he is doing. In the end these people will eventually have to live side by side or bring on WW3. I believe G.W.'s stance on terrorism remains basically intact. The situation with the middle east is extremely touchy. I compare it to an oil well fire. Spray it with all the water you want, the best way to extinguish it is with dynamite. I believe we are actually trying to keep it from ending that way.

04-19-2002, 06:01 PM
mabudon, I'm certain I speak for all rational U.S. citizens when I say that we are extremely sorry for the lost lives of your Canadian soldiers. There are never adequate words or actions to make up for such things. But as Jedi Clint said, our President is not to blame for this random, senseless act, any more than your Prime Minister Jean Chretien is directly to blame for some of the September 11th airline terrorists entering the U.S. across the Canadian border into our state of Maine.
I'm sure the wounds to many Canadiens' national pride over these deaths will take a long time to heal. I do hope time will grant some perspective on this, and people will come to remember that NONE of our soldiers would have been in Afghanistan in the first place, were it not for the acts of the terrorists, and their corrupt al-Qaida regime.

Jedi Clint
04-19-2002, 06:19 PM
I certainly did not mean to come off like the lives of your soldiers do not matter. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I just wanted to read the news for myself, as I hadn't heard about it yet. It is tragic, and I am sorry for your losses.

04-23-2002, 02:30 PM
Thank you for understanding. Yeah it wasn't Chretiens fault SWAFMAN, but please don't forget that your border guards are the ultimate guardian at the crossing. We let people go right across the bridge, you guys turn em back. I crossed the border to see MANOWAR on the 4th, and we didn't have any trouble until we were on the US side.
I guess I blame W because of the kind of black and white wanted poster style suff he says, which is guaranteed to get knee jerk reactions from the masses and make bad situations worse. I understand that he didn't pull the trigger, but back before he was elected I do remember him saying in debate that the US was in danger from the rest of the world, and that he would "redefine the US military to redefine the way wars are fought in the future", and right from that moment I knew he was bad news (I don't know which debate, but look it up, he said it)
Just the fact that that was part of his platform, and seeing the situation now makes him look at least a bit guilty for the "war on terror", and that's why I'll blame him. Sorry, but he did say it.
I'm not mad at anyone here, the whole deal just worries me. If anyone knows where the quotes I mentioned are, please link to them. I swear I'm not crazy. WOOOOOO!!!!!

06-24-2002, 02:41 PM
In a few minutes, Bush is expected to announce a middle east peace proposal that grants limited recognition of Palestinian statehood in the existing territories in Gaza & the west bank. What signal does this send to the militant suicide bombers who've killed hundreds of Israelis in the past year, including dozens just in the past week? It seems obvious to me that the clerics and others who brainwash their youth into being human bombs will absolutely spin any U.S. endorsement of Palestinian statehood into a validation that the terror bombings have been a huge success. Would not a better announcement from President Bush be a blistering condemnation of the suicide bombings, and a vow that the U.S. will never recognize Palestinian statehood so long as even a single attack against Israel, or anywhere else for that matter, takes place? Any recognition of statehood must be contingent upon an extended period, perhaps at least two full years, of ZERO violent attacks by Palestinian Islamists against any target whatsoever. Of course, that is virtually impossible, so we're back to square one which is that this is a no-win problem, politically, for the U.S., and we ought to just stay out of it and let the two parties sort it out themselves, no matter how painful it will be to witness the outcome. The only reason I can imagine for Bush to be throwing the Palestinians such a major bone today, is to pander to the neighboring oil-producing Arab nations, thus maintaining smooth relations for Bush/Cheney's petroleum industry brethren.

06-24-2002, 03:04 PM
well, the speech was mostly vague rhetoric, but at least Bush didn't cave in. He did link any recognition of Palestinian statehood to demonstrable reforms in their leadership, constitution and their entire political infrastructure, and an end to violence.

06-24-2002, 04:13 PM
i think even mentioning a palestenian state is a major cave-in, but i wouldn't expect anything less form bush.:)

the palestine people are the only people i know of who have lost numerous wars and still expect to have a country. usually when you lose a war and are conquered, talks of having your own country are moot.

there will only be peace in the middle east if all muslims are exiled, or if the jews decide to leave. that's the only way there will ever be peace. even if a palestine state is established, they won't be satisfied until the jews are dead or gone and all of israel is called palestine.

