A rant on the Clarke situation ..

[Jason Tate]

Clarke came out and tried to comment on the actual policy (or policy failures) and has undergone character assasination by the administration. The same administration who feels it can Classify any information that is harmful to itself. Yet they can conveniently declassify anything they need for a smear campaign on someone else.

The other day on CNN they showed that despite all of this Bush is back up to a 51% approval rating with Kerry slipping to the low 40s. Why? Because Bush is running ads calling Kerry a liberal and saying he will raise taxes. People would rather continue living with a crippling deficit than admit only the wealthy will get a tax increase...and they can afford it.

Politics in the US are Fucked. Enjoy your corrupt cesspool Americans...and while your economy crumbles under a crippling debt, and foreign companies take over more and more of your assets to cover the trade deficit, and borders are wide open for illegal mexicans, and all the number of jobs continues to fall, the world mistrusts you more than ever, terrorism acts have increased...at least you can take comfort in the fact that your president isn't liberal minded and taxes (for most of you) didn't go up that extra $10.

[NicoleC]

i do take comfort that our president isnt liberal.

[yeat182]

Clarke came out and tried to comment on the actual policy (or policy failures) and has undergone character assasination by the administration. The same administration who feels it can Classify any information that is harmful to itself. Yet they can conveniently declassify anything they need for a smear campaign on someone else.

if clarke didn't constantly contradict himself, then maybe his character wouldn't be brought into consideration. funny though, how when the character that is being assasinated is GWB, no one seems to mind...

also, the consitution provides for members of the presidents staff to be protected from testifying, especially when it involves national security.

The other day on CNN they showed that despite all of this Bush is back up to a 51% approval rating with Kerry slipping to the low 40s. Why? Because Bush is running ads calling Kerry a liberal and saying he will raise taxes. People would rather continue living with a crippling deficit than admit only the wealthy will get a tax increase...and they can afford it.

people don't like Kerry because he doesn't take a stand on anything, not simply because he will raise taxes, which he will almost certainly do.

Politics in the US are Fucked. Enjoy your corrupt cesspool Americans...and while your economy crumbles under a crippling debt, and foreign companies take over more and more of your assets to cover the trade deficit, and borders are wide open for illegal mexicans, and all the number of jobs continues to fall, the world mistrusts you more than ever, terrorism acts have increased...at least you can take comfort in the fact that your president isn't liberal minded and taxes (for most of you) didn't go up that extra $10.

that is a bit over dramatic. although, the borders are certainly a problem, and one that I doubt kerry would be willing to fix.

[xnotedgex]

people don't like Kerry because he doesn't take a stand on anything, not simply because he will raise taxes, which he will almost certainly do.



that is a bit over dramatic. although, the borders are certainly a problem, and one that I doubt kerry would be willing to fix.

taxes need to be raised. you can't run a government without revenue..the only thing i have heard from kerry is that he would cut the tax breaks given to the wealthy and increase the tax break given to the middle class

and your assumption that kerry wouldnt do anything about the borders clearly stems from your partisanship...there's nothing to support you here

[yeat182]

taxes don't need to be raised, government needs to be made smaller, and therefor cheaper to operate.

[yeat182]

and your assumption that kerry wouldnt do anything about the borders clearly stems from your partisanship...there's nothing to support you here

and there is nothing to make anyone believe he would do something about the borders.

[xnotedgex]

and there is nothing to make anyone believe he would do something about the borders.

no one made that assumption

[xnotedgex]

taxes don't need to be raised, government needs to be made smaller, and therefor cheaper to operate.

with the state of the world, we know that's not going to happen, regardless of who is in office but especially with bush in office...i'd be interested to know how many new departments have been created under bush's leadership

[cantnokdahustle]

i'd be interested to know how many new departments have been created under bush's leadership

Which in turn is going to raise our taxes, especially on US. Bush doesnt understand how government money is produced, he only knows how to spend it fucking rediculously.

