OT: Goodbye to George W. Bush - How would you say it?

[HERO]

I would advise Mr. Bush to go back to school to further his education.

Further his education? He had an education? Who knew?

[separate_wayz]

I would say that he took it to the terrorists after 9-11. He awoke other nations to the realization of the dangers and that we are at war. I believe for the rest of my life they will attack many countries. This started 30 yrs ago and finally the world sees these are not isolated incidences. Let's see. They attack Europe,Indonesia,Pakistan, Afganistan,Africa,Iraq,Russia ,China and others. The only one that has not been attacked seems to be Iran and that is where there funding comes from and I forgot Saudi Arabia.

This is a load of horse shit! "Awoke other nations to the realization of the dangers and that we are at war" - you know what, he fucking dragged other nations into his stupid 'war on terror', lied about who was involved so he could settle his daddy's old score, and fucking created the terrorist war!

It this means that the U.S. promotes/funds terrorism, it is an absurdly stupid comment.

(where the fuck do you think Iraq got its training and hardware from in the 80s?)

Primarily the Soviet Union and France. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, of the $43.96 billion (in 1990 inflation-adjusted $) of arms sold to Iraq between 1973 and 1990, $30.301 billion (69%) came from the Soviet Union and related Warsaw Pact countries, $5.595 billion (13%) came from France, and $5.192 billion (12%) came from China. The U.S. only sold $200 million (0.5%) in arms to Iraq (all light helicopters), primarily to counter Iranian counter-offensives in the Iran-Iraq war. The amounts above do *not* include the Osirak nuclear reactor that the French sold to Iraq (and which the Israelis bombed out of oblivion, thankfully).

I guess your question was basically rhetorical -- you weren't expecting the answer to be: "primarily the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries", were you? Now that it's been shown to be completely uninformed, do you admit that, or do you just change the subject. (Oh wait .... it ruins your premiss. You change the subject.)

I don't condone what those fuckwits who took over the planes did, under any circumstances. But it would make a refreshing change to hear a bit of speculation coming out of the US about why people were so desperate to hit and hurt back.

How about: the people who hijacked the planes on Sept. 11th were largely upper middle-class, educated Arabs -- not seething hoards of oppressed poor "desperate to hit and hurt back". But we just showed that your major assertion (who funded Iraq's war-mongering in the '70s and '80s) was completely dimwitted and wrong.

So here's some speculation. These Arab terrorists bought into a myth (largely like the one you're propagating) and were lashing out at falsely identified oppressors, and to the extent that it wasn't that, they were lashing out at Western modernity, as well as engaging in gross anti-Semitism.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I disagree. One man running a country had complete control of an army of more than your estimated 25,000 people. That army consistently did what he told them to. Ask the Kurds and others gassed in Iraq. Ask the Iranians who fought against him in the 1980s. One terrorist (Saddam) had WMD.
quote]
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but if Saddam Hussein had these mythical weapons of mass destruction why did he not use them on the invaders, and why have they never been found? Your military, along with the others, have gone over the country with a fine toothed comb and found zilch. Is nothing registering yet? Let me give you a clue. There are no WMD, there never were. You can't find what isn't there. The UN couldn't find them, you can't find them, the British have never found them, none of your invasion forces have found them. America, and its allies, used WMD as an excuse to topple a former friend who had decided not to play ball, and to get at the oil. Iraq isn't about terrorism, it is about oil.

whether or not he had them at the time of invasion is an unknown- one way or another he appears to have gottern rid of them. But its worth remembering that the UN had a list of what they knew he DID have down to the metric tonne and simply asked him to catalogue when and where he destroyed it. He wouldnt do that due to ego or because he though it gave him a card to play. So what where we supposed to do . Naturally one assumes that he did have it (the intelligence agencies of France Russia, UK, US all did - after all why just not catalogue how they were removed. -

By the way the only people who had an oil interest in Iraq when the decisoin to go to war was made was France and Russia.

[Ehwmatt]

I would say that he took it to the terrorists after 9-11. He awoke other nations to the realization of the dangers and that we are at war. I believe for the rest of my life they will attack many countries. This started 30 yrs ago and finally the world sees these are not isolated incidences. Let's see. They attack Europe,Indonesia,Pakistan, Afganistan,Africa,Iraq,Russia ,China and others. The only one that has not been attacked seems to be Iran and that is where there funding comes from and I forgot Saudi Arabia.

