How stupid

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:14 pm

icecube wrote: AMERICA HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE????

Sorry for all of those you vote the right guy (Kerry), but i had to scream this out!

After all this Son of a Bush did, how can he still get any votes? I can't understand this! Somebody please explain an European how somebody can vote for a guy who says of himself that he is a war president. How can somebody vote for a guy who leads a nation into a war against iraq who had nothing to do with terror, and so just breeds more hate?

How can somebody vote for a man who increased unemployment to its highest since many many years and created a budget deficit thats the biggest in American history.

This are only some questions. If I would write down everything he did wrong, I would write for some more ours.

yes, we are all very, very stupid people here in the United States. our stupidity is incredible. that's why we are the most powerful nation on earth, the free-est nation on earth, the center of technological innovation and achievement, have one of the highest standards of living on earth, are one of the wealthiest nations on earth, one of the most charitable nations on earth, and even with all that, we have no designs on taking over the world, contrary to what a lot of soft-headed ideologues would have you believe.

only stupid, stupid people could accomplish that.

oh, a small correction to your screed: george bush didn't wave a magic wand and say "you're out of work, you over there - you're out of work, you're fired, you're fired, you too you're fired". more jobs were lost in this country in one of the shortest intervals in history - right after madmen crashed jetliners into the world trade center. our nation was stunned, and it sent the economy into a tailspin. it happened on george bush's watch - he didn't create it. if he had, then we'd still have the same unemployment, n'est ce pas? but our unemployment is back down to 1994 levels, shortly after clinton took office.

but for those who believe george bush is the boogie man, all ills of the world rest on his shoulders.

however, bush won the popular vote by a commanding majority, and the electoral college as well. so much for the 'stolen election' crap we had to listen to for the past four years. i'm sure there will be paranoid conspiracy theorists who will claim the same for this election. but then, the mentally ill have a right to their opinion like the rest of us.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:11 pm

I can't even grace this with an anwser.. I mean really.. I am a middle class white man... and I disagree with much that goes on in this country. But still I can voice my opinion, worship without fear, meet where I want with whoever I want to, go where I want, read what I want, and vote for whoever I want to. And these are rights that are available to anyone in this country. All they have to do is stand up for them. Yep.. we are a very stupid country.. see.. I am so stupid I even graced this with and anwser......

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:16 pm

icecube wrote: First of all I am not saying all americans are stupid.that's true. you're only saying that 58 million americans, a clear majority, are stupid. okay.

secondly, yes economically you are successful all over the world - no doubt, credits for that. Capitalism rules.

To you other points: i would not say that you are the free-est country of all - maybe if you are white and rich (or at least middle-class), but there are too many minorities and poor people in your country who still do not really benefit from your free-est of all countries (same counts for having the highest standard of living and being a wealthy nation)the poorest of our poor are free-er and better taken care of than the elite in some countries. millions of 'poor' in our country live in homes they own, drive cars they own, watch tv on four sets - but they're still 'below the poverty line'.

true, some socialist nations have uniform health care, and higher standards of living, etc, and 80% taxes on those who support the rest. we have the best medical technology, bar none. i don't remember the last time someone was airlifted from here to scandinavia for an operation that couldn't be performed anywhere else. but i digress.

I'm not blaming the american population for that, but you should at least reflect your system and be critical.i'm not at all clear what you mean by that.

Pearl Harbor · Post by **Pearl Harbor** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:49 pm

icecube wrote: AMERICA HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE????

Sorry for all of those you vote the right guy (Kerry), but i had to scream this out!

After all this Son of a Bush did, how can he still get any votes? I can't understand this! Somebody please explain an European how somebody can vote for a guy who says of himself that he is a war president. How can somebody vote for a guy who leads a nation into a war against iraq who had nothing to do with terror, and so just breeds more hate?

Thank goodness that the United States is one of the FEW countries in the world who is willing to stand up against evil.

And you better hope we remain strong. I wouldn't be surprised if we had to bail you out once again with our military and economy.

Appeasement has devastated Europe twice in one century. And, you guys are at it again! Appease, appease, appease. (Shhh! Maybe the bad terrorist will leave me alone!)

You Europeans may view us Americans as brash cowboys, but at least we have FREEDOM to fight for. And once someone picks a fight with us, they'll live to regret it.

God, Country, and Family is our motto. Get used to it.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:15 pm

I also don't think that the american people are stupid. But they need a strong man in the White House. A man that can and will get on with the job of cleansing the world of Evil. A God fearing man that will root out terrorists wherever they hide. A man that will bring Peace upon this wicked and evil world, so that our children and our grandchildren will never know war anymore. And that all people, black & white, catholic & protestant, muslim & jewish ect will live in harmony with each other for the good of all Mankind. This Man is George Walker Bush. God Bless

America. God Bless us all.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:51 pm

Pearl harbor

Thank goodness that the United States is one of the FEW countries in the world who is willing to stand up against evil.

And you better hope we remain strong. I wouldn't be surprised if we had to bail you out once again with our military and economy.

Appeasement has devastated Europe twice in one century. And, you guys are at it again! Appease, appease, appease. (Shhh! Maybe the bad terrorist will leave me alone!)

You Europeans may view us Americans as brash cowboys, but at least we have FREEDOM to fight for. And once someone picks a fight with us, they'll live to regret it.

God, Country, and Family is our motto. Get used to it.

I wish you guys would go away and read some history. WW1 was a war between empires, bloody stupid looking back on it now, freedom had nothing at all to do with it. It was the last act of an imperial age. ww2 had it's roots in ww1 but before you go on about appeasement I suggest you have a good look at the very powerful peace movement in the US and the disarmament of the US between the wars.-can't say I blame the us people for that but you did nothing when Japan invaded China despite having extensive economic interests in the area. You did impose an oil embargo though didn't you, sanctions they would be called nowadays. When Italy invaded Abyssinia you didn't want to know. When he invaded Poland you didn't want to know so please don't lecture about us about appeasement. You weren't involved

The war started in 1939 not 1942 as most americans seem to believe and we fought on our own with only grudging support from the US and at great cost to us. In a very real sense we would have been better of making peace with Hitler but we didn't. So please, before you come out with ignorant crap go study some history. By the way say thank you to us for freely giving you all the secrets of radar, jet engines, sonar that helped make you the nation you are today and gave you an edge over the japanese in the pacific-good job they didn't have radar. Mind you I suppose you can blame us for pearl harbour cos it was showed them what could be done when we sank the italian fleet at at tarantino, who knows maybe they wouldn't have thought of it without that shining example of carrier warfare. (we invented than as well did you know? not to mention steam catapults and the landing light system still used today on us carriers)

Personally i don't think americans are stupid but you have been convinced that there is a world wide terrorist network out to get you, you have invaded a country that had nothing to do with it despite all the evidence to the contrary and despite still finding no evidence you still think it was the right thing to do. You seem to be incapable of grasping that maybe your foreign policy might have something to do with the animosity against the US in some quarters. Sadly the west as a whole has a lot to answer in the middle east-who creaytedcIraq after all, so it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black . You are all so hyped up that you will probably support attacks in Iran and syria and wonder why people in those countries dislike you. Now it's becaime a war against evil rather than a war on terrorists who do what might be described as evil things. Not stupid but matbe too trusting of your leaders.

