Topic awaiting preservation: Is the world going to hell? (Page 2 of 2)

I second Emperor. The human race in general ( at least the influent companies/governments ) have more respect for their profits than the safety of the planet. And those who still refuse to see the global warming should have a look at its effect like : the shrink of the seashores in the poles, the reducing duration and distance of the migration of the birds, the species we used to find below the tropics that are now above them too.

Just to throw my 0.02? in, I'd say the world is not going to heaven. Of course in general the things seems slightly better, but there's so much we can do to speed up that increase and reduce the inequalities. Our standards have increased faster than the awareness that we can truly change the things. We already did, and we can do it again to counter our mistakes ... at the cost of some [edit] short term [/edit] profits. I hope the world will not go to hell.



(Edited by poi on 04-23-2004 08:31)

When I consider exstinctions of species I can't help ask why don't those of you who are upset about losing species allow nature to run its course? You know I don't subscribe to us allowing nature to run its course because that will cause too much pain and suffering for mankind. But if humanity kills itself off and several species with it, isn't that the natural process at work? Why oppose it? I have always assumed that the materialists here believe that man is not above nature but completely a part of it.

Personally, I would prefer humanity to pull together and work toward the good of *all* life with humankind given precedent of course. IOW, if it comes down to saving a little girl versus a beached whale, the little girl must be given precedence.

But I believe nature is terribly flawed and cruel so I would like to see us use our abilities and intellectual superiority to enhance our lives using technology and any other means at our disposal.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

religion and ideas get in a way...conflict of interests...

I was always taught that the primary role of government is to protect its' citizens from harm. Guess that was wrong. Hell, I am always wrong here, but that is no surprise considering the predominant Liberal thinking on this forum. WS: everything you say about Bush is yet again meaningless rhetoric to me. You say there was manipulation of intelligence, yet where is the proof? I am sorry I do not go for the garbage conspiracy theory and speculation that is so prevalent in today's elite media.

As far as me being sick to my stomach, yes I most certainly am. Sure, you have the right to question. Question all you want, but when questioning turns to fabrication and conjecture people make themselves just as bad as those they are protesting. I might also add that I have a right to be sick to my stomach, and to express this disgust. Disgust at everything good the US has done for the world, and how quick people are to turn on our nation. Disgust at the ignorance of a large portion of the population being led around like sheep, so quick to jump on the bandwagon. Disgust at the media, namely Viacom, who owns pretty much everything, and their one-sided promotion of John Kerry. Disgust at all the diplomatc masturbation and at people who are more concerned with the satus quo than changing the world for the better. Believe what you want to, just remember that turning your back on problems does not make them go away. The only mistake made was not going in to finish the job back in 91.

Yet again, I am called narrow minded because I do not subscribe to Liberal beliefs that the Iraq war was a fabrication. How am I any more narrow minded than the rest of you who do? This is a double-standard.

As far as John "Flip-Flop" Kerry is concerned, I believe him to be one of the most phony polititians I have ever been witness to. He talks and talks and talks, yet says absolutely nothing. Bush may not be the greatest president ever, but you know what, he has proven to be a man of his word. He does what he says and says what he means, regardless of how that affects his popularity. John Kerry says what he has to at any given time. So long as he gets elected. He is plastic to me. I don't give a damn at his 3 months served in Vietnam, especially when he came home to berate his fellow soldiers basically perpetuating the baby killer myth. He should have been sent up on treason along with his buddy Hanoi Jane Fonda for marching around under the flag of the enemy.

I'm done here. I see no sense in responding to attacks on my person yet again. I grow tired of being the bad guy for believeing that going to Iraq was the RIGHT and JUST thing to do.

No more group discussion for me, it always seems to come to this and I grow tired of it. There is no sense to it, and it goes against why I come here in the first place. If anyone wants to chat with me one person to another I'd be happy to.

Ram, I don't think you should pull out of here. I agree with a great deal of your views on politics. I've taken plenty of heat for my views but I recognize that is inevitable when discussing such sensitive issues. I personally believe our bantering here makes us all stronger and helps us grow. It's a good place to "test" your views much like we test our sites in Site Reviews. We let it all hang out and let people criticize.

I think it is important to know why you post here. If it is to be agreed with the majority of the time, then that is not a very good reason. My reason is as stated above, to grow by exposing myself and my most inner held beliefs to others. Besides, you never know when something you say can and will make a difference in someone's life. We have a good deal of lurkers here, I imagine, and there's no telling how many agree with either side.

There are also plenty others here who agree with the war on terror but they just don't post in this section that often. Don't think you're the only one carrying this banner. A while back, Jestah, WS, myself and a few others really had some intense "discussions" over Iraq and much of what we have to say has kind of already been aired. There was a point when I was ready to take off after a few heated exchanges with WS. But we talked privately about it and I think we came to an agreement to disagree.