This is a load of horse shit! "Awoke other nations to the realization of the dangers and that we are at war" - you know what, he fucking dragged other nations into his stupid 'war on terror', lied about who was involved so he could settle his daddy's old score, and fucking created the terrorist war!

It this means that the U.S. promotes/funds terrorism, it is an absurdly stupid comment.

(where the fuck do you think Iraq got its training and hardware from in the 80s?)

Primarily the Soviet Union and France. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, of the $43.96 billion (in 1990 inflation-adjusted $) of arms sold to Iraq between 1973 and 1990, $30.301 billion (69%) came from the Soviet Union and related Warsaw Pact countries, $5.595 billion (13%) came from France, and $5.192 billion (12%) came from China. The U.S. only sold $200 million (0.5%) in arms to Iraq (all light helicopters), primarily to counter Iranian counter-offensives in the Iran-Iraq war. The amounts above do *not* include the Osirak nuclear reactor that the French sold to Iraq (and which the Israelis bombed out of oblivion, thankfully).

I guess your question was basically rhetorical -- you weren't expecting the answer to be: "primarily the the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries", were you? Now that it's been shown to be completely uninformed, do you admit that, or do you just change the subject. (Oh wait .... it ruins your premiss. You change the subject.)

I don't condone what those fuckwits who took over the planes did, under any circumstances. But it would make a refreshing change to hear a bit of speculation coming out of the US about why people were so desperate to hit and hurt back.

How about: the people who hijacked the planes on Sept. 11th were largely upper middle-class, educated Arabs -- not seething hoards of oppressed poor "desperate to hit and hurt back". But we just showed that your major assertion (who funded Iraq's war-mongering in the '70s and '80s) was completely dimwitted and wrong.

So here's some speculation. These Arab terrorists bought into a myth (largely like the one you're propagating) and were lashing out at falsely identified oppressors, and to the extent that it wasn't that, they were lashing out at Western modernity, as well as engaging in gross anti-Semitism.

Good post separatewayz. Modern terrorism has NEVER been about poor oppressed people desperate for their piece of the pie. If anyone really thinks this is the case, go read "Terror and Liberalism" by Paul Berman. "Confronting Fear" by Isaac Cronin, a collection of essays, also gives a nice quick look into the history/rhetoric of terrorism that dives way into the past before the Taliban and al-Qaeda entered the picture. Obama's not going to make these guys stop hating or even invalidate their rationale. Read a couple of books and you'll easily see why this is the case.

[Voyager]

I would say "Thank you, Mr. President, for your service to our country." I would offer a firm handshake and a salute (although no longer in uniform).

Like him or not, he is the President of the best country in the world. And as Americans, although we have the freedom to disagree and diss anyone we want, we must respect the office and offer simple praise to anyone that puts themselves in the line of public and military service. I would do the same for any and ALL Presidents...certainly including LBJ that quagmired us in VietNam, killing 58k Americans and <unknown> millions of Asians.

I would then politely excuse myself, hoping & praying for a better, smarter, more prosperous future.

later~

YES!

agree too, thats why I wont crticise Obama (even though I really dont like him at all ) whilst Im living overseas (at least in the company of non Americans) when as I predict, everyone in Europe will turn on him and make him face the brunt of their anti americanism as I predict will happen. After all the President is the President.

Things can change when leadership changes. For example, if Russia ousted Putin and elected a more democratic leader who was friendlier to other nations and less of a bully than Putin, our opinion of Russia could change overnight.

[Ehwmatt]

I would say "Thank you, Mr. President, for your service to our country." I would offer a firm handshake and a salute (although no longer in uniform).

Like him or not, he is the President of the best country in the world. And as Americans, although we have the freedom to disagree and diss anyone we want, we must respect the office and offer simple praise to anyone that puts themselves in the line of public and military service. I would do the same for any and ALL Presidents...certainly including LBJ that quagmired us in VietNam, killing 58k Americans and <unknown> millions of Asians.

I would then politely excuse myself, hoping & praying for a better, smarter, more prosperous future.

later~

YES!

agree too, thats why I wont crticise Obama (even though I really dont like him at all ) whilst Im living overseas (at least in the company of non Americans) when as I predict, everyone in Europe will turn on him and make him face the brunt of their anti americanism as I predict will happen. After all the President is the President.

Things can change when leadership changes. For example, if Russia ousted Putin and elected a more democratic leader, our opinion of them could change overnight.