The fundamentalists never had mass support that's why they have become more and more extreme and resorted to terror, it was more about the situation in their own countries than the US, now it's changed If there wasn't a world wide network there probably will be soon. I wonder what Bush is going to do next. attack Iran? What do you reckon. That by the way is a serious question what do you thinkbush will do next.?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:56 pm

What will G.W.B, do next? Good question Gmc.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:09 pm

gmc wrote: In a very real sense we would have been better of making peace with Hitler but we didn't. So please, before you come out with ignorant crap go study some history.
you expect to be taken seriously as a student of history, while making absolutely positively INANE comments like the above? you'd have been better off making peace with hitler. amazing. dumbfounding.

that pretty much puts it in a nutshell. you have no credibility now. none. zip. after all we know about hitler and the nazis, to say something like that shows that you need to go study some history yourself.

you keep denying appeasement. i guess next you'll claim neville chamberlain simply never existed. while saying you should have made peace with the most infamous mass murderer of history. (okay, okay - stalin and mao are part of that same team - the trifecta of murderous dictators.)

great britain: proclaiming their peaceful cooperation with hitler, stalin, and mao, for a better tomorrow.

of course, you wouldn't be here writing on forumgarden if history had turned that way. britain would have been turned into a wasteland by hitler. oh, wait. no, the nazis didn't lob v2's and buzzbombs at britain - germany was merely a peaceful giant, trying to engage your cooperation in their grand future plans! yes, if only you had appeased hitler even more, that messy old war never would have reached your shores. as we all know, hitler was a man of his word. he was merely helping the jews and homosexuals and gypsies find new homes elsewhere. that's all. auschwitz never happened. it's a myth! hitler didn't want to fight a war, he wanted peace by god!

good lord. yes, keep saying things like 'we'd have been better off making peace with hitler'.

talk about a nutter!

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:21 pm

(deep sigh) Let's try to find the good in it, Warsai. There was never any guarantee that Kerry would've pulled out of Iraq - only that he'd mend some diplomatic relations.

So, we have Bush for another 4 years. I must admit I'm not remotely surprised. When given the choice between rational thinking with long-term solutions and gung-ho slogans with nothing really expected of you combined with fear (what color is that damned terrorist alert today, anyway?)...well, people tend to take the easy way.

Maybe people need this. Maybe we need to be pushed to the wall so hard that we can't breathe...and perhaps that will finally give us the motivation we need to get some real answers to America's problems.

Maybe we need to lose many freedoms so that people understand what freedom is (and I'm not excluded from that group).

I don't know really...it'll be interesting to find out.

And gmc, I think he'll go for Iran as soon as he can.

icecube, we have this little thing here called the Bible Belt. It's a lovely mindset, not confined to a specific geographic area, and full of Christians who believe that war in the middle east is predicted in the bible, ordained by god, and is a holy thing. Actually, they sound a lot like Muslim extremists if you just switch out the words here and there. These are the same people who want to change the constitution so it denies rights to a specific group, to outlaw abortion, to put prayer in public schools, to quit teaching evolution, to not allow stem cell research, so on and so on...

Luckily, there are growing numbers of conservatives who are unhappy with this and hopefully they can quit screaming at liberals just long enough to stop the religious extremists. Liberals are screaming back, btw - it's not a one-sided thing. At the same time, there are liberals who are unhappy with how outrageous liberalism is becoming. I support animal rights, but I'm hardly gonna show children pictures of KFC chicken buckets with blood all over it, or run naked with bulls in Spain to make my point. And I steadfastly insist on daily bathing - a thing I've noticed some liberals on the west coast are boycotting. (wry grin)

The point is, I personally hope/believe that a new party is needed and will be formed in time. More progressive socially in terms of environmental needs, education, and other social reforms but with a more conservative flavor in terms of funding, government interference, and changing laws.

Not sure if this has helped at all. I'm certain it will irritate a few Americans, although it wasn't written with that intent.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:23 pm

Warsai wrote: Today, an angry and melancholy Democrat sits typing these words...

Bush won again. Unlike what happened in 2000, he won both the popular and electoral vote, so whoever said we can't argue over the possibility over the possibility of vote tampering, I think it was anastrophe, is correct. However, I think America has voted for the wrong president. Terrorists are flowing into Iraq, and after Bush ruined our economy, I don't understand how he can get another four years.i'm always baffled by these claims that bush ruined the economy. it doesn't add up. the economy had already peaked, leveled off, and begun turning downward before bush took office. the macroeconomy goes in long wavelike cycles, and the downturn was an inevitable, normal part of the cycle. then of course there was that small complication of 9/11. more jobs were lost in a shorter interval than ever before. our country was emotionally devastated by that event, and it hit the economy hard - not to mention the physical hit on the economy of the WTC being taken down, and wall street being shut down for a week. that the country didn't spiral into a genuine depression is amazing.

Not only that, but Republicans control Congress, and now they control the executive branch. You'll be seeing a whole lot of conservative laws by the dozens in the near future...
here i tend to agree with you. i don't like the fact that there's now a genuine, implacable majority in congress that is the same as the executive. i hate it when that happens. i want my government gridlocked, at loggerheads, at a fixed-counterbalance, whatever term you want to use. congress is the brake on the presidency, the presidency is the brake on congress, and the SCOTUS is the brake on both. but when they're all of a general mindset a la all/a majority one party, it means that those from the margins of that ideological strain have a greater voice than they would otherwise. our federal republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY) runs best when no one ideology 'has the floor'.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:18 am

Pearl Harbor wrote: Appeasement has devastated Europe twice in one century. And, you guys are at it again! Appease, appease, appease. (Shhh! Maybe the bad terrorist will leave me alone!)

Please stop shouting at us (appeasement).

Please learn a bit of history (education).

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:20 am

GOD BLESS AMERICA. You are all going to need a lot of blessings. But, then you voted for G.W., The future is in your hands.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:46 am

He'll shut down the US.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:19 am

capt_buzzard wrote: He'll shut down the US.
I'm not sure what this means?