How bout he take some of his fundraising skills and put them to good use, instead of using them for flat out fucking lieing ass ads.

[yeat182]

with the state of the world, we know that's not going to happen, regardless of who is in office but especially with bush in office...i'd be interested to know how many new departments have been created under bush's leadership

well, with the exception of the office of homeland security, i would agree that how ever many were created were too many...

[hXc_pwnage]

Bush<everyone.

Pretty much.

[SwingingMics]

CLarke is an idiot, back in 2000 he said their was no plan or policy coming from the Clinton administration to be put on the table for the Bush Administration. Now he is saying that they had a plan all along and that Bush purposely put al-quada and terrorism on the back burner. He just wants to sell a book.

[cantnokdahustle]

Dems. always feel taxes need to be raised.

Because, people do not know how to wisely or (samething) charitably spend their own money.

[Justin_stacy]

Because, people do not know how to wisely or (samething) charitably spend their own money.

So you think Washington, in all its corruptness, is a wiser spender of individual’s earnings, then those that actually earned it?

[cantnokdahustle]

obviously this can not be a straight forward answer, but in hindsight yes, yes i do.
for instance with healthcare, bush thinks that he should just give people tax cuts and that will buy them healthcare, wrong! because people are material (and dare i say stupid) if nothing is wrong with an individual at the moment that they have money, they are (generally) not going to spend it on healthcare.

[Justin_stacy]

for instance with healthcare, bush thinks that he should just give people tax cuts and that will buy them healthcare, wrong! because people are material (and dare i say stupid) if nothing is wrong with an individual at the moment that they have money, they are (generally) not going to spend it on healthcare.

I think your basing your opinion of people, on a very narrow few....

as for health care what bush was think about doing was the right thing, people should be able to purchase there own healthcare and be able to write it off.....the government has failed at every social issue it has gotten involved in (Affirmative action, wellfare, hud, SS, Medicare, Education etc..), so why would a National Health Service be any different at all...

People know what is best for them, not washington, and my own personal opinion, is that we should let those that know best spend their own money as they see fit....

[vikingstrike182]

Clarke is a moron. He blames all of the actions on Bush. I am not saying that Bush is to blame partially for the actions of Bin Laden. But, share the blame to Clinton who gave money to him in order to cripple Sadam's power in Iraq before he was exiled to Afghanistan. The deficeit will be worse with Kerry.
He wants to start a program where students can get 4 years paid in college if they donate 2 years of their life to community service. How will they get the money? Raising taxes. Do taxes need to be raised? No. John Kerry is a modern Robin Hood.
John Kerry is worse at spending money than Bush. He has programs that need more money that the country has as of the moment. Bush inherited a bad economy from Clinton saying that it fell one and a half years into his presidency. Clinton reaped the benefits from Bush Sr., and he as well made some good calls. I will give him that.
The economy is rising. It gained 113 points the other day, and it gained more today. The stock market is still over 10000. There is nothing to worry about. Although Bush has made some bad choices with money. I think people need to see that his pro-business attitude is what will get the economy going again.

[cantnokdahustle]

I think your basing your opinion of people, on a very narrow few....

as for health care what bush was think[ing] about doing was the right thing, people should be able to purchase there own healthcare and be able to write it off.....the government has failed at every social issue it has gotten involved in (Affirmative action, wellfare, hud, SS, Medicare, Education etc..), so why would a National Health Service be any different at all...

People know what is best for them, not washington, and my own personal opinion, is that we should let those that know best spend their own money as they see fit....