Perhaps in Europe this could be the case for a bit, but we didn't love Russia in the period between the end of the CW and Putin. Similarly, no one in Europe is going to love us. But I agree, they could soften their stances a bit. As for those who hate us in the Middle East.... that ain't gonna change.

[Voyager]

I would say "Thank you, Mr. President, for your service to our country." I would offer a firm handshake and a salute (although no longer in uniform).

Like him or not, he is the President of the best country in the world. And as Americans, although we have the freedom to disagree and diss anyone we want, we must respect the office and offer simple praise to anyone that puts themselves in the line of public and military service. I would do the same for any and ALL Presidents...certainly including LBJ that quagmired us in VietNam, killing 58k Americans and <unknown> millions of Asians.

I would then politely excuse myself, hoping & praying for a better, smarter, more prosperous future.

later~

YES!

agree too, thats why I wont crticise Obama (even though I really dont like him at all ) whilst Im living overseas (at least in the company of non Americans) when as I predict, everyone in Europe will turn on him and make him face the brunt of their anti americanism as I predict will happen. After all the President is the President.

Things can change when leadership changes. For example, if Russia ousted Putin and elected a more democratic leader, our opinion of them could change overnight.

Perhaps in Europe this could be the case for a bit, but we didn't love Russia in the period between the end of the CW and Putin. Similarly, no one in Europe is going to love us. But I agree, they could soften their stances a bit. As for those who hate us in the Middle East.... that ain't gonna change.

People don't like bullies, and Bush has been the meanest bully in the world for eight years now. I don't see Obama taking on that type of a role at all. He seems more of an intellectual than a bully. Bush had to use brawn because he didn't have any brains.

[HERO]

whether or not he had them at the time of invasion is an unknown- one way or another he appears to have gottern rid of them. But its worth remembering that the UN had a list of what they knew he DID have down to the metric tonne and simply asked him to catalogue when and where he destroyed it. He wouldnt do that due to ego or because he though it gave him a card to play. So what where we supposed to do . Naturally one assumes that he did have it (the intelligence agencies of France Russia, UK, US all did - after all why just not catalogue how they were removed. -

By the way the only people who had an oil interest in Iraq when the decisoin to go to war was made was France and Russia.

You do not seem to grasp the reality of the situation. The are no WMD, there never were. There is no evidence, not a shred. The Iraqis did not get rid of them for the simple reason that they were never there. As for the "intelligence" services, now there is a misnomer if ever there was. Are you suggesting that the Iraquis flushed these imaginary weapons down the toilet as American forces were knocking on the door? If the "intelligence" services really wanted to know what weapons Saddam had all they had to do was look to see what you, and others, sold him.

You'll be telling me next that Halliburton is a French company.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I would say "Thank you, Mr. President, for your service to our country." I would offer a firm handshake and a salute (although no longer in uniform).

Like him or not, he is the President of the best country in the world. And as Americans, although we have the freedom to disagree and diss anyone we want, we must respect the office and offer simple praise to anyone that puts themselves in the line of public and military service. I would do the same for any and ALL Presidents...certainly including LBJ that quagmired us in VietNam, killing 58k Americans and <unknown> millions of Asians.

I would then politely excuse myself, hoping & praying for a better, smarter, more prosperous future.

later~

YES!

agree too, thats why I wont crticise Obama (even though I really dont like him at all ) whilst Im living overseas (at least in the company of non Americans) when as I predict, everyone in Europe will turn on him and make him face the brunt of their anti americanism as I predict will happen. After all the President is the President.

Things can change when leadership changes. For example, if Russia ousted Putin and elected a more democratic leader who was friendlier to other nations and less of a bully than Putin, our opinion of Russia could change overnight.

things can change- but I really doubt youll see much change in Obama's foreign policies and what will that do to foreign opinion of him? . After all hes already started out by keeping one Bush appointee in at Defense and a paleoconservative hawk in at the NSC. When we stay in Iraq and stay in Afghanistan, and Obama starts putting US interests first. He might put a slightly hipper spin on it all, but beneath it all, little will change.

[HERO]

Things can change when leadership changes. For example, if Russia ousted Putin and elected a more democratic leader who was friendlier to other nations and less of a bully than Putin, our opinion of Russia could change overnight.

I have to agree with you on that.