In short, please don't go. By all means, take a breather, but I for one would very much like to see you stay here and continue to mix it up. For what it's worth.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

And if the real reason(s) had been named for Iraq (liberate the Iraqi's), followed by a real plan (not the botched Rumsfeld disaster) in the war, and for the aftermath, yes

---

I agree totally.

I don't understand why that is so important. Especially to you DL and WS who know (or at least I think you know) how the world really works. I honestly am not quite sure I understand your points on this. What President ever states every reason for taking military action in his public speeches? I knew what Bush had in mind from reading sources of news that analyzed the situation more in depth. I knew WMD wasn't the only reason we went in there, you all did too. Why does his public rhetoric change the real issue of whether we should have gone in or not?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

What President ever states every reason for taking military action in his public speeches?

---

I have to say I find that a little shocking...

Accepting that politicians are deceitful is one thing.

Accepting that in some cases they have to be is in that vein.

Saying that it's ok for a leader to completely mislead the people, do a total, blatant bait+switch and then pass it all off as if it's not what he did....

Well...that's something altogether different.

It's important that the real reasons for invading Iraq (assuming, of course, that we actually *have* some real reason hidden in here....) were declared *before* we actually did it for a multitdude of reasons.

Top on that list, IMO, is that this was done in such a way as to totally use the emotional effect of 9/11 as a tool to focus people on the middle east in *general* as the target of our aggression, and of course the ignorance of much of the nation carried it where Bush needed it to go.

It took the anger at terrorism, and focused it instead on the Bush family's un finished businessin Iraq. It took resources that should be used in fighting terrorism and used them to depose a leader that is unrelated.

How can that possibly not be an important issue?????

Shocking? I'm shocked that you find that shocking in all honesty. I assume that is what presidents do as a matter of course regardless of party affiliation. I didn't say it was "ok", I just said that is our system and that is how it is done. I don't like it, but I don't think there is a viable alternative to politics short of blood letting in the streets.

[edit] Upon reflection... I am saying it's "ok" because I think it is as good as it gets unless you can guarantee everyone plays by a higher standard of ethics. But I seriously doubt that will happen.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-23-2004 22:00)

I'm having trouble seeing how you can possibly equate the general lies that are always propagated by politicians with lies on this grand scale.....I mean....lying about getting a blow-job is one thing.

Lying about sending our military to war and invading another nation....wow - that's a big fucking lie.

I'm almost speechless at how you can seem to equate the mundane lie with the grand lie....the lie that saves face vs the lie that costs hundreds of lives....

Oh yes, I can see why that would be confusing. You must know that I don't accept that it was one big f*cking lie told to do something completely unrelated to the war on terror. I think that Bush is guilty of telling the "getting a blow-job" level of lie when it comes to this war.

I don't think he believed we wouldn't find WMD once we went in. Our intelligence services... heck the world's intelligence services thought they were there, or at the very least unaccounted for. I believe Bush used the WMD aspect to spur on public support. I believe THAT is one of the lies or spinning of the situation he is guilty of.

Most of the other reasons for going into Iraq were and are good ones. I do not expect you to agree with them and I think that is perfectly fine. But there are a list of reasons that I consider very compelling and the main reason I was glad to see us invade.

I totally disagree that he used 9/11 "...to focus people on the middle east in *general* as the target of our aggression". Bush has gone out of his way to state that Islam is not the problem. How many times has he called Islam a religion of peace? How many times has he reminded our citizens to not blame our Muslim citizens but to blame the terrorists who in his eyes have perverted a perfectly fine religion to their own agenda?

No, attacking Iraq is a gamble in the sense that it fits into the war on terror NOT divert attention from it. We have not been attacked since 9/11 which has completely caught me off-guard. I believe that our actions in Afghanistan *and* Iraq have taken the war to the source of the problem. This is a typically American response. We are taking the fight to them and diverting their efforts on the homeland.

What choice do the Islamists have? They certainly can't allow their bases of operation to fall to moderate governments aligned with the US or worse yet a true seed of democracy bordering Saudi Arabia and Iran two of the biggest sources of their brand of Islam. They know that much is at stake in Iraq for them. Regardless of whether you think there were direct ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, one thing is clear, they are there now and they are doing their level best to shake our resolve.

So I don't think you can say that attacking Iraq doesn't play into the larger GWOT. If Jestah is right, and for once I hope he is, democracy in Iraq will pose a serious threat to the existing oppressive regimes in the Arab world.