Obviously we differ in opinion, but this is the thing. I believe people as a whole are not very responsible, and if a parent has a child, and under (especially) these circumstances in reference to the massive cost of healthcare and prescription drugs I dont believe that child or the parents should be deprived of health care. (my wife and i dont have health care, and we're in college full time working part time, and we have been through some pretty shitty illness'. We tried to go and it cost over 200 dollars (for the both of us) for the cheapest doctor within 40 miles. our prescription was over 300 dollars for antibiotics, we had to deal without. OK no we didnt die, but we were sick for more than 3 months)

[Justin_stacy]

Obviously we differ in opinion, but this is the thing
i think thats an understatement!!! ;)

[cantnokdahustle]

Bush inherited a bad economy from Clinton saying that it fell one and a half years into his presidency. Clinton reaped the benefits from Bush Sr., and he as well made some good calls. I will give him that.
WOW! where the hell did you get your information?
you managed to kill your arguement in no less than 2 sentences.
There was actually a SURPLUS (jr. high school word: look it up sometime) at the end of Clintons administration.

[cantnokdahustle]

i think thats an understatement!!! ;)
I know i should have put quotes around with bold and intalics. :approve:

[Justin_stacy]

I believe people as a whole are not very responsible, and if a parent has a child, and under (especially) these circumstances in reference to the massive cost of healthcare and prescription drugs I dont believe that child or the parents should be deprived of health care.

I believe that people should be responsible for themselves and their own actions, and rely on no one but themselves (and of course those that care about them).... And I think that’s the biggest problem with the current situation in America. Everyone looks to someone else to solve or pay for their problems or chosen paths, and that’s just not fair to those citizens (the majority) that are responsible and who don't over burden others with their faults or irresponsibilities....

[cantnokdahustle]

ok maybe we dont differ that much in our view of society except that i think those who are irresponsible are atleast half if not the majority (where as you think they are the minority). Well, its not just those who are irresponsible though, I dont consider myself to be all that irresponsible, I work and pay for food and housing ( I am a lucky asshole, and my parents are very well off, and they pay for my schooling), my wife and i pay for her school. with all of that we can not afford health care, and i think that is horrible. And i know i am not the only person in that situation.

[Justin_stacy]

(my wife and i dont have health care, and we're in college full time working part time, and we have been through some pretty shitty illness'. We tried to go and it cost over 200 dollars (for the both of us) for the cheapest doctor within 40 miles. our prescription was over 300 dollars for antibiotics, we had to deal without. OK no we didnt die, but we were sick for more than 3 months)

i'm in your same boat, me and my wife won't have insurance after april 16th and i won't start my new job until july.....so i purchased it, Me and her feel that it is our responsablity to get it ourselves and yes it is alot of money a month, but we feel that it is worth sacraficing for.....and of course it bets giving up sex, too....

[Justin_stacy]

ok maybe we dont differ that much in our view of society except that i think those who are irresponsible are atleast half if not the majority (where as you think they are the minority).

only 40 million americans don't have insurance or about 20%....

[Justin_stacy]

Well, its not just those who are irresponsible though, I dont consider myself to be all that irresponsible, I work and pay for food and housing

you brought up the case of the mother who chose to have a baby she couldn't support....thats the very definintion of irresponsibility...now we can break it down into million of different situations, but the conclusion, at least to me, will always come down to the fact that a persons well being is their sole responsibility, and not that of washington or other tax payers.....

[cantnokdahustle]

I understand that the republican ideology is the old horatio alger story. But i believe a country is only as good as its citizens and education and healthcare are the primary instances and basis for it's well being. When i think of republicans and many times democrats, but mostly republicans, i think of people who like to play by the numbers, they really don't care for circumstance, and many times forget that some people are not as privileged as they are. This of course is not all republicans but a vast majority of them.

[cantnokdahustle]

you brought up the case of the mother who chose to have a baby she couldn't support.........

And actually i said Parents, I am curious as to why you automatically thought that this hypothetical situation had to do with a single mother.

[Justin_stacy]

And actually i said Parents, I am curious as to why you automatically thought that this hypothetical situation had to do with a single mother.

no you said "a parent" as in singular, and so i took that as you were refering to a "mother," not a "father," seeing as how that is the normal situation....

I believe people as a whole are not very responsible, and if a parent has a child,

[cantnokdahustle]

i stand corrected.

