Nick Against the World (32 Viewers)
- Thread starter IncuboRossonero
- Start date
Sergio,
Thanks for the welcome back and for answering my question, which may have been a simple and candid one, but which no one else seemed willing to address..
Although I don't know the exact role of the Department of Homeland Security (are they the guys who nearly anal-probed me and emasculated my Manneken Pis bottle-opener on the premise that it could have been used as a weapon on the Boston-Washington flight last year
) and though I tend to agree with the principle (but not the current application) of pro-activeness against terrorists, I still am under the impression that Bush's plusses outweigh his minusses and find it quite amazing that all signs show that he's about to be re-hired by the American people...
How did he turn a huge surplus into a 500 billion deficit that will plague Americans for years to come, you ask? Hmm, maybe by being the first leader to believe that he can cut taxes while waging a war? But I take it that was a rethorical question
I kind of know what Andy and co are feeling by seeing outsiders interfering with their presidential election. While Berlusca was about to get elected in Italy in 2001, newspapers and self-proclaimed pundits all across Europe were waging an anti-Italian campaign which even a fierce opposer of the "Cavaliere" like myself found at times irritating. But as Seven said, there is much more at stake in the case of an American election, and from a European point of view, I think the result of this vote will be a chance to assess just how big the transatlantic rift is. As an outsider that has spent some time in America before and after 9/11, I am afraid that the answer is : "quite big indeed":down:
Thanks for the welcome back and for answering my question, which may have been a simple and candid one, but which no one else seemed willing to address..
Although I don't know the exact role of the Department of Homeland Security (are they the guys who nearly anal-probed me and emasculated my Manneken Pis bottle-opener on the premise that it could have been used as a weapon on the Boston-Washington flight last year
) and though I tend to agree with the principle (but not the current application) of pro-activeness against terrorists, I still am under the impression that Bush's plusses outweigh his minusses and find it quite amazing that all signs show that he's about to be re-hired by the American people...How did he turn a huge surplus into a 500 billion deficit that will plague Americans for years to come, you ask? Hmm, maybe by being the first leader to believe that he can cut taxes while waging a war? But I take it that was a rethorical question
I kind of know what Andy and co are feeling by seeing outsiders interfering with their presidential election. While Berlusca was about to get elected in Italy in 2001, newspapers and self-proclaimed pundits all across Europe were waging an anti-Italian campaign which even a fierce opposer of the "Cavaliere" like myself found at times irritating. But as Seven said, there is much more at stake in the case of an American election, and from a European point of view, I think the result of this vote will be a chance to assess just how big the transatlantic rift is. As an outsider that has spent some time in America before and after 9/11, I am afraid that the answer is : "quite big indeed":down:
By the way Sergio, my history teacher calls the No Child Left Behind Act a complete farce. This act is supposed to make sure no child is left behind obviously, through which the government uses tests to follow up on the schools, and their respective students. The Government puts provisions and requirements on the teachers to make sure they do their job, but a lot these steps taken are completely undo-able, and hamper the teachers job of educating the students who want to learn. These kids who are on the "lower" level of education usually don't want to participate in class activities, and therefore don't care if they are left behind. If the kids show no desire at all to work, and have no plans on working, the schools are wasting their time. You can't make a dog do tricks if it doesn't want to. Therefore, the No Child Left Behind Act is useless.
Yes Sergio, of course I know it does work two ways in the sense of we rely on other countries, and other countries rely on us. What I meant by that earlier statement was you can't always please everybody, and if a Presidential Candidate does whats best for your country, and follows your same views, you should vote for that person. We, as Americans, have to make the decision ourselves to suit our own preferences. Therefore, you can't rely on outside sources who have no say in the election to tell you what to do. Their opinion should be irrelevant in making up a decision. If not, you shouldn't vote. If a person cannot make a decent decision themselves, and have to rely on outside influences, then voting strays away from what it should be.
Yes Sergio, of course I know it does work two ways in the sense of we rely on other countries, and other countries rely on us. What I meant by that earlier statement was you can't always please everybody, and if a Presidential Candidate does whats best for your country, and follows your same views, you should vote for that person. We, as Americans, have to make the decision ourselves to suit our own preferences. Therefore, you can't rely on outside sources who have no say in the election to tell you what to do. Their opinion should be irrelevant in making up a decision. If not, you shouldn't vote. If a person cannot make a decent decision themselves, and have to rely on outside influences, then voting strays away from what it should be.
