A post for Nodbugger - George W Bush

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Nodbugger,

Ive been meaning to ask you this for a while, as I have read the forums for a very long time but havent responded. I notice that you are quite a supporter of George W Bush, but in all truth I have never understood exactly why. I was hoping you can tell me. Im not insinuating anything or trying to shit-stir, I just want to know why you regard the man so highly. I do intend to reply so be prepared to enter into a debate, if this doesnt suit you then just say so.

Just for your information (given I know you but you dont know me), I consider myself a conservative liberal in that whilst I am left-leaning in general, I sometimes have major reservations about what liberals want to do. I did consider Bill Clinton as being probably the best US president of the past 30 years (not without his faults though), so try not to hold that against me.

Im hoping to keep this a serious discussion and dont want it to degenerate into a name-calling fest as I notice so often happens. I also invite others to participate provided you keep it civil.

[s3raph]

I've always felt the best way to measure your political alignment is on a 2 dimensional graph. 1 axis ranges from socialist, to capitalist, and the other ranges from fascist to liberal.

[coreageek]

I've always felt the best way to measure your political alignment is on a 2 dimensional graph. 1 axis ranges from socialist, to capitalist, and the other ranges from fascist to liberal.

that's interesting. it seems to make a lot of sense.

[Directed]

Maybe, instead of trying to find out your "political alignment" you should find out what you believe about the political and national issues in your country, and then vote for the guy who agrees with you most.

But "conservative liberal?" what is that? Ever had hot cold coffee? or a fast slow car? a short tall basketball player? Besides Nodbugger doesn't really exist. He just posts on Zgeek.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Kleph, my political stance is probably best referred to as center-left, if you can think of it in the European sense. Im not sure what it would translate directly to in American politics, but if you want to consider Australian politics, I consider the Liberals to the right of me and Labor to the left.

S3raph, the true definition of a fascist is a government that treats its nation like a corporation. Hence, true capitalism is in its very nature fascist. I like to look at it like this, at least in relation to economic categorisation:

- Extreme Left: Communists/Marxists (Cuba, North Korea)
- Mainstream Left: Socialists (Scandanavia, Venezuela)
- Center Left: Moderate Socialists (Spain, UK)
- Center: (France, Germany)
- Center Right: Moderate Conservatives (Italy, Australia)
- Mainstream Right: Conservatives and Neo-Cons (USA, Le-Pen's party in France)
- Extreme Right: National Socialists (No current examples)

These definitions arent exactly clear-cut. For example, France would be halfway between Center and Center-Right, if such a category existed.

When it comes to foreign politics, you would have to use a different scale. I cant even think of a way to articulate American foreign policy versus mainstream European foreign policy.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Maybe, instead of trying to find out your "political alignment" you should find out what you believe about the political and national issues in your country, and then vote for the guy who agrees with you most.

But "conservative liberal?" what is that? Ever had hot cold coffee? or a fast slow car? a short tall basketball player? Besides Nodbugger doesn't really exist. He just posts on Zgeek.

Well a liberal is someone who believes that change is necessary for progress and that the government has a duty to protect and look after its people, while a conservative would prefer that the situation fit the rules and that the government be less influential. Personally, I think both systems have positives and negatives, and as such its important to "borrow" from both ideologies.

The problem with politics in alot of English-speaking countries is that it is quite rare for a centrist party to exist. Look at the US, Australia and Canada - you choose either between a right-wing party that believes that the government should do very little besides maintain tax policy and national defence, and a left-wing party that wants the government to pay for everything and anything. Can you think of a large party that can bridge the divide. The UK has the Liberal Democrats but they are little-understood and are little more than a token force in British politics at the moment.

[Directed]

Look at the US, Australia and Canada - you choose either between a right-wing party that believes that the government should do very little besides maintain tax policy and national defence, and a left-wing party that wants the government to pay for everything and anything.

Well, I don't know where this "right wing party" that only believes the government should maintain tax policy and national defence and not pay for everything under the sun is. I wish we had a party like that in the US. Unfortunately we only have the republicans and democrats, and they both spend money like there is no tommorrow. The main difference is the Democrats want to spend and tax EVEN MORE than the Republicans do.

[Directed]

When it comes to foreign politics, you would have to use a different scale. I cant even think of a way to articulate American foreign policy versus mainstream European foreign policy.

Sure:

French foreign policy: No one will attack us, we are French. When people attack us we will defend ourselves like surrender monkeys. Then we will make some other country save us because we are French. When other people do foreign policy, we will criticize it because they are not French, and therefore they are stupid.

German foreign policy: Using force is bad. Unless you are using force against someone who has a larger army than you. Because you are smaller and less sophisticated we will excuse anything you do and tell people they need to be more understanding of you. Because by definition, smaller and less sophisticated people are ALWAYS misunderstood and need to be allowed to grow and develop.

English foreign policy: What are the politicians doing? ITS WRONG DAMMIT!!! do the opposite RIGHT NOW!

Everyone else: Who really cares, they can't do anything about it anyway. If they cross France or Germany, the EU will make a little noise about it though.

Did this help?

[s3raph]

Yeah, well Labour still sucks, they can't stop the infighting and bickering, if they got into government, they'd do a pretty shit job I reckon. Johnny may be an ass kisser, but at least under him we all know that the country is in good hands, even if one of those hands is jerking off the US.

[s3raph]

Sure:

French foreign policy: No one will attack us, we are French. When people attack us we will defend ourselves like surrender monkeys. Then we will make some other country save us because we are French. When other people do foreign policy, we will criticize it because they are not French, and therefore they are stupid.

German foreign policy: Using force is bad. Unless you are using force against someone who has a larger army than you. Because you are smaller and less sophisticated we will excuse anything you do and tell people they need to be more understanding of you. Because by definition, smaller and less sophisticated people are ALWAYS misunderstood and need to be allowed to grow and develop.

English foreign policy: What are the politicians doing? ITS WRONG DAMMIT!!! do the opposite RIGHT NOW!

Everyone else: Who really cares, they can't do anything about it anyway. If they cross France or Germany, the EU will make a little noise about it though.

Did this help?

Do you have any idea how unfunny that was? I recomend you stop watching Leno, and try some decent comedy.

[Directed]

Seraph, I'm sorry, but show me the wisdom of French foreign policy at any point in time. The Germans have been damn pacifists since Hitler because when they get into wars they screw up, and England always bucks whatever their leadership is doing. If anyone in the EU bucks what Germany and England want to do, they make noises. Show me where I am wrong here. I didn't mention Australia here, Seraph.

[Mr. Bungle]

Seraph, I'm sorry, but show me the wisdom of French foreign policy at any point in time. The Germans have been damn pacifists since Hitler because when they get into wars they screw up, and England always bucks whatever their leadership is doing. If anyone in the EU bucks what Germany and England want to do, they make noises. Show me where I am wrong here. I didn't mention Australia here, Seraph.
Germany is pacifist because their population won't stand for any more wars. I think when your country and population have been annihilated by the two biggest wars in the history of humanity, you tend to not want to get involved in any more. Especially when you started both of them.

Germans are pacifists, but they aren't what Americans would derisively refer to as "pussys." Germans want nothing to do with war unless it absoultely has to be fought. I think the last thing they were involved with was Kosovo and Serbia because it was a war against ethnice cleansing.

Germans are also extremely paranoid about nationalism and people who think that their country is better than any other. I don't think I need to explain where this comes from. You would never ever see a bumper sticker that said "Proud to be German" here.

Germans tend to be center-left in their politics in my experience, but if you put it into an American spectrum, they would be more liberal than most Democrats.

I forgot what my main point was here :)

I detected a bit of derision to your usage of the word pacifist and thought I should chime in.

