Montreal Escorts

Why the whole world detest Bush?

Nugie

Village Idiot
Aug 23, 2005
146
0
0
NYC's armpit
Way to go, Red! You've managed to take four words out of a much more complete quote, misrepresent my position, AND manage to say nothing, all at once!

Q: Which country has been ranked as the least likely to suffer from terroristic acts of violence?
A: North Korea. No one can get away with SHIT over there.

Am I suggesting we turn Iraq into North Korea? Nope, no way, no how. But, the level of personal freedom you enjoy exists on a continuum with a free and open society on one end and a totalitarian police state on the other.

As criminal violence becomes increasingly difficult to manage, those responsible for protecting their citizens have several options: If the violence is politically motivated or directed, address those issues. If the objective of the violence is the violence itself, then increased "police" activity becomes necessary.

Think of it as a slider on a scale. Want more security? Be prepared to give up more personal and political freedoms. Want more personal and political freedoms? Be prepared to deal with the potential threat of increased violence.

There are LOTS of people, here in the USA, that get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let's say you and your buddy go to a bar, pick up two chicks. You all decide to ditch the bar and grab a bite to eat. They jump in your car, the car gets pulled over for speeding. One of the girls YOU HAVE JUST NOW MET AND DON'T KNOW THEIR LAST NAME throws some pot she had on her onto the passenger seat. The cop finds it, asks who it belongs to. No one fesses up. Guess what, you're all going to jail. Is that innocent? I think so.

What if you happen to be visiting your friend's house, whom you know to be a recreational drug user, when the cops raid the house? Are you innocent? Yes, but to a lesser degree. You knowingly put yourself into a situation where illegal activity was occurring.

Finally, in regards to al-Sadr's "newspaper" being shut down - it is a historical fact that terrorists, insurgents, and the like will often use mass media and marketing techniques to spread misinformation to the least educated members of society. While we in the US might think that a simple libel lawsuit will suffice, when the purpose of the misinformation is to foment violence, the freedom of the "press" isn't quite as free as we would like to think (sedition act here in the USA making speech criticizing the federal government illegal). al-Sadr's GOAL was to use his "newspaper" to incite violence against any and all authorities other then his own. It was clearly the first salvo in an attack, although unconventional to most people. Shutting down the paper was NOT an attempt to silence a political opponent but a necessary act to stem violence based on misinformation.
 

Red Paul

Active Member
Jun 6, 2003
705
67
28
Visit site
Nugie said:
Way to go, Red! You've managed to take four words out of a much more complete quote, misrepresent my position, AND manage to say nothing, all at once!

The suspicion grows that I am debating a 15-year-old . . .

Looking thru this thread, I came across a real prize, the supreme Nugieism of all time. Some context. For the many people who haven’t been following our little sideshow (and who can blame them?), the exchange began when I said the American occupation does not have enough soldiers to succeed in Iraq. By way of shorthand, I referred to the pre-invasion estimate by Gen. Shinseki that several hundred thousands soldiers would be needed for the occupation.

Nugie replied that having more soldiers wasn’t the point, that the occupation (in his opinion) could succeed if it enforced complete control over people’s movements and gave soldiers the power to shoot civilians for minor infractions.

Got that? My poisition: more soldiers were needed. Nugie’s position: More soldiers not the issue.

Then guess what? Further down the thread, we come to this. Nugies writes: “to focus more specifically upon your original statement: Shinseki, in hindsight, has been proven correct regarding the occupation in Iraq. I would agree. I would also say, "’Um... so what?’"

Wait a second . . . so Shinseki was right . . . so actually more soldiers were needed, but . . . “Um, so what?” Shinseki’s being right doesn’t matter, Nugie says, because the miliitary always has worst-case scenarios and Shinseki’s was just the usual, no great credit is to be reflected upon the general as a result.

This is where the pain sets in. Because Nugie has forgotten the entire point of the argument. Instead of more-soldiers vs. not-more-soldiers, he has convinced himself that it is now Shinseki-great vs. Shinseki-not-great.

Why? It beats the hell out of me. But one begins to suspect that Mr. Nugie is a waste of time.

Now to his latest post, another example of argument by amnesia. Nugie says I have taken a few of his words out of context. He’s wrong.

