Fahrenheit 9/11
Forum
I believe that the 2000 vote may have been fixed, yes
>>By raspberry_juice (Friday, 14 Jan 2005 23:37)
So, explain to me what moving forward and being behind the times mean, sexkitten and 8drummer8. Liberal means change, fluctuation, liberal interpretation of the constitution with regard to federal power, i.e. all the welfare, while conservative means less change, stability, strict interpretation of the constitution in a federalist manner.
>>By pgrmDave (Saturday, 15 Jan 2005 18:08)
Literally pgrm Dave that's what Liberal and Conservative means but politically both of those terms are not accurate. How the two political sects behave has more to do with the topic of discussion and not the name they choose to use for their selves. For example when it comes to the role of religion in the state the conservatives want a far more liberal interpretation of the constitution than the liberals do. Also in regards of foreign policy the liberals want a far more conservative approach to the threat of terrorism then the conservatives do. So when referring to the definition of what "liberal" and "conservative" means in the politcal sense using the definition you used are wrong and inaccurate. Dictinary definition do not apply.
>>By smore (Friday, 21 Jan 2005 19:19)
In most cases, interpretation of the constitution can be shown to be the basic difference between the two. I agree that in some cases they go against their definition, but generally speaking, the liberals are liberal and the conservatives are conservative. What I'm really looking for is a definition by either camp of what each other stands for. It seems like there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around that has no real meaning - the whole 'behind the times' idea. I would argue that there is more of a problem in the fact that the conservatives control the government completely than that they are there. It allows for abuse of the system, with no balance from liberals. I would be just as concerned if liberals controlled the government. My ideal government would be to have a liberal president, conservative supreme court, a liberal senate, and a conservative house. No one group would have complete power, and so both would need to become more moderate.
>>By pgrmDave (Saturday, 22 Jan 2005 14:48)
First, you can not get a defintion of what each camp stands for. Because neither of them stand for anything. They just look at the other party and say the oppoppsite. Neither wing has a bonafide agenda because they exist just to defeat the other. If Bush came out tomorrow and said he was pro choice, pro affirmative action and pro tax hikes. All the liberals who still disagree with him. Because that's what they do. Their goal is to either get power or stay in power. And you will never defeat your opponent by agreeing with them. Secondly ,the reason why the Republicans have a firm control on all three branches of government is that the liberals have let themselves be defined with the extreme left wing (ie Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg) and the majority of americans feel uncomfortable with that. The Democrats have mistakenly believed that New York and Los Angeles are the barometers of the mind of America. When actually middle america is the true determining factor of america's mindset. Until the Dems learn this the Conservatives will keep cleaning their clock in Federal elections.
>>By smore (Tuesday, 25 Jan 2005 01:29)
I think that part of the reason that the Democrats have become so liberal is in retalitation of what is seen as extreme conservatism in Bush. Before him we had Clinton, who was much more of a moderate than Republicans would have you think. Bush truly scares people, and so there was a backlash in the other direction.
>>By sexkitten (Wednesday, 26 Jan 2005 14:53)
Err forgive me as I`m not an american but...are you saying the Democrats a re super liberal because they don`t want to invade other countries for no sensible demonstrable reason? Thats not really liberal is it? More...whats the word? Sane.
>>By docjay (Friday, 28 Jan 2005 19:54)
sexkitten-- i think the left extreme is more of a dying breath than it is retaliation because Kerry and Kennedy are two prime examples of far left libs long before Bush ran in 2000.
>>By 8drummer8 (Wednesday, 2 Feb 2005 02:51)
Neither Kerry nor Kennedy were far leftist. It was once said of one of Kennedy's speeches that it was the "most republican speech since McKinnely (I think I may have misspelled his name)", and Kerry is very moderate.
>>By pgrmDave (Thursday, 3 Feb 2005 05:21)
I just wanted to add that Bush and the neoconservatives, the people behind the war in Iraq, are the more liberal position. It is the Democrats and the Europeans who are the right wingers on this issue. It is they who are soft on fascism.
I'm all for dissent. I just don't think that that term should ever be associated with Michael Moore or the Democratic party. Dissent was never this easy or this cowardly.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Thursday, 3 Feb 2005 12:19)
Sexkitten, you say democracy is the backbone of the American system. Smore, you say Europe doesn't care about the US, so the US return the favour.