[Directed]

No derision there, just observation. I save my derision for the French :fag: (I only added a little bit of irony because Germans don't apply their pacifism to everyone equally. Hense my observation.)

[Mr. Bungle]

No derision there, just observation. I save my derision for the French :fag:
noted.

hehe. Germans still dont like the French for the same reasons Americans don't.

But French Fries are referred to as pommes here ;)

[Directed]

By the way, do the French have a foreign policy (besides making a lot of noise and whining about things so they sound important and involved)? What is it?

[Directed]

French Fries: The best things that can be called French. Ironically they were not made by the French. That may also be why they are good.

[Directed]

Are you saying that the journalists are out of touch, Kleph?

[Asmodeus]

it was an interesting choice of words there. socialist to capitalist, fascist to liberal. implying that unless you're a liberal, you're a fascist.

Interesting viewpoint, since many conservatives (there's the word you were looking for) see liberals as the exact same thing.

I look at this from a rather different point of view. Im more of an old school textbook definition of a republican, even if somewhat more on the moderate side.

Less government
Less taxes
"Hands off" policy on most things outside of maintaining infrastructure
Long term financial planning
uniformity of laws
More state rule / less central gov't
Personal freedoms first.
Equal rights, not special rights.

Stop looking at me like I'm a talking dog now, thats the way republicans used to be a long while back. The current batch of republicans really are just democrats with a business interest. If you look around, i beleive this definition fits more of the Libertarian party right now. Close but not as radical.

They say a democrat always looks great coming in after a republican, but to really fuck up a country, get a bleeding heart liberal democrat.

with all this, even if i was much more politically agnostic, id still lean to the right. why? the supporters are better. really, democratic supporters are more annoying than vocal drunks. everything is a drama, overblown or world ending.. and always has to be public. I mean, that guy that was going to try to do a citizens arrent on a world leader.. who are we really trying to kid here? Oh yeah, the liberals, those who have done more to destroy my free speech than GWB ever did, not that i'm a fan much anymore.. hes just a damn sight better than what was running against him, and this latest election... well.. better stick with the devil you know besides the opponents main platform being 'well, i'm not bush, vote for me'. Always a strong stance, eh?

[Merudo]

interesting thread. I'll be keeping an eye on this

[The Cunt]

I think this thread is both informative and intelligent.

Once Nodbugger posts it will go downhill from there.

As a matter of fact, once The Cunt has posted and pointed this out, it will already begin its slide.

[Scythe]

Are you saying that the journalists are out of touch, Kleph?

I think it's more appropriate to say that people are, if not selfish, at least more concerned with things that impact their everyday lives than things that are happening over the edge of their own personal horizon. It's just the way human beings have evolved. For the most part, we operate on a fairly strict scale of priorities. Family -> tribe/local group -> wider group/nation -> species. This is only a rough approximation, of course, and things can shift from one to the other (a member of the nation becoming a family member through marraige, for instance), but generally it holds true. A lot of people talk about how important things like Iraq are to them, but when the time comes they consider their interests and those of the people they care about personally first and foremost.

[berserk]

it would seem salient to bring back the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) test.

Directed, I perceive that you have a very nation-centric view of things. You described foreign policy in terms of the nation it comes from, & views it as essentially fixed (despite the changable nature of policy in democratic governmental systems), rather than adopting a ideological taxonomy such as internationalist, isolatinist, pragmatic etc.

If so, why?

[Directed]

it would seem salient to bring back the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) test.

Directed, I perceive that you have a very nation-centric view of things. You described foreign policy in terms of the nation it comes from, & views it as essentially fixed (despite the changable nature of policy in democratic governmental systems), rather than adopting a ideological taxonomy such as internationalist, isolatinist, pragmatic etc.

If so, why?

Because foreign policy is put into effect by nations who have their own interests. For instance look what Venezuela is doing. They are basically giving the finger to the USA and cozying up to Cuba. Why is this their foreign policy? Because as a nation they have always been suspicious of the USA. They are convinced that the CIA has infiltrated their country and has almost god-like powers to do things like make earthquakes in some places. (I'm not kidding). Also their president, Chavez is trying to solidify his power and finds it useful to have a relationship with Castro. Does this make them isolationist? Pragmatic? Internationalist? I rather see it makes them Venezuelan with Chaves as their current leader.

This is just one example. Sure I over-simplified my view (try to give your comprehensive view on anything in one post). But nations have their own axes to grind, and their own "style" of foreign policy even independent of the internationalist/isolationist/pragmatic framework. For example an American isolationist is not going to have a lot in common with a Soviet isolationist in how he does foreign policy.

Plus it was funny (at least to me)

[pavilion]

unfotunately i dont know enough about politics to make an intelligent comment, im one of those people who knows nothing about politics but says fuck bush for the image

[dwarfthrower]

unfotunately i dont know enough about politics to make an intelligent comment, im one of those people who knows nothing about politics but says fuck bush for the image

Nothing to be ashamed of if 99.9% of ZGeek members is anything to go by.

[Directed]

yes you have. and you are a bit off in your analysis. but your basic point is pretty spot on. we went into this issue in much more detail in this thread. (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?t=29701)

Just to expose my international ignorance to you further Kleph, my analysis is Chavez is standing up to the US for at least 3 reasons. One is to rally the Venezuelans and distract them from the problems his policies are causing in the country. Two is he views himself as kind of a leader of the latin world, and he is trying to align power in the Americas more towards Venezuela, and less towards the USA. Three is the USA is cozy with Colombia, and Venezuela has always had tension with Colombia since they divided up from being the same country. Now I will read your thread and see if you agree with me.

[Directed]

On another note, We've gone 3 pages, and still no flame war even though the title includes the name Nodbugger. Is this a Zgeek record?

[lostreality]

i thought this thread was for noddy? seems to have been hijacked.

http://www.bannedhosting.com/forums/ThreadHijack-OMFG.jpg

[Necron]

What a surprise, no presence of Nodbugger in this thread.





Continue.

[s3raph]

it was an interesting choice of words there. socialist to capitalist, fascist to liberal. implying that unless you're a liberal, you're a fascist.


No, theres a range. Liberal and fascist are merely the extremes at either end of the spectrum.

[dwarfthrower]

No, theres a range. Liberal and fascist are merely the extremes at either end of the spectrum.

That's not quite true... the only difference between liberals and fascists is the extent to which they desire state control over individual's personal freedoms. In every other respect they are much the same.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Sure:

French foreign policy: No one will attack us, we are French. When people attack us we will defend ourselves like surrender monkeys. Then we will make some other country save us because we are French. When other people do foreign policy, we will criticize it because they are not French, and therefore they are stupid.

German foreign policy: Using force is bad. Unless you are using force against someone who has a larger army than you. Because you are smaller and less sophisticated we will excuse anything you do and tell people they need to be more understanding of you. Because by definition, smaller and less sophisticated people are ALWAYS misunderstood and need to be allowed to grow and develop.

English foreign policy: What are the politicians doing? ITS WRONG DAMMIT!!! do the opposite RIGHT NOW!

Everyone else: Who really cares, they can't do anything about it anyway. If they cross France or Germany, the EU will make a little noise about it though.

Did this help?

A crude but effective analysis ;)

I was hoping not to go into a lengthy analysis, but I guess the best way to describe the variances in the foreign policy world would be somewhere between pragmatist, determinist and apathetic.

Take the US for example, I would consider them to want to craft world affairs as they see fit, usually for their benefit, sometimes for others. The policy of Manifest Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny), and the effect that that policy still has today, essentially proves this. This is what I would describe as a deterministic state.