Also, I wanted to make sure that my previous post was clear (as mud). I'm not bashing Christians as a group. I'm "bashing" extremists of all groups who wish to make their values my laws. My apologies if my wording offended anyone. Thanks.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:06 am

Warsai wrote: Thank you Karenina, for being optimistic. But when I criticized Bush's handling of the war, I didn't mean that Kerry would've stopped the war. Better diplomatic relations is something that America needs right now, not go-it-alone attitudes. Not to the point where the UN would stop us from fighting terrorism, but to a point where peace can be reached between nations without more wars being fought and more innocent people dying. Multilateral efforts, instead of America bearing all the burden. And yes, anastrophe, you were correct when you said that recessions are a natural part of the economy, they will happen, but to quote Icecube "the deficit would not have been that huge if Bush didn't start this senseless Iraq war."
I'm trying to pick my way carefully through this...and it's hard to do!

America "bears the burden" because we (as a majority) don't want to listen to organizations like the UN or the ICC. So, again, maybe this is a lesson we need to learn. Americans get hurt and upset when they're disliked and criticized by everyone. In some ways, we're like small children - we make no sense. I wanna do everything my way and I want everyone to like me no matter what I do.

You've noticed our reaction (as a whole) whenever another country points out that this might not be the best direction to go...we immediately turn around and criticize other countries for their historical actions - not what they do today, but some mistake they've made in the past. Clearly we are not willing to learn from other people's mistakes. We want to make our own.

The people have spoken.

Still, there is good news.

*It's only 4 years.

*We've had the highest voter turnout since 1968.

*Not every Republican is a die-hard ultra conservative.

So I hope that we moderates will be a lot more active than we have been. I hope that we follow the actions of our legislators, and that we never hesitate to write letters and call and make our views very clear. I hope that people can rise above their disappointment and be willing to work with what we have. (that was not directed at you personally - I feel for your disappointment, I truly do). Granted, it's easy enough for me to say this, since I didn't vote for either of them.

One solid thing I'd really like to see is the government forced to follow our own laws and use accrual-based accounting rather than cash-basis. Of course, it's not likely to happen under any administration since no one wants to take the blame for suddenly plunging in debt by the trillions.

At any rate, my point is that we lose sometimes, and that hurts a lot. But it's not over. If we require some tough times in order to learn lessons that will eventually strengthen us, then so be it. To quote our president, "Bring it on." It's the long run which really matters, in my mind anyway.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:32 pm

anastrophe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc

In a very real sense we would have been better of making peace with Hitler but we didn't. So please, before you come out with ignorant crap go study some history.

you expect to be taken seriously as a student of history, while making absolutely positively INANE comments like the above? you'd have been better off making peace with hitler. amazing. dumbfounding.

that pretty much puts it in a nutshell. you have no credibility now. none. zip. after all we know about hitler and the nazis, to say something like that shows that you need to go study some history yourself.

you keep denying appeasement. i guess next you'll claim neville chamberlain simply never existed. while saying you should have made peace with the most infamous mass murderer of history. (okay, okay - stalin and mao are part of that same team - the trifecta of murderous dictators.)

that pretty much puts it in a nutshell. you have no credibility now. none. zip. after all we know about hitler and the nazis, to say something like that shows that you need to go study some history yourself.

you keep denying appeasement. i guess next you'll claim neville chamberlain simply never existed. while saying you should have made peace with the most infamous mass murderer of history. (okay, okay - stalin and mao are part of that same team - the trifecta of murderous dictators

I suggest you go away and read what I said. It has been seriously suggested that if we had made peace preserved our empire etc we might have been better off. hitler thought we would that's why he held back at dunkirk, if he'd let his commanders push on as they wanted we would have been well and truly stuffed. Personally I think it is a load of rubbish. Please read what I actually said. we did appease him, the simle fact is the US did not want to be involved in another european war. Your own peace movement had considerable clout, roosevelt wanted to help but had to do it by the back door I suggest you do some reading on what the us was doing between the wars and why you did not get involved at the start before you condemn us so freely.

I just get fed up with this constant idea that the US saved europe, maybe you helped but it was not you doing all the fighting, however much you like to believe it.

Try william l shirer the rise and fall of the third reich, he's american so you can't accuse him of bias.

My post was prompted by one of pearl harbor's about how we keep appeasing dictators, apart from that it's not really germane, but It shows an amazing lack of knowledge of history and your own country's foreign policy and history then and now.

You also seem convinced that you can fight terrorists with nuclear weapons and stealth bombers. Would that you could because the war would be over now.

Bush is going to have his work cut out trying to get any country to give military help in iraq. You don't insult allies with one breath and then expect them to be sympathetic to pleas for help.

This war in iraq is going to cost you a fortune. I see bush is already asking congress for more money. If bush now targets iran and syria you are likely to be on your own and the long term consequences are likely to last for years and affect evrybody in the world. Apart from that i don't really care who you have for president it's not my problem.

I doubt americans are stupid but I do wonder where you get some of your ideas from. It's like the invasion of iraq despite there being no connection to 911 or the wmd's. According to some polls I have seen the majority of americans still seem to believe there is a connection. It does rather beg the question about the critical faculties of the average american.

You seem to start out with the assumption that anyone that doesn't agree with you must automatically be an idiot, anyone that criticises american foreign policy must be antiamerican.

anastrophehere

i tend to agree with you. i don't like the fact that there's now a genuine, implacable majority in congress that is the same as the executive. i hate it when that happens. i want my government gridlocked, at loggerheads, at a fixed-counterbalance, whatever term you want to use. congress is the brake on the presidency, the presidency is the brake on congress, and the SCOTUS is the brake on both. but when they're all of a general mindset a la all/a majority one party, it means that those from the margins of that ideological strain have a greater voice than they would otherwise. our federal republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY) runs best when no one ideology 'has the floor'.

Just how much effect is the christian right likely to have on policy? I see concerns about bush packing the supreme court with fundamentalists and overturning abortionl laws etc.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:17 pm

gmc wrote: anastrophe

I suggest you go away and read what I said. It has been seriously suggested that if we had made peace preserved our empire etc we might have been better off. hitler thought we would that's why he held back at dunkirk, if he'd let his commanders push on as they wanted we would have been well and truly stuffed. Personally I think it is a load of rubbish. Please read what I actually said. we did appease him, the simle fact is the US did not want to be involved in another european war. Your own peace movement had considerable clout, roosevelt wanted to help but had to do it by the back door I suggest you do some reading on what the us was doing between the wars and why you did not get involved at the start before you condemn us so freely.
this is about the fifth iteration between us where you tell me to go learn history, and i suggest the same to you. the peace movement in the US was not as strong as you suppose. there is a difference between isolationism, disinterest, and 'a peace movement'. early on there was simple isolationism and disinterest. it wasn't a peace movement.

