Political discussion in here please!

[indivision]

Originally posted by flipsideguy
I love it. Just the fact that you guys compare Bush to Saddam makes this whole thing more fun. "Saddam killed Iraqis and you didn't complain. Now Bush's policy is killing Iraqis and you complain" Why oh why, I wonder. Get a clue, you're answering your own questions!

lol. i wasnt comparing Bush to Saddam. I was comparing your reaction to Saddam to that of Bush.

look close. that's a clue for you.

[XcVbSdRw]

Originally posted by XU1
he is after all, just trying to ( God forbid, shock, horror,) fill his solem duty as president to protect his country??

by attacking a country who never attacked us and who, as it turns out, could never have attacked us.

I firmly believe that most of the hatred for him is because of his conservative values and his religious beliefs.

tony-I wish he were true to his religious beliefs. if he were he wouldn't be killing so many people.

[indivision]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Next it will be, "Hitler invaded more countries, so Bush ain't so bad..."

True though, why is it the actual issues can never be discussed, and it always resorts to comparing Bush with someone and what our reaction "should" have been... If you can't understand the different reaction that will happen towards a dictator killing within his country, and the leader of the strongest nation on earth invading a nation that effects every other country on earth then there never will be any intelligent discussion possible.

It's very obvious - or should be - why what Bush does causes more concern arpound the world than what Saddam did (rightly or wrongly), so get over it, and try to discuss the actual issues.

I mean, socialism is now being brought into the discussion?! I thought the "with us or against us" thing was only for brainless clods...

i think my question was perfectly relevant to the post about the global vote results. and it still hasn't been answered.

if you dont think its a credibility issue when people complain about the death resulting from an invasion to remove a dictator and then ignore the death resulting from the dictator himself, then you are right. we cannot have an intelligent discussion.

why cant socialism be brought into the discussion? it seems like a possibility to me. if it is not and we are discussing the subject, why can't you just explain why it's not possible rather than saying in so many words that it is unintelligent to suggest.

with all due respect Davo, I think you sometimes overlook your contribution to "with us or against" type exchanges.

[XcVbSdRw]

indivision-I've asked tony this before but he chose not to reply. can you please explain to me how killing 100,000 or even 10,000 Iraqi men, women and children could possibly be justifiable in the eyes of Jesus? admittedly, I am not Christian but Bush claims to be. and I am really, truly curious as to how this gets explained on judgement day! (this would not be a fair question if Bush himself had not worn his religion on his sleeve.)

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by indivision
Also, the response link doesn't suprise me either. It's strange how the international community feels that they should have influence on the vote of a sovereign nation.

I don't know if anything on that site says they should have an influence on the vote... Maybe "like to", since it does effect more than just the US, like it or not (and hence why US policies will forever be debated more than Australia's or even the UK's).

[indivision]

I can only offer you my particular judgement. I consider all of the casualties incurred in the invasion as the responsibility of Saddam Hussein. I'm sure that you don't mean to, but the way you phrase things makes it sound like the US purposely targeted civilians. I am sure that some have tragically been killed. If one civilian dies in any military operation, that is too many. I believe that Bush feels the same way.

Your idea that Bush is going to have to answer to God for killing women and children is a stretch in my opinion. Take a look at the history of wars and the churches involvement. Murder is a mortal sin, but who is responsible for death in times of war is debated even in the church.

[flipsideguy]

Ok, since Socialism has been brought up as a factor to people's (not mine, though I consider myself a socialist) hatred for Bush, I will partake in a civilized discussion remember, no trolling - whatever that means.

If people believe that Bush invaded Iraq with a hidden agenda that borders on imperialism, socialist will be against the invasion. The correlation is obvious.

I think the US would benefit from some form of socialism. Look at places like Baltimore where the poverty level is very high, where jobs are being lost left and right. It's no lie that the rich in the US are very rich and the poor are very poor. The middle-class is becoming non-existent. Sure, why not, when you have tax-cuts that benefit the rich. There is a stigma in the US that the poor should never be a burden to the rich. It's difficult discussing these things with Americans because to them "The American Dream" is only for the hard-working, not the unemployed.

What are you thoughts and reaction to the observations put forward in my post?

/Flip

[indivision]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
I don't know if anything on that site says they should have an influence on the vote... Maybe "like to", since it does effect more than just the US, like it or not (and hence why US policies will forever be debated more than Australia's or even the UK's).

Still strange if you ask me. You don't see similar sites for elections in France. I doubt they would take kindly to it if there were either.

[XcVbSdRw]

Originally posted by indivision
I can only offer you my particular judgement. I consider all of the casualties incurred in the invasion as the responsibility of Saddam Hussein...Your idea that Bush is going to have to answer to God for killing women and children is a stretch in my opinion.