Let's set a few things straight. We too believe in democracy, that's why we go to the NATO or the UNO when we spot a problem in another country. That's DEMOCRATIC. We don't rush over there to start a 'just' war. None of our countries has enough money or military power, of course. But if we did, would you tolerate it? I don't think so. The US would meddle yet again. The main part of Europe is not happy with the way the US act and treat other countries, exactly because it refuses to be democratic. It is the biggest and most influential nation, but that does not, from a true democratic point of view, give it the right to do as it pleases. That's called arrogance.
For instance, why did Bush refuse to sign the Kyoto protocol? The entire globe is worried about the environment and our influence on it, and everyons is trying to do something about it by living up to this protocol, but the US seem just too big to care, whereas they are one of the top pollutors. I'm sorry, that's not very democratic.
I read that the US want to give people a better life. Who are they to decide? When I see how indigenous people, blacks and poor people are treated in the US, how supposedly democratic elections have become a circus show, how consumption is the new religion and how the environment is ignored, I don't think the US should be too proud of their lifestyle and not too eager at all to convert other countries.
France and Germany are hypocrits for opposing war? No, France and Germany have an experience the US have not truly had (apart from the civil war, which was not fought with modern technology). They have fought wars on their own territory, they have seen their own country demolished. They truly know the horror of war. Americans always fight abroad. Image 9/11 happening almost every day, in every corner of America. That's close to a decent comparison. Another country constantly bombarding you, killing your people and destroying the glory of your cities. It doesn't matter whether you were the agressor or the victim. Would you be so eager to have another war and risk having such an experience again? I don't think so.
It is true that the US have invested in Europe and helped it. Europe has had to learn from its mistakes. I believe it has. Now we are looking on, sad, as we see the US falling into a comparable trap.
The US are not the centre of the world. They might, for a while, be the most powerful nation on this planet. But there is a big difference between those two.
>>By Aywin (Thursday, 3 Feb 2005 18:37)
Aywin. first of all, it were the republicans who bailed Germany's ass out of the cold war! had we not won the cold war (which Kerry opposed) Russia would still exist, it would probably include Germany, AND be a communist super power! secondly, you believe in democracy; yes? yet you vest in the UN (like you said) which is more corrupt than US politics (22 billion dollars is a pretty good reason not to invade Iraq with us wouldn't you say)? and pollution, give me a break! there are more regulations in the US than anywhere in the world! we have not built an oil refinery in over 50 years because of regulations!!! why do you think we depend on other countries to refine so much of our imported crude oil? and if you still think liberating Iraq was a mistake, what about the MILLIONS that voted Sunday even though "if you vote you die" was painted on most of the poll stations? do you REALLY think these people don't want us there? i would take a look at your bias media that has absolutely no reason to report anything possitive about this war considering you aren't in it. everyone outside america (and perhaps some libs here) may as well subscribe to the al jazeera.
>>By 8drummer8 (Friday, 4 Feb 2005 04:26)
pgrmDave. who said one of Ted Kennedy's speeches was "most republican speeches since McKinnely" and what speech was it?
maybe most republican speech by a far lefty! mainstream Dems don't even like Kennedy!
>>By 8drummer8 (Friday, 4 Feb 2005 04:30)
I was Reading Aywin's comments he has many good points of view Bush is a dictator in every sense of the word he hides behind the facade of democracy but he cannot do as he preaches he ignores the American public and engages in illegal activity whenever it suits his goals ex-the illegal war in iraq then he sits back and hope's someone else will fix his mistakes for him when he can no longer afford it ex-asking Canada France and other nations for troops and money He has had the lowest job approval rating of any president in united states history He cheated his way through the 2000 elections and barely won the last elections he is barely fit to be minister of post he's been fired or bankrupted every company job he's ever held he's killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians and he calls that democracy well if thats democracy the rest of the world wants no part of it and yet this unapologetic mass murder is allowed to run a country and everyone says humans have evolved and grown since the Time when Hitler was in power i dont see much difference in the way germany was run and the way the U.S is currently being run
>>By MetalBladeRecords (Friday, 4 Feb 2005 18:44)
Aywin, MetalBladeRecords...you make me laugh. Comparing Bush to Hitler, saying he cheated his way to election victories. Please you both need prozac. First of all Aywin Bush is not responsible for the whole Just the US. It is those other nations jobs to ensure their democracy not Bush's. You are right Bush does not act to Democratic overseas because it's not his job!. His job is to ensure democracy here in the US. You are also right the US hasn't really suffered a was on it's own soil, like the countryies in europe. So considering that I think that the US approach to foreign policy is a success not a failure. Maybe if other countries followed the US lead they wouldn't have the war torn history they have, No terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11! Becuase the terrorist network has been shattered and the are preoccupied with the Us and coalition forces taking the fight to them over there. I would rather have our country fighting the terrorist in Iran instead of New York. Guess what France and Germany are worst then hypocrits they are criminals. The only reason why those countries opposed the war was interrupted the kickbacks from that corrupt oil for food program. They was no moral reasons for there opposition it was money plain and simple. The US has to learn we can not trust other countries especially the europeans. because the will take you aid, take your money, take you resources and then stab you in the back. All those countries who didn't want to fight the war are now standing there with their hands out asking for a piece. Screw them! I don't care how incompetant Bush was in his other jobs. He was voted in by the american public twice! The first time he won the electorial vote which is how the president is elected in this country. If you didn't have a problem with that during the other 42 elections prior then you can't have a problem now. Second time he recieved more popular votes then any president in history and he gan more then 50% of the vote something that Clinton never managed to do! All of you liberals stop crying, lying and bitching. Because if you keep this up you will lose again in'08. Stop boo-hooing and stop letting Europe try to dictate US foreign policy. When they can back up their on talk then I'll care. Until then I don't want to hear it.