[HERO]

People don't like bullies, and Bush has been the meanest bully in the world for eight years now. I don't see Obama taking on that type of a role at all. He seems more of an intellectual than a bully. Bush had to use brawn because he didn't have any brains.

Again I am forced to agree with you.

[HERO]

things can change- but I really doubt youll see much change in Obama's foreign policies and what will that do to foreign opinion of him? . After all hes already started out by keeping one Bush appointee in at Defense and a paleoconservative hawk in at the NSC. When we stay in Iraq and stay in Afghanistan, and Obama starts putting US interests first. He might put a slightly hipper spin on it all, but beneath it all, little will change.

Let go of your cynicism and give Obama a chance. Let us be honest, he couldn't do any worse than GWB. Obama has said that he is prepared to talk to the terrorists in order to find a resolution. He should be applauded for that alone. As for the foreign opinion of him, he has gone down a storm in some countries. You never know, foreigners may even begin to like Americans again. Hey, it could happen!

[skinsguy]

I don't agree with the tactics that Bush used nor do I agree with the Iraqi War. I'm not a Democrat either. Far from it!
I think we should have just focused on the hunt for Bin Laden first before ever going to war in Iraq. But, I'll say this though, it is never a good thing to leave someone like Hussein in power. The ungodly things he did to his own people is enough to take him out. Remember, even Clinton wanted to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

But, no matter who our President is, Republican or Democrat, I think it's very disrespectful for this reporter to throw his shoes at our President. I also think it's very disrespectful of the American people to applaud such a display of disrespect to our country's leader. Like him or not, he is/was our President of the United States.

[Ehwmatt]

things can change- but I really doubt youll see much change in Obama's foreign policies and what will that do to foreign opinion of him? . After all hes already started out by keeping one Bush appointee in at Defense and a paleoconservative hawk in at the NSC. When we stay in Iraq and stay in Afghanistan, and Obama starts putting US interests first. He might put a slightly hipper spin on it all, but beneath it all, little will change.

Let go of your cynicism and give Obama a chance. Let us be honest, he couldn't do any worse than GWB. Obama has said that he is prepared to talk to the terrorists in order to find a resolution. He should be applauded for that alone. As for the foreign opinion of him, he has gone down a storm in some countries. You never know, foreigners may even begin to like Americans again. Hey, it could happen!

Again, do some reading on terrorism/terrorists - there is no placating these fuckers short of possibly nuking Israel and pissing on the ashes. Even then...

[Arianddu]

I would say that he took it to the terrorists after 9-11. He awoke other nations to the realization of the dangers and that we are at war. I believe for the rest of my life they will attack many countries. This started 30 yrs ago and finally the world sees these are not isolated incidences. Let's see. They attack Europe,Indonesia,Pakistan, Afganistan,Africa,Iraq,Russia ,China and others. The only one that has not been attacked seems to be Iran and that is where there funding comes from and I forgot Saudi Arabia.

This is a load of horse shit! "Awoke other nations to the realization of the dangers and that we are at war" - you know what, he fucking dragged other nations into his stupid 'war on terror', lied about who was involved so he could settle his daddy's old score, and fucking created the terrorist war!

It this means that the U.S. promotes/funds terrorism, it is an absurdly stupid comment.

Actually, the US has funded terrorism, both officially and unofficially (he says freedom fighter, she says terrorist). However, that wasn't what I was saying here. Iraq was a repressive dictatorship, true. It was also a secular state with little tolerance for religeous extremism. It is now a focal point for Islamic extremists from around the world, and has a huge problem with religeous extremism. Moreover, the invasion of Iraq by the USA and its few allies gave many Muslims real reason to fear and hate the West. Certainly the prejudices had been there before, but comparatively few people felt threatened enough to feel compelled to take up arms. This is no longer the case.

(where the fuck do you think Iraq got its training and hardware from in the 80s?)

Primarily the Soviet Union and France. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, of the $43.96 billion (in 1990 inflation-adjusted $) of arms sold to Iraq between 1973 and 1990, $30.301 billion (69%) came from the Soviet Union and related Warsaw Pact countries, $5.595 billion (13%) came from France, and $5.192 billion (12%) came from China. The U.S. only sold $200 million (0.5%) in arms to Iraq (all light helicopters), primarily to counter Iranian counter-offensives in the Iran-Iraq war. The amounts above do *not* include the Osirak nuclear reactor that the French sold to Iraq (and which the Israelis bombed out of oblivion, thankfully).