I just get fed up with this constant idea that the US saved europe, maybe you helped but it was not you doing all the fighting, however much you like to believe it.
not, it was not only us doing the fighting. nevertheless, the US did save europe from hitler. it's as simple as that. without our involvement it is unlikely hitler would have been turned back - particularly with that dandy chap every brit here wants to lock in the closet and forget, neville chamberlain. hey, own up to it, okay? churchill was reviled by you brits early on, for being a 'hysteric' and 'war monger' for even suggesting that hitler was a threat. of course, history proved him right. as an aside, i consider him one of the true, great heroes of the 20th century.

but you know what? we've been down this road before too, a half dozen or more times. you keep telling yourself that your invention of radar is what turned back hitler, and i'll keep telling myself that europe would have been overrun without our help, and we can both sleep soundly, secure in our delusions, si?

My post was prompted by one of pearl harbor's about how we keep appeasing dictators, apart from that it's not really germane, but It shows an amazing lack of knowledge of history and your own country's foreign policy and history then and now.
sigh. again, same path, same arguments. the brits want to pretend neville chamberlain never existed. okay. can we pretend john kerry never existed? even things up a little bit?

You also seem convinced that you can fight terrorists with nuclear weapons and stealth bombers. Would that you could because the war would be over now.
could you please show me where we used nuclear weapons in iraq? thanks, i'd appreciate it!

Bush is going to have his work cut out trying to get any country to give military help in iraq. You don't insult allies with one breath and then expect them to be sympathetic to pleas for help.
(shh, here's a dirty little secret: john kerry would have had exactly the same freaking problem. just ask ol' jack chirac. )

This war in iraq is going to cost you a fortune. I see bush is already asking congress for more money. If bush now targets iran and syria you are likely to be on your own and the long term consequences are likely to last for years and affect evrybody in the world. Apart from that i don't really care who you have for president it's not my problem.
okey dokey.

I doubt americans are stupid but I do wonder where you get some of your ideas from. It's like the invasion of iraq despite there being no connection to 911 or the wmd's. According to some polls I have seen the majority of americans still seem to believe there is a connection. It does rather beg the question about the critical faculties of the average american.
how sweet of you. here's a little bulletin: you must first assume that the administration was *lying about the WMD's* for your condemnation to have a platform. now, i know europe is fully of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists - just about as many as are in the far left here in this country. if you believe that the WMD's were pure fiction, then that's one thing. if you believe the administration dummied-up all the evidence they presented - that it was all fake - then you give them a lot of credit for their ability to fool a lot of people. if you give them that credit, then why do you suppose, being such evil warmongers, that they wouldn't have dummied-up some evidence to be 'found' in iraq after the war? if they lied about there being WMD's - rather than being misled about their existence, then why wouldn't they lie after the war, and claim they found some? either they're brilliant with their conspiracy, or their inept and bumbling. they can't be both, not to my mind.

You seem to start out with the assumption that anyone that doesn't agree with you must automatically be an idiot, anyone that criticises american foreign policy must be antiamerican.
uh - how about going back and reading the first freaking post in this topic entitled 'how stupid'. sheesh.

Just how much effect is the christian right likely to have on policy? I see concerns about bush packing the supreme court with fundamentalists and overturning abortionl laws etc.the christian right is a non-issue. it's an issue only to those on the left who want to scare their brethren with horror stories.

because of the way our federal republic works, it's unlikely that extremist ideologues will be packed onto the court. the minority party still has power.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:51 am

anastrophe

this is about the fifth iteration between us where you tell me to go learn history, and i suggest the same to you. the peace movement in the US was not as strong as you suppose. there is a difference between isolationism, disinterest, and 'a peace movement'. early on there was simple isolationism and disinterest. it wasn't a peace movement.

I think we are falling out about semantics more than anything else, I suspect after long exchanges we would find a lot of common ground and agree on most things, but it is kind of a pointless arguement, face to face would probably be a lot more fun-certainly quicker. At least you know there was a peace movement in the US.

how sweet of you. here's a little bulletin: you must first assume that the administration was *lying about the WMD's* for your condemnation to have a platform. now, i know europe is fully of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists - just about as many as are in the far left here in this country. if you believe that the WMD's were pure fiction, then that's one thing. if you believe the administration dummied-up all the evidence they presented - that it was all fake - then you give them a lot of credit for their ability to fool a lot of people.

TB quite clearly used altered intelligence dossiers to get his case for war accepted, not by altering the intelligence but by changing the emphasis, might have became does have and so on. He has been found out good and proper. The most incredible claim was that he could attack the uk with wmd's within forty five minutes, he couldn't do it in 1990 how the hell would he manage to get them in between. Never mind stupid anmericans out idiotic MP's swallowed it as well.

In the case of thre UK that was the only reason for invading Iraq toppling saddam as an agenda would never have got a yes vote unless it was with UN support. We got suckered in to this as well. We now have the sickening sight of TB saying we were wrong but it was still the right thing to do. What is worse is the "I believe" it was the right thing to do. If you go to war you need to be absolutely sure it is the only course left to you.

How will you react if Bush decides to invade Iran? How likely is it that he will?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:12 am

anastrophe wrote: ...
Sikes> Snip stuff about WWII, WMD/Iraq

I read Usenet quite a bit - a posting appeared on a NG I lurk in mainly - it's too

young to have been Googled yet, so I'm quoting it here - it's a reply to a post

concerning the U.S.A., terrorism, Iraq, "we saved your asses in WWII", the U.N.,

etc. in a similar vein to the one I've snipped above, and others of that ilk that

appear on Forum Garden with monotonous frequence. I'm posting it here

because it says quite a lot:

Subject: Re: "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry!" Bumper Stickers

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 21:39:41 +0900

From: "John Yamamoto-Wilson"

Newsgroups: rec.antiques

Forest Duck wrote:

> I respect your right to believe anything you wish.

We all have a right to be unreasonable and ignore reality!

> However if you had lost 3000 in a terrorist attack, (not the only

> one that has occurred, you might believe the threat is real also.

You have to be pretty unaware of reality to say this to someone from

Northern Ireland, though I guess after Manhattan *some* Americans did a bit

of rethinking about the funding of terrorist activities in Ireland.

> Get your head out of the sand.