Let’s go back to the more-troops/not-more-troops debate, because it is in this context that Nugie made his little blunder. After Nugie argued that a really super-tough regime of martial law was what the occupation needed --- and that the occupation had not tried such an approach --- Curious pointed out some of the glaring drawbacks to this approach. Nugie replied no, no, he didn’t advocate such a regime in Iraq. He continued: “I was simply stating that without accepting limits on personal freedoms and the prevalence of a police state, no open society can exist in peace when it is confronted with” the challenges now confronting Iraq.

“I was simply stating that . . .” So what follows those words is his own summary of the position he took in our little debate about troop levels. By his own account, he was saying that, without his special brand of deluxe martial law, Iraq is an open society. But if I accept him at his word, I’m taking his remarks out of context.

Pardon me for thinking he followed his own aguments.

The rest of his post falls into the categories of “Uh, duh” and “No, not really.” More repression makes it easier to prevent terrorism? Uh, duh. Citizens in the U.S. are in the same situation as civilians in Iraq? No, not really, not when a reported 80% of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were innocent bystanders. Not when jumpy soldiers shoot down drivers who don’t know what our traffic signals mean. No, not really. Not at all.

A point about Bremer and the shutdown of Moqtada’s paper. “Shutting down the paper was NOT an attempt to silence a political opponent,” Nugie writes. Well, who said it was? I didn’t. But in open societies the authorities don’t have the power to close newspapers at will. Hence (along with other evidence) this indicates that AmIraq is not an open society.

You can’t argue with someone who doesn’t argue --- that is, with someone who ignores what you write, who doesn’t understand his own statements, who doesn’t even remember what point is being debated. You cannot argue with a spewer. Nugie spews and I don’t feel like cleaning up after him. It’s a damn shame, but that’s the Internet for you.

Still, I’ll say it again: Jesus-fucking-Loueezus.
 

AsiaTraveller2

New Member
Jun 24, 2006
59
0
0
Thetis said:
The version where America works together WITH other nations to build a better world for everyone, not just the CEO's of Halliburton.

I'm all for America working with other nations. But there has NEVER been a world where all the other nations have worked for a better world. Every nation is just working in their bests interests. The U.N. unfortunately is just a debate team, with no meaningful power or history of actions that back up the talk. All talk, no teeth, very little bottom line results. That is why the world is not moving in any meaningful way, to any real progress. There is no "United" in the U.N. Make no mistake about it .. the U.N. is a group of self serving cliques.

Has anything changed in Africa? North Korea? Cuba? Iran? The rest of the Middle East? No united plan exists, that will make any improvements of any meaningful kind, for the people who really need it.

AT2
 
Last edited:

mrten

Psychiatric help, 5 cents
Mar 22, 2005
377
0
0
Because his last name is Bush. Call me naive if you will, but I do believe that the world would have been a different place if Al Gore had of got in.
 
Last edited:

joelcairo

New Member
Jul 26, 2005
4,711
2
0
In the last 50 years the only presidents who seemed like decent human beings were Eisenhower, Ford and Carter. As with most political positions being a scumbag seems to be a job requirement. (You'll notice that Ford and Carter were one-termers).
 

AsiaTraveller2

New Member
Jun 24, 2006
59
0
0
joelcairo said:
In the last 50 years the only presidents who seemed like decent human beings were Eisenhower, Ford and Carter. As with most political positions being a scumbag seems to be a job requirement. (You'll notice that Ford and Carter were one-termers).

Let's face it. You can replace Bush's name with any other World leader and probably get a good thread going. I can't think of more than a handful, who are likeable. I trust world leaders less than a use car salesman.

AT2
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
Equanimity said:
The US seems to breed more than their fair share of these jokers.

I am really amazed by all the US-bashing cumming out of Canada. Talk about Unappreciative !!!! BTW do we still play the Canadian National Anthem at our hockey games?
 
Last edited:

voyageur11

Member
Jul 21, 2005
637
0
16
beautydigger said:
I am really amazed by all the US-bashing cumming out of Canada. Talk about Unappreciative !!!! BTW do we still play the Canadian National Anthem at our hockey games?
rush limbaugh .sean hannity, dr laura,james dobson, michael medved mixhael reagan all conservative you want me to continue all pro bush pro republican lits not bashing that what you got on radio
 

pookiebear

New Member
Jan 24, 2006
131
0
0
2 more years

THat's what great about this country. An idiot can screw it up and within the next 2 years he would be voted out of office with no bloodshed or civil unrest. In his case he's done his damage for all I'm concerned he's a lame duck president. There is possibly nothing that he can do and he is president in name only. I hope Americans will learn that when you have one party running the country, regardless of which sides, that party tend to take advantage of the system. For all I'm concerned the best form of government is one that has checks and balance.
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
What I have learned from the Bush presidency is that there is only one party in American politics, they are all a bunch of phonies in bed with whichever special interest group has the most money at any given time. I will never vote again, its a joke.
 