I guess your question was basically rhetorical -- you weren't expecting the answer to be: "primarily the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries", were you? Now that it's been shown to be completely uninformed, do you admit that, or do you just change the subject. (Oh wait .... it ruins your premiss. You change the subject.)

Actually, if I am shown to be wrong, I acknowledge I am wrong. The USA was one of many countries supporting the Iraqis during their war with Iran, and not the major financial supporter. Thank you for providing this information.

I don't condone what those fuckwits who took over the planes did, under any circumstances. But it would make a refreshing change to hear a bit of speculation coming out of the US about why people were so desperate to hit and hurt back.

How about: the people who hijacked the planes on Sept. 11th were largely upper middle-class, educated Arabs -- not seething hoards of oppressed poor "desperate to hit and hurt back". But we just showed that your major assertion (who funded Iraq's war-mongering in the '70s and '80s) was completely dimwitted and wrong.

So here's some speculation. These Arab terrorists bought into a myth (largely like the one you're propagating) and were lashing out at falsely identified oppressors, and to the extent that it wasn't that, they were lashing out at Western modernity, as well as engaging in gross anti-Semitism.

I don't deny it. But look at the people who they inspired to support their cause, the people that they were aiming to 'speak' to, and claiming that it was done on their behalf.

Do you know the saddest thing I heard to come out of Afghanistan immediately following the US reprisals there for September Eleven? A British reporter went out and spoke to the Afghanis who lived in the mountains where Bin Laden was rumoured to be holing up, and asked them what they thought of the USA and the bombings. Their response? They didn't know who or what America was; they thought the attacks were from the Russians starting up the Russkya-Afghani War again. So what is America to them now? A bunch of foreigners they knew nothing about who attacked them in retribution for something that happened in a place they had never heard of, that was done by people who weren't Afghani. Who do you think they are going to support - the USA and other Western nations, or fellow Muslims who claim to be fighting against the West that they claim to be anti-Islam? Guess which piece of bullshit propoganda they are going to buy into?

Here's another scenario - many of those same people are involved in opium growing, because it's the only way they can survive (money, pressure, death threats to family, etc) Let's say that instead of dropping bombs on the Afghanis, we'd dropped food parcels, seeds and clockwork radios? And then gone in to set up secular schools and hospitals. Broadcast in Afghani information about their national and international affairs, educational material, culturally appropriate entertainment. Helped the opium farmers plant food crops and alternative cash crops, and helped them defend those crops against the opium warlords. And then told them our side of the story - that some extremist Saudi Arabians had attacked the USA, and by default all Western nations and their economies, because they took a false and extremist view of the Quran's message. And that the man we believe to be their leader is probably in the mountains of Afghanistan. And we need their help to find him, because we don't want others to suffer for his madness. So who do they help then - people helping them, or people making great claims about holy war?

Instead, we made war on the Afghanis, and the Iraqis, and their cause has been taken up by Muslims all over the world. We gave power to the madmen who took over the planes, because in the eyes of people who are not Westerners, we did exactly what they said we would, and we made war on Islam. And we're worse off than we ever were, because war breeds nothing but death and hatred and more death and hatred.

As for the issues of Islamic extremists lashing out at Western modernity, as well as engaging in gross anti-Semitism, I completely agree with you. It's a complex problem that has been around for centuries, and isn't going to disappear over night. And invading Iraq has made things worse, not better. They were Saudis not Iraqis, so why didn't Saudi Arabia get invaded? Because the Saudis have huge finacial influence in the US? Of course things like that get noticed, and people react. They draw their own conclusions. And they react in all the worst ways, and for all the wrong reasons - because now they have another reason to be afraid.

The US has many things to like and admire about it. But unfortunately, on the international stage, it is also a bully, and bullies get resented and they get blamed. And eventually someone starts hitting back, and then every kid who was ever bullied or just afraid of being bullied will jump in. It's not fair and it's not rational, but you have to remember - the bully is STILL a bully, even if the final response is over the top.

[skinsguy]

The US has many things to like and admire about it. But unfortunately, on the international stage, it is also a bully, and bullies get resented and they get blamed. And eventually someone starts hitting back, and then every kid who was ever bullied or just afraid of being bullied will jump in. It's not fair and it's not rational, but you have to remember - the bully is STILL a bully, even if the final response is over the top.

So you're basically saying that we deserved 9-11?

