Political Crossfire Forums

[Golddave]

s_ianson wrote: My opinion of George Bush is what the media portrays him as. Here in Australia as we have a military alliance and a free trade agreement with the United States of America, we get a very positive image of your President. My personal opinion of George Bush is that he has done the best that he can do under very demanding circumstances. Though with all leaders not all will be satisfied with their efforts. The left leaning media portrays him as ignorant and bumbling. The right portrays him as strong and purposful. I sit firmly between both sides.

Ladies and Gentlemen, This is Doctor Juntzen, he works with me, he is not a bad bloke. He never buys beers at the pub but. Scottie, you owe me a beer or seven.

[URallIgnorant]

I'd have to say honestly, Bush looks like a good guy to party with. Honestly he looks like he would be a lot of fun to hang around with.

But as a president...one thing that I think most of us have overlooked is that he has now won for his second and final term. If you think he was dangerous the first term, look out!

He can't run again so he isn't worried about public opinion (in all fairness, he never was). On the plus side he shouldn't be so kow-towing to the evangelical voices (unless he really does believe in that..kind of hard to say when someone is in politics)

He will want to leave a legacy and it looks like setting up shop in the Middle East is far better than making a dent in the metaphorical war on terrorism.


Either way, he is really just the front man for the organisation.

[Boondoggle]

Reluctant Prophet wrote: If Kerry, or Bush, were to pull that, and the international community intervene, I, and many others, would probably take our sites off of the establishment, and put them on the foreign invaders......

So I would warn them, no... We would take care of it. The wellbeing of America is not there concern.

You just unintentionally explained why America is having such problems in Iraq. So do you think US invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong too, or are you a hypocrite?

As for what other countries would do about such a situation in America, the way to defeat the American government is not military force; it's economic power. If they isolate the US from trade, and switch from the USD as the main reserve currency, the US would cease to be an economic superpower, and thus have a hard time maintaining its position as a military superpower. However, there are economic consequences to unilateral action without resorting to that. Here's a good article on it: Why Bush is sunk without Europe

Oh, and Bush is a moron and a war criminal that should be tried in the ICC, but western hypocrisy will prevent that from happening.

[Reluctant Prophet]

Boondoggle wrote: Reluctant Prophet wrote: If Kerry, or Bush, were to pull that, and the international community intervene, I, and many others, would probably take our sites off of the establishment, and put them on the foreign invaders......

So I would warn them, no... We would take care of it. The wellbeing of America is not there concern.

You just unintentionally explained why America is having such problems in Iraq. So do you think US invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong too, or are you a hypocrite?

As for what other countries would do about such a situation in America, the way to defeat the American government is not military force; it's economic power. If they isolate the US from trade, and switch from the USD as the main reserve currency, the US would cease to be an economic superpower, and thus have a hard time maintaining its position as a military superpower. However, there are economic consequences to unilateral action without resorting to that. Here's a good article on it: Why Bush is sunk without Europe

Oh, and Bush is a moron and a war criminal that should be tried in the ICC, but western hypocrisy will prevent that from happening.

1) Nope we are in Iraq because Saddam broke the agreements set in place by the UN. Plus, what bettr place to stage for Iran if that is decided. This has been done in so many threads, we could beat it into the ground with long winded posts.

2) Economic War with America, ay. This could go one of two ways.

We may falter, but we will not fall. We have most of what we need to survive here. We have a population base that can get things done. WWII was won by our ability to switch economic bases on a dime, and out-manufacture eveyone. Isolate us and I think we will grow stronger as we would not be pumping all the money and resources into the international community. It would take nearly the world to do serious, long-lasting damage, and I don't see that happening.

But then again, a lot of people think us too soft. That a serious threat like that would cause major problems within our population that would impede our ability to make a go of it isolated from the world.

3) ICJ... What a bloody joke. There are many reasons to oppose this. Do you think the US would give up Bush, or France give up their leaders, or Kofi Annan give up his own son to a court that is not answerable wo anyone. To a court that concerns itself with a wall in Isreal, while Arafat? No...? But would the leaders give up the little people to the court? It remains to be seen what happens in the corners of the world where UN Peacekeeping is going on. Will they go after the foot soldiers, and ignore their countries leaders? It is nice that the US soldiers are not subject to the ICJ and the winds of politics that blow with a curropt political machine that is the UN.