France, well, theyre alot more complicated. To understand their viewpoint, you first need to consider their history - 3 invasions in less than 70 years (Franco-Prussian, WW1 and WW2). To put it mildly, they are scared shitless and as such want to nip in the bud any sort of militaristic behaviour the first chance they get. Unfortunately, they are so scared that innocents die (look at Rwanda, a former French possession). At the same time, they will use their pacifistic attitude as a front to protect their national interests (Iraq), and go and perform some blaitantly aggressive actions in the name of national defence (nuclear tests). Can you think of a word for them???

Germany (and Japan) cant act militaristic because they are still perceived today as the descendent state of the worlds most destructive nation. They are pacifist and pragmatists, but not out of choice.

UK, well it needs to sit on both sides of the fence, with one leg facing towards the US and its historic ties there, and one leg facing towards Europe. Unfortunately, they are impaling their testicles on the fence, trying to satisfy both blocs, which have differing standards and requirements.

On a side note, im happy that this thread has maintained the level of decorum that it has thus far. :tits:

[Directed]

I think the US point of view is that the UN is useless and corrupt, There is no other country out there who can resolve any crisis situation with decisiveness and clarity, and everyone wants to explain away any threat to security just like they did before world war I and II and the way they did with the Soviet Union as well. As such the US feels it needs to recognize and intercept any threats to their national security and to world security as soon as they become clear. I'm not sure I throw myself completely in that camp that I put the USA in, but I can see the concern. There doesn't seem to be any threat that people besides the USA took seriously enough without USA pointing it out in recent times. And the only times military intervention was decisive was by the USA leading the way. Look at former Yugoslavia for an example.

This leads perhaps to a tendency for the USA to overstate their cases and jump quicker into situations that perhaps they could have avoided. But the alternative is not necessarily better. In my opinion a lot of countries have stuck their head in the sand and put too much hope in diplomacy alone with no force of action behind it.

[berserk]

I like Bigglesworth's take on foreign policy. Reading this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations) I'd interpret current US foreign policy as maximal realism with a slight & diminishing tint of humanism.

I'd also posit that countries like Canada, the Nordics & Germany place greater emphasis on humanism in their foreign polity than the US, despite its claims to moral superiority & leadership.

Sorry if I've contributed to the threadjack. Where is the Nod? I'm really interested to hear his answer.

[Kez]

Interesting, you people all seem smart... except for one thing.

Why is this in the War Forum and not in the Discussion forum?

Untill there are TANKS http://www.screensavershot.com/automation/tanks.jpg




















OR PEOPLES HEADS GETTING SHOT OFF, THIS SHOULD NOT BE IN HERE!!!!

You're all lucky I'm not a mod, or I would have sodomised this thread to the DISCUSSION FORUM!!!

I'm in a cunt of a mood this afternoon, and the last thing I expected to be in the War Forum is a DISCUSSION about GWB.

[pavilion]

unfotunately i dont know enough about politics to make an intelligent comment, im one of those people who knows nothing about politics but says fuck bush for the image


what the fuck ? that was funney wasnt it ? where the hell is my rep + ? i was expecting it to roll in

[Mr. Bungle]

Kudos to the thread. Where is Noddy anyhow? Not that I am wishing for his presence here at all.

I think everyone has made cogent points throughout this thread and no one has said anything that I consider stupid or ill-informed. This is rare for most political/war threads on zgeek lately.

Germany is in the midst of a political change at the moment. The SPD (Social Democratic Party), which is Schröder's party, lost a major election in North Rhine-Westphalia where there party has been in power for the past 39 years. Schröder and the SPD have done a lot of unpopular things in Germany since they have been in power (eliminating a lot of social welfare, not helping enough with unemployment - currently at around 11-12% nationally) but his tough anti-war stance was very popular with the electorate.

However, people here vote for their wallets and pocketbooks (as opposed to Americans who tend to vote for "moral values" and other vagueries). Schröder has called for new elections this fall, which is 1 year earlier than normal. If the SPD loses, the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union) will move in and their stance towards the US is much different. If the CDU had been in power in 2003, Germany would have been a supported of Bush and the war in Iraq, although I can't say that they would have sent troops.

But if the CDU wins this next set of elections, watch out for a change in Germany's relationship with the US. It's possible that Bush could win a European supporter.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Interesting, you people all seem smart... except for one thing.
You're all lucky I'm not a mod, or I would have sodomised this thread to the DISCUSSION FORUM!!!

I'm in a cunt of a mood this afternoon, and the last thing I expected to be in the War Forum is a DISCUSSION about GWB.

Well he is such a divisive figure in the US and internationally, and so related to the Iraq war that I thought this forum would be the best place to discuss it.

BTW I will reply to all your posts after I get home tonight from a mates birthday (I know that going out isnt a very geeky thing to do :barf:)

[s3raph]

I think the US point of view is that the UN is useless and corrupt, There is no other country out there who can resolve any crisis situation with decisiveness and clarity, and everyone wants to explain away any threat to security just like they did before world war I and II and the way they did with the Soviet Union as well. As such the US feels it needs to recognize and intercept any threats to their national security and to world security as soon as they become clear. I'm not sure I throw myself completely in that camp that I put the USA in, but I can see the concern. There doesn't seem to be any threat that people besides the USA took seriously enough without USA pointing it out in recent times. And the only times military intervention was decisive was by the USA leading the way. Look at former Yugoslavia for an example.

This leads perhaps to a tendency for the USA to overstate their cases and jump quicker into situations that perhaps they could have avoided. But the alternative is not necessarily better. In my opinion a lot of countries have stuck their head in the sand and put too much hope in diplomacy alone with no force of action behind it.
Fascists say the exact same thing. "We need a leader who can act decisively, and make sure that the job gets done now, rather than discussing it in a committee". And look how well that worked out for them. Make no mistake, the US looks out for the US, and couldn't give a flying fuck about the rest of us, unless its in their interests.

Secondly, since when has the UN been corrupt? You do realise that your nation is one of the few on earth which has been making such a big deal out of these oil for food allegations? I'm willing to concede that they aren't efficient or decisive, but thats the result of a thorough democratic process. The only reason the US is kicking up shit about the UN being "corrupt" is so that they can put pressure for reforms, all being guided by their own helpful guiding hand. Trying to get their own officials in high UN places etc etc.

I'm tired of that kind of crap. The UN needs to finally get its shit sorted out so that they can say to the US, "either follow our lead like you expect everyone else to, or fuck off". The US shouldn't expect special treatment from the UN and neither should anyone else.

[Directed]

Secondly, since when has the UN been corrupt? You do realise that your nation is one of the few on earth which has been making such a big deal out of these oil for food allegations? I'm willing to concede that they aren't efficient or decisive, but thats the result of a thorough democratic process. The only reason the US is kicking up shit about the UN being "corrupt" is so that they can put pressure for reforms, all being guided by their own helpful guiding hand. Trying to get their own officials in high UN places etc etc.

I'm tired of that kind of crap. The UN needs to finally get its shit sorted out so that they can say to the US, "either follow our lead like you expect everyone else to, or fuck off". The US shouldn't expect special treatment from the UN and neither should anyone else.

First, the fact that there isnt many people making noise about UN but the USA is disturbing to me, because it suggests that people really don't care about the corruption that exists there. If you don't acknowledge that corruption it is because you haven't been paying attention. And if you excuse it as not being important you need to get your brain in gear.

Second off, if the UN really wants to be independant of the US, they will need to find a way to not have the US provide more funding for it than anybody else. Its just a fact of life. Whoever controls the purse strings has a larger say in things.

[Scythe]

Second off, if the UN really wants to be independant of the US, they will need to find a way to not have the US provide more funding for it than anybody else. Its just a fact of life. Whoever controls the purse strings has a larger say in things.