I sat up all night, here in Japan, watching the attack on the World Trade

Center aghast, at some stage phoning my sister in England who was equally

distraught. I went out the next day and strangers - thinking I might be

American - came up to me and commiserated. Three years on, where has all

that solidarity gone? You'll be hard put to find a Japanese who thinks that

Bush had a right to invade Iraq, or that the 550 troops Prime Minister

Koizumi has placed there (in addition to solid financial support) in his

kowtowing to America are worth the head of a Japanese civilian (Shohei Koda,

beheaded last week), and the mainstream of British opinion - indeed, of

opinion worldwide - is still solidly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The

frittering away of all that post-9/11 goodwill has got to be one of the

greatest diplomatic failures of all time.

> You can blame it on our foreign policy if you wish but if it were

> not for the old USA you and your English pals [sic] might be

> German today.

The Battle of Britain (Germany's biggest direct threat to Britain itself)

began on July 10th, 1940, reaching its climax in the heavy blitz of London

on September 15th, 1940, followed by the blitz of Coventry on November 14th,

1940. The USA began supplying war materials to Britain - not actually

fighting on Britain's side, mark you, just supplying arms! - on March 11th,

1941, months after the Battle of Britain had finished.

> As a matter of fact it is us old boy that basically always stand

> ready to defend our friends for the sake of freedom

Come again? Germany invaded the Rhineland on March 7th, 1936, Austria on

March 11th, 1938, Czechoslovakia on March 15th, 1939, Poland on September

1st, 1939, Finland on November 30th, 1939, Denmark and Norway on April 9th,

1940, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg on May 10th, 1940, France on May 12th,

1940, Yugoslavia and Greece on April 6th, 1941, and made an airborne attack

on Crete on May 20th, 1941.

The Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17th, 1939, Finland on November

30th, 1939, and began its occupation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia on

June 15th, 1940.

Italy joined the war on June 10th, 1940, and invaded France on June 11th,

1940, British Somaliland on August 5th, 1940, and Egypt on September 13th,

1940.

Japan joined the Axis Alliance on September 27th, 1940. Hungary and Rumania

joined on November 20th and 22nd of November, 1940, respectively. Bulgaria

made a pact with Germany on February 7th, 1941. Yugoslavia joined on March

25th, 1941, shortly afterwards to be defeated by Britain.

And where were "you", old boy, while all this was going on? Oh, yes, on May

27th, 1941, the US saw fit to declare a state of emergency - not to get

involved, mark you, not to "defend its friends for the sake of freedom" -

but merely in recognition that things were getting a little fraught.

And then, on June 22nd, 1941, Germany took the single most decisive step to

ensure that Ronnie and I and 60 million (or whatever) of our compatriots

would never "be German". They (together with Rumania and Italy) turned on

the Soviet Union (henceforth their ally) and invaded it.

Russia did for Hitler what it had done for Napoleon. It sucked up as many

men and resources as he could pour into it, chewed them into little pieces

and spat them out. Germany signed its own death warrant in Russia, and the

United States had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The United States finally entered the war when Japan (following several

months of a US trade embargo, imposed on July 26th, 1941) attacked Pearl

Harbour on December 7th, 1941.

(For all these dates and many others, see http://expage.com/page/gren15.)

Many Americans today seem to be totally unaware of all of this. The idea

(widely current at the time of the invasion of Iraq) that France should

unquestioningly support the US in all its military endeavours is

particularly irksome. Never mind that France, of all the Western nations,

has the greatest experience and knowledge of the Middle East. Just reflect

that France was under Nazi rule for a year and a half, and the US never

lifted a finger and - in all likelihood - would never have lifted a finger,

had not its own interests been directly threatened at Pearl Harbour.

On the positive side, if Japan had simply gone on the rampage in the

Pacific, and taken care *not* to offend the US and bring them into the war,

it is very possilbe that the outcome would have been very different. That's

not a very likely scenario, since the US trade embargo was a stranglehold on

Japan, but it does illustrate that, in the end, US participation was

crucial. But please don't spout all this "defend our friends for the sake of

freedom" rubbish; the reality was very different.

> I might add that we also furnish the most of the money

> to run the united nations (that corrupt organization).

No, "you" don't. The US pays roughly 25%. In proportion to the size of its

economy the US actually pays less than some other countries

(http://www.un.int/usa/fact2.htm). Furthermore, the US is chronically behind

in its payments to the UN (http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unbudget00.html).

> Ireland does not seem to have been the best example of peace

> over the last 50 years.

Let's not forget that American support for terrorist activities in Northern

Ireland has been - at least partly - to blame. And make no mistake, the

peace process in Northern Ireland is doing far better than the derisive US

policies (the so-called "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq and the

fatally-flawed "road map") in the Middle East.

> I think you just like to jerk our chain.

I think you need it!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:03 pm

shadowbox

I believed it was right because Saddam was paying suicide bombers to kill Isralies.

That's the best laugh I've had for while. What's the going rate for a suicide bomber? How did he get it to them, cremate the banknotes or what.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:23 pm

ShadowBox,

So you're supporting the war in Iraq because Hussein paid money to PLO suicide bombers? I'm just trying to clarify your point of view.

Rebuttal:

*Saudi Arabia has also paid suicide bombers who attack Israelis.

*Refugee camps for Palestinians in Jordan were virtual terrorist training camps and recruitment centers.

*There is no mention of how many Israelis actually died because of Hussein.

*If the plan is to go after countries that harbor terrorists, then we'd better wage war on ourselves as well, because we have terrorists here - even a few homegrown ones.

*The articles are all dated post 9/11.

Just something to think about.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:15 pm

If you do a google search under "saddam pays suicide bombers" you'll find a whole list of news articles on the subject.

If true seems to be post 2001 and more of a propoganda stunt than anything else. Do you really think you can pau someone to commit suicide. Iraq had no connection to the 911 terrorists it would have been better to go after the real terrorists.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:11 am

gmc,

I've heard of this payment for life. Its a kinda like insurance policy. The bomber comes from a poor family. His family are given a new home, food and perhaps even a car + a weekly payment for life. In some cases, holiday's are even arranged.

A life does not alway's come cheep in Palestine.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:33 am

shadowbox

If you were Iran, wouldn't you be thinking about handing over your terrorists?

No I suspect I would be thinking that no matter what I do the US is going to attack, getting nuclear weapons is even more attractive than it was before but probably impractical-makes more sense to try and buy them off one of the russian states.

Put your self in the place of an ordinary iranian-don't particularly like the regime but now it looks as if you will be attacked by another country, how would uou react? People on other countries are every bit as patriotic as americans. Yes you can probably defeat Iran but are you then prepared to keep occupying troops there.

All you are doing is hardening opinion and leaving no option but warfare as you shut down all alternatives.

It will take a world effort to rid ourselves of terrorism. Don't you agree?