[Boondoggle]

Reluctant Prophet wrote: Boondoggle wrote: Reluctant Prophet wrote: If Kerry, or Bush, were to pull that, and the international community intervene, I, and many others, would probably take our sites off of the establishment, and put them on the foreign invaders......

So I would warn them, no... We would take care of it. The wellbeing of America is not there concern.

You just unintentionally explained why America is having such problems in Iraq. So do you think US invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong too, or are you a hypocrite?

As for what other countries would do about such a situation in America, the way to defeat the American government is not military force; it's economic power. If they isolate the US from trade, and switch from the USD as the main reserve currency, the US would cease to be an economic superpower, and thus have a hard time maintaining its position as a military superpower. However, there are economic consequences to unilateral action without resorting to that. Here's a good article on it: Why Bush is sunk without Europe

Oh, and Bush is a moron and a war criminal that should be tried in the ICC, but western hypocrisy will prevent that from happening.

1) Nope we are in Iraq because Saddam broke the agreements set in place by the UN. Plus, what bettr place to stage for Iran if that is decided. This has been done in so many threads, we could beat it into the ground with long winded posts.

2) Economic War with America, ay. This could go one of two ways.

We may falter, but we will not fall. We have most of what we need to survive here. We have a population base that can get things done. WWII was won by our ability to switch economic bases on a dime, and out-manufacture eveyone. Isolate us and I think we will grow stronger as we would not be pumping all the money and resources into the international community. It would take nearly the world to do serious, long-lasting damage, and I don't see that happening.

But then again, a lot of people think us too soft. That a serious threat like that would cause major problems within our population that would impede our ability to make a go of it isolated from the world.

3) ICJ... What a bloody joke. There are many reasons to oppose this. Do you think the US would give up Bush, or France give up their leaders, or Kofi Annan give up his own son to a court that is not answerable wo anyone. To a court that concerns itself with a wall in Isreal, while Arafat? No...? But would the leaders give up the little people to the court? It remains to be seen what happens in the corners of the world where UN Peacekeeping is going on. Will they go after the foot soldiers, and ignore their countries leaders? It is nice that the US soldiers are not subject to the ICJ and the winds of politics that blow with a curropt political machine that is the UN.

1) Nice try, but the US is not in Iraq because of the UN. Throughout the 90s the US undermined the UN's work, and the last resolution, 1441, did not authorize the use of force. Furthermore, Israel would be in violation of twice as many resolutions if it wasn't for the US abusing its veto. I say abusing because there's no way to justify support for a country that has nuclear weapons while punishing one that doesn't.

However, UN issues aside, regime change is against international law, and many believe regime change in the US would be a good idea too. Further, the people will still resist a foreign force for the same reasons that you stated when the US was used as an example.

2) You obviously have no clue about how the global economy works. I could give you more links to read up on it, but you probably didn't even read the article in the link I already posted.

3) If you read the whole sentence, which is obviously a challenge for you, I said western hypocrisy would prevent it from happening.

The Israeli wall, which you refer to, fragments occupied territory. The key word is "occupied". It is not Israeli land; therefore, Israel has no business building it there and cutting communities off from each other. It was brought to the court after the US alone, which is typical, blocked a security council resolution with its veto. Even Bush criticized the wall. Trying to compare the wall to Arafat, who'll be lucky if he lives much longer, is just absurd.

What you call long winded, I call backing up an opinion with information and sources, which is something you don't do.

We can talk about the UN, but we've been over that ground before, and unless you care to support what you say, I don't care what you think.

[Nico]

I saw a documentary by Alexandra [can't remember last name, sorry]. I think she was for NBC.
Anyway, George W came accross as a nice guy, and a lot smarter than he is portrayed.
I don't approve with very much of the ideology he represents, but the man is no dummy.

Perhaps the way the US treats the world is more reflective of governmental machinery than individual niceties.

[Reluctant Prophet]

Boondoggle wrote: Reluctant Prophet wrote: Boondoggle wrote: Reluctant Prophet wrote: If Kerry, or Bush, were to pull that, and the international community intervene, I, and many others, would probably take our sites off of the establishment, and put them on the foreign invaders......

So I would warn them, no... We would take care of it. The wellbeing of America is not there concern.

