<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
It's funny how the US has the greatest number of people trying to get in each year, but the whole world hates the US....
KMAN<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The proportion of people applying for immigration to the US hardly comes close to the proportion of anti-Americans. That said, not everyone who is anti-Bush or anti-US foreign policy is necessarily anti-American. The US has been a force of much good in the world, to be sure. But its current abuse of power and position is disturbing, even to many of us who have long considered ourselves a close ally of yours. The fact that support for the attack on Iraq never reached greater than 10% support outside the US and Britain should be very alarming to you. Globalisation without global participation and support seems a little self-defeating, doesn't it?
And the 'axis of evil' comment made earlier ... it's not like this 'axis' was composed of specific terrorist organizations .. it wasn't. The 'axis of evil' is not terrorists at all, but, rather, 'rogue states' who simply pose some kind of threat to the US, although none are related to one another. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis. Al-qaida et al have nothing to do with it. Any inference to terrorism within this axis is purely propaganda.
It's funny how the US has the greatest number of people trying to get in each year, but the whole world hates the US....
KMAN<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The proportion of people applying for immigration to the US hardly comes close to the proportion of anti-Americans. That said, not everyone who is anti-Bush or anti-US foreign policy is necessarily anti-American. The US has been a force of much good in the world, to be sure. But its current abuse of power and position is disturbing, even to many of us who have long considered ourselves a close ally of yours. The fact that support for the attack on Iraq never reached greater than 10% support outside the US and Britain should be very alarming to you. Globalisation without global participation and support seems a little self-defeating, doesn't it?
And the 'axis of evil' comment made earlier ... it's not like this 'axis' was composed of specific terrorist organizations .. it wasn't. The 'axis of evil' is not terrorists at all, but, rather, 'rogue states' who simply pose some kind of threat to the US, although none are related to one another. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis. Al-qaida et al have nothing to do with it. Any inference to terrorism within this axis is purely propaganda.
"The comment can easily be interpreted as meaning arabic people are evil."
I guess North Korea would be shocked to learn they are an Arabic country. Who would have guessed it?
"Which terrorist attack has the Patriot Act pervented?"
Theres no possible way of knowing that. But there is logic that can be applied. I am 99.99% certain that Osama bin Laden would try to attack us again if given the opportunity. The fact that he has not succeeded in the last 2.5 years indicates that he is having great difficulty in doing so.
"Franklin once said something to the effect of those that willing give up their freedoms don't deserve them.
I guess you don't really understand or deserve freedom Igetp2s."
A wise man once said, "If you live your life in fear, freedom is meaningless."
And thank you for your concern about my freedom, but it is completelty intact and unchanged since before 9/11.
Now if we could just extend that freedom to people in other parts of the world, I would be even more satisfied.
I guess North Korea would be shocked to learn they are an Arabic country. Who would have guessed it?
"Which terrorist attack has the Patriot Act pervented?"
Theres no possible way of knowing that. But there is logic that can be applied. I am 99.99% certain that Osama bin Laden would try to attack us again if given the opportunity. The fact that he has not succeeded in the last 2.5 years indicates that he is having great difficulty in doing so.
"Franklin once said something to the effect of those that willing give up their freedoms don't deserve them.
I guess you don't really understand or deserve freedom Igetp2s."
A wise man once said, "If you live your life in fear, freedom is meaningless."
And thank you for your concern about my freedom, but it is completelty intact and unchanged since before 9/11.
Now if we could just extend that freedom to people in other parts of the world, I would be even more satisfied.
"And the 'axis of evil' comment made earlier ... it's not like this 'axis' was composed of specific terrorist organizations .. it wasn't. The 'axis of evil' is not terrorists at all, but, rather, 'rogue states' who simply pose some kind of threat to the US, although none are related to one another. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis. Al-qaida et al have nothing to do with it. Any inference to terrorism within this axis is purely propaganda."
To claim that Iran and Iraq have nothing to do with terrorism is simply shocking and ridiculous. Someone should go notify Hezbollah that their main financial supporters are deserting them.
To claim that Iran and Iraq have nothing to do with terrorism is simply shocking and ridiculous. Someone should go notify Hezbollah that their main financial supporters are deserting them.
Probably, and only probably at this point, Iran or Iraq have something to do with terrorist organisations. At this point, however it is all very speculative (hence the ongoing debate). However, the 'axis' still is not stated to describe a terrorist link among all of these countries ... unless, of course, you also have some evidence that North Korea is involved in terrorism?