A big part of the reason that the U.N. is so dependant on the U.S. for its funding is because that's the way the U.S. pushed to have it arranged when the U.N. was being set up. There was no way that they were going to let a world body like that be set up without having a disproportionately large say in the way it functioned. I mean, do you really think the majority of the world's nations wanted the headquaters of the U.N. to be set up where it is? Who do you think decided that?

[s3raph]

Well, all I'm saying is its wrong that the US is constantly demanding special treatment. "We want nuclear arms, but noone else gets to have them, we refuse to submit our troops to take orders from UN officers, etc, etc."

[Mr Bigglesworth]

The UN is no better than the League of Nations, it is a toothless tiger that is prone to corruption. Its not the UN's direct fault, though. In the 50's and 60's, it served its purpose well and it did have enough clout (primarily because it was a forum for the Communist and Capitalist blocs to square off). But after the Soviet Unions demise, I think that member states thought that it was no longer pertinent, and as such it was better to concentrate on bilateral arrangements than multilateral ones like the UN.

One of the other reasons why the UN is a failure today is because of the veto system (for a history look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Veto_Power) and here (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html). I think that the UN is unsustainable with the current veto system, it should work on 2/3 majority and the vote would have to be legally binding. (might I add, the only reason why the US, UK, Russia, France and China have veto power is because of their WW2 victory).

Another reason why the UN is in disarray is because the US (and other states) refuses to pay its dues, and they are $1.3 billion in arrears. This is stifling any level of reform, in fact the UN building in New York is breaking dozens of OHS standards because they dont have the money to renovate the building.

As for US dogma that dictates that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and other states arent, dont even get me started there. Remember the US is the only nation to actually use the weapon in anger before, no other state ever has. :grr:

[Nodbugger]

As for US dogma that dictates that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and other states arent, dont even get me started there. Remember the US is the only nation to actually use the weapon in anger before, no other state ever has.

Yes, I am jumping in this thread, which was about me to begin with.

If you thought about that statement you would have known two things. We were the only ones to have Nuclear Weapons and that it put an end to the war.

You saw the article about the two old Japanese soldiers finnally surrendering. That is how Japan was, either they were alive and fighting or dead.

As for the oil for food, no other country is talking about it because they are the ones abusing it.

[berserk]

Nevermind all that, answer the original question posed by bigglesworth.
you are quite a supporter of George W Bush, but in all truth I have never understood exactly why. I was hoping you can tell me. ...I just want to know why you regard the man so highly.

[dwarfthrower]

actually, i would argue they both would implement a simliar degree of state control over that would subvert the individual's freedom to the most extreeme degree. look at the similarities between any classical communist regime (say, stalinist russia) and any classical facist regime (say, nazi germany). they come from opposite directions but reach the same end.

No argument there... but I wouldn't have put Maoist China or Stalinist Russia in the "liberal" camp. Where the communist tends toward infringing personal freedom where that freedom is seen as a threat to either the state itself or "the party" (which in most totalitarian communist regimes is one and the same thing) , a liberal statist regime will infringe upon personal freedoms only when those freedoms are seen as a threat to political correctness (eg hate speech) or could be seen as an attempt to subvert politically correct wealth redistribution practises (offshore banking).

[Mr Bigglesworth]

No argument there... but I wouldn't have put Maoist China or Stalinist Russia in the "liberal" camp. Where the communist tends toward infringing personal freedom where that freedom is seen as a threat to either the state itself or "the party" (which in most totalitarian communist regimes is one and the same thing) , a liberal statist regime will infringe upon personal freedoms only when those freedoms are seen as a threat to political correctness (eg hate speech) or could be seen as an attempt to subvert politically correct wealth redistribution practises (offshore banking).

You would be suprised as the lack of personal freedoms that are prevalent in so-called democratic societies today. Have a read of Brian Wilshires material, it covers alot it quite well (yes he is quite liberal but he makes some valid points with regard to civil liberties) though it is out of date by a few years now.

There are places in the US now where gathering in public places (or demonstration) is illegal, as a country that pioneered the concept of civil liberties I think this is incredibly wrong.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

If you thought about that statement you would have known two things. We were the only ones to have Nuclear Weapons and that it put an end to the war.

You saw the article about the two old Japanese soldiers finnally surrendering. That is how Japan was, either they were alive and fighting or dead.

As for the oil for food, no other country is talking about it because they are the ones abusing it.

Instead of killing about 200,000 people, why didnt the US demonstrate its weapon off the Japanese coast, they would have seen the effect of such a devastating weapon and surrendered just the same. And if im wrong there, why did they need to blow up Nagasaki so soon after Hiroshima and when the US High Command knew that the Japanese were in the process of organising an "honourable" surrender?

That level of committment is shown by most well-trained soldiers (and sometimes even poorly trained ones who have been indoctrinated to believe that their way of life is superior to others). Look at the Iraqi insurgency today, they have no hope of winning, yet the continue to battle.

Oil-for-food, yes it was a rort and should of been policed better. But one of the alledged benefactors from it was British, and a member of the government of the US' staunchest ally.

[Nodbugger]

Instead of killing about 200,000 people, why didnt the US demonstrate its weapon off the Japanese coast, they would have seen the effect of such a devastating weapon and surrendered just the same. And if im wrong there, why did they need to blow up Nagasaki so soon after Hiroshima and when the US High Command knew that the Japanese were in the process of organising an "honourable" surrender?

That level of committment is shown by most well-trained soldiers (and sometimes even poorly trained ones who have been indoctrinated to believe that their way of life is superior to others). Look at the Iraqi insurgency today, they have no hope of winning, yet the continue to battle.

Oil-for-food, yes it was a rort and should of been policed better. But one of the alledged benefactors from it was British, and a member of the government of the US' staunchest ally.


It was less than 150k killed.

They Japanese were not prepared to surrender. Especially the military sector. Only the emperor wanted to surrender and everyone else was highly against it. Even after the surrender we we still engaged Japanese troops for several months. They didn't want to surrender.

There is no such thing as the Iraqi insurgency. They are in no way fighting for Iraq.

[Nodbugger]

You would be suprised as the lack of personal freedoms that are prevalent in so-called democratic societies today. Have a read of Brian Wilshires material, it covers alot it quite well (yes he is quite liberal but he makes some valid points with regard to civil liberties) though it is out of date by a few years now.

There are places in the US now where gathering in public places (or demonstration) is illegal, as a country that pioneered the concept of civil liberties I think this is incredibly wrong.


It isn't so much illegal as it is you need permission. There are limits on everything. You need limits on everything. That cities local governments did not just decide that. The president did not determine that. It was a vote by the people of that area. When people do have a demonstration they tend to fuck things up for people not involved. So if the city is prepared to accommodate such a demonstration it must be approved. Having one without the proper permissions goes under disturbing the peace.

[The Cunt]

Yes, I am jumping in this thread, which was about me to begin with.

If you thought about that statement you would have known two things. We were the only ones to have Nuclear Weapons and that it put an end to the war.

You saw the article about the two old Japanese soldiers finnally surrendering. That is how Japan was, either they were alive and fighting or dead.

As for the oil for food, no other country is talking about it because they are the ones abusing it.
Who the fuck invited you in here?

[Directed]

Noddy's Back!!!!

Anyway guys, the USA is not the only country that has nukes. France, UK, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Who knows, maybe even North Korea have them. It is necessary for world stability for the USA to have nukes. Because since everyone knows we are willing to use them, no one else dares to use them. Its OK for you all to whinge about the double standards. Thats what weak people do. Look at whatever is in power and complain. I don't hear any of our NATO partners saying we should do away with our nuclear weapons though.