To sum up a bit, I don't accept the magnitude of lie you believe Bush told to get us into this war and that is why I'm not as upset about it as you are. If I accepted your version of what happened then I must admit, I would NOT be ok with it. It would be too much. I hope that clears things up a little bit.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

No, attacking Iraq is a gamble in the sense that it fits into the war on terror NOT divert attention from it. We have not been attacked since 9/11 which has completely caught me off-guard. I believe that our actions in Afghanistan *and* Iraq have taken the war to the source of the problem. This is a typically American response. We are taking the fight to them and diverting their efforts on the homeland.

---

A good point Bugs...one I have not really considered. However, it remains to be seen if this point holds true. You are of course assuming, that the plan to install democracy in Iraq succeeds...and at this point, I don't think that allowing Baathists to return to former positions is anywhere near accomplishing this. That is akin (but not exactly the same) as allowing the former Nazi's to return to their former positions in post-war Germany. If America does not succeed in Iraq, the political ramifications will be enormous far, far out-stripping those of Vietnam.

Also, if that is truly the point (to keep Al Qaida away from our borders), then why not directly persue them? We were in Afghanistan...why not continue there? We could have used Afghanistan like you suggest Iraq is being used, at far less cost. And in case of Afghanistan, curiously, Mr. Bush and his Administration didn't have to lie for the reasons we went in there. We had the sympathy and support of much of the world, at that point...we held all the cards...why throw that away in Iraq at the time?

Also, Al Qaida still exits...hopefully, they are exactly as you say, concentrating on other areas...I personally think that they know what they are doing...they take the war to where it hurts us most (I thought that was obvious to you by now!). Another bomb in the US will just rile up the people...but preventing America from succeeding in Iraq will be a huge blow. You see, the diversion works both ways...keeping America tied up in Iraq, prevents America from soley concentrating on Al Qaida elsewhere. And time is not on our side. That is namely the nature of terrorism.

quote:

---

To sum up a bit, I don't accept the magnitude of lie you believe Bush told to get us into this war and that is why I'm not as upset about it as you are. If I accepted your version of what happened then I must admit, I would NOT be ok with it. It would be too much. I hope that clears things up a little bit.

---

This surprises me, frankly. I agree whole-heartedly with DL on this issue. There is a huge difference, between lying to the people about the reasons behind, say, going to the Moon, and sending Americans to their deaths in a foriegn land. I think you don't accept the magnitude of the lie, becasue it hasn't yet become apparent. Mr. bush and his Administration are doing eerything they can to "tone down" the magnitude...but it will come out, eventually...these things always do.

To Ramasax - I'm tired of hearing the word "Liberal" thrown my way. I am quite frankly, not a liberal. I have worked in Intel...I'll give you a little crash course in how intel gets processed...so that you can make a reasoned decision on what you have said (and then you can understand, why I said what I said). The intel gets gathered (this is obvious, isn't it?). There are different ways of gathering intel...humint, sigint, etc...can you imagine the size of the raw data that gets gathered, every day? Every hour? Every minute? Keep in mind this goes on all over the world, all the time! Do you really think that the President has time to sift through all that raw data? Do you, Ram? Do you think that any Agency does? Well, they don't. To give timely reports and information, there is not enough time, to sift all that information per hand! Filters get implemented, to cut down on the size of the raw data processed...now, who do you think decides what filters get put in place? You don't know, do you? So I will tell you...it gets decided by the particular Agency gathering the data, ultimately based on the instructions from the President and his Administration!

I'm going to describe to you, just exactly what "filters" are, in this case - either actual programs, put into computers, to screen data - or instructions to the people responsible for filtering data, or instructions to people deciding what is to be monitored.

So, based on the above, I think you can begin to see, that I don't believe in any "conspiracy" junk...I have actual experience. I don't think that Mr. Bush and his Administration was mislead - quite the contrary. I know, that they were well informed! That they ignored this information, and installed other filters, shows that the fault does not lie with the Intelligence community...it did, what it was told to do. It ultimately lies, with those who issued the orders for the filters...Mr. Bush and his Administration.

So wake up. Stop trying to find excuses, and accept the truth. Or are you suggesting there was a conspiracy, to mislead Mr. Bush and his Administration by the Intelligence community?

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-24-2004 03:33)

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-24-2004 03:38)

I tried to avoid that thread because it turned out ( again ) in a Bush & Iraq discussion. But I just want to emphasize what WebShaman said about intelligence services. Why the hell, ( almost ) only the American intelligence services talked about WMD while those of all the other countries stated Sadam Hussein no longer had the capability to build some WMD ?