Ha ha ha lol, North Korea an Arabic nation you're so funny I forgot to laugh. I was talking about the way the comment was taken in other parts of the world and the lack couth on the part of bush2.
"Theres no possible way of knowing that. But there is logic that can be applied. I am 99.99% certain that Osama bin Laden would try to attack us again if given the opportunity. The fact that he has not succeeded in the last 2.5 years indicates that he is having great difficulty in doing so."
Exactlly it's impossible to say it's detered anything, so in other words you'd give up personal freedoms in exchange for speculated safety. As far as Bin Ladden you actually be pretty sure the he or the Taliban not would but will try to attack again seeing as they've been left to re-organize while our current administration has been playing in Iraq.
"A wise man once said, "If you live your life in fear, freedom is meaningless.""
I fear a government with absolute power more than the possibility of a terrorist attack. Especially considering that as you've already mentioned we have know way of really knowing that the Pat. Act has actually prevented anything.
"Theres no possible way of knowing that. But there is logic that can be applied. I am 99.99% certain that Osama bin Laden would try to attack us again if given the opportunity. The fact that he has not succeeded in the last 2.5 years indicates that he is having great difficulty in doing so."
Exactlly it's impossible to say it's detered anything, so in other words you'd give up personal freedoms in exchange for speculated safety. As far as Bin Ladden you actually be pretty sure the he or the Taliban not would but will try to attack again seeing as they've been left to re-organize while our current administration has been playing in Iraq.
"A wise man once said, "If you live your life in fear, freedom is meaningless.""
I fear a government with absolute power more than the possibility of a terrorist attack. Especially considering that as you've already mentioned we have know way of really knowing that the Pat. Act has actually prevented anything.
"Probably, and only probably at this point, Iran or Iraq have something to do with terrorist organisations. At this point, however it is all very speculative (hence the ongoing debate)."
There is no debate whatsoever about Iran's connection to Hezbollah and Iraq's past financial support of Hamas, as well an numerous other organizations. what might be debatable is Iraq's connection specifically to Al-Quada, but in regard to other organizations there is no doubt at all.
"However, the 'axis' still is not stated to describe a terrorist link among all of these countries ... unless, of course, you also have some evidence that North Korea is involved in terrorism?"
The connection between the 3 countries is not the terrorist element, but rather the danger they pose to the US and the rest of the world. Iran and Iraq are members of this group because of their past and ongoing support of terrorist groups, along with their continual attempts to obtain nuclear power. North Korea is in the group because it already has nuclear capabilities and its maniac dictator just might use it, or at least threaten its neighbors with blackmail.
The common demoninator between the 3 countries is not their connection to terrorism, but in the cases of Iran and Iraq, they are in the axis for that reason.
There is no debate whatsoever about Iran's connection to Hezbollah and Iraq's past financial support of Hamas, as well an numerous other organizations. what might be debatable is Iraq's connection specifically to Al-Quada, but in regard to other organizations there is no doubt at all.
"However, the 'axis' still is not stated to describe a terrorist link among all of these countries ... unless, of course, you also have some evidence that North Korea is involved in terrorism?"
The connection between the 3 countries is not the terrorist element, but rather the danger they pose to the US and the rest of the world. Iran and Iraq are members of this group because of their past and ongoing support of terrorist groups, along with their continual attempts to obtain nuclear power. North Korea is in the group because it already has nuclear capabilities and its maniac dictator just might use it, or at least threaten its neighbors with blackmail.
The common demoninator between the 3 countries is not their connection to terrorism, but in the cases of Iran and Iraq, they are in the axis for that reason.
"Exactlly it's impossible to say it's detered anything, so in other words you'd give up personal freedoms in exchange for speculated safety."
I see you missed my point. My point is that in my opinion I would say there is a 99.99% chance that an attack has been averted, even though I cannot name a specific incident or individual.
"I fear a government with absolute power more than the possibility of a terrorist attack."
And you think I'm speculating?
"Especially considering that as you've already mentioned we have know way of really knowing that the Pat. Act has actually prevented anything."
As I've already mentioned, thats not even close to what I said.
I see you missed my point. My point is that in my opinion I would say there is a 99.99% chance that an attack has been averted, even though I cannot name a specific incident or individual.