[dwarfthrower]

You would be suprised as the lack of personal freedoms that are prevalent in so-called democratic societies today.
Yes, like the freedom to hang onto my own money, the freedom to decide for myself if I think I'm capable of wiring up a lightswitch or not... not a lot surprises me when it comes to government proclivities for "protecting" me from myself.

Have a read of Brian Wilshires material, it covers alot it quite well (yes he is quite liberal but he makes some valid points with regard to civil liberties) though it is out of date by a few years now.

As in the Sydney talkback radio host?

There are places in the US now where gathering in public places (or demonstration) is illegal, as a country that pioneered the concept of civil liberties I think this is incredibly wrong.

Since when did the US ever pioneer civil liberties? When they were shipping black folks over by the boatload? Or when they were making it illegal for adults to drink alcohol? Or perhaps in the '60s when they finally let black folks ride the bus? Maybe now when it's illegal for US citizens to go for a holiday to Cuba?

[Directed]

If you want absolute freedom, move to Africa in a country where there is total anarchy. See how well that works out for you.

[dwarfthrower]

If you want absolute freedom, move to Africa in a country where there is total anarchy. See how well that works out for you.
Somalia is quite nice this time of year.

Since when is freedom equated to anarchy?

[H34D STR0NG]

I don’t usually talk in the war forums but my question is if Australia would deicide to start a nuclear weapons scheme. Would we be as badly treated as other countries that are suspected of starting such schemes?

[Hairyman]

Directed, do you seriously condone double standards?

[Mr. Bungle]

What the hell is the point in having a nuclear weapon anyways? The days of Mutually Assured Destruction are behind us thank god, yet people in power are always inclined to "update" these arsenals. Oh I guess we need a bomb that is 500 times more powerful than Hiroshima so we can what, kill everyone in a country with one bomb?

And the argument that since other countries have them the US needs them is short sighted and makes no sense. I am not so naive as to expect complete disarmament (I think only a major major catastrophe with nukes would cause this) but non-proliferation should be the goal of the US.

And yes, they do need to stop N. Korea from developing them and I don't think Iran needs them either, but the US needs to stand up to Israel as well then. This culture of double standards is what pisses everyone off.

Just to clarify, I am an American but I live in Germany.

[Hairyman]

What the hell is the point in having a nuclear weapon anyways? The days of Mutually Assured Destruction are behind us thank god, yet people in power are always inclined to "update" these arsenals. Oh I guess we need a bomb that is 500 times more powerful than Hiroshima so we can what, kill everyone in a country with one bomb?

And the argument that since other countries have them the US needs them is short sighted and makes no sense. I am not so naive as to expect complete disarmament (I think only a major majot catastrophe with nukes would cause this) but non-proliferation should be the goal of the US.

And yes, they do need to stop N. Korea from developing them and I don't think Iran needs them either, but the US needs to stand up to Israel as well then. This culture of double standards is what pisses everyone off.

Too right!

[Kez]

There is no such thing as the Iraqi insurgency. They are in no way fighting for Iraq.

Actually you are wrong. They are fighting for their country of birth, which is their country.

Unless you are saying the country belongs to the US? Is that what you're saying noddy?

Oh, and you still get -rep on the hiroshima remark, because your nuke still hasn't stopped them from killing our whales. :fag:

[Nodbugger]

Actually you are wrong. They are fighting for their country of birth, which is their country.

Unless you are saying the country belongs to the US? Is that what you're saying noddy?

Oh, and you still get -rep on the hiroshima remark, because your nuke still hasn't stopped them from killing our whales. :fag:

No, you are wrong, they are obviously not fighting for Iraq. They do not have Iraq's best interests at heart. They don't have any of that. They are evil bastards.

[Nodbugger]

What the hell is the point in having a nuclear weapon anyways? The days of Mutually Assured Destruction are behind us thank god, yet people in power are always inclined to "update" these arsenals. Oh I guess we need a bomb that is 500 times more powerful than Hiroshima so we can what, kill everyone in a country with one bomb?

And the argument that since other countries have them the US needs them is short sighted and makes no sense. I am not so naive as to expect complete disarmament (I think only a major major catastrophe with nukes would cause this) but non-proliferation should be the goal of the US.

And yes, they do need to stop N. Korea from developing them and I don't think Iran needs them either, but the US needs to stand up to Israel as well then. This culture of double standards is what pisses everyone off.

Just to clarify, I am an American but I live in Germany.


You live in a world where Nuclear war is still possible, it simply isn't. There is the possibility of a Nuclear attack, but it will not be from another country.

I just watched a show on the future uses on Nuclear weapon,s of course there are aliens, power sources, and the obvious obliterating meteors.

Always go with the saying - Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

[Up_All_Night]

your opinion of Iraqs best interest at heart they dont have
but to them they might feel there opinion is whats best, such as by not having a puppet government controlled by a corrupt infadel nation in charge of their home land. A country thats killed tens of thousand of innocent iraqi's while supporting their own financial interest and that of the state of Israel who is oppressing their palistinian brothers.

[Juice Biscuit]

First, the fact that there isnt many people making noise about UN but the USA is disturbing to me, because it suggests that people really don't care about the corruption that exists there. If you don't acknowledge that corruption it is because you haven't been paying attention. And if you excuse it as not being important you need to get your brain in gear.

Second off, if the UN really wants to be independant of the US, they will need to find a way to not have the US provide more funding for it than anybody else. Its just a fact of life. Whoever controls the purse strings has a larger say in things.


Can you provide some links to this corruption?


So far all I have read that wasn't complete blunderdash all relates to Private corperations and has nothing to do with either Gov or UN officials.


Not saying they haven't, I haven't read up too much on the issue.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

It was less than 150k killed.

They Japanese were not prepared to surrender. Especially the military sector. Only the emperor wanted to surrender and everyone else was highly against it. Even after the surrender we we still engaged Japanese troops for several months. They didn't want to surrender.

There is no such thing as the Iraqi insurgency. They are in no way fighting for Iraq.

The figure at the time was 150,000, but have you considered those who would have died as a direct result of radiation poisoning, infections and the subsequent cancer that would have been caused?

Yes they didnt want to surrender because to them it was a dishonour, but the fact is that the US gained very little by obliterating two Japanese cities, a demonstration of the weapon coupled with an ultimatum demanding unconditional surrender would have delivered the same end result, without a doubt.

Nodbugger, the insurgency exists. Their tactics may be crude, barbaric and genocidal, but they exist. There is no way that an unorganised band of rabble would be continuing to mount resistance two years after Bush declared the Iraq war over.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

It isn't so much illegal as it is you need permission. There are limits on everything. You need limits on everything. That cities local governments did not just decide that. The president did not determine that. It was a vote by the people of that area. When people do have a demonstration they tend to fuck things up for people not involved. So if the city is prepared to accommodate such a demonstration it must be approved. Having one without the proper permissions goes under disturbing the peace.

But a country founded on the principle of freedom of speech, and where it has served it so well for so long, shouldn't look at curbing those freedoms which it says it is attempting to uphold in the rest of the world. Im not saying that Bush is responsible for the reduction of civil liberties, but he as President and the government should make sure that the constitution is observed, even when it is contradictiorary to his interests. And if they think that reducing civil rights is a good idea, then run a referendum and let the people decide.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

As in the Sydney talkback radio host?


Yes. Its been many years since ive listened to him, but I remember him well. He published two books pertaining to civil liberties and current affairs, and one regarding inconsistencies in the Bible. His political books are very good, theres quite an amusing chapter about a guy who got arrested on suspicion of drug involvement in the US for possessing $100, $50, $20 and $10 bills, and the official reason was that "those denominations are regularly used in the drug trade". No conviction was recorded. He also osed to feature Dr Keith Suter on his show, a man very heavily involved in the UN and at the Australian Federal govt level.