DavidWeb

New Member
Oct 17, 2005
63
0
0
It's the same here in Canada.
Only difference is they make it show like there is more 'political parties'.
They all promise something they can't deliver.
So no matter if it's at the federal or provincial level we always get screwed.

People fight about this or that political parties, group, then they start believing they would resolve all the problem of the country if their party would be elected or their 'god loving saviour of a a leader' and start dividing everyone around by calling them names because they don't have the same opinion.

Meanwhile those b* get elected along with a big fat pension plan for a solid 4 year job where you just have to bash against your political oponent and lie to everyone and there you have it 'pure democracy style'.

So yes that is exactly what I will do this time..I won't vote.
It is a joke and something should change for real.

We used to laugh at the USSR where you could put someone inside with nothing against him for a year without any contacts from his family or any real reason. We used to laugh saying they had people watching everyone, spy camera, etc... We used to laugh saying that you could get in trouble if you were not having the same opinion than their president which is still valid in some ways... but look over here now.

The same s*t and that is part of the reason there is so much US bashing.
In Canada they think we are different and yet...

I think part of the world just misses the old days when America was at least one proper way of living and were the best in showing how to enjoy life.
 

DavidWeb

New Member
Oct 17, 2005
63
0
0
BTW

For any that matters...
Take a real good look at yourself and think for a second.
All what politics is doing is : dividing people.

Reps against Democratics
Canada bashing the US or the opposite
Torries agains Liberals
Red necks against separatisses
Everyone thinks it is the other that is at fault.

So many anglophones here in Quebec have been saying that the french were just only separatisses willing to divide the country while not realising they are themselves making sure to divide Canada by calling the french this way.

Same thing on the opposite side. French believing they could run Quebec without any influence from the rest of Canada and specially forgetting Big brother south of the Border has a lot of economical interests in here.

I hear everyday people from Calgary who thinks that Canada without Quebec would do better. Or even Alberta without Canada could do well.

The fact is : no one knows about the futur and no one can really say what would happen. Read any book on world conflicts and you'll see.

The only thing those discussions are doing is dividing people right now.
Same thing about difference in races or sex preference.
 

DavidWeb

New Member
Oct 17, 2005
63
0
0
Here is two strong messages coming from both Bush or Ben Laden that really say something about the world we live in (now).

And no matter how you can hate one or both of them...
You can give them credit for this :

Ben laden said 'you will never feel safe, the same again'
Bush said 'you are either with us or against us'

Funny how 'Bastard' start with a B also.
 

wakeman

Member
Feb 21, 2004
159
1
18
Quebec
Visit site
Is going to stop?

President Bush will officially quit the White house in just a few months.

In fact, he is already loosing power over the government since everybody knows he gonna quit soon. He continues to be ridiculised (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJ3cuXKV4) and he is disclaimed more and more frequently in his own party.

So the question now is: "What history will retain of him?"

Wakeman
 

bumfie

New Member
May 23, 2005
688
0
0
I am so glad we are almost done with him. He has destroyed America's image and ruined our standing in the world. Our economy is in the toilet. Don't see as many Americans visiting Canada? Perhaps it's because our dollars have reached parity. I used to come to Canada a lot because I could buy $100 Canadian for $63 U.S. Now, on some days Canadian money is worth more than U.S. money.

I was in my office one day when a military contingent came in to take one of my co-workers home. They were there to tell her that her son was dead in Bush's shameful war. To think this was only one of 4,000 dead soldiers' mothers. I will never forget the sight of her leaving, sobbing for her 18-year-old son who joined the Army because there are no decent jobs here anymore thanks to our trade imbalance with slave-labor countries.

I wish to God this man had never been put into office.
 

bumfie

New Member
May 23, 2005
688
0
0
Absolutely right. I will be tempted to go to church and light a candle the day he leaves Washington for good. That is, if the Thought Police...I mean, "Homeland Security" agents...haven't imprisoned me by then for the crime of having objected to this disgusting war and the ruination of our economy.
 
Toronto Escorts