Election in Spain

[Ickabod]

Re: Re: Core issues

Knowing what we know now
we may have done well to prevent his comming to power all together. I suspect that 20/20 hindsight is often clearer then our powers of seeing the future.

And i suspect you'll hold to that position up until it's again time to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11.

 

[Don]

One of the things that prompted the 9/11 attacks was Osama's anger at finding American cruise missile wreckage in Afganistan when America retaliated for the Embassy bombing in Kenya and Narobi. Who ordered those attacks? The then U.S. Commander in Chief - Bill Clinton.

 

[Ickabod]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Core issues

Sadly, we can't go back in time, so one question is, would you rather the US have not invaded Iraq? If yes, and there will be many Yeses on this board, what would you have suggested in the REAL world.

OTB

My suggestion would be that if he were going to invade Iraq, he not lie about why. Pure and simple. I'll send people to war. Hell, no skin off my back. But i draw the line on allowing people to be lied into one. With Bush's lies, i have zero belief in any of his rationales for the war, be it pre war or post war rationales. He lied before the war about the war, i have no reason to believe he'll tell me the truth after the war about the war.

 

[Ickabod]

One of the things that prompted the 9/11 attacks was Osama's anger at finding American cruise missile wreckage in Afganistan when America retaliated for the Embassy bombing in Kenya and Narobi. Who ordered those attacks? The then U.S. Commander in Chief - Bill Clinton.

Any bets on who will be the first "Hawk" on this board to jump on this post and proclaim "See? Told ya Bill Clinton's actions instigated horrendous attacks on our country".

 

[Don]

You are right bbking. American troops stationed near holy sites in Saudia Arabia also angered Osama. My main point was to those who think that Bush is to blame for 9/11 or Clinton isn't. A long history of questionable foreign policy is to blame along with both Bush and Clinton, Republicans and Democrats, etc...

 

[Don]

Any bets on who will be the first "Hawk" on this board to jump on this post and proclaim "See? Told ya Bill Clinton's actions instigated horrendous attacks on our country".

I don't know. You tell me.

 

[*d*]

First Spain wants to pull its troops from the coalition forces. Then Honduras. Now Poland has doubts.
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=81121&region=3
"The Polish President has admitted his country was 'taken for a ride' over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that Poland was considering withdrawing its troops earlier than expected."

 

[ocean976124]

Re: Stop making stuff up!!

Republicans just pull stuff out of their asses w/o having a shred of proof it seems. First it was OTB now it is you. Do you have any references to back up what you just claimed above?? That's what I thought. Anyways, that is NOT what Hans Blix said.

Ah yeah actually, Blix said he believed Bush was not lying on the Bill O'Reilly show two days ago...

 

[ocean976124]

Here's something Blix also said last Monday, promoting his new book, to NY University students, "They wanted to come to the conclusion that there were weapons(referring to the Bush administration). Like the former days of the witch hunt, they are convinced that they exist, and if you see a black cat, well, that's evidence of the witch."
He also said, "The world isn't safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power".

Blix did say on Bill O'Reilly the other night that the world is a better place without Saddam. Perhaps Blix is as much as a politician as everyone else....

 

[*d*]

Blix did say on Bill O'Reilly the other night that the world is a better place without Saddam. Perhaps Blix is as much as a politician as everyone else....

Does seem odd. I never seen the O'Reilly show, but sometimes statements can appear ambiguous due to context. I never read Blix's book 'Disarming Iraq' either, but a critique I read of it has Blix arguing about the fall of Saddam as being a good thing, but concludes that the good thing is outweighed by the increase in terrorism.

 

[onthebottom]

No

One of the things that prompted the 9/11 attacks was Osama's anger at finding American cruise missile wreckage in Afganistan when America retaliated for the Embassy bombing in Kenya and Narobi. Who ordered those attacks? The then U.S. Commander in Chief - Bill Clinton.

What caused 9/11 was the same thing that caused the attack on our war ship, our embassies and the WTC the first time. Radical Islam hates the West and America is the most powerful nation. Radical Islam also hates Israel and America is the primary (maybe only) supporter of Israel. We are a target.

You cannot blame US policy for terrorist acts against the US, you can only blame the terrorists. I lost a neighbor to 9/11 (and the guy across the street just got out), I don't think you can blame US foreign policy for their experiences. Unless of course you are an appeasement monkey, looking to bow to international terrorists so you're not a target. There's a word for that, I'm trying to think what it is......

OTB

 

[DATYdude]

Marcus Gee's article in today's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040318.wxmgee0319/BNStory/International/

vs. Rick Salutin's take on the elections:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040318.wxsalu0319/BNStory/International/

I am inclined to agree more with Gee since I think the real story is how successful the Muslim totalitarian terrorists are at scaring people into submission (the word Islam means "submission", but it's supposed to be to Allah's will, not Osama's), and into making connections between US actions (and mistakes) in Iraq and the need to fight Muslim extremism.

That the Spanish electorate may have been influenced by the bombings to choose a leadreship that would disengage from Iraq doesn't make it a victory for democracy except in sense that ANY fair election is a victory for democracy. But even electorates can be wrong. Hitler was voted chancellor of Germany in 1933 in a free and fair election. (Is it also totaly unfair to mention Brian Mulroney here?)