Since when did the US ever pioneer civil liberties? When they were shipping black folks over by the boatload? Or when they were making it illegal for adults to drink alcohol? Or perhaps in the '60s when they finally let black folks ride the bus? Maybe now when it's illegal for US citizens to go for a holiday to Cuba?

Well thats the thing. The US was the first state in the world to abolish royalty, when it declared independence from the British in 1776. This predated the French revolution by over a decade, so at the time it was the most liberal state in the world, bar none. The Declaration of Independence (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html) was supposed to have ensured that all its citizens were free (with the exception of the Indians, which were to be mercilessly hunted and destroyed). Obviously, we know what actually happened: blacks were persecuted and mistreated for another 200 years.

From a purely white standpoint, the USA was the "free-est" nation in the world, with those freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html). Roosevelt used his "Freedom of ....." (http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/fdr.html) propaganda in WWII to justify American superiority against the Axis. Technically, they still are the most liberal state in the world, even Australia does not guarantee freedom of speech in its constitution, and the freshly-rejected EU constitution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4596005.stm) would have ensured Europeans had that right, but now that is uncertain.

[s3raph]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of people posting in this thread who can't spell?

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of people posting in this thread who can't spell?

Stop being so pedantique, S3raph. :jizz:

On a side note, your avatar looks like Scorpio out of Dirty Harry.

[Bostonmess]

Is it just me, or are there a lot of people posting in this thread who can't spell?

There certainly are mate :)

Do you have any idea how unfunny that was? I recomend you stop watching Leno, and try some decent comedy.

[Directed]

whatt arrre youtalking abuot, s3raph?

[Directed]

Can you provide some links to this corruption?

So far all I have read that wasn't complete blunderdash all relates to Private corperations and has nothing to do with either Gov or UN officials.

Not saying they haven't, I haven't read up too much on the issue.
In defending Russia, China and France, Mr. Annan further implied that Saddam’s traffic went only to companies, not governments, and therefore could not possibly have swayed state policies. Perhaps Mr. Annan has forgotten that all Saddam’s contracts were funneled into Oil for Food via the official U.N. missions of the respective countries. Although earlier this year Mr. Annan and some of his aides were busy excusing Mr. Annan’s Secretariat from any responsibility for Oil for Fraud, by way of blaming the U.N. member-state missions, especially those on the Security Council.

Maybe Mr. Annan also forgot that both China and Russia, however nonbanana their status at the U.N., have yet to enter the era of genuine private property rights. In both these nations, there is a hazy line between state and private sector, no fair and impartial rule of law to define that line, and no press free enough to delve deeply into such matters as when, by whom and at what price it might have been crossed. Maybe Mr. Annan also forgot that large business interests, even when private, can wield a certain amount of lobbying clout, even in France.
Nice quote from:
http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/individual/2004/10/un_corruption_and_banana_republics.html
here are other sites with similar criticisms of UN corruption:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4203
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/04/03/do0301.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/04/03/ixop.html
http://www.therinsecycle.com/archives/000305.html
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1028_0_2_0_C/
http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010227102.htm
http://www.thebcobserver.com/(3xg3u2fuaw3yoa45dr41r555)/Article.aspx?ArticleID=642&IssueID=18
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp
http://www.lp.org/media/article_102.shtml
http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/individual/2004/10/un_corruption_and_banana_republics.html
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/126113.htm

[Directed]

Somalia is quite nice this time of year.

Since when is freedom equated to anarchy?

Absolute freedom I am interpreting as the freedom from any rules to do whatever you want. That erodes into anarchy very soon. You can observe this in any location where the rule of law is dissolved. When the rule of law doesn't apply, you don't get a paradise, you get a hell. That is why, although you can complain about laws, be grateful that at least you have laws that apply and are enforced.

[Juice Biscuit]

The complete past history of the UN's issues was not was I was asking for as much as the recent facts about the oil for food programs.


Commentary from right wing hate sites, or commentary regarding somthing all together different doesn't really concern me at this point.


Does anyone have a decent link that gives a nice summary to all the corruption that has been proved or offers irefruitable proof of issues regarding the oil for food program?


Speeling mistakes added just for Sreph3. ;)

[Directed]

An honest discussion of the UN's issues was not was I was asking for as much as some information to make me feel good about the oil for food programs.


Commentary from any site that diverges from my view of the UN, or commentary regarding somthing all together different doesn't really concern me at this point.


Does anyone have a decent link that gives a nice summary that will absolve the food program and therefore confirm my worldview? ;)

Edited for clarity

[Nodbugger]

your opinion of Iraqs best interest at heart they dont have
but to them they might feel there opinion is whats best, such as by not having a puppet government controlled by a corrupt infadel nation in charge of their home land. A country thats killed tens of thousand of innocent iraqi's while supporting their own financial interest and that of the state of Israel who is oppressing their palistinian brothers.


So basically killing Iraqis is in Iraqs best interest?

[Nodbugger]

The figure at the time was 150,000, but have you considered those who would have died as a direct result of radiation poisoning, infections and the subsequent cancer that would have been caused?

Yes they didnt want to surrender because to them it was a dishonour, but the fact is that the US gained very little by obliterating two Japanese cities, a demonstration of the weapon coupled with an ultimatum demanding unconditional surrender would have delivered the same end result, without a doubt.

Nodbugger, the insurgency exists. Their tactics may be crude, barbaric and genocidal, but they exist. There is no way that an unorganised band of rabble would be continuing to mount resistance two years after Bush declared the Iraq war over.


Where is your without a doubt proof? We destroyed Japan and Germany, We have removed them from many Islands. We showed them we could take them over. You do know warned them several days in advanced both times, right?

It is not an insurgency. They are all terrorist attacks. They are targeting civilians. They are killing civilians. They are no longer an insurgency.


And again, please check your facts. you are babbling propaganda you heard of some crazy liberal website. No one, not even Bush, has declared the war in Iraq to be over.

[Nodbugger]

But a country founded on the principle of freedom of speech, and where it has served it so well for so long, shouldn't look at curbing those freedoms which it says it is attempting to uphold in the rest of the world. Im not saying that Bush is responsible for the reduction of civil liberties, but he as President and the government should make sure that the constitution is observed, even when it is contradictiorary to his interests. And if they think that reducing civil rights is a good idea, then run a referendum and let the people decide.


Have you ever read the constitution? It is obvious you have never taken an American civics class. The constitution is the most vague piece of writing you will ever encounter. It is meant to be that way so each group of people living in certain areas can make different rules regarding the basics. In Illinois I cannot tint my from or front side windows on my car. I move to Arizona and and I can tint the whole car. Now no where in the constitution does it say anything about window tints, but the rules are different for reasons. Arizona has a blinding sun, and Illinois wants police to be able to see into the car and they want people to be able to see through parked cars.

Is it a violation of my rights? Kinda, I wouldn't mind being able to tint my windows. Does it bother me? No, because the people voted on it.

[dozer]

america calling the un corrupt is the old pot and kettle story. kofi annan should have been removed after the farce in rwanda when he couldnt decide if it was really genecide. if you need proof the un is corrupt then find out which country is the commissioner for human rights.

no one is yet to discuss americas motivation for invading iraq, even when we now know they knew there were no wmd's. seems its all switch to 'well sadams gone now and he was a bad guy so juts stop the questioning ok?'

as for france having no idea of foreign policy, you obviously havent heard of the european union and the recent historic vote. sure they have a bad record for nuclear testing and then theres all those other stereotypes to play up, but there was a huge number that actually downloaded and read the whole 700 page document, meaning that they take an big interest in what is happening around them, and they actaully care to find out.