Yes but not world war. There was no mass conspiracy these are small highly motivated groups that can only be stopped by good intelleigence and picking them off. Most of them are more interested in conditions in their own countries and are opposition groups to their own rulers. The only reason in doing so is sheer frustration at us policy and indifference to the situation. The 911 eleven attackers were Saudi Why do you think that was the case? If you shut down all diplomatic solutions then the only one left is warfare. It's a war that massed armies and nuclear weapons are no use in fighting, all they do is make it worse.

Today, if he were still in power and paying suicide bombers to kill in the UK, perhaps your opinion would be different. Now, we will never know.

Terrorist attacks have been going on for years in other countries, which fact most americans seem unaware of.The point is to get a reaction from the government, either a change of policy which is unlikely to happen, or to get a reaction from the government so it reacts in a way to gain the terrorists more support. Or as in the case of palestinians sheer frustration at the hopelessness of the cause. Nobody bothered about palestine until they startefd blowing up airliners to get attention to their plight.

Afterall, who lives in poverty more so than the Palistinians? Wouldn't a man be tempted to do it for his family's sake? Men have died for far less.

As to suicide bombers, you really think being paid is sufficient motive? ther's a bit more involved than that, they would probably do it anyway.

Suicide is a bit pointless it's because palestinians lack the means to fight the israelis that desperate measures are used. Palestinians are people just like you and me so are iraquis and iranians. If you demonise the whole region then you take away the capacity for rational thought and let the religious nutters on both sides have their way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 71,00.html

British take on your election. curious to see what you think.

The Uk is a mainly secular society-things like stem cell research and abortion discussed relatively objectively and decisions made with religon playing little part. I look at the religious right and think that given half a chance they will take over and set the agenda for america on religious grounds. which won't be pleasant for anyone of a liberal (in the original sense of the word) disposition. Fundamentalism is associated with bigotry and narrow minded ideology, my way or the high way ideology. Intolerance and hatred in the name of carrying out god's will

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:47 am

Its coming to Europe too, by way of the EU.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:20 am

ShadowBox,

I'm changing the order of your reply to suit my priorities. (grin)

ShadowBox wrote: Otherwise, they simmer in a pot somewhere waiting to strick again. Where next? Your house, perhaps?This is a fear-based argument. However, I'll play ~

Ok, so say it's my house next. What am I supposed to do about that? Are you saying I should run about and kill others before they have a chance to kill me? Are you saying I should run about and kill others after some of my own people have been killed? What's the purpose of your comment?

Death is a thing that will come to us all. We have no choice about that - it's the deal we made the moment we drew breath.

What we can decide is who we are while we live. I don't choose to murder other people, especially on such flimsy evidence as they might blow up my house next. I don't choose to solve problems using emotive reasoning. I don't choose to lose my values the moment things get rough.

And to head off any "high horse" rhetoric, I'm not saying this is easy to do. I'm saying that clinging to your values in tough times is exactly what defines us. It's freaking hard!

So, if you have values that state terrorism is wrong, but then jump on the bandwagon to go murder thousands of innocent people - AGAIN! - then your values are meaningless, and that makes you a lightweight. Weak-minded. Easily turned to suit the motives of others.

Strong words, I know...but this is an intense concept. Please let any sting of my words subside before you reply to me...and I'm sincerely asking you to think this through.

If you truly believe Iraq to be a country chock full of terrorists and that all people are subject to death because of it, and you can back that up with evidence, not rhetoric, if you can do that then you've made up your own mind based on what you believe to be right. Anything less (and you've demonstrated far less here in this thread) then please please think for a while.

ShadowBox wrote: Yes, articles are dated post 9/11 but pre-Iraq war.

Indeed, if we are to go after one, we are to go after the others -- one at a time. But I don't think that will be necessary. The interesting thing is that Iraq is on one side of Iran and Afganastan is on the other. If you were Iran, wouldn't you be thinking about handing over your terrorists?If I were Iran, I'd be loading up on weapons to fight a US invasion of my home. I would not be sucking up to another country just because they think they are the world's greatest military power. Britain once thought so about themselves, and a bunch of radical American homesteaders kicked their rears. (Beg pardon to our UK folk). We didn't defeat them because we are American. We defeated them because they could not remove themselves from their arrogance; and we had everything to lose - homes, families, lifestyle, freedom.

Let's look at what Iran has been up to since 9/11. They were heading towards a more liberal approach in their government, but since they were named part of the "axis of evil", the conservatives have been able to gain more power. A lot of the progress they had made has been undone in response to the US foreign policy in the middle east.

Iran is a country with internal divisions (much like ourselves) but they can all agree on one thing - the threat the US holds for them. If I were Iranian, I would band together with my countrymen, fight the most obvious threat first, and after that threat is defeated I would turn back again to fixing the problems within my country.

ShadowBox wrote: We fight an idea -- and an idea cannot be distroyed as long as those teaching the idea continue to think they will win. We have to make it either impossible for them to survive, or show them the futility of their thinking."The futility of their thinking"...ok, wow. I'm not even sure I can approach that one. Surely you're not implying that those who do not think like you are living futile lives?

We fight an idea, I agree. The idea is not so much Muslim extremism but US imperialism.

Do you have any idea what we have done to the middle east? Have you seen pictures of how bravely we leveled Beirut from the sea, for example? Do you know how many civilians we have murdered?

Is it futile or evil for Muslims to want to live in their own countries without the fear of US military destroying their homes and killing them? Do you really call them "wrong" in their thinking or wanting this? Do you believe they have no hope of winning?

We are reaping what we have sown. I'm not happy about it, I'm not thrilled this has come to our shores at last, but anyone who can think has been saying it's only a matter of time before it happened.

We must consider their point of view. Do Muslims have the right to live in their own countries without us killing them? If we say no, then we cannot defend our own right to live in the US without people killing us.

Let's quickly switch to Afghanistan for a moment. When the Taliban worked with the US, the purpose was to get Russia out of their lands, so they could live as they saw fit. We called them freedom fighters. We praised them.

Nowadays they fight the US - and they repeat the same message: Get out of our lands, and let us live as we see fit. Of course, they are fighting us, so we began calling them terrorists.

It happens everywhere the exact same way...

South Africa - Mandela was once a "terrorist". He's now heralded as a true lover of freedom.

Ireland - the IRA's status is a matter of personal opinion; some calling them freedom fighters and some calling them terrorists.

At any rate, we would not listen to the Muslims as they demanded we get out of their lands. 9/11 was not the first attack, it was merely the most successful to date. The screams of their people as they die has not been enough to move the hearts of Americans...and so they have brought the screaming home to us.