[vikingstrike182]

WOW! where the hell did you get your information?
you managed to kill your arguement in no less than 2 sentences.
There was actually a SURPLUS (jr. high school word: look it up sometime) at the end of Clintons administration.
The Clinton economy did have its shakes. It had some bad signs at the end of the 90's. Although if you could maybe talk normally and not bash saying that I was how old in the late 90's? Oh, I'm 15 now so you do the math, that's only what 2nd grade? I'm just going on what I have read. I'm sorry that we do not fall under the "God" rank I suppose you hold yourself at.

[cantnokdahustle]

dude im only 4 years older than you, so that is no excuse throwing around complete nonsense. Although most people dont do this, i would urge you to examine your sources if you are going to make statements bashing or defending a political figure. Obviously ideas are different they are your own, but still need logical backing in any arguement. I am sorry for coming off as such a prick hole in the begining even though i am one. I really dislike republicans and (i dont care for democrats all that much either) and i really disliked unversed political rantings. I hope you consider what i have said.

[vikingstrike182]

dude im only 4 years older than you, so that is no excuse throwing around complete nonsense. Although most people dont do this, i would urge you to examine your sources if you are going to make statements bashing or defending a political figure. Obviously ideas are different they are your own, but still need logical backing in any arguement. I am sorry for coming off as such a prick hole in the begining even though i am one. I really dislike republicans and (i dont care for democrats all that much either) and i really disliked unversed political rantings. I hope you consider what i have said.

I do and totally understand what you are saying. It's not even that I mind the "prick hold" attitude that you say. It's just that everyone in America gets really defensive when talking about politics, and instead of talking like normal people everyone gets really loud and bitchy and trys to change the others views, which consequently hardly ever happens. I guess I should apologize for me not having my facts "straight." To be honest I have nothing really against Bill Clinton. I don't like John Kerry but that is a different story. To what I can tell, Clinton was a fairly good president so no hard feelings.
By the way, I do feel that part of the failing economy during the 2nd year of his term was due to the dot com bust which was quite a large hit.

[cantnokdahustle]

im not in love with Clinton, but from an economic stand point the guy was good, morally he was a shit bag (haha i love it when atheists rip on people for moral behavior). but anyway you are forgiven (thats part of my crap seniority complex).

[yeat182]

dude im only 4 years older than you, so that is no excuse throwing around complete nonsense. Although most people dont do this, i would urge you to examine your sources if you are going to make statements bashing or defending a political figure. Obviously ideas are different they are your own, but still need logical backing in any arguement. I am sorry for coming off as such a prick hole in the begining even though i am one. I really dislike republicans and (i dont care for democrats all that much either) and i really disliked unversed political rantings. I hope you consider what i have said.


and i'm 4 years older than you. and the clinton administration benefited from the tech boom in the stock market, and while yes, they had a surplus at the end of his term, the economy was begining to go down hill. but i don't blame clinton or bush, nor do i give them credit, because for the most part, the president has no control of the economy.

[Justin_stacy]

When i think of republicans and many times democrats, but mostly republicans, i think of people who like to play by the numbers, they really don't care for circumstance,

Because you can't base laws or policies on a few "circumstances" or "exceptions"....because there'd be no limit to the number of exceptions people would come up with, which on its own nullifies the law....

and many times forget that some people are not as privileged as they are. This of course is not all republicans but a vast majority of them

That’s your opinion and that’s fine, but I’ll tell ya what I think of when thinking about Democrats....and that is that they are a group of people who think that they are superior and smarter then the average citizen, almost like an elite class. They feel that the average citizen is too stupid to care for themselves or do what is in their best interests. They also feel the common man can not be trusted to do the wise thing with his (her) money. That is why these dem's do everything in their power to take it away and use it to set up ever more intrusive social programs.....Now of course this isn't every democrat, but it’s a fair majority.....

[yeat182]

just a quick note on Richard Clarke...I saw an episode of "Frontline" last night about the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, and as it would turn out, Richard Clarke was partly responsible for the lack of american/un support and the actual withdrawl of UN troops from the country. i was a little surprised to see that, so i thought i throw it out there.