06-24-2002, 04:51 PM
Did hear that he was at a concert with Stevie Wonder playing and was trying to wave to say hi. But later on he was asked why was he waving at Stevie Wonder, he said "oh I thought that was Ray Charles."

06-24-2002, 05:29 PM

i'm no bush fan, but he didn't wave hello to a blind man. the real story is he was gesturing to someone else, while stevie wonder was playing, and those who like to make bush out to be an idiot, made up the version you heard.

bush ain't stupid, he's just a neo-liberal who cals himself a republican.:)

09-25-2002, 01:29 PM
I have been watching this thread closely; I haven't posted anything till now for the thought that they might offend someone in a particular manner. First thing is first can anybody tell me why the U.S. is at war right now? Besides the fact of 9/11, I believe it goes back quite a few years, so if anyone has the correct story (Bush Sr?) of how all this hatred between the U.S. and Bin Ladens psychotic regime has unfolded it would be greatly appreciated. I have heard the history in bits and parts, but I would not want to jump the gun and say anything that would come back to haunt me. Secondly, I think Bush Jr is doing a good job with the situation at hand, mind you everything he does will be for a purpose of his own and it has to be done correctly to ensure his re-election when the time comes, I'm sorry that's just how politics work. I have heard many a story that before he was elected, there would be war of some sort, well I guess the predictions were true, but of no known fault of his own. I don't particularly like him, but I give him his props for the job and tasks he has done so far, but I do not agree with many of the statements he has made on T.V. to the press and to the people. As for China and other So-called Super Powers (Old Russia, U.S.), nobody can withstand a nuclear attack of any kind. i.e. Someone bombs the U.S. well there goes Canada too or someone bombs Russia, well there goes most if not all of Europe. Given any teachings from our history lessons of the old world, Rome, Egypt, etc was at the so-called Super Power level. What happened to them? well they finally fell down the power structure and into ruins. Someone here quoted S.W., I think it went like this "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force." and another would be "your over-confidence (arrogance) is your weakness". Reply, "Your faith in your friends (god) is yours". These can be interpreted in many ways, I guess what I'm trying to say is that as a world leader (U.S.) they must try to bring peace by offering peace not war, because someday a madman like Bin Laden will have access to nuclear weapons and guess what happens to America and Canada. Poof were gone up in smoke just like that, nothing could be done about that once it's happened. The few that survive will wish that they were dead, then they will have a new so-called Super Power to contend with until someone gathers up the balls to take them out. All I'm saying is if the U.S. wants to police the world so to speak, then there will be consequences for it's inevitable and not everyone is going to agree with the U.S. on all issues. If the people want peace then let the people decide, not the politicians. That being said I hope I never offended anyone with this post for it's just my opinion on all of this.:D May the Force (peace) be with you.:)

09-25-2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by brandon
First thing is first can anybody tell me why the U.S. is at war right now? Besides the fact of 9/11, I believe it goes back quite a few years, so if anyone has the correct story (Bush Sr?) of how all this hatred between the U.S. and Bin Ladens psychotic regime has unfolded it would be greatly appreciated.

bin ladin was upset that his home country, saudi arabia, allowed the united states to set up military bases for the 1991 gulf war. he caused a lot of trouble over this and was expelled from saudi arabia. since then, he's been at war with the U.S. He never liked us to begin with, but non muslum americans in the muslim holy land was the last straw for him.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as a world leader (U.S.) they must try to bring peace by offering peace not war, because someday a madman like Bin Laden will have access to nuclear weapons and guess what happens to America and Canada. Poof were gone up in smoke just like that, nothing could be done about that once it's happened.

the only problem here, is that the people we are fighting don't want peace. they want to kill us, so the only thing that can be done is take the war to them.

09-25-2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by derek

bin ladin was upset that his home country, saudi arabia, allowed the united states to set up military bases for the 1991 gulf war. he caused a lot of trouble over this and was expelled from saudi arabia. since then, he's been at war with the U.S. He never liked us to begin with, but non muslum americans in the muslim holy land was the last straw for him.

the only problem here, is that the people we are fighting don't want peace. they want to kill us, so the only thing that can be done is take the war to them.

