Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 18, 2003.
c'mon, it's a pattern w/ bush. he refuses to even be in the same area as protesters. he's admitted he doesn't read newspapers, so now he avoids seeing photos of throngs of people protesting him.
is it healthy for the leader of any country to refuse to hear opposite viewpoints? i come to this forum to specifically hear other viewpoints; it's part of being well-informed.
bush needs to pull his head out of his ass and start acting like a real man. talk to someone who disagrees w/ him, for ****'s sake.
According to the republicans, if you don't support the war, you're a terrorist. In that case bush can simply say he won't meet with terrorists and keep his tough guy facade.
Haden't Bush not left the US before he became President? Not good to have a person who knows little about other cultures running a powerful and influncial nation, worse still if he refuses to learn.
iirc, he left the country once, briefly. went to england, i think.
He probably got on the wrong plane
I heard Christopher Hitchens saying last night on MSNBC I think that it was easy to see whose side the "stop the war" crowd was on. He said that the goal of those opposed to the war was to help the terrorists win in Iraq. He basically called the protesters in Britain alQaeda sympathizers and pro-Saddam.
As if there was no 3rd path. Everything is black and white to these guys.
We are coming dangerously close to the government labeling those who disagree with them as terrorists. And we all know what happens to terrorists.
oh, but there is....
I figured you were around somewhere.
Well, were there terrorists in Iraq before the war? Or just the ones in Rumsfelds head? The only things Saddam had in common with Al-Qaeda was that both hated America. They had very little in common otherwise.
The world isn't black and white. You can't not argue that Saddam being gone is good, but is the vacuum he left actually better for the stability of the world? The west does business with dictators far worse than Saddam and in a number of occasions helped them to come to power so the 'He was a nasty man' justification doesn't hold much strength.
I was and still am against the war in Iraq but I certainly am not pro-Saddam or al-Qaeda. Neither am I anti-American. I'm very anti the Bush administration. I think they're stoking up even more hated of America and the west. Hatred that will still be there long after Bush has left office. How can anyone in such a short space of time turn all that sympathy, support and goodwill that America had after 9/11 into the loathing apparent now?
No. Whatever else Saddam did, he ruthlessly suppressed any dissent including terrorism.
Funny thing, if you notice the way the administration talks about the fighters in Iraq, they are always referred to as "terrorists". No distinction is made between those fighting for nationalistic reasons in Iraq (properly called guerillas) and those fighting for religious reasons elsewhere. This is a very dangerous way to proceed, as it assumes a one-size-fits-all solution will work against all "terrorists". We would do well to tackle the problems as the seperate issues that they are, but the Bushies will not do this because the are trying desperately to link alQaeda and Saddam in Americans minds so support for the action in Iraq will stay high.
A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.
Controlling the language of the debate is to control the debate itself.
The Taliban were "Freedom Fighters" when they were fighting the Soviet Union.