[Sinister Rouge]

Clarke is no saint....but I think he is more truthful than Bush. The Bush smear campaign against Clarke is failing badly and his testimony along with the fucking mess in Iraq, Bush has his lowest approval rating in his presidency.

[Love As Arson]

Clarke is the victim of ad hominem attacks at the hands of the Bush administration.

[Sinister Rouge]

:smartass: Yes, perhaps the Bush administration should write a book bashing clarke and then sell out at a opprotune time.

I have Clarke's book, he criticzes everyone, including himself.

This is also not the first ex-Bush admin worker who spoke out against Bush on the War on Terror.

[Love As Arson]

:smartass: Yes, perhaps the Bush administration should write a book bashing clarke and then sell out at a opprotune time.
Clarke is attacking Bush's policies and actions. Bush is attacking his character. Perhaps they should focus more on disproving his arguments instead of trying to assasinate his character.

[Sinister Rouge]

I've always said Bush administration and Clinton administration could and should have done more before 9-11 and with playing monday morning quarterback that's easy for me to say. I havent read clarke's book from what i underestand and have heard he give the clinton administration a relatively free pass and there mistakes but sticks it to the Bush administration.

What was accomplished in 8 years in the clinton administration against the war on terror? Bush only had 7 months to do anything, not giving a free pass, but am putting it into perspective compared to 8 years.


Clinton foiled some terrorist attacks like the millenium plot, Bush ignored warnings of terrorists using airliners for weapons.

[yeat182]

clinton ignored 3 major terrorist attacks on the US and did nothing to stop al-qaeda from striking again.

[Sinister Rouge]

Bush ignored 9/11 terror warnings. If he would have taken them seriously, 9/11 may have been prevented.

In the war on terrorism, you foil some attacks and sometimes you don't. And with Bush's attack on Iraq, we have just created more terrorists. I agree 100% with Clarkes arguement that the war in Iraq hurt us on the war on terror.

Not to say Clinton did a good job...Clinton didn't do a good job on terrorism, but Bush is making the terrorism problem worse.

[Sinister Rouge]

Bush's actions have created more terrorists and have made the US and its allies less safe.

Look at Israel, its heavy handed tactics have not stopped terrorism. And now with the Hamas's spiritual leaders death, all hell will break loose.

[yeat182]

Bush ignored 9/11 terror warnings. If he would have taken them seriously, 9/11 may have been prevented.

if clinton dealt with Osama in the 90's, 9/11 would have been avoided.

In the war on terrorism, you foil some attacks and sometimes you don't. And with Bush's attack on Iraq, we have just created more terrorists. I agree 100% with Clarkes arguement that the war in Iraq hurt us on the war on terror.

Not to say Clinton did a good job...Clinton didn't do a good job on terrorism, but Bush is making the terrorism problem worse.

the war on Iraq has led to Lybia ending their WMD programs and allowing UN inspections, and Iran shutting down their nuke program and also allowing inspections, a major victory. not to mention over 75% of al-qaeda's top leadership has been killed or captured, including the master mind of the 9/11 attacks. those are major victories. the terrorists in Iraq are largerly ex-soldiers and ba'ath party loyalists, who already hated america before hand. did it create more terrorists, probably, but so did the attacks on 9/11. it shouldn't be a reason for inaction, it should be a cause for increased vigalence.

[SwingingMics]

I'd also ask again what did Clinton do to fight terrorism?
Oh, nothing.

[Sinister Rouge]

Bush and Clinton BOTH did not take the terrorism threat seriously. I'm not faulting either because the American people also didnt take this seriously.