I can understand that derek, but where do we draw the line, I'm sure that most of them do want peace; unfortunately their leaders do not. Why is it that I'm hearing that Bush wants to attack Iraq again, what do they have to do with all this? When you (the U.S.) police the world as they are doing from a certain point of view, it would clearly P*SS some groups off as it did with Bin Laden. The whole issue with Iraq is just IMO an issue over who was going to get control of the Oil, Iraq or Kuwait, well the U.S. does business with the Oil barons so guess what happens a full scale strike on Iraq (Saddam Insane). Who gets P.O.'d with American troops on their homeland (B.L. group), now he's fighting the U.S. back and forth bombing carriers and then the worst tragedy I have ever seen happens 9/11, what makes it worse than anything else is the fact that these are innocent people from all parts of the world working together in one specific place the WTC. Oil is the cause of most of this mess and it's sad that many have died and will continue to die because of this. To protect the North American Continent (America and Canada) we should not get involved in these small wars, as they will do more harm than good in the end. Just simply say sorry but every time we get involved it just causes more problems than we really need. i.e. Vietnam,WTC, I know it will never happen, but it would be nice to pay attention to our starving people rather than making more weapons to help someone else’s people thousands of miles away. I say take care of your own first and once that is done then focus on other countries. :D

Darth Vellner
09-26-2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by brandon

To protect the North American Continent (America and Canada) we should not get involved in these small wars, as they will do more harm than good in the end. Just simply say sorry but every time we get involved it just causes more problems than we really need. i.e. Vietnam,WTC, I know it will never happen, but it would be nice to pay attention to our starving people rather than making more weapons to help someone else’s people thousands of miles away. I say take care of your own first and once that is done then focus on other countries. :D

We need to be involved to protect the "North American Continent (America and Canada)" If we do nothing or if we fight..they will come to destroy and kill us!

Originally posted by brandon
I say take care of your own first and once that is done then focus on other countries.
It does not work that way...we need to stay on top of things.
the whole WTC thing happened because of that reason(not watching what was going on in "other countries")..we don't want that to happen agan!...
The ONLY thing that Evil Men "need" to fulfill there goals.... is for Good Men to do..... NOTHING!

Palestine and israel and Iraq and Kuwait effect the whole world..The worlds Oil supply is in there "holy ground".....(Holy Oil):crazed:

09-26-2002, 03:58 AM
DEREK: George Bush is not a Republican that acts like a Liberal! Not by a long shot! He's a politician that makes compromises sometimes, but mostly he acts like an ignorant or intolerant, or politically indebted conservative.

England and the United States would never condone the military take-over of the MiddleEast which includes countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria.

I think Iraq, Iran, and Yemen are different stories, as is North Africa's Libya. However, as an enlightened people, we must try to allow change to occur in these societies on its own. While we still need to defend ourselves and make sure that we aren't attacked and terrorized. In Sadam's case, I don't know who to believe and how dangerous he really is. I'm sure he hates us for not letting him have Kuwait and for protesting his human rights abuses and gains in arms and attack equipment, but we sold Iraq a lot of that while the Soviets back Iran. It was like North and South Vietnam all over, save for barely any US troops fought on the desert soil. (You can be sure CIA service personnel were in danger there).

So now I think that the decision to take down Iraq should be up to the Central Intelligence Agency, in cooperation with the F.B.I., and with their joint testimony before Congress. Bush should not have shot his mouth off.

However, CIA directors are appointed by Presidents. You can be sure there's political favors put over ability in those appointments also.

Finally, George's daddy was a CIA director before he was president. He might be purvey to good information still. George Sr. was against the war, supposedly. That could be pointed political misdirection. However, if he's giving his son sound advice, that's another story. We can't trust the President, or his father. All we can hope for is that whatever we do, or do not do, we reap a victory out of it with no direct or indirect ill-consequences. And that's a tough situation to control!

I would appoint a diversified board of Intelligence officials from the CIA and FBI and include both Bush and Clinton appointees on the panel and let them gather the facts, draw up the plans, and publically speak as both individuals and a board. Vote on the issue and then take it before Congress for final approval. The President's job is to appoint a fair board, and then lead the war effort, or serve to calm the public and insure us that at peace we will be secure.

And Al Gore is right: we haven't captured all the Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden is still at large! Unless he's living with Sadam, Iraq is not our military priority.