[dozer]

the statement was not directed at the fair citizens of the united ststes (even if this thread serves as an example) but the citizens of many other nations. id be very suprsied to see aussies or uk citizens downloading 700 pages, most find it hard concentrating on the latest reality tv show.

this is where i rant that apathy is the real cancer of the new century, where internet forums are overrun by 'armchair experts' that form misguided opinions from the ones carefully pre-packaged, delivered and cheerfully consumed.

[Directed]

america calling the un corrupt is the old pot and kettle story. kofi annan should have been removed after the farce in rwanda when he couldnt decide if it was really genecide. if you need proof the un is corrupt then find out which country is the commissioner for human rights.

So we agree at least that the UN is corrupt. Some people here can't even wrap their little brains around that one.

no one is yet to discuss americas motivation for invading iraq, even when we now know they knew there were no wmd's. seems its all switch to 'well sadams gone now and he was a bad guy so juts stop the questioning ok?'

Dozer, there were more reasons than just that Iraq had WMD's. There was a little known war where Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was the HISTORY of Iraq using WMD's even against its own people, there was Saddam trying to get George Bush senior assassinated and support of terrorism within Iraq. There were even talks about the Middle East being a center of despotism and instability in the world.

Now the responsibilities in regards to WMD's was not on the US to prove that Iraq had them. Instead it was for Iraq to prove they didn't have them, since they had already used them on their own people. They instead chose to imply they had an active program probably to bluff the USA into not attacking them because of the fear of being hit by WMD's. They miscalculated USA resolve on that issue, probably because of dealing with 8 years of Bill Clinton.

as for france having no idea of foreign policy, you obviously havent heard of the european union and the recent historic vote. sure they have a bad record for nuclear testing and then theres all those other stereotypes to play up, but there was a huge number that actually downloaded and read the whole 700 page document, meaning that they take an big interest in what is happening around them, and they actaully care to find out.

People rejecting the EU constitution does not make up a coherent foreign policy, as the general population does not formulate France's foreign policy. Their governing leaders do. Seeing how the rejection of the constitution is seen as a slap in the face of their leadership for ignoring French concerns, instead of proving a great foreign policy, it shows their leadership is out of touch even with their own constituents. Let alone foreign countries.

Ironically I hear it stated that it would have been better to just let French leaders vote on the deal and have it passed. Apparently French politicians can force a constitution on their people if they want to without the people's consent. How ironic.

[Directed]

the statement was not directed at the fair citizens of the united ststes (even if this thread serves as an example) but the citizens of many other nations. id be very suprsied to see aussies or uk citizens downloading 700 pages, most find it hard concentrating on the latest reality tv show.

this is where i rant that apathy is the real cancer of the new century, where internet forums are overrun by 'armchair experts' that form misguided opinions from the ones carefully pre-packaged, delivered and cheerfully consumed.

Why exactly does a union need a 700 page constitution anyway? It is said that the greatest ideas can be expressed simply. I'll leave it to your imagination what that implies about a union that needs 700 pages to describe itself.

When was the last time you guys read a 700 page book? That is a long book. History books and political science books aren't even that long. What are they thinking in the EU? Why can't they describe simply what they are trying to accomplish? Perhaps because they don't know and aren't sure?

[dozer]

yes we can put the un to bed now.

whatever you may see as reasons there is nothing that will convince me that you can INVADE a sorerign nation, just because the guy made some threats to your president. those incidents happened a long time ago and if you want to use those kind of arguments then where was america during the rwanda saga? why is the middle east such an attractive place to 'help' but africa not? i seriously dont want to get into this whole war shit.

i really wasnt talking about their rejection, more their interest in what goes on around them, something which is quite unique in the current situation.

now what was the real reason for targeting france and germany? their opposition to the war in the middle east?

[dozer]

Why exactly does a union need a 700 page constitution anyway? It is said that the greatest ideas can be expressed simply. I'll leave it to your imagination what that implies about a union that needs 700 pages to describe itself.

When was the last time you guys read a 700 page book? That is a long book. History books and political science books aren't even that long. What are they thinking in the EU? Why can't they describe simply what they are trying to accomplish? Perhaps because they don't know and aren't sure?

bill bryson's a short history of nearly everything, there werent even any pictures or anything in it.

[Directed]

Ok, so we have 3 guys who have read 700 or more page books lately (I have read like 3 or 4 as I am updating my Microsoft certifications). As a result of reading long Microsoft books, I have deduced if it takes you over 700 pages to explain it, you probably don't know what you are talking about. Dozer, Kleph, do you hear what I am saying? Why in the world do you need a 700 page CONSTITUTION. A constitution establishes a framework for interpreting law. How long are the LAWS going to be now?

[Directed]

For example:

The bible: 10 commandments could be considered the consitution. Heck, throw the gospels and the pentateuch in, and you still have all of Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) completely established, and the entire LAW of Israel thrown in. That is still WAY under 700 pages.

The US constitution with amendments and annotations and references is like 50 pages.

What the hell are you going to do with a 700 page constitution, and then on top of that you have to have the interpretation of it. Essentially the judges are going to have to establish caselaw out of their asses.

[dozer]

you want pages? checkout this bad boy (http://www.australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/)

i say squiggle a few lines down and let thm fight it out in court, will make a lot of solicitors rich.

[Juice Biscuit]

Well now that directed has poured napalm over the ashes of this thread that Noddy hadn't burnt already, and has clearly pointed out I am a terrorist, give me a decent link or I'll set you all up the bomb.

[Directed]

Well now that directed has poured napalm over the ashes of this thread that Noddy hadn't burnt already, and has clearly pointed out I am a terrorist, give me a decent link or I'll set you all up the bomb.

I listed several before. If you are too scared to look at them go home crying to your mother. If you want to refute the links go ahead. But if you are too damn lazy to put the words "un corruption" in google, none of us are going to do the work for you you lazy bastard.

[berserk]

What happened to this? Will you not answer?
Nodbugger, I notice that you are quite a supporter of George W Bush, but in all truth I have never understood exactly why. I was hoping you can tell me. I just want to know why you regard the man so highly.

[Directed]

berserk you goddam commie, stop trying to undo this threadjacking we have masterfully pulled off.

[Nodbugger]

Nodbugger,

Ive been meaning to ask you this for a while, as I have read the forums for a very long time but havent responded. I notice that you are quite a supporter of George W Bush, but in all truth I have never understood exactly why. I was hoping you can tell me. Im not insinuating anything or trying to shit-stir, I just want to know why you regard the man so highly. I do intend to reply so be prepared to enter into a debate, if this doesnt suit you then just say so.

Just for your information (given I know you but you dont know me), I consider myself a conservative liberal in that whilst I am left-leaning in general, I sometimes have major reservations about what liberals want to do. I did consider Bill Clinton as being probably the best US president of the past 30 years (not without his faults though), so try not to hold that against me.

Im hoping to keep this a serious discussion and dont want it to degenerate into a name-calling fest as I notice so often happens. I also invite others to participate provided you keep it civil.


I don't regard him highly. I regard his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq highly. I'm sure he is a great guy, but i'm not interested in that. I wouldn't care who has done these things as long as they got done. i support him because he is doing them. If anyone else had done them I would support them. It is the actions not the president.

You guys just don't seem to understand that at all.

[berserk]

What do you think of his domestic policies?
e.g. on social security, healthcare (e.g. pharmaceutical benefits), homeland security & the Federal fiscal position

What do you think of his policies on other ragheads?
e.g. Israel, Palestine, Saudi

What do you think of his policies on non-raghead evildoers?
e.g. North Korea, Burma

What do you think of his policies on energy & the environment?
e.g. alaska oil exploration, kyoto.