I'm more concerned with the fact Clinton did nothing after these attacks. He made no effort for retaliation and allowed Al Qaeda to strenghten. Bush's doctorine is great, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

Both Clinton's and Bush's responses were dangerous. But I view Bush's preemptive strike and misleading more dangerously than Clintons inaction. Al Qeada's propaganda is becoming more thuthful and its ranks will increase because anti-american anger has risen in the Muslim world due to the action in Iraq. Then, Iraq was a sideshow to the war on terror. Iraq had no links to Al Qeada, and Osama and Saddam were enemies anyway. The Iraq war was a major blunder and a costly blunder, in money, lives, and credibility. And now it created more terror, more enemies, more death. And we distanced ourself away from some of our allies.

[SwingingMics]

Both Clinton's and Bush's responses were dangerous. But I view Bush's preemptive strike and misleading more dangerously than Clintons inaction. Al Qeada's propaganda is becoming more thuthful and its ranks will increase because anti-american anger has risen in the Muslim world due to the action in Iraq. Then, Iraq was a sideshow to the war on terror. Iraq had no links to Al Qeada, and Osama and Saddam were enemies anyway. The Iraq war was a major blunder and a costly blunder, in money, lives, and credibility. And now it created more terror, more enemies, more death. And we distanced ourself away from some of our allies.
Inaction sets you up for the worst to happen.

[yeat182]

I'm not sure on this one, but is there any evidence at all to show that anti-american anger has risen in the Muslim world due to actions in Iraq?

I've heard this tossed around but have never seen any evidence to back it up.

i believe that they would have been able to recruit more terrorists following 9/11 than following Iraq. besides, we've killed a bunch of them, that will thin out their ranks a little.

[Sinister Rouge]

if clinton dealt with Osama in the 90's, 9/11 would have been avoided.



the war on Iraq has led to Lybia ending their WMD programs and allowing UN inspections, and Iran shutting down their nuke program and also allowing inspections, a major victory. not to mention over 75% of al-qaeda's top leadership has been killed or captured, including the master mind of the 9/11 attacks. those are major victories. the terrorists in Iraq are largerly ex-soldiers and ba'ath party loyalists, who already hated america before hand. did it create more terrorists, probably, but so did the attacks on 9/11. it shouldn't be a reason for inaction, it should be a cause for increased vigalence.

Libya ended their WMD program ( a British diplomatic victory, not bush)because the country was being sanctioned to death and they wanted the sanctions lifted. Iran too. So what if we captured 75% of the leadership....there will always be new leaders and Al Qeada's ranks are growing and spreading all because Bush attacked a country that had no ties to them. More people in the Middle east see the US as a threat to their lives and will join the terrorists.

Gore would of had Osama by now.

[Sinister Rouge]

I'm not sure on this one, but is there any evidence at all to show that anti-american anger has risen in the Muslim world due to actions in Iraq?

I've heard this tossed around but have never seen any evidence to back it up.

Its so obvious....

[Sinister Rouge]

i believe that they would have been able to recruit more terrorists following 9/11 than following Iraq. besides, we've killed a bunch of them, that will thin out their ranks a little.

We have also killed thousands of innocents...the survivors will remember and vow revenge. Bush's military actions have killed more innocents than Osama killed on 9/11.

True, we were killed the terrorists, but Iraq has sidetracked us and Al Qeada is growing. They can replace people and they are not afraid of death.

[Sinister Rouge]

Osama hates Saddam

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15176

[yeat182]

Gore would of had Osama by now.

yes, he would have driven his solar powered car right over to afgahnistan and slapped some cuffs on him. after all, this is the man that invented the internet...

[Sinister Rouge]

yes, he would have driven his solar powered car right over to afgahnistan and slapped some cuffs on him. after all, this is the man that invented the internet...

We would of had all of our resources towarsd the action in Afghanistan, killing terrorists and their leaders. Going into Iraq has spread our military. We need more troops in Afghanistan.

[SwingingMics]

Gore would have had Osama by now.
Clinton should of had him.

[Sinister Rouge]

I've never seen any #s or polls that show more people have joined terrorists organizations or have become terrorists because of hte Iraq war. If it is so obvious where's the #'s?

When people hate you because you support a nation that oppresses their people, you continue to support them, then invade 2 arab nations (I did support the Afghan war), people are more likely to become terrorists. Al Qeada is everywhere and their are many groups and cells growing.