Somehow that's hard to imagine.
And that's exactly the point too. Noone thinks Kerry is that great and frankly I don't know what his politics are. But most of the world is saying it can't be any worse than bushy. I also allude to Kaiser's dilemma of there being just two parties in this, the financial barrier (which really is all there is to winning an election) precludes anyone else from participating, it's all about the money.
And that's exactly the point too. Noone thinks Kerry is that great and frankly I don't know what his politics are. But most of the world is saying it can't be any worse than bushy. I also allude to Kaiser's dilemma of there being just two parties in this, the financial barrier (which really is all there is to winning an election) precludes anyone else from participating, it's all about the money.
What Bush is doing is protecting America. I really dont care what anyone else thinks.....its inevitable that we will be hit with a terrorist act again in the future, no matter who's in charge.
When Clinton was in office, we still had an attack on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, American embassy in Tanzania, etc, so who's in charge really matters not to the terrorists.
I want a president who will fight these spinless bastards, and not wait for world opinion to do so....these other nations will not give us the help we need, as has been proven by most
This man is George W. Bush
Q: if Kerry was prez, how many countries would he have to get permission from, along with the hapless UN, to exact revenge for a Sept 11 type attack on my country ?????
When Clinton was in office, we still had an attack on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, American embassy in Tanzania, etc, so who's in charge really matters not to the terrorists.
I want a president who will fight these spinless bastards, and not wait for world opinion to do so....these other nations will not give us the help we need, as has been proven by most
This man is George W. Bush
Q: if Kerry was prez, how many countries would he have to get permission from, along with the hapless UN, to exact revenge for a Sept 11 type attack on my country ?????
How can people know? They can watch the debates. Watch the conventions. Read both international and American newspapers. See speaches, actions and results. The international viewer can easily be more informed than the average voter, that is my bet. But what would I know, I´m just a guy living outside of America.
As for International people supporting Kerry cause it´s best for them, I think that´s very wrong. Bush is a president who has no domestic policy, he fecked up the economy, and is doing stuff like making healthcare unavaible for the average Joe. If he´s unpopular with the rest of the world it´s because he´s very right-wing by European/world standards, and because he´s not a very European/world style politician (as in dumb but stubborn).
As for International people supporting Kerry cause it´s best for them, I think that´s very wrong. Bush is a president who has no domestic policy, he fecked up the economy, and is doing stuff like making healthcare unavaible for the average Joe. If he´s unpopular with the rest of the world it´s because he´s very right-wing by European/world standards, and because he´s not a very European/world style politician (as in dumb but stubborn).
I agree. IMO Hilary would be a great president. And I disagree with Torkel, I think she'd be elected in 2008. She could probably count on liberal voters, as well as minorities and women. Bill would probably help out significantly, and given her image as a strong woman and her conduct during the Lewinsky affair, I think men would have no problem voting for her. IMO she'd win.
I disagree on that stance. Preemptive strikes are not the way to go, you cant attack someone just because you suspect they will attack you. Sure, you might get it right a lot of the times, but you will no doubt get it wrong a few times, and IMO the risk simply isnt worth it, the price would be too high to pay.
True, but a lot of coorporate america is in the hands of Jews, who are contributors to both candidates campaigns, so their pro-Israeli stances arent surprising, altho I disagree with them.
I'm sorry Andy, but thats just plain ignorant, and the truth is quite opposite. You cant just vote by yur feeling, you should be under a lot of influences to help you think and see all sides of the story. You need to know about everything that might and will happen as a result of your decision, including the opinion of the world and ther people's views. IMO it's your duty when voting to consider everything.
If you really feel that way Vin, let me ask you this: are there more attacks on American citizens now or when Clinton was president? Are there more terrorists now or when Clinton was president? Are there more poeple who hate America, some of who were allies in the not so distant past, or when Clinton was president? You need to realise that terrorism cant and wont ever be destroyed until you destroy the causes that fuel it. You think these people just blow themselves up because they feel like it? They have their goals and objectives, no matter how difficult they might be to understand for you or me. Terrorism can be deal with in more ways than just with force. As many terrorist you kill, there will be more in their place, as long as there is cause for there discontent and unhappiness , which there currently is. IMO Bush has only made things worse with his "fight on terrorism". It has only strenghtened Al Quaeda's or Hamas' position in the Arab world and given them more support, in quiet approvals of their actions or actual manpower.