BIGBARADA: I am all for one of two solutions:

Cut all aide to Israel - at the very least funds and weapons sales, as well as forbid our companies to sell to them and reach agreements with all the UN countries to stop weapon sales to Israel and their Arab enemies and let them settle it themselves....


Invade the Gaza Strip and West Bank and establish a Palestinian state and forbid them weapons, but enforce their defenses and their border. Give them half of Jerusalem, or access to part of it, if it's safely defended by their new borders. Otherwise, tell them to be grateful for what we did there.

In Solution 1 - the world will never comply with that and the lobbyists of US weapons countries will never support the election of politicians who will cut them out of big customers like that. Wars are financial opportunities for all those in positions to exploit them. The MiddleEast might just be keeping McDonnel-Douglas, Grumann, Sherman, whoever, in business still. It won't work. Other countries will sell to the Arab nations if they hate us, hate Jews, whatever. Or they'll sell to Israel to capitalize on the market we'd abandoned. War will continue so business will. Meanwhile, young people are dying over there! Even more will die in Israel if we abandon them now. This country was a haven for Jews to escape persecution (for the most part) and Jews flourish here. They sponsor enough politicians that American Jews will not abandon or let their political leaders abandon others being persecuted for their Judiaism. Would you? Neither is the Palestinian lack of a homeland fair, either.

(Arab nations have embraced them (Palestinians) to some degree, but they want their own government, they have their own leaders and their own culture that's different from Jordan's or Lebanon's or Egypt's). If they weren't so stubborn, they'd assimilate into other Arab countries. But this happened so recently, the loss of their land, that it was within most Palestinian elders' lifespans and they remember what was lost, alright. If they weren't so stubborn as well, we could give them a desert island, or whatever. But religion makes them also think that they are after their holy land. Is it religion, or a power play by non-believers that lead through faith so that they can keep what they want and establish a theocracy eventually - one in which they can hold power like the Taliban. That government was a militant Islamic's wet dream. The world doesn't need another one.

But in Solution 2, Americans will get killed. Well Americans, civilians now, are getting killed anyway. We are targets because we have the power to do something for the Palestinians but don't use it, and moreso because we are backers of Israel. Are there more Muslims than Jews in America? I don't think so. Would things be different if there were? Probably. But are the Muslims going to forget and forgive our backing of Israel we've done already? No. Their blood was spilled and they're hungry for ours. If Americans die over this, let us be sure it is in fair combat and for a just cause! It is a security issue for our country, and the way I see it, we have to get involved. Invading (these parts) of Israel, would do wonders for us, moreso than invading Iraq.

An American presence there will have to be maintained for probably at least 150 years though. That's the kind of commitment it's going to take to bring peace to that region that has battled over land and turned it into personal family blood feuds!

09-26-2002, 12:54 PM
I believe the original question was- is GWB a hypocrite for asking the Israelis to back off Ramallah, if you subscribe to the underlying notion that Israel is defending itself against terrorists in much the same way the United States is in demolishing Al-Qaeda. Since I draw a distinction between our actions (justified) and Israel's (dubious), i.e. I do not subscribe to the underlying notion, I do not believe GWB is a hypocrite in this sense.

Some of you seem to be of the opinion that the Palestinians are a conquered nation and should simply vanish into history. Would I? Would you? Would the Rebel Alliance? I would not. I would fight.

Anybody remember a few years ago when Sharon paid a visit to the Temple Mount? This move was designed by Sharon to goad the Palestinians into an uprising, create a crisis, and allow him to win the Prime Ministership. It worked- to the Palestinians it was the equivalent of Hitler going on a tour of synagogues.

The Palestinians are not free of blame either. They dissed a very sweet deal brokered by Clinton that was one of the bravest acts I have witnessed by a politician, Ehud Barak.

Some also suggest that we let them kill each other and back out. Not likely. The political connection between the U.S. and Israel is probably greater that the connection to the UK. We give Israel $3,000,000,000 in foreign aid, which they use to build settlements on land recognized by international law to belong to the Palestinians. So if you found a squatter in your house, what would you do? Before the terror, even a great number of Jews in Israel recognized the settlements as being illegal.

Since we give Israel the tools of oppression, I think GWB is within his rights to demand Israel be temperate in their use. Just as he is right to condemn the suicide bombings.

09-26-2002, 02:47 PM
Great response Jon9000!

What you said was very reasonable!