Now, as the topic of this thread is NOT Bush & Iraq, I suggest that another thread is created to stop polluting this one. ... More than 50 post and we still don't know if the world is goind to hell

This just supports my opinion on the Intelligence angle

quote:

---

Colin Powell believed, according to Woodward, that for Vice-President Cheney, the secretary of defence under Bush senior, Iraq was a "fever" and that he misread and exaggerated intelligence about the Iraqi threat and alleged terrorist ties. "Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. It was about the worst charge that Powell could make about the vice-president. But there it was. - Globe and Mail.com By THOMAS S. AXWORTHY"

---

From here :

Globe and Mail.com

poi

quote:

---

More than 50 post and we still don't know if the world is goind to hell.

---

I think we addressed this pretty well so far.

But now that you've contributed to the diverted topic I just have to respond

quote:

---

only the American intelligence services talked about WMD

---

Not the case! British, Israeli, and even the UN inspectors supported this, to varying degrees of course. Hans Blix was quite clear that Iraq had NOT accounted for materials that were known to exist after the 91 war. You simply cannot give a tyrant like Hussein the benefit of the doubt in matters like that.

WS, I completely agree that the success of the strategic approach Bush has taken in this GWOT remains to be seen. I've said that from day one. However, I have also said from September 11, 2001 that we have seen the beginning of the end of terrorism. If we continue on this path, we will drastically reduce this method of trying to gets one's way in the world for many generations. We have embarked on an attempt to transform the Arab world and how it governs itself. I believe that the Islam of Bin Laden *is* a perversion of Islam. It doesn't have to be that way but if we allow it to grow and corrupt more and more young people in that part of the world, we will all be at increased risk.

Turkey is an example of an Islamic country that has forced secularism onto its citizens. One of its former dictators outlawed burkas. A heavy handed approach was used in that instance but Turkey does have many more moderate Muslim ideaologies than say, many parts of Saudi Arabia.

About Woodward and Dick, we have to be very careful since this is an election year. There is a huge incentive to cast the Bush administration in a bad light so we need to keep that in mind until after the election. I'm not saying that everything Woodward is talking about is wrong, but his interviews apparently don't sound a lot like what you will read in his book. I believe he is under serious pressure to spin his findings into a more critical view of Bush than the book actually says. Remember that the White House web page actually had his book as suggested reading. That is because several of the accounts therein verify some of what they've been saying all along.

Sorry for diverting us even further, poi.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I just came across this:

quote:

---

Sound Familiar?

In 1998, President Clinton called Iraq - "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," a claim similar to those made by President Bush before going to war with Iraq.

Senator Hillary Clinton now says that "the consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." Senator Clinton told CNN's Larry King that the difference is, - "in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it."

---

[edit] I'm curious, poi, do you see the Clinton administration similarly when it comes to this issue of WMD? I ask that because I know you are from another country and may not be influenced the same kind of domestic squabbles we have over here about Bush versus Clinton.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-24-2004 11:01)

Bugimus: Honestly, I "care" about politic since little time, 2-3 years. I'm born in 1978 so before the last Presidential election in France I didn't really felt concerned. Thus it's really hard for me to have an opinion about the Clinton administration. And I can't make one based on 2 phrases.

I see. That makes perfect sense. I started "caring" about the elections in 1984 when I voted for Mondale/Ferraro instead of Reagan/Bush. That was back when I considered Republicans to be minions of the Devil.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I voted for Reagan...I was in the Military at the time, and the pay raise did me good. At the time, I was very young, and idealistic...

I really believed in America, back then. These days, I'm more careful, where I put my belief.

Oh, and back in the Clinton days, Saddam did have WMD - nerve gas. It got mostly destroyed, by the UN team sent there.

But you know that Bugs.

WS, please take a look at this article: Myth or Reality?
Will Iraq work? That?s up to us.

I think it provides some very good answers to a lot of what has been brought up in this thread like:

Myth #1: America turned off its allies. (you're big on this one)
Myth #3: Lies got us into this war. (not the I've got my hummer type)
Myth #4: Profit-making led to this war. (Jestah this is for you)

and...

What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I read it...I'll get around to answering it. In some areas, the auther goes into detail...in others, he very smoothly skips over any evidence and facts adeptly, avoiding the issue - like the WMD issue "Oh, that was from Clinton, now onwards"...ummm...no.

The article is heavily weighted in only one direction. As such, it is not what I would call very reliable as a whole. Some truth, mixed with a lot of opinion.

I'd like to say that after reading this thread, my opinion has changed. While there are a lot of negative things going on in the world today, there is a sufficient amount of adversly extraordinary things. The world really is a better place than it has been in the past.

(WS, man, you're never on Q and I need to speak to ya, what's your email?)

It's in my profile, InSiDeR..."rawn_phoenix@[no spam]web.de" Pleas remove quotes and the bars with no spam.

I'm afraid it's not =(. But thankyou.

That must have been a preGrail thing


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Wow, you are right, Bugs...sorry about that, InSiDeR...now it has been corrected *sheepish grin*

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page