 

[n_v]

Re: No

You cannot blame US policy for terrorist acts against the US, you can only blame the terrorists. I lost a neighbor to 9/11 (and the guy across the street just got out), I don't think you can blame US foreign policy for their experiences.

Apparently your understanding of your government's dealings and policies is lacking. This is the problem in US politics. The electorate has a firm belief that America can do no wrong. While the events of 9/11 is tragic and wrong and not to be condoned, to think that America can waltz into any country and completey disregard other cultures and customs without some disdain from somewhere/someone is asinine. Its physics. Every action has a reaction.

 

[*d*]

Re: No

You cannot blame US policy for terrorist acts against the US, you can only blame the terrorists ... I don't think you can blame US foreign policy for their experiences.

OTB

I am totally against terrorism. Taking grievances to the point of fanaticism is criminal. But there are legitimate grievances non the less. And those grievances are about US foreign policy and their devastating effect on Arab nations.
The following link is long, but I invite you to read it. It gives an idea of what these grievances are that motivated 9/11. Its not US freedom that Islamic fundamentalists are against. Bin Laden says nothing about that, only Bush says stuff like that, and Bush's speech today was true to form.
www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: No

I am totally against terrorism. Taking grievances to the point of fanaticism is criminal. But there are legitimate grievances non the less. And those grievances are about US foreign policy and their devastating effect on Arab nations.
The following link is long, but I invite you to read it. It gives an idea of what these grievances are that motivated 9/11. Its not US freedom that Islamic fundamentalists are against. Bin Laden says nothing about that, only Bush says stuff like that, and Bush's speech today was true to form.
www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

This, from your artical, makes my point:

"But by asking why, and by trying to truly understand, we must remember that acts of terrorism like the ones we’ve just experienced can never be justified. I repeat: nothing we’ve ever done, none of our policies, no matter how questionable, can ever justify terrorism."

Enough said.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: No

I am totally against terrorism. Taking grievances to the point of fanaticism is criminal. But there are legitimate grievances non the less. And those grievances are about US foreign policy and their devastating effect on Arab nations.
The following link is long, but I invite you to read it. It gives an idea of what these grievances are that motivated 9/11. Its not US freedom that Islamic fundamentalists are against. Bin Laden says nothing about that, only Bush says stuff like that, and Bush's speech today was true to form.
www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

Didn't realize that we had used WMD against Canada in 1953 - anyone up there elaborate?

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: No

I am totally against terrorism. Taking grievances to the point of fanaticism is criminal. But there are legitimate grievances non the less. And those grievances are about US foreign policy and their devastating effect on Arab nations.
The following link is long, but I invite you to read it. It gives an idea of what these grievances are that motivated 9/11. Its not US freedom that Islamic fundamentalists are against. Bin Laden says nothing about that, only Bush says stuff like that, and Bush's speech today was true to form.
www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

Some great? suggestions for the US:

hold terrorists responsible through international police work

Pull out of US military bases, beginning with Saudi Arabia; such bases don’t protect us from enemies, they create enemies. (I guess someone read that, I think Germany and North Korea should be next)

Turn over Middle East peace process to neutral parties (such as a commission of recent Nobel Peace prize winners). (that's really funny)

End the economic sanctions against Iraq. (now you can see why we had the war, no more sanctions though)

cancel the third world debt ( that should go over well)

Stop the war on drugs abroad

I'm guessing this guys is just a little left of Lenin.

OTB

 

[seven]

Re: Re: Re: No

This, from your artical, makes my point:

"But by asking why, and by trying to truly understand, we must remember that acts of terrorism like the ones we’ve just experienced can never be justified. I repeat: nothing we’ve ever done, none of our policies, no matter how questionable, can ever justify terrorism."

Enough said.

OTB

No, not enough said. You should have quoted one sentence more past that paragraph to give what was said context.

“But if terrorism can never be justified, that does not mean that it cannot be explained or understood.

See that’s a really important point that you can’t quite seem to comprehend and it’s why short-sighted philosophies like Bush’s and yours cause the cycle of terrorism to repeat and renew itself w/o end.

What you should have focused on is this idea of patriotism and duty:

"But I’d like to suggest a more enlightened view of patriotism, as stated by the Nobel Prize writer Albert Camus, who said that “The true patriot is one who gives his highest loyalty not to his country as it is, regardless of what it does, but rather to what it can and ought to be.” In other words, the real patriot insists that his or her nation live up to its ideals."

Unfortunately, that type of moral reasoning is above you at present.

 

[Saturn_Alien]

Re: Re: Re: No

cancel the third world debt ( that should go over well)

I don't agree with you about cancelling the debt of third-world countries, when you do that you ruin them, let them pay up and take responsibility. The worst thing you can do is give money away to the poor. But I agree and all your other points.

 

[wrong hole]

Re: Re: Re: Re: No

The worst thing you can do is give money away to the poor.

....yes we should put them in a sweatshop, I say....while we wine and dine