[Arianddu]

The US has many things to like and admire about it. But unfortunately, on the international stage, it is also a bully, and bullies get resented and they get blamed. And eventually someone starts hitting back, and then every kid who was ever bullied or just afraid of being bullied will jump in. It's not fair and it's not rational, but you have to remember - the bully is STILL a bully, even if the final response is over the top.

So you're basically saying that we deserved 9-11?

NO!! And I have said more than once I do NOT condone what those fuckers did! Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't agree with my view point.

I am saying that the USA has behaved like a bully in the past, and is still behaving like a bully when it comes to international affairs, and that behaviour has consequences that don't disappear quickly.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Here's another scenario - many of those same people are involved in opium growing, because it's the only way they can survive (money, pressure, death threats to family, etc) Let's say that instead of dropping bombs on the Afghanis, we'd dropped food parcels, seeds and clockwork radios? And then gone in to set up secular schools and hospitals. Broadcast in Afghani information about their national and international affairs, educational material, culturally appropriate entertainment. Helped the opium farmers plant food crops and alternative cash crops, and helped them defend those crops against the opium warlords. And then told them our side of the story - that some extremist Saudi Arabians had attacked the USA, and by default all Western nations and their economies, because they took a false and extremist view of the Quran's message. And that the man we believe to be their leader is probably in the mountains of Afghanistan. And we need their help to find him, because we don't want others to suffer for his madness. So who do they help then - people helping them, or people making great claims about holy war?


.

Incidentally, the US spent 60 million between 2003 and 2008 on building over 950 schools and training 30,000 teachers. The project was prioritised to build those schools in which the largest population of girls could attend. 60,000 girls now have started school- the Taliban didnt let girls go to school. And yes they can study music and engage in extracurricular activities like kite flying.. Incidentally the US Aid agency and US Agriculture department have extensive programmes helping farmers to give up opion productions. however Opiums awful profitable and the US / Karzai govt doesnt go around cutting farmers limbs off for growing opium like the Taliban did so its alot harder to create that change.

The US couldnt do ANY of these activites prior the war - the Taliban wouldnt let them in.

Incidentally, the US has done plenty of other things over the past decade in other areas of the world. For example , the US Navy now has ships that do little else than float around the littoral areas of Africa innoculationg villages against diseases. The US has also allocated a record amount of money to the aids fightt in Africa

You indeed make some valid criticisms of the US but some credit needs to be given where credit is due........

[Arianddu]

Here's another scenario - many of those same people are involved in opium growing, because it's the only way they can survive (money, pressure, death threats to family, etc) Let's say that instead of dropping bombs on the Afghanis, we'd dropped food parcels, seeds and clockwork radios? And then gone in to set up secular schools and hospitals. Broadcast in Afghani information about their national and international affairs, educational material, culturally appropriate entertainment. Helped the opium farmers plant food crops and alternative cash crops, and helped them defend those crops against the opium warlords. And then told them our side of the story - that some extremist Saudi Arabians had attacked the USA, and by default all Western nations and their economies, because they took a false and extremist view of the Quran's message. And that the man we believe to be their leader is probably in the mountains of Afghanistan. And we need their help to find him, because we don't want others to suffer for his madness. So who do they help then - people helping them, or people making great claims about holy war?


.

Incidentally, the US spent 60 million between 2003 and 2008 on building over 950 schools and training 30,000 teachers. The project was prioritised to build those schools in which the largest population of girls could attend. 60,000 girls now have started school- the Taliban didnt let girls go to school. And yes they can study music and engage in extracurricular activities like kite flying.. Incidentally the US Aid agency and US Agriculture department have extensive programmes helping farmers to give up opion productions. however Opiums awful profitable and the US / Karzai govt doesnt go around cutting farmers limbs off for growing opium like the Taliban did so its alot harder to create that change.

The US couldnt do ANY of these activites prior the war - the Taliban wouldnt let them in.

Incidentally, the US has done plenty of other things over the past decade in other areas of the world. For example , the US Navy now has ships that do little else than float around the littoral areas of Africa innoculationg villages against diseases. The US has also allocated a record amount of money to the aids fightt in Africa

You indeed make some valid criticisms of the US but some credit needs to be given where credit is due........

Yep, I knew all of that. Like I said, there is a lot to like and admire about the US. Doesn't change the fact that war and hatred breed more war and hatred, and bombs were dropped on people who knew nothing about the US, and those people learned they were being bombed before the help you describe was provided.