You just unintentionally explained why America is having such problems in Iraq. So do you think US invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong too, or are you a hypocrite?

As for what other countries would do about such a situation in America, the way to defeat the American government is not military force; it's economic power. If they isolate the US from trade, and switch from the USD as the main reserve currency, the US would cease to be an economic superpower, and thus have a hard time maintaining its position as a military superpower. However, there are economic consequences to unilateral action without resorting to that. Here's a good article on it: Why Bush is sunk without Europe

Oh, and Bush is a moron and a war criminal that should be tried in the ICC, but western hypocrisy will prevent that from happening.

1) Nope we are in Iraq because Saddam broke the agreements set in place by the UN. Plus, what bettr place to stage for Iran if that is decided. This has been done in so many threads, we could beat it into the ground with long winded posts.

2) Economic War with America, ay. This could go one of two ways.

We may falter, but we will not fall. We have most of what we need to survive here. We have a population base that can get things done. WWII was won by our ability to switch economic bases on a dime, and out-manufacture eveyone. Isolate us and I think we will grow stronger as we would not be pumping all the money and resources into the international community. It would take nearly the world to do serious, long-lasting damage, and I don't see that happening.

But then again, a lot of people think us too soft. That a serious threat like that would cause major problems within our population that would impede our ability to make a go of it isolated from the world.

3) ICJ... What a bloody joke. There are many reasons to oppose this. Do you think the US would give up Bush, or France give up their leaders, or Kofi Annan give up his own son to a court that is not answerable wo anyone. To a court that concerns itself with a wall in Isreal, while Arafat? No...? But would the leaders give up the little people to the court? It remains to be seen what happens in the corners of the world where UN Peacekeeping is going on. Will they go after the foot soldiers, and ignore their countries leaders? It is nice that the US soldiers are not subject to the ICJ and the winds of politics that blow with a curropt political machine that is the UN.

1) Nice try, but the US is not in Iraq because of the UN. Throughout the 90s the US undermined the UN's work, and the last resolution, 1441, did not authorize the use of force. Furthermore, Israel would be in violation of twice as many resolutions if it wasn't for the US abusing its veto. I say abusing because there's no way to justify support for a country that has nuclear weapons while punishing one that doesn't.

However, UN issues aside, regime change is against international law, and many believe regime change in the US would be a good idea too. Further, the people will still resist a foreign force for the same reasons that you stated when the US was used as an example.

2) You obviously have no clue about how the global economy works. I could give you more links to read up on it, but you probably didn't even read the article in the link I already posted.

3) If you read the whole sentence, which is obviously a challenge for you, I said western hypocrisy would prevent it from happening.

The Israeli wall, which you refer to, fragments occupied territory. The key word is "occupied". It is not Israeli land; therefore, Israel has no business building it there and cutting communities off from each other. It was brought to the court after the US alone, which is typical, blocked a security council resolution with its veto. Even Bush criticized the wall. Trying to compare the wall to Arafat, who'll be lucky if he lives much longer, is just absurd.

What you call long winded, I call backing up an opinion with information and sources, which is something you don't do.

We can talk about the UN, but we've been over that ground before, and unless you care to support what you say, I don't care what you think.

1) We could argue this forever. No we are not in Iraq because of the UN, we are in Iraq in spite of the UN. The UN did not authorize the curroption that went into oil for food either. The UN talked and talked about serious consequences, we acted. Was it right? Some say yes, others say no.

2) I have very limited knowledge of how the global economy works, other then as of right now, the USD is a big part of it. America is a large nation that could do far more for herself with the resources we have. It is good to be part of a global community, but we don't need it in the stricter sense. No, I have not read your article yet., but I plan to. Do I have facts to back up my opinion on us faltering, but not falling? Or facts behind my assertation that the population of America could undermine this. No.

3) There are so many levels of western hypocrisy, depending on which country you are in.

The world has proven for centuries it has no place for the Jews to be safe from the changes in populations and political whims. I think they have shown remarkable restraint. If enough Palestinians wanted peace, then there would not be such a problem. Are we to take the Arab word about "Isreals right to exisst" at face after so long a period of time in which it was not simply detroy Isreal, but to destroy the Jews?

If Isreal was smart, she would trust no one, and no nation.