And as for your question, let me ask you this: Who do you want to revenge on, and is your revenge about justice or simply about feeling better about kicking some Muslim ass? Because if you're reffering to Iraq you can by no means call it revenge for 9/11 as Saddam had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I think you're being naive, Torks. I don't think there's any doubt that people see the dilemma in terms of their own interests, in this case the longterm effects of his volatile foreign policy. But that doesn't mean a slightly more balanced foreign policy can't possibly coincide with a proper domestic policy as well. He didn't just drive the economy into the ground with a war on false pretences, he also did a lot of social cutbacks like you said and pushed through the horrid Patriot Act that cut off the much coveted civil liberties.
Be it Buch or Kerry, it seems to me that the US society is pretty much run by the big conglomerates and either one would still uphold or extend that outreach anyway. The difference significant to me is on foreign policy, I think regardless of the election, the US will dominate world politics and point everyone in doubt to their big guns so that's just a reality. However under the Clinton era, the willingness to share the great "burden" of controlling the world with their many allies was keeping them from doing anything too rash like the war in Iraq. The international community just won't be pushed into decisions like that so there is a little more restraint to the influence they exert in our world. And as long as you have the support of the international community, coerced or not, it makes you look a lot less like a ruthless agressor. In terms of foreign relations, I heard it mentioned in passing that Bush would be remembered for uniting the Arab world and really who would honestly expect the extent of terrorism against the US to diminish given the abysmal showing in Iraq and their far reaching ambitions to control the region? Get real.
Be it Buch or Kerry, it seems to me that the US society is pretty much run by the big conglomerates and either one would still uphold or extend that outreach anyway. The difference significant to me is on foreign policy, I think regardless of the election, the US will dominate world politics and point everyone in doubt to their big guns so that's just a reality. However under the Clinton era, the willingness to share the great "burden" of controlling the world with their many allies was keeping them from doing anything too rash like the war in Iraq. The international community just won't be pushed into decisions like that so there is a little more restraint to the influence they exert in our world. And as long as you have the support of the international community, coerced or not, it makes you look a lot less like a ruthless agressor. In terms of foreign relations, I heard it mentioned in passing that Bush would be remembered for uniting the Arab world and really who would honestly expect the extent of terrorism against the US to diminish given the abysmal showing in Iraq and their far reaching ambitions to control the region? Get real.
Did these scumbags try to blow up the WTC in 1993 ???? That was their intent, wasnt it ???!!
These ppl have always hated the west, you can go back to the crusades tio find out just how much they hate Christians.
Bin Laden has spewed American hatred since 1990. Blame us for helping Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to fend off the Hussein tyrrant. If not for us, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be a part of Iraq right now
The GOAL of radical Islam is to make the whole world 1 nation of Islam, to destroy the non-believing infidels, and to die killing the infidels (which will bring them 72 virgins in their afterlife)
As far as Iraq goes, Hussein funded terrorism (Hamas), attacked and gased his own ppl (Kurds), didnt follow ANY UN sanctions against him-including attacking our warplanes in the no-fly zone, tried to obtain nukes, the list goes on and on..........
We can go round and round Z, but our real "allies" from before are still our allies now. I dont give a flying f uck what France or Germany think. We dont need them anyways !!!!
These ppl have always hated the west, you can go back to the crusades tio find out just how much they hate Christians.
Bin Laden has spewed American hatred since 1990. Blame us for helping Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to fend off the Hussein tyrrant. If not for us, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be a part of Iraq right now
The GOAL of radical Islam is to make the whole world 1 nation of Islam, to destroy the non-believing infidels, and to die killing the infidels (which will bring them 72 virgins in their afterlife)
As far as Iraq goes, Hussein funded terrorism (Hamas), attacked and gased his own ppl (Kurds), didnt follow ANY UN sanctions against him-including attacking our warplanes in the no-fly zone, tried to obtain nukes, the list goes on and on..........
We can go round and round Z, but our real "allies" from before are still our allies now. I dont give a flying f uck what France or Germany think. We dont need them anyways !!!!