Listen. Understand. Make a choice, and then be willing to do whatever it takes to back up that choice.

From all of this, one could believe that I support the terrorists. No. I do not. I do understand and support the Muslim goal of having the US withdraw from the middle east. If we want their oil, we can make trade agreements with them, like we do with the Saudis. Our desire/need for resources does not give us the right to kill innocent people. Our disagreement with their religion has no validity in determining who gets to live and who must die...and if it were enough, then we wouldn't be defending the Jews in Israel.

ShadowBox wrote: It will take a world effort to rid ourselves of terrorism. Don't you agree? Yes!! Terrorism is a huge evil. It does require the whole world working together to stop it. Do you truly think we are succeeding? We've alienated our allies. We've pushed average Muslims over the line into extremism as we invade their lands. We've waged war on a people, and not on the terrorists themselves.

Solutions?

Step 1 - Quit invading other lands and creating a whole new terrorist/extremist force.

Step 2 - Sincerely and effectively assist those countries in dire need. One makes more friends with honey than with bullets.

Step 3 - Build strong relationships with countries in order to promote trade, good business, and eventually peace. (Because the average person wants peace more than anything else.)

Step 4 - With the good will of average people all over the globe, gain their assistance in wiping out the terrorist cells.

Step 5 - Help promote entities like the UN and the ICC rather than tear it apart. These entities were created to help restore balance, peace, and to help prevent wars from breaking out.

Of course, my proposed solutions don't quite hit the gut like slogans do. These ideas take time, effort, sacrifice, and deep commitment to work. The majority of America has spoken, and has said they don't want such solutions. They prefer slogans.

Since I am a part of this people, then having my house blown up is the price I might have to pay. But no, I'm not happy about it. I much prefer that my own people truly deeply consider these points, and to respond with something better than fear-based logic.

Thanks for listening.

AK

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:41 am

ShadowBox wrote: Facinating, gmc. Have you forgotten that tolerance allowed slavery to flurish, witch burning, the rise of Hitler, and a host of other man made moral illnesses?

The way I see it, the liberals are not happy unless they are taking rights away from the conservatives. So the struggle continues.
I'll bite.

What rights have been taken away from the conservatives?

How did tolerance allow slavery to flourish? Was it the conservatives in Congress who were attempting to abolish slavery? No - it interfered with their wealth. It was the progressives who did that...and although Lincoln's party was called Republican, if you look, you'll see the party lines have changed since then. After all, Republicans supported abortion less than 30 years ago.

How did tolerance allow witch burnings? Wasn't it the Catholic church that killed people for using a fork? (Devil's pitchfork) That tortured people for being Jewish, for having thoughts that disagreed with church doctrine? How is this tolerant?

Wasn't it intolerance of hypocrisy that eventually defeated this?

The rise of Hitler....well, if you study that period, then you'll find many similarities between the far-right slogans of today and Hitler's messages. There is not much difference between the far right and the far left - both are about control and power. One leans towards religion and one leans toward the state. Hitler began as a Socialist (traditionally left) but soon ran to fascism (traditionally right). He was able to keep power through fear...and that is definitely something to consider.

I'm sincerely fascinated and eager to hear your well-thought out response. Thanks.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:11 pm

gmc wrote: If true seems to be post 2001 and more of a propoganda stunt than anything else. Do you really think you can pau someone to commit suicide.
this makes no sense. of course they can. it's well documented, and it's still going on (others are paying the families, not saddam, obviously). why would you question it? the family is paid once the person is 'martyred'. these fanatics want to go to paradise, and that's precisely what they believe they are doing in the suicide bombings.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:17 pm

gmc wrote: I look at the religious right and think that given half a chance they will take over and set the agenda for america on religious grounds. which won't be pleasant for anyone of a liberal (in the original sense of the word) disposition. Fundamentalism is associated with bigotry and narrow minded ideology, my way or the high way ideology. Intolerance and hatred in the name of carrying out god's willyou keep bringing this up. you seem fixated on it. the 'religious right' is a tiny minority in the united states. there are many people who share their values, but not in the extreme, so they only passively support them, not actively. most people in this country do not want any one ideology taking over. most people in this country are planted firmly in the middle, and are distrustful of the right and left to precisely the degree of movement further and further to the extremes of XYZ ideology.

please get off the 'religious right' stuff. there's no evidence they are taking over. repeat: there is no evidence they are taking over.

let me repeat that once again: there is no evidence they are taking over.

got it?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:30 pm

A Karenina wrote: I'll bite.

What rights have been taken away from the conservatives?

How did tolerance allow slavery to flourish? Was it the conservatives in Congress who were attempting to abolish slavery? No - it interfered with their wealth. It was the progressives who did that...and although Lincoln's party was called Republican, if you look, you'll see the party lines have changed since then. After all, Republicans supported abortion less than 30 years ago.i can't speak for shadowbox, but i believe that by 'tolerance' the idea is 'turning a blind eye'. it took people of courage who would *not* turn a blind eye to the evil of slavery to bring an end to it - others simply tolerated it. remember, 'all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men/women to do nothing'. slavery flourished because good men/women 'tolerated' it through inaction.

i don't think it's useful or informative to use the terms 'conservatives' or 'progressives' when speaking about the body politic of more than 150 years ago. you kind of acknowledge that with the mention of republican ideology changing since then.

The rise of Hitler....well, if you study that period, then you'll find many similarities between the far-right slogans of today and Hitler's messages. There is not much difference between the far right and the far left - both are about control and power. One leans towards religion and one leans toward the state. Hitler began as a Socialist (traditionally left) but soon ran to fascism (traditionally right). He was able to keep power through fear...and that is definitely something to consider. you can find similarities in hitlers message found in any extreme ideology. the far left wants to ban private ownership of guns - hitler did it. so, boom - the far left is like hitler.

it's actually a fun game. how many rhetorical steps does it take to bring hitler into the conversation, and bring a stop to all cogent discussion? hey, i'm not slamming you - i'm possibly the guiltiest party here on forumgarden.

I'm sincerely fascinated and eager to hear your well-thought out response. Thanks.you NAZI!

:yh_bigsmi

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:35 pm

anastrophe wrote: you NAZI!

:yh_bigsmi
You're hilarious!! :wah: I totally enjoyed that; thanks for the much-needed belly laugh!

anastrophe wrote: i can't speak for shadowbox, but i believe that by 'tolerance' the idea is 'turning a blind eye'. it took people of courage who would *not* turn a blind eye to the evil of slavery to bring an end to it - others simply tolerated it. remember, 'all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men/women to do nothing'. slavery flourished because good men/women 'tolerated' it through inaction.
Good point - that could be exactly what ShadowBox meant.