You have never seen the #s or polls because they are practically impossible to come up with.

[SwingingMics]

You have never seen the #s or polls because they are practically impossible to come up with.
Or because your numbers do not exist.

[Sinister Rouge]

Clinton should of had him.

I will not defend Clinton...he did a poor job also...and Reagan supported terror and buckled when we were attacked in Lebanon.

No president has done a good job with terrorism. It takes a major attack to get us serious about terrorism and still we do the wrong thing on the war on terror.

[SwingingMics]

I will not defend Clinton...he did a poor job also...and Reagan supported terror and buckled when we were attacked in Lebanon.

No president has done a good job with terrorism. It takes a major attack to get us serious about terrorism and still we do the wrong thing on the war on terror.
Bush has done the best job with terrorism.

[UndefinedBoy]

Or because your numbers do not exist.

I'm afraid Gallup didn't conduct a poll on this one. But let's use this whole logic thing we're all so fond of. Why do organizations like Al-Qaeda exist? Well, to my knowledge, they want us the fuck out of the Middle East. What did the Iraq war do? Bring a lot of American soldiers into the Middle East to kill Iraqis! I'm pretty sure that would piss off some people, enough to shoot back at least.

[Sinister Rouge]

If there impossible to come up with, how can you claim as fact that more terrorists are being made because of our war with Iraq?

I know every day you probably get more terrorists but you can't claim for fact that # is increased by the war in Iraq.

When you cannot get the numbers, you look at the mood of the people. The Arab anger at the US has risen when we invaded Iraq. When a Muslim nation gets invaded by a superpower headed by a "Christian" president, you will anger Muslims. Bush's God talk has worried Muslims.

History has shown that more people fight against you radically when the people around them are angry also but may not act radically (ex. Protestant Reformation for example). We will win the War on Terror when the Middle East has a favorable opinion of us. Bush has done the opposite.

[SwingingMics]

I'm afraid Gallup didn't conduct a poll on this one. But let's use this whole logic thing we're all so fond of. Why do organizations like Al-Qaeda exist? Well, to my knowledge, they want us the fuck out of the Middle East. What did the Iraq war do? Bring a lot of American soldiers into the Middle East to kill Iraqis! I'm pretty sure that would piss off some people, enough to shoot back at least.
And why do democracies exist? To promote freedom and exercise everyone's right to choose and be free. To ensure the people under democracies, those fighting for it, they have their right to exercise their voice, which you are doing now, without punishment. Go live in Iraq 2 years ago and give an opinion different than that of the gov't you are under, what do you think would happen?

[UndefinedBoy]

And why do democracies exist? To promote freedom and exercise everyone's right to choose and be free. To ensure the people under democracies, those fighting for it, they have their right to exercise their voice, which you are doing now, without punishment. Go live in Iraq 2 years ago and give an opinion different than that of the gov't you are under, what do you think would happen?

Yes, democracies promote freedom, they do not force it upon people who don't yet understand it. Democracies only work if the people understand them, and then want them. We're not working like that with Iraq, we want our type of democracy, and we'd like it soon.

And really, cut it out with the "go live in Iraq" thing, everyone understands its better here. It's been used too much to make a point anymore.

[SwingingMics]

Yes, democracies promote freedom, they do not force it upon people who don't yet understand it. Democracies only work if the people understand them, and then want them. We're not working like that with Iraq, we want our type of democracy, and we'd like it soon.

And really, cut it out with the "go live in Iraq" thing, everyone understands its better here. It's been used too much to make a point anymore.
I didn't say "go live in iraq", I just used it to set up how democracy works against a tyranny. The way we are able to do things in America you could not do in Iraq over a year ago. We would not be able to have this conversation, because we would not be allowed two different opinions.

[Sinister Rouge]

And why do democracies exist? To promote freedom and exercise everyone's right to choose and be free. To ensure the people under democracies, those fighting for it, they have their right to exercise their voice, which you are doing now, without punishment. Go live in Iraq 2 years ago and give an opinion different than that of the gov't you are under, what do you think would happen?