>>By smore (Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 15:59)
From a soldiers perspective....
With regards to the "war on terror". As a former Commando with the British Royal Marines I`d like to point out that you cannot defeat a largley geurilla enemy by force of numbers. We learnt this in Northern Ireland, the Russians in Afghanistan and, we thought, the Americans in Vietnam. You defeat it with excellent intelligence, counter intelligence and by removing the the enemy`s will to fight and support base. None of these are achieved by invading and occupying a country with a large conventional force. Whatever one may think about Bush's intelligence someone in his Chiefs of Staff knew this. Invading Iraq was, from a tactical point of view, the single worst way of making America safer. If you disagree consider how many people on america 10 years ago had heard of al-qaeda? Many americans tragically lost their lives in 9/11 because of an inexcusable failure on the part of their own government to protect them in a manner appropriate to the terrorist threat they faced IE excellent intelligence, counter intelligence and by removing the the enemy`s will to fight and support base.
So now to the crux of the problem. Intelligence and counter intelligence measures cannot be shown every night on CNN and Fox. It does not win votes. It does not convince Joe Public his government is doing something about the problem. US marines storming into Baghdad does. Unfortunatley it also provides a static target for the enemy to strike against as well as creating a sympathy base for future terrorist recruitment.
With that in mind do Americans who support the war in Iraq as an effective way of reducing world terrorism really believe that it has made them safer?
So ithink that there can only be 3 reasons as to why the invasion was undertaken
1. The Bush administration were genuinely unaware of what would occur if they invaded Iraq.(Unlikely, there are some very bright people in his government)
2. The Bush administration knew what would happen in the 3-10 years after invasion and saw this as acceptable loss in an attempt to provide stability to the region and destabilise the terrorist support base.(Unlikely as the invasion has done more to create terrorists than any other single US act since the fiirst gulf war)
3.The Bush administration saw this as a way to convince the american public that they alone could be entrusted with fighting the "war on terror" knowing full well that the opposition party would oppose any such action thus making them appear soft on terror.
My point as a former soldier is that there is no STRATEGIC justification for the invasion of Iraq. Yes one can argue that there are huminatarian justifications such as the deposing of a dictator (which for the record i think was a good thing well done) but if one is fighting a WAR(ie on terror) then one does not divert resources to fight a battle (IE Iraq) for reasons other than to win the war which, as we can now see, it has not done. The threat of terrorism has never been higher (also if regime change around the world IS the american agenda can we look forward to invasions of China, N. Korea and Israel all of whom are illegally occupying territories and/or governed by dictators).
I don`t know whether the Democrats would have done thing differently. Clinton had no truck with bombing Baghdad so I suspect not.
Just a different way of looking at it.
>>By docjay (Monday, 14 Feb 2005 18:27)
Oh smore prozac is a selective seritonin re-uptake inhibitor prescribed for organic depresion or as an adjunt to non-chemical therapy in non-organic depression not for delusional thoughts. As for the rest of your post I really don`t know where to start. Other than to say American foreign policy has directly contributed to the deaths of three of my closest friends.
>>By docjay (Monday, 14 Feb 2005 18:33)
pardon thr typoes...
>>By docjay (Monday, 14 Feb 2005 18:39)
Oh crap, I forgot
....American foreign policy has directly contributed to the deaths of three of my closest friends.