Going off on a tangent here, I think that good people were fighting the legality of slavery but it took years and years of wrangling to get anywhere. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides refused to budge (isn't that the nature of extremists?) - and some laws were passed in the form of "apology"...like allowing southerners to collect their 'property' north of the Mason-Dixon line and allowing slaves to be counted as 3/5 of the voting population. I've always viewed that as the point of no return on the slavery issue.

Somehow, the voices of reason were drowned out, and when that happened war was inevitable. Tragic, necessary, both destroying and creating at the same time.

But I digress, trying to be poetic (and failing, I might add! LOL). You've often written that the balance between the branches of power helps to stop any quick, mob-ruled changes in law. I completely agree, and I agree as well that this was the intent as well as the way we protect our country. However, it seems to require tolerance from all sides - an honest look at each person's point of view. In this case, the south screamed that their economy would be devastated by the immediate abolition of slavery. They wanted some kind of recompense or solution - a thing which their opposition was unwilling (or unable) to give.

Had reason rather than emotion ruled the day(s), then it's possible slavery might have ended much sooner than it did. Through reason; not appeasement, not going along with the louder, more strident voices...but a creative approach to address the issues of all sides. In this case, the south had real concerns about their economy (and let's just ignore their so-called 'divine right to own a lesser race' for the moment). The abolitionists also had real concerns about the hypocrisy of declaring ourselves to be a free country while cruelly enslaving an entire race. Isn't it possible that both concerns could've been addressed without war? Or am I living in a dream world? (That's entirely possible, I'm entirely too idealistic at times).

It's done now, obviously, and I don't usually waste a lot of time pointing out human flaws in history except as a basis to make better decisions today.

anastrophe wrote: i don't think it's useful or informative to use the terms 'conservatives' or 'progressives' when speaking about the body politic of more than 150 years ago. you kind of acknowledge that with the mention of republican ideology changing since then.
Agreed.

anastrophe wrote: you can find similarities in hitlers message found in any extreme ideology. the far left wants to ban private ownership of guns - hitler did it. so, boom - the far left is like hitler.

it's actually a fun game. how many rhetorical steps does it take to bring hitler into the conversation, and bring a stop to all cogent discussion? hey, i'm not slamming you - i'm possibly the guiltiest party here on forumgarden.
I don't feel slammed, but I do appreciate your kindness towards me.

(rolling my eyes at myself) I don't know why I responded to the Hitler thing - I've done it on 2 threads now! I usually ignore it, feeling as you do about it. It does stop cogent dialogue...and yet, it does point out the dangers of extremists, no matter how they label themselves.

Anastrophe, I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Thanks again.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:10 pm

anastrophe

you keep bringing this up. you seem fixated on it. the 'religious right' is a tiny minority in the united states. there are many people who share their values, but not in the extreme, so they only passively support them, not actively. most people in this country do not want any one ideology taking over. most people in this country are planted firmly in the middle, and are distrustful of the right and left to precisely the degree of movement further and further to the extremes of XYZ ideology.

You're right I do. I am fascinated by it but I wouldn't say fixated. At various times in history religious extremists have got power usually thanks to the indifference of most people-that's the wrong word, most people just get on with their lives and don't want to dominate others. A group with strong conviction and drive can get power out of all proportion to their numbers and impose their views on others. In a very real sense it can be a power for good but can also lead on to making life misery for those who don't share their views.

Your prohibition laws seem to have been the result of just such a coming to power. (I don't claim to know what i am talking about here but it was driven by religious groups was it not).

I'm just curious if such a thing could happen in america. Fundamentalists seem to have a lot of influence. Many of the statements about the war against terror are expressed in religious terms being against satan etc. To paraphrase the marine commander at fallujah (I have just seen him being interviewed) " the enemy has a face and he is satan and he is in fallujah" I find it a very strange way of looking at things and can't understand the mind set. Did seem to show a lack of sensitivity as to where he was

As a foreigner I have a distorted view of what the US is like. You can't all be gun toting bible thumping nutters but it comes across that way sometimes. fundamentalists get a lot of attention because they are a peculiarly american phenomenon. Hence my curiosity which I hope somebody can satisfy. Basically I can't work out how big a factor religon is in the US. I also suspect many americans don't appreciate just how secular our society is.

shadow box

Facinating, gmc. Have you forgotten that tolerance allowed slavery to flurish, witch burning, the rise of Hitler, and a host of other man made moral illnesses?

Tolerant man burns witch, exterminates jews-I don't think so.

tolerant // adj.

1 disposed or accustomed to tolerate others or their acts or opinions.

From the oxford english dictionary.

bigot // n.

an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.

bigotry n.

Don't have a websters american dictionary but I'm fairly sure they mean the same.

joking aside I am curious How is the word liberal defined in a US dictionary (serious question I am not taking the piss)

anastrophe

i can't speak for shadowbox, but i believe that by 'tolerance' the idea is 'turning a blind eye'. it took people of courage who would *not* turn a blind eye to the evil of slavery to bring an end to it - others simply tolerated it. remember, 'all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men/women to do nothing'. slavery flourished because good men/women 'tolerated' it through inaction.

Very true, That I would agree with that. If that is what shadowbox meant then we don't really disagree, i think.

Fundamentalism is associated with bigotry and narrow minded ideology, my way or the high way ideology. Intolerance and hatred in the name of carrying out god's will

Obviously I am putting my own particular viewpoint. What I really wonder is how likely is it that america will wake up and find that the separation between church and state has gone and that crimes are crimes because of religious prejudice-take being gay for instance and that a religious agenda has taken a grip on us policy that the majority don't support all because powerful interest groups have taken control of your political process.

I think going in to Iraq has more to do with oil than anything else and the scale of the terror threat has been hyped up so you all accept going to war is a good thing, a crusade against the evil axis. Many of the fundamentalist (OK sometimes I watch god TV) seem to take it as a given that israel should be supported no matter what and some even seem to buy in to this being the end of days, the implication being that they can't wait and will do things to make it come true and seem totally cionvinced that the whole arab world wants to destroy their way in life when all they want is the liberty to follow their own.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:18 pm

gmc wrote: wants to destroy their way in life when all they want is the liberty to follow their own.another gentle reminder regarding quoting. if you quote multiple people in one post, you can assist in identifying them by putting "=username" within the opening quoting declaration. to wit - and using spaces within to keep the software from actually *doing* the quoting -

[ q u o t e = a n a s t r o p h e ]

paul quoting himself.

[ / q u o t e ]

which, without the spaces, will appear like this:

anastrophe wrote:

paul quoting himself.

so it shows with clarity who specifically you are quoting.