"I fear a government with absolute power more than the possibility of a terrorist attack."
And you think I'm speculating?
"Especially considering that as you've already mentioned we have know way of really knowing that the Pat. Act has actually prevented anything."
As I've already mentioned, thats not even close to what I said.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
I feel sorry for you people who fear government more than terrorism. You must have a pretty rough life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Terrorist idiots can commit no more that pinpricks in the great scheme of things.
Government idiots, like Bush, can destroy entire countries in 14 days.
I feel sorry for you people who fear government more than terrorism. You must have a pretty rough life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Terrorist idiots can commit no more that pinpricks in the great scheme of things.
Government idiots, like Bush, can destroy entire countries in 14 days.
"Terrorist idiots can commit no more that pinpricks in the great scheme of things."
I'm surprised none of the Democrat candidates have used this as their position on the war on terror. That we shouldn't waste time, money, and effort to fight terror because it is a small problem in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that would go over well.
I'm surprised none of the Democrat candidates have used this as their position on the war on terror. That we shouldn't waste time, money, and effort to fight terror because it is a small problem in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that would go over well.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
eek - Can you provide some facts for that statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could, but why on earth would I waste my time while you just play the dummy and provide no counterpoints to my original statement.
Much easier to cut and paste...
You can also google search on a few words to help yourself out if you want.(no pressure here, your choice)
history, perspective, propaganda.
---------------------------------------
Terrorism in perspective
The terrorist threat, and in particular the al-Qaida threat, is a real and a serious one, but we should be careful not to overstate it. The Bush administration has talked up the al- Qaida threat, which is perhaps unsurprising after the events of 11 September 2001. Europe has suffered terrorism for 30 or 40 years, whether it be ETA, The Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhof, Middle-Eastern terrorism or the IRA. It is not an exaggeration to state that Europe has learned to live with terrorism. The USA appeared to be immune. We now know that it is not.
The shock to the average US citizen has been immense. The degree of panic that exists in the USA today is beyond European understanding, but it is nevertheless a real anxiety. Is it an overreaction? Yes, almost certainly it is. The capability of al-Qaida has been vastly exaggerated. They certainly pose a threat, just as the IRA has posed a threat to mainland Britain over the past 40 to 50 years. And occasionally they will succeed in exploding a bomb, but the damage they can achieve will always be marginal.
The damage caused in the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 was, of course, significant and the tragedy of nearly 3000 lives lost is immeasurable. But in global terms it was a pinprick. However unfashionable it may be to stress this point, it is vital that it is made. The heavy attacks by the IRA on the City of London were also pinpricks, compared to the Nazi Blitz on London in 1940–42, for example.
It is very important that Western capitalism makes it clear that terrorist groups don’t have the remotest chance of undermining the overwhelming success of Western democracy and the global reach of capitalism. Al-Qaida can cause inconvenience, it can kill people, but its ability to cause real damage is extremely limited.What happened on 11 September was an ambush, and a very successful ambush. But the likelihood of such an event being repeated is very small indeed.
http://www.defencesystemsinternational.com/6.htm
eek - Can you provide some facts for that statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could, but why on earth would I waste my time while you just play the dummy and provide no counterpoints to my original statement.
Much easier to cut and paste...
You can also google search on a few words to help yourself out if you want.(no pressure here, your choice)
history, perspective, propaganda.
---------------------------------------
Terrorism in perspective
The terrorist threat, and in particular the al-Qaida threat, is a real and a serious one, but we should be careful not to overstate it. The Bush administration has talked up the al- Qaida threat, which is perhaps unsurprising after the events of 11 September 2001. Europe has suffered terrorism for 30 or 40 years, whether it be ETA, The Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhof, Middle-Eastern terrorism or the IRA. It is not an exaggeration to state that Europe has learned to live with terrorism. The USA appeared to be immune. We now know that it is not.
The shock to the average US citizen has been immense. The degree of panic that exists in the USA today is beyond European understanding, but it is nevertheless a real anxiety. Is it an overreaction? Yes, almost certainly it is. The capability of al-Qaida has been vastly exaggerated. They certainly pose a threat, just as the IRA has posed a threat to mainland Britain over the past 40 to 50 years. And occasionally they will succeed in exploding a bomb, but the damage they can achieve will always be marginal.