Mo Mowlam showed it in the UK with the IRA - the way you stop a war of terrorism is to stop shouting, stop fighting, and start honestly listening without prejudice and anger.

[Ehwmatt]

The US has many things to like and admire about it. But unfortunately, on the international stage, it is also a bully, and bullies get resented and they get blamed. And eventually someone starts hitting back, and then every kid who was ever bullied or just afraid of being bullied will jump in. It's not fair and it's not rational, but you have to remember - the bully is STILL a bully, even if the final response is over the top.

So you're basically saying that we deserved 9-11?

NO!! And I have said more than once I do NOT condone what those fuckers did! Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't agree with my view point.

I am saying that the USA has behaved like a bully in the past, and is still behaving like a bully when it comes to international affairs, and that behaviour has consequences that don't disappear quickly.

Honestly, you're just buying the Islamofascist bill of goods if you believe US bullying is the source of their backlash. The bullying exists, I'll agree with you. But, it's just further fuel for their irrational fire. That fire was originally started by the US/the West as a whole merely existing in the state it does with the values it holds and was propagated in the sponsorship/creation/defense of the Israeli state.

A whole other issue is deciding what constitutes bullying and what constitutes defending our interests. Too many chicken or egg scenarios there that are way too difficult to discuss on an Internet forum there...

[Arianddu]

The US has many things to like and admire about it. But unfortunately, on the international stage, it is also a bully, and bullies get resented and they get blamed. And eventually someone starts hitting back, and then every kid who was ever bullied or just afraid of being bullied will jump in. It's not fair and it's not rational, but you have to remember - the bully is STILL a bully, even if the final response is over the top.

So you're basically saying that we deserved 9-11?

NO!! And I have said more than once I do NOT condone what those fuckers did! Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't agree with my view point.

I am saying that the USA has behaved like a bully in the past, and is still behaving like a bully when it comes to international affairs, and that behaviour has consequences that don't disappear quickly.

Honestly, you're just buying the Islamofascist bill of goods if you believe US bullying is the source of their backlash. The bullying exists, I'll agree with you. But, it's just further fuel for their irrational fire. That fire was originally started by the US/the West as a whole merely existing in the state it does with the values it holds and was propagated in the sponsorship/creation/defense of the Israeli state.

A whole other issue is deciding what constitutes bullying and what constitutes defending our interests. Too many chicken or egg scenarios there that are way too difficult to discuss on an Internet forum there...

Agreed!

(And I think US bullying is the excuse used that fans the fire, not the reason; the reasons are varied and complex, and there are probably as many of them as there are terrorists.)

[Luvsaugeri]

NO!! And I have said more than once I do NOT condone what those fuckers did! Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't agree with my view point.

I am saying that the USA has behaved like a bully in the past, and is still behaving like a bully when it comes to international affairs, and that behaviour has consequences that don't disappear quickly.

A Bully??? This just fries my ass!!! A bully.....who everyone in the world turns to when they need money or help. And all we do is get criticized by those very people we help.

[Jana]

576 billion SO FAR spent on the war.

4,209 members of the military dead.

Take a moment and say a prayer for our men and women overseas.

[conversationpc]

4,209 members of the military dead.

Take a moment and say a prayer for our men and women overseas.

Yes, and we should also be thanking God that we've lost far less men and women than we did during Korea, Vietnam, etc.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Mo Mowlam showed it in the UK with the IRA - the way you stop a war of terrorism is to stop shouting, stop fighting, and start honestly listening without prejudice and anger.

Yes but it wasnt that simple - Part of the credit for the Northern Ireland situation should be given to- 1) the British (public and govt) for not caving into terrorism and taking a tough line for almost 30 years 2) Clinton being very hard on Gerry Adams and telling them they are getting no more sympathy from the US (and the US finally (far too late ) forced its private citizens to stop giving money to the IRA) so their source of funding dired up. 3) the Irish citizens (especially the mothers and wives of the terrorists) getting so sick of whats going on in Belfast demanding there was change. 4) and yes as you say the Blair adminsitration for engaging in the peace process once facts 1-3 started to have a salient effect.

God almight I go onto a journey board to argue about Perry and Pineda, and I get into talking about Norhern Ireland. Some fucker please slap me and start a conversation about "Raised on Radio"

[skinsguy]

The US has many things to like and admire about it. But unfortunately, on the international stage, it is also a bully, and bullies get resented and they get blamed. And eventually someone starts hitting back, and then every kid who was ever bullied or just afraid of being bullied will jump in. It's not fair and it's not rational, but you have to remember - the bully is STILL a bully, even if the final response is over the top.