The US doesn't really fight for democracy, we fight for corporate capitalism. WE HAVE OVERTHROWN DEMOCRACIES MULTIPLE TIMES TO PROMOTE CAPITALIST DICTATORS. Pinochet is a great example.

The US has supported many bad dictators in our history including Pol Pot (killed 2 million of his people in 4 years, 1975-1979)) and Saddam Hussien. Saddam became our enemy when he invaded Kuwait, messing with our capitalist interest. He killed the most people when we supported him and we helped kill more Iraqis with sanctions after the first Gulf War.

The biggest lie is that the US is the fighter of freedom and democracy. History has contradicted this.

[SwingingMics]

The US doesn't really fight for democracy, we fight for corporate capitalism. WE HAVE OVERTHROWN DEMOCRACIES MULTIPLE TIMES TO PROMOTE CAPITALIST DICTATORS. Pinochet is a great example.

The US has supported many bad dictators in our history including Pol Pot (killed 2 million of his people in 4 years, 1975-1979)) and Saddam Hussien. Saddam became our enemy when he invaded Kuwait, messing with our capitalist interest. He killed the most people when we supported him and we helped kill more Iraqis with sanctions after the first Gulf War.

The biggest lie is that the US is the fighter of freedom and democracy. History has contradicted this.
So you are trying to say that no one or nothing is really free, because everything we've "supposedly" stood for is a hoax?

[Sinister Rouge]

Bush made it a point to say this is not about "God's."

Here's another point. What arab nations that were with us before 9/11 are against us now? I'd say zero to my knowledge. Since Bush's war on terror we have picked up Pakistan and Libya. This goes against your theory.

You misread my "theory". I am talking about the common people in the Arab world. They have an unfavorable view of the US and want us to fuck off.

[Sinister Rouge]

I think anyone would admit the US has done things when it shouldnt and didnt do things when it should. That goes for every country in the world.
(also we didnt support Pinochet)

We sure did support Pinochet, the CIA helped overthrow Allende

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

[Sinister Rouge]

Why wouldnt the theory hold true to the Arab people that run the governments?

If the way Bush is fighting terrorism causes more people to join the cause, wouldnt cause more countries to join the cause. Or at the very least you shouldnt see 2 countries change sides.

Your thinking is flawed...

Saudi is a US "ally" or Bush's "ally", but explain why a lot of terrorists are Saudi. Weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi?

[Sinister Rouge]

Pinochet was originally a general under some other guy who i cant remember his name. The army supported this man to overthrow Allende. Pinochet ended up shooting this guy and taking control.

But still it is subverting democracy is it not?

[Sinister Rouge]

Why is it flawed though? You can say it's flawed by why?

I'm not using saudi as an example. I'm using Libya and Pakistan

I am talking about the common Middle Easterner here, not governments. You judge the war on terror by opinion of the common people, not governments. The opinion of the US in the Middle east, not real good. Terrorists are commoners fighting for a radical cause...not government soliders.

[Sinister Rouge]

I wasnt arguing that. I just said we didnt support Pinochet.

http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oneworld.org% 2Fips2%2Fmar99%2F23_54_123.html

Kissinger sure did support Pinochet

[Sinister Rouge]

You judge the war on terror on governments.

The Bush doctorine "you're either with us or against us" is not referring to commone people. It's referring to governments, and we're using this doctorine to fight our war on terror.

Bullshit

I judge the war on terror with common people as I have been trying to tell you.

The common people are the ones joining groups like Al- Qeada and Hamas.

[Sinister Rouge]

I'm talking support for him taking power. That is talking about 3 years after the fact.

The fact is we helped Pinochet come to power indirectly....which I still classify as "support". We were glad because we knew that Chile wouldn't go Communist. Overthrowing a democracy and a dictatorship takes over is contradictoy to our defender of freedom "motto".