The damage caused in the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 was, of course, significant and the tragedy of nearly 3000 lives lost is immeasurable. But in global terms it was a pinprick. However unfashionable it may be to stress this point, it is vital that it is made. The heavy attacks by the IRA on the City of London were also pinpricks, compared to the Nazi Blitz on London in 1940–42, for example.
It is very important that Western capitalism makes it clear that terrorist groups don’t have the remotest chance of undermining the overwhelming success of Western democracy and the global reach of capitalism. Al-Qaida can cause inconvenience, it can kill people, but its ability to cause real damage is extremely limited.What happened on 11 September was an ambush, and a very successful ambush. But the likelihood of such an event being repeated is very small indeed.
http://www.defencesystemsinternational.com/6.htm
Eek,
Not only that, but for the love of me I cannot figure out why these chickhawk neo-conical sheep are so fuking dense that they can't see that we've bread thousands of future terrorists by unjustly attacking Iraq and murdering its children.
How many sucide bombers were there in Iraq before the coward Georgie "AWOL during Nam" Bush decided to unleash his genocidal war?
Odd, I don't remember that many.
Think about it - if some fuk occupied my country of residence and slaughtered my family you bet your fuking life I'd dedicate my life to killing those terrorist genocidal war wagers too.
Not only that, but for the love of me I cannot figure out why these chickhawk neo-conical sheep are so fuking dense that they can't see that we've bread thousands of future terrorists by unjustly attacking Iraq and murdering its children.
How many sucide bombers were there in Iraq before the coward Georgie "AWOL during Nam" Bush decided to unleash his genocidal war?
Odd, I don't remember that many.
Think about it - if some fuk occupied my country of residence and slaughtered my family you bet your fuking life I'd dedicate my life to killing those terrorist genocidal war wagers too.
Despite the common perception that the American media is leftist (maybe more left than Republicans would like it to be, but I'd debate you on it truly being leftist) it is still protectionist in its nature -- most foreigners read their own media. If I want a news report on the status of Iraq, I don't think the New York Times is going to come out very credible, given its corporate links. As an example.
NY Times is way to the left...what they do is not so much what is printed but what is not printed along with little subtleties.
They'll refer to somebody like Tom Delay as right wing christian conservative Tom Delay.But will you see them refer to Nancy Pelosi as never the "liberal" house minority leader.
They been caught with the person on the street remarks coming from the same person because they will get a left wing response.
They'll refer to somebody like Tom Delay as right wing christian conservative Tom Delay.But will you see them refer to Nancy Pelosi as never the "liberal" house minority leader.
They been caught with the person on the street remarks coming from the same person because they will get a left wing response.
Left or right isn't the relevant issue, tho -- 90% of American media still protect American interests ... if the news is outright bad, it generally doesn't appear in the paper at all (either because they were withheld the information as in Panama, or because the corporations who own them put their fist down, as in Cambodia.) International media have less of an interest in coddling the US and its interests, is all.
I remember when the Saigon evacuation was going on during its final hours.
The people listening to radios were stunned that US transmissions were referring to traffic accidents in Utah etc, while the situation was constantly deteriorating.
The BBC was the main shortwave transmission, telling people WTF was going on, which border areas were still open, which seaborne routes were still available...
One of the biggest problems I believe, is the US culture of 'only winners count'.
the 'voice was America' was always pretty crap anyway...
Radio Moscow was a laff with those ersatz clipped american accents, omg those Russkies never sussed out a real american accent.
They sounded like english Lords pretending to be american.
Radio Hanoi transmitted in english about 2 hours a week, something like 2100 to 2300 gmt on a Wednesday...
It usually got jammed/was too weak..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[This message was edited by eek on February 09, 2004 at 09:52 PM.]
The people listening to radios were stunned that US transmissions were referring to traffic accidents in Utah etc, while the situation was constantly deteriorating.
The BBC was the main shortwave transmission, telling people WTF was going on, which border areas were still open, which seaborne routes were still available...
One of the biggest problems I believe, is the US culture of 'only winners count'.
the 'voice was America' was always pretty crap anyway...
Radio Moscow was a laff with those ersatz clipped american accents, omg those Russkies never sussed out a real american accent.
They sounded like english Lords pretending to be american.
Radio Hanoi transmitted in english about 2 hours a week, something like 2100 to 2300 gmt on a Wednesday...
It usually got jammed/was too weak..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[This message was edited by eek on February 09, 2004 at 09:52 PM.]