And over a thousand US servicemen and thousands upon thousand of New Yorkers.
Just in case any you quite understandably wanted to reply to my post with "what do I care about three Brits. Like I said we havent had a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11"
Just out of interest...how many where there before?(From terrorists outside the US). Oh and you`re wrong since US embassies abroad are considered sovereign US territory. But Philadelphia seems OK though so from your point of view you`re quite right.
>>By docjay (Monday, 14 Feb 2005 18:48)
Funny, docjay. You are not the only one who have lost someone in Iraq. And I resent you implying otherwise. I guess since I am not a sreaming liberal my losses do not count.
>>By smore (Tuesday, 15 Feb 2005 01:59)
Thanks, docjay, if we ever need military strategy from someone who hates America, we'll keep your advice in mind.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Tuesday, 15 Feb 2005 15:09)
Of course your losse count smore, I didn`t mean to imply that and that last post was in poor taste. If it`s worth anything you have my sincerest condolences.
A screaming liberal? Afraid i can`t comment on what that is or isn`t, my post was based on the fact that what america has done to protect itself from the spectre of terrorism is strategically bad practice. Soldiers are used to fighting and dying for lamentable political objectives. But in battles that will achieve those objectives, lamentable, laudable or otherwise.
But I`m sure that a number of Iraqi`s that voted last week are enourmously grateful, regardless of the stated political agenda. But that`s not the point. The point is you were told sending americans to fight and die would make america safer. It would not (not in the way they were) and it has not.
Bob From Apollo, it wasn`t advice mate. It was a fact. Water`s wet, the sky is blue, the war in Iraq was a bad idea for reducing the terrorist threat on mainland america. Frankly I couldn`t give a flying f*$k what state you guys get yourself into but sadly my government chose to join in. Although their probable political aim was to curry favour with the worlds hyperpower, something which they have certainly achieved.
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 22:03)
My thanks go to Tony Blair for standing up to Islamofascism and fighting the good fight against terrorism.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 22:43)
(sigh) Yes Bob. That`s exactly why he did it. Well done old boy.
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 22:59)
Although their probable political aim was to curry favour with the worlds hyperpower, something which they have certainly achieved.
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 22:03)
My thanks go to Tony Blair for standing up to Islamofascism and fighting the good fight against terrorism.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 22:43)
Come on mate you`re not even making it challenging anymore.
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 23:03)
Are you going to apologize for being wrong about the war now?
>>By Bob from Apollo (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 23:07)
errrrr....noooo. Why?
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 23:21)
The Democrats here wanted Bush to admit that he had made a mistake or two in Iraq. Will they and those who opposed Blair in England admit that they were wrong now?
>>By Bob from Apollo (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 23:27)
Interesting. If I may retort....
Unlikely. Blair stated in unequivocal terms that the war in Iraq was to bring Iraq into compliance with it`s WMD restrictions. That it had WMD. We went to war looking for them. They were not there. He was wrong. He then said that we went to war to bring about regime change. No you didn`t said everyone else (including many members of his own party) you said it was over WMD. Did I? he said. Yeah look it`s written down in all the papers from back then. A senior scientist killed himself over it you remember don`t you? Ohhhh yeah he said , that`s right i remember now. Well isn`t it good that Saddam`s gone? Yes it is said everyone else but that`s not what YOU said. You said (we were there when you said it) WMD. Oh well never mind you forgive me don`t you? Mmmmm probably not said everyone (yesterday several newspapers reportd the PM`s popularity at an all time low because of Iraq). As a result HE has admitted HE was wrong about the reasons that we went to war as reported by several papers national papers yesterday in the hope that appearing contrite may keep him in office(that`s ok by me I forgive him :Tony`s a bright if somewhat slippery fella and i know he didn`t care if there if there were or were not WMD in Iraq, what he DID care about was keeping the worlds superpower on our side which as you have demonstrated he did. Well done Tony. I do however wish that the worlds superpower wouldn`t do silly things like Iraq and Kyoto etc so he could keep on your good side in ways that will not render the planet inhospitable to my kids.)
>>By docjay (Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005 23:52)
Iraq was in no way a silly thing. Everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs. I would certainly give Bush and Blair the benefit of the doubt over Sadaam. It's great to be self critical, but quite another thing to have lynx eyes only for the shortcomings of America. How dare you suggest that Blair was not doing the right thing!
>>By Bob from Apollo (Thursday, 17 Feb 2005 00:14)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW MOVIES