Read Zlatan's excellent post again please. We need to stop terrorism at its source. The source of hate towards us Americans comes from choices that the US government has been making for ages. The radicals' attacks on NY can't be justified, but we have to be the ones to stop it. It's like a never-ending family fued. You can't end a fued by fueling it some more. Bush is making more enimies with his "revenge" tactic. Let's look at the source and not give them a reason to hate us.
Exactly...open your eyes.... If the Crusades have made millions of Muslims hate Christians, why is Bush doing it again and reigniting it?!
Someone has to put an end to it and it can't be by killing more people.
Slight correction:
You mean if not for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's oil reserves and if not for the $60 billion worth of oil that these countries paid the US, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be part of Iraq now.
One more thing, BL and Saddam can't stand each other!
Saddam doesn't even uphold the teaching of Islam for him to uphold the radicals' teachings. He's just a greedy dictator.
Bush is doing to Saddam what Saddam did to Kuwait.
Sadly, yes that's true.. and even more sadly, we're producing more of these radicals everyday by Bush's actions (Iraq invasion)...
By ending the support of Israel and therefore ending their terrorism towards Arabs, Muslims, and even forgein aid workers, there wouldn't be Hamas. The Muslim leaders will stop supporting them and won't have an excuse to hate America. Therefore, these few radicals ringleaders won't have ANY support from anyone. They would dissappear and get dissolved by their own governments. Trust me, the people with the aim to dominate the world are not the majority of people. The huge majority of Muslims want coexistane as long as their people (from Palestine, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya..etc) are not being slautered by the hundreds. The prophet Mohammed (PBUH) himself had a Jew neighbor! Muslims have coexisted with non-Muslims throughout the history. Read about Spain history. Did you know that it's a Muslim's duty to protect his country from invasion (including the protection of non-muslims) and the non-muslim residents, under Islamic law, can't be forced to defend the muslim rulling country.
Back to topic, by ending it at the source of hate, the US would be safe again, and overall, government inter-relations can be a lot better.
The smaller problems (like the Kurds problem) would be local. These smaller issues can then be solved by the UN just as they aim to solve problems elsewhere.
This may sound very naive, but It's the best direction.
Exactly...open your eyes.... If the Crusades have made millions of Muslims hate Christians, why is Bush doing it again and reigniting it?!
Someone has to put an end to it and it can't be by killing more people.
Slight correction:
You mean if not for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's oil reserves and if not for the $60 billion worth of oil that these countries paid the US, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be part of Iraq now.
One more thing, BL and Saddam can't stand each other!
Saddam doesn't even uphold the teaching of Islam for him to uphold the radicals' teachings. He's just a greedy dictator.
Bush is doing to Saddam what Saddam did to Kuwait.
Sadly, yes that's true.. and even more sadly, we're producing more of these radicals everyday by Bush's actions (Iraq invasion)...
By ending the support of Israel and therefore ending their terrorism towards Arabs, Muslims, and even forgein aid workers, there wouldn't be Hamas. The Muslim leaders will stop supporting them and won't have an excuse to hate America. Therefore, these few radicals ringleaders won't have ANY support from anyone. They would dissappear and get dissolved by their own governments. Trust me, the people with the aim to dominate the world are not the majority of people. The huge majority of Muslims want coexistane as long as their people (from Palestine, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya..etc) are not being slautered by the hundreds. The prophet Mohammed (PBUH) himself had a Jew neighbor! Muslims have coexisted with non-Muslims throughout the history. Read about Spain history. Did you know that it's a Muslim's duty to protect his country from invasion (including the protection of non-muslims) and the non-muslim residents, under Islamic law, can't be forced to defend the muslim rulling country.
Back to topic, by ending it at the source of hate, the US would be safe again, and overall, government inter-relations can be a lot better.
The smaller problems (like the Kurds problem) would be local. These smaller issues can then be solved by the UN just as they aim to solve problems elsewhere.
This may sound very naive, but It's the best direction.
Yeah, and the those points can be determined without listening to common people like you. Don't get me wrong guys, I do care about what happens in other countries, and care about the opinions of outsiders. But what I DO NOT care for is people telling me who to vote for based on their experiances in another country, and whether or not they agree with what our President is doing. What if I said you should support your communist party in Bosnia Zlatan? Would you really care what I have to say? I know America has the biggest influence out of any country in the world, but that doesn't mean we should cater to all the world's views. We have issues here that need to be taken care of first off, and people should make their own decisions based on what is in their best interest. Sorry to say it but thats the purpose of an election.