[Juice Biscuit]

I listed several before. If you are too scared to look at them go home crying to your mother. If you want to refute the links go ahead. But if you are too damn lazy to put the words "un corruption" in google, none of us are going to do the work for you you lazy bastard.


I tried putting 'un corruption' and 'oil for food scandel' into google's news search just last week. All I got back was a load of hogwash about how evil the UN is with no references the back up the claims, so feel free to get up on your soap box if I don't go off reading more crap commentry that is simply a waste of perfectly good pixels.


I refuse to read anymore commentry from right wing orgs, due to what appears to be the complete inacuracy to their previous claims.


But if you can try for a second not to simply blow smoke out of your arse and outline this mass corruption in your own words with links to the evidance, then that would be great. Even your own words would be fantastic.


But reading your earlier comments regarding WWI, WWII and the Cold War, I won't be holding my breath for anything factual.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I don't regard him highly. I regard his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq highly. I'm sure he is a great guy, but i'm not interested in that. I wouldn't care who has done these things as long as they got done. i support him because he is doing them. If anyone else had done them I would support them. It is the actions not the president.

You guys just don't seem to understand that at all.

I question your views regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq operations (among others)

Afghanistan, yes it was generally quite successful, and Bush has a right to proclaim its success, but consider the fact that it was also internationally sanctioned and broadly supported. It was an operation conducted with the majority of the worlds opinion squarely with the US. However, 4 years later and still no Bin Laden behind bars. Remember that Bin Laden is the real reason why the US embarked on its military operations after September 11 (most Americans have forgotten this very important fact).

Truthfully Noddy how can you say that the Iraq operation has been successful? Iraq has descended into a quagmire of suicide-bombs, snipers and mortars. There are multiple bombings happening on a daily basis. Do you remember this famous moment:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg















Bush's leadership over Iraq has been nothing but amateur at the very best. Besides the fact that the Iraq war was waged with either misinformation or lack of information, and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11, Bush has failed to stabilise the situation in Iraq, he has failed to garner international support for the reconstruction of the country, and has failed to stop the body-bags containing his soldiers from going home.

Nodbugger, lets put left-wing and right-wing policies aside for a minute. Remember how I said that I considered Clinton to be the best US president in many years? Theres a reason for it. Clinton ran the US economy responsibly, on the whole he ran foreign policy responsibly and the threat of terrorism (from Islamic extremists) simply was not present on US soil. He made blunders (Rwanda was a huge mistake) and his affair with Lewinsky and subsequent lies under oath were serious, but on the whole he left the US a better place than he found it. Now consider Bush:

1) The US budget deficit has blown out to figures never before seen. Heres (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-27-budget_x.htm) an article out of USA Today, not exactly an obscure liberal media outlet. Now let me tell you, from an Australian who has lived through an era of budget blowouts (under a left-wing government, by the way), that those sorts of figures are unsustainable, and that funnily enough, it is a right-wing government here that has almost repaired the damage from the past.

2) House prices in the US have ballooned out to such a point where most economic commentators agree that a bust is inevitable, and Bush has done nothing to address this. Heres (http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/4q04hpi.pdf) the proof from your very own Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. If you want to know what this will mean in the next 3-5 years, it will mean that people will have spent alot more money that they can afford on a house, the economy will continue to recover, interest rates will go up, and alot of people will not be able to afford to pay the house off. Once that happens, consumer spending will take a hit, manufacturers and retailers will realise less profits and people will start losing jobs. Remember the US unemployment rate is one of the few good indicators of the US economy at the moment, and an unemployment rate of 5% is remarkably good. It can only go up from here.

3) Supply-side economics do not work. They didnt work under Reagan and they wont work now. The philosophy is simple: Reducing tax rates on companies wont make consumers spend more! Why would a company hire any more workers if demand for their goods and services is the same? The consumer is what drives the economy, not the supplier. Give the consumer a little more money (not too much more) and they will spend it on goods and services that will need to be made, and that will require more people to make it. You want economic growth? Look at China, they experience 10% growth strictly because of external demand for their goods. There is no other reason.

Sorry of this seems quite long-winded, but I hope you can see what im trying to say - dont delude yourself for a second - Bush is no great leader in any sense of the word. Militarily, gubernatorially and morally, he is lacking.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I tried putting 'un corruption' and 'oil for food scandel' into google's news search just last week. All I got back was a load of hogwash about how evil the UN is with no references the back up the claims, so feel free to get up on your soap box if I don't go off reading more crap commentry that is simply a waste of perfectly good pixels.


I dont think that the UN as an institution is inherently corrupt, but I am sure that there are elements within the UN that are acting in a corrupt or unethical manner. In the past, there have been UN peacekeepers that have been accused of rape and other crimes. (the BBC has some links here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4252405.stm), here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4106515.stm) and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1508473.stm).

In regards to financial corruption, the BBC has further information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4445609.stm) highlighting the Oil-For-Food scandal. There is very little else wrong that the UN seems to have done, at least financially.

The UN is not as evil an organisation as the right-wingers paint it out to be.

[asskickergod]

I dont think that the UN as an institution is inherently corrupt.......

I'd have to disagree with you there. When you have any group of politicians that's that large there's going to be some degree of corruption going on.

[Bostonmess]

the threat of terrorism (from Islamic extremists) simply was not present on US soil.There was this:

1993 WTC attack. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2800297.stm)
"We encountered probably the dumbest terrorists we've ever encountered," recalls Neil Livingstone, one of the top terrorism experts in the US.

Mohammed Salameh appeared in court only a week later, charged with the bombing after he tried to collect the deposit on the rental van used in the attack :D

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I'd have to disagree with you there. When you have any group of politicians that's that large there's going to be some degree of corruption going on.

Thats probably true, but until the Oil-for-Food scandal I considered the UN to be pretty untaintable, and I still think it is pretty clean in comparison to alot of other institutions and governments around.

[asskickergod]

Thats probably true, but until the Oil-for-Food scandal I considered the UN to be pretty untaintable, and I still think it is pretty clean in comparison to alot of other institutions and governments around.

The only reason why the UN would appear to be clean in comparison is because the UN doesn't really have any real power in the world. The UN isn't comprised of people of any higher caliber than any other government, they've just let themselves become a joke by being all talk and no action.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

There was this:

1993 WTC attack. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2800297.stm)

I dont think the US could have prepared for September 11 any better, at least in terms of non-intelligence activities. Yes the WTC bombing had happened, but it was relatively minor in the scheme of things. Oklahoma, a bombing that killed many more people, was committed by an insane disgruntled national ex-serviceman. The Atlanta bombing, well they still cant figure that one out, but it certainly wasnt committed by an Islamic militant.

The real signs for the US of things to come were the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, and the USS Cole bombing. But the main signs by the US were the ones that they didnt take any action on, the fact that the government of Sudan warned the US that they had a man in their country by the name of Osama Bin Laden, and that they were convinced that he was concocting some terrorist scheme. They even offered to arrest For a good article read this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15021), even though it is very right-leaning it does tell the truth about US inaction (Go to the section titled "Opportunities Missed").

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Im still waiting for your input, Nodbugger.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Still waiting ...

[Kez]

He's not liable to respond anytime soon, unless you email bomb him. But that's so 2002, so how about you grab a few cold beers and wait for the ice age to circum the earth.

[Directed]

Wow this thread truly is a blast from the past. That's some good reading.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Wow this thread truly is a blast from the past. That's some good reading.

Yeah. I used to have a bit more decorum back then. :D

Still waiting, Noddy.