Opinions are just that, opinions, not facts. I am of the opinion that Isreal would not use nukes on a whim. I am of the opinion that Iran might. I am of the opinion that while North Korea will probably not sell a nuke itself, they would sell everything needed but the nuclear material.

[Nico]

So yeah, George bush is OK as a guy. I just get depressed watching the news, is all.

[jade7]

Find out what the computer has to say on kerry

[zelda]

i for one don't like bush at all. he always looks like a drunk peasant and when he talks, that's when all his "brightness" comes to surface. i don't like bush because he's a moron and he's putting the world in danger.
i hope a watergate will hit him too any time soon.

[Anson]

What do I think of Bush? I don't think he's the main problem with the world. He just spins a few lines that are written for him and he smiles when he is told. He has an appeal to a lot of Americans and because of that the world and America is paying dearly. But because he is legally at the top of the command I guess he is legally responsible for all the terrorism that the US government has performed throughout the world in the past few years.

[caucasia]

As a foreigner I think you should find a new president who will not be under pressure of oil companies or ethnic lobbies in USA.

[The_Right_Honourable]

Boondoggle wrote: Reluctant Prophet wrote: If Kerry, or Bush, were to pull that, and the international community intervene, I, and many others, would probably take our sites off of the establishment, and put them on the foreign invaders......

So I would warn them, no... We would take care of it. The wellbeing of America is not there concern.

You just unintentionally explained why America is having such problems in Iraq. So do you think US invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong too, or are you a hypocrite?

As for what other countries would do about such a situation in America, the way to defeat the American government is not military force; it's economic power. If they isolate the US from trade, and switch from the USD as the main reserve currency, the US would cease to be an economic superpower, and thus have a hard time maintaining its position as a military superpower. However, there are economic consequences to unilateral action without resorting to that. Here's a good article on it: Why Bush is sunk without Europe

Oh, and Bush is a moron and a war criminal that should be tried in the ICC, but western hypocrisy will prevent that from happening.

Yes. He should. The ICC is a good thing and it sickens me that America opposes it because Americans might get tried by foreigners!

[res ipsa]

How did we ever get to the point where the ICC is supposed to be the world's supreme court? Isnt jurisdiction (a court's power to adjudge the rights of a person or a person's rights over or to a thing (in personam and in rem)) a power that stems from sovereignty? I think we all agree that there is no sovereign nation over the planet so unless a nation-state submits to a entity called the ICC what is the source of its jurisdiction? Should any country submit to such an artificial court?

Yes, I am a Yank but I am merely asking.

[The_Right_Honourable]

res ipsa wrote: How did we ever get to the point where the ICC is supposed to be the world's supreme court? Isnt jurisdiction (a court's power to adjudge the rights of a person or a person's rights over or to a thing (in personam and in rem)) a power that stems from sovereignty? I think we all agree that there is no sovereign nation over the planet so unless a nation-state submits to a entity called the ICC what is the source of its jurisdiction? Should any country submit to such an artificial court?

Yes, I am a Yank but I am merely asking.

It doesnt need soveign powers. If someone commits crimes AGAINST HUMANITY shouldnt a body that represents HUMANITY try them?

Its about justice which it seems most americans do not undertsand.

[res ipsa]

The question which you artfully dodged (not an insult; a compliment) is what is the source of the ICC's jurisdictional power?
For instance, how would Germany derive its power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of the Czechs?

[The_Right_Honourable]

res ipsa wrote: The question which you artfully dodged (not an insult; a compliment) is what is the source of the ICC's jurisdictional power?
For instance, how would Germany derive its power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of the Czechs?

The ICC should be above and beyond the nation. INTERNATIONAL.

Im saying that the whole jurisdiction question is moot when the crimes are so gross in nature.

[res ipsa]

So the logical conclusion of your point is that the nation-state is obsolete?

[The_Right_Honourable]

res ipsa wrote: So the logical conclusion of your point is that the nation-state is obsolete?

No but that is i believe inevitable. As globalisation continues, barriers fall and we all 'should' become more open.

Theres more people with my views in other countries so why should i feel anything for my nation. The borders are pretty arbitary and in Europe you can travel, live and work anywhere you want.

[smirnoff]

hehehe ... oh little old me?

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/rumple.php

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/fuzzymath.php