I appreciate your input on this one. my only disagreement is that I believe Bush made a choice that was not absolutely necessary and that choice resulted in the tragic deaths of many people. and one of those commandments that the religious right fights dearly to have displayed in public places says "thou shalt not kill". I guess we all could agree that killing a knife-wielding maniac who attacks you in the park would be allowed as an exception to this commandment. however, I truly cannot see how an unneccesary invasion that results in the deaths of so many innocents could possibly be excused.

I believe if more people truly thought this through and pictured the dead and maimed children (we're not even allowed to see the caskets of US soldiers), they would support this war a LOT less.

[flipsideguy]

Originally posted by indivision
I consider all of the casualties incurred in the invasion as the responsibility of Saddam Hussein.

How do you figure? How can you blame this on Saddam? What he has done to his country has nothing to do with the invasion. It was the false pretence that he was a threat to the US that was the issue, remember? All the bullwinkle about precision bombs, accuracy blah blah is just that. Look, we all know war is grim, and innocents will be killed. Heck, the insugents are killing civilians as well - yeah let's blame that on Saddam as well. This is just another reason to oppose American foregin policy and illegal wars. You don't even take resposibility for killing civilians. Next, you'll be saying that Bush is a saint.

Originally posted by indivision

Your idea that Bush is going to have to answer to God for killing women and children is a stretch in my opinion. Take a look at the history of wars and the churches involvement. Murder is a mortal sin, but who is responsible for death in times of war is debated even in the church.

You mean like the crusades, when Christians plowed through Earth and demolished the "barbarians?"

/Flip

[XcVbSdRw]

Originally posted by flipsideguy
It's no lie that the rich in the US are very rich and the poor are very poor. The middle-class is becoming non-existent. Sure, why not, when you have tax-cuts that benefit the rich. There is a stigma in the US that the poor should never be a burden to the rich. It's difficult discussing these things with Americans because to them "The American Dream" is only for the hard-working, not the unemployed.

What are you thoughts and reaction to the observations put forward in my post?

/Flip

I think you are dead on! we Americans have been sold a bill of goods in many areas like this. we are supposed to support tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare (and even deny they exist) because some day we think we will be rich and we want our turn at the trough.

it's kinda like the lie that gets sold to young blacks in the ghetto that they can "be like Mike" when the reality is only 1 in a million ever get that chance. and the rest get poor education and lousy health care. then, when they get desperate and commit a crime we hit 'em hard with 3 strikes and they're out.

[indivision]

I'll be back later tonight to answer. I have to watch monday night football because my team is playing.

[XU1]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo


I mean, socialism is now being brought into the discussion?! I thought the "with us or against us" thing was only for brainless clods...

The fact of the matter though is very obvious to any one with a political leaning.

And that is "both" side of politics have fundamental ideological differences in how they tackle the problem of terrorism.

So yes Socialism ( Liberalism) is an issue, since nearly all countries who disagree with Bush are Governed by a Socialist type of Government. It comes down to two differing ideologies.

Now you may not like it but, the last I heard and spoke, your views and those who share similar views identify you with those on the left side of politics.


Tony

[flipsideguy]

BTW, Indivision, did I ever say you have a great website? Well I guess I just did

/Flip

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by XU1
Now you may not like it but, the last I heard and spoke, your views and those who share similar views identify you with those on the left side of politics.

Left of your views (and others with similar views) does not neccesarily mean left.

Be nice if some could recognise that there are many more than just two sides to any discussion or issue...

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by indivision
Still strange if you ask me. You don't see similar sites for elections in France. I doubt they would take kindly to it if there were either.

If France's foreign policies and economic power come to affect the rest of the world as much as the US does I am sure we will be seeing sites similar to that.

And why feel anything towards it besides interest (or a lack of)?

[XU1]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Left of your views (and others with similar views) does not neccesarily mean left.

Be nice if some could recognise that there are many more than just two sides to any discussion or issue...

A third side of the issue would only be a moderate one of the two.


Tony

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by XU1
A third side of the issue would only be a moderate one of the two.

Tony

So in Tony's world (well, in Bush's too... "you're either with us or against us" ), there's only the two extremist views and nothing viable between them?



Damn, glad I live in the real world mate...

(and no wonder there's very little hope for constructive discussion here...)

[david petley]

...you know, if there is only black and white, then the opposite of socialism is fascism isn't it?

Does that mean that if you do not have socialist views, that you must have facist ones?

dp

[XU1]

Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
So in Tony's world (well, in Bush's too... "you're either with us or against us" ), there's only the two extremist views and nothing viable between them?



Damn, glad I live in the real world mate...

(and no wonder there's very little hope for constructive discussion here...)

Well in many things there is only one right or wrong way.....

I firmly believe that the answer to most things is never found in the extreme view, but in the middle somewhere.

And sorry for not coming up to your intelectual level, but I find debating for the sake of debating a rather useless excercise.....

I have already seen this in action with the UN.....and lawyers..



Tony