Yes, to some extent, I agree... We should worry about ourselves, then worry about what we're doing to other. However, what makes a lot their views relevant is the fact that a lot of the US's international decisions influence/relate to us. The biggest being wars and homeland security.
US citizens have to look at everything from a broad perspective (that includes forgien view) while we have the means available. We can't be like North Korea!
US citizens have to look at everything from a broad perspective (that includes forgien view) while we have the means available. We can't be like North Korea!
Do you actually think Majed that Arab terrorists will all of a sudden drop their plans of attacking US interests if Kerry wins the election? Or to a further extent, if the President aids the Palestinians and fixes the Iraq problem? I find that hard to believe. Terrorists are never going to change Majed, no matter how much you/we want them to. They will always find a reason to hate us, no matter what. Its not that easy.
I'm not saying Kerry is surely better.. The realitiy is that I don't want Bush and I'm just giving Kerry a chance. The benifit of the doubt if you will. If Nadar had a chance, I'd vote for him!
About the second question, If the gov stops aiding Israel, and the Iraq mess is somehow fixed, then YES!! I do think that terrorist threats from Muslim-Radicals will be DRASTICALLY reduced! I doubt that the hate will deminish all of a suddon since the generations affected by the current and recent US descisions will still be alive and will still remember what happened. This is where good relations need to be built and more focus needs to be put on security not the offensive.
France, England and other countires who have set up colonies in Africa and Asia are no longer being threatened by those countries despite killing the natives by the thousands. They have pulled out and it's generally over.
I know it's hard to understand, but terrorist aren't born that way. They are made. These radical twisted forms of religions are made. These are results of years of oppression and built-up hate. Why fuel more hate and put our children or grandchildren at risk?!
your part in bold is the most disturbing... It means that you lost hope and you will always be on the offensive mentality.
Answer this then, Is a 10-year old Iraqi kid who lost his parents, brothers and sister from US bombs going to grow up with a tolerant attitude towards the US? Hell no, no matter how long you explain to him that you thought there might be terrorists in his area so his home was bombed!
The only way that an offensive plan is going to "stop terrorism" is if you annihilate them all. In other words, clear genocide. Which is what we're fighting in the forst place!
Bush had his chance and did nothing, Will Karry be any better? I dont know, but at this point, it's hard to imagine someone worse.
About the second question, If the gov stops aiding Israel, and the Iraq mess is somehow fixed, then YES!! I do think that terrorist threats from Muslim-Radicals will be DRASTICALLY reduced! I doubt that the hate will deminish all of a suddon since the generations affected by the current and recent US descisions will still be alive and will still remember what happened. This is where good relations need to be built and more focus needs to be put on security not the offensive.
France, England and other countires who have set up colonies in Africa and Asia are no longer being threatened by those countries despite killing the natives by the thousands. They have pulled out and it's generally over.
I know it's hard to understand, but terrorist aren't born that way. They are made. These radical twisted forms of religions are made. These are results of years of oppression and built-up hate. Why fuel more hate and put our children or grandchildren at risk?!
your part in bold is the most disturbing... It means that you lost hope and you will always be on the offensive mentality.
Answer this then, Is a 10-year old Iraqi kid who lost his parents, brothers and sister from US bombs going to grow up with a tolerant attitude towards the US? Hell no, no matter how long you explain to him that you thought there might be terrorists in his area so his home was bombed!
The only way that an offensive plan is going to "stop terrorism" is if you annihilate them all. In other words, clear genocide. Which is what we're fighting in the forst place!
Bush had his chance and did nothing, Will Karry be any better? I dont know, but at this point, it's hard to imagine someone worse.
I'm not saying "obey their orders." I'm just saying, keep your eyes and ears open to more arguments from all sides. The beauty of our way of life is that we are allowed to seek more knowledge and to make out own choices.
It's all down to you and your reasoning, just make sure you did your best in your preparation.
It's all down to you and your reasoning, just make sure you did your best in your preparation.
So your plan for America would be to just sit back and not retalliate for terrorist actions, thus giving the impression like their actions are okay. Just what we need. 
Hell why don't we just pull all our troops out from the world, bring all our people home, and build a huge titanium dome over the United States. Maybe that would work.
Hell why don't we just pull all our troops out from the world, bring all our people home, and build a huge titanium dome over the United States. Maybe that would work.