So you're basically saying that we deserved 9-11?

NO!! And I have said more than once I do NOT condone what those fuckers did! Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't agree with my view point.

I am saying that the USA has behaved like a bully in the past, and is still behaving like a bully when it comes to international affairs, and that behaviour has consequences that don't disappear quickly.

Not putting words in your mouth. I'm just trying to gauge exactly where you are coming from with your point. As much foreign aid and money we have sent to other countries, I think that gives us a right to look out for our best interest internationally. Maybe what we should have just done, is say "screw ya" to the rest of the world, never give a dime of money to any foreign country, let them fight their own wars, let them try to survive without any of the foreign aid we have exported out of our country. I mean, if these foreign countries really have that much hatred toward our country, I say screw 'em.

[Jana]

4,209 members of the military dead.

Take a moment and say a prayer for our men and women overseas.

Yes, and we should also be thanking God that we've lost far less men and women than we did during Korea, Vietnam, etc.

We have a difference of opinion. I was against the war, so to me more died than should have.

But I should have added: Whether you're for or against the war in Iraq, these brave men and women should always be in our prayers.

[Luvsaugeri]

. Maybe what we should have just done, is say "screw ya" to the rest of the world, never give a dime of money to any foreign country, let them fight their own wars, let them try to survive without any of the foreign aid we have exported out of our country. I mean, if these foreign countries really have that much hatred toward our country, I say screw 'em.

OMG....my thoughts exactly!!!!!!!! Think of all the money we would save. And then we wouldn't be considered such "bullies" I guess. I think we should just insulate our country, only worry about ourselves and let the rest of the world fend for itself as well.

[Don]

Mo Mowlam showed it in the UK with the IRA - the way you stop a war of terrorism is to stop shouting, stop fighting, and start honestly listening without prejudice and anger.

Yes but it wasnt that simple - Part of the credit for the Northern Ireland situation should be given to- 1) the British (public and govt) for not caving into terrorism and taking a tough line for almost 30 years 2) Clinton being very hard on Gerry Adams and telling them they are getting no more sympathy from the US (and the US finally (far too late ) forced its private citizens from giving money to the IRA) so their source of funding dired up. 3) the Irish citizens (especially the mothers and wives of the terrorists) getting so sick of whats going on in Belfast demanding there was change. 4) and yes as you say the Blair adminsitration for engaging in the peace process once facts 1-3 started to have a salient effect.

God almight I go onto a journey board to argue about Perry and Pineda, and I get into taling about Norhern Ireland. Some fucker please slap me and start a conversation about "Raised on Radio"

Can you tell me if this is true? Britain has told N. Ireland if they vote to become part of Ireland, they will be allowed to do so as long as it is a popular vote, which in the past has always resulted in a vote to stay a part of Great Britain.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Mo Mowlam showed it in the UK with the IRA - the way you stop a war of terrorism is to stop shouting, stop fighting, and start honestly listening without prejudice and anger.

Yes but it wasnt that simple - Part of the credit for the Northern Ireland situation should be given to- 1) the British (public and govt) for not caving into terrorism and taking a tough line for almost 30 years 2) Clinton being very hard on Gerry Adams and telling them they are getting no more sympathy from the US (and the US finally (far too late ) forced its private citizens from giving money to the IRA) so their source of funding dired up. 3) the Irish citizens (especially the mothers and wives of the terrorists) getting so sick of whats going on in Belfast demanding there was change. 4) and yes as you say the Blair adminsitration for engaging in the peace process once facts 1-3 started to have a salient effect.

God almight I go onto a journey board to argue about Perry and Pineda, and I get into taling about Norhern Ireland. Some fucker please slap me and start a conversation about "Raised on Radio"

Can you tell me if this is true? Britain has told N. Ireland if they vote to become part of Ireland, they will be allowed to do so as long as it is a popular vote, which in the past has always resulted in a vote to stay a part of Great Britain.

In short yes, the Protestant population ( pro being part of britian ) outnumbers the catholic populaiton (pro independence/' unity with Ireland) So it would never get voted in- (just like Austrialia will never actually vote to get rid of the Queen as head of state hee hee just tryhing to stir the conversation yet a different direction ) so a cynic might say thats a propagandist positon