Results 26 to 50 of 67
Thread: Amazing hypocrisy- Again
-
06-22-2005, 07:08 PM #26Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by SniperDevil
I hope by "you" in the above example, you weren't talking directly to jasong or any other American, specifically, as by no means was it our choice to go to war in Iraq.
The "you" I refer to are Jasong and the many others who supported this war this President, and continue to support them.
I can understand backing a candidate to a point but not after he has shown countless examples of incompetence and ignorance and absolutely no willingness to listen to the international community.
Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear. The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.
-
06-22-2005, 07:11 PM #27M*T
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- A Hut
- Posts
- 2,575
Originally posted by blue27
The "you" I refer to are Jasong and the many others who supported this war this President, and continue to support them.
I can understand backing a candidate to a point but not after he has shown countless examples of incompetence and ignorance and absolutely no willingness to listen to the international community.
Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear. The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.Don't you walk thru my words
You got to show some respect
Don't you walk thru my words
'Cause you ain't heard me out yet
-
06-22-2005, 07:22 PM #28Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by TalkMilitary
So, Now you have me curious. It is obvious you have all of the solutions to the worlds problems. Instead of complaining about another countries leaders, what are YOU doing to make it better? And how are you making your elected leaders follow YOUR way? Ya got me interested now.
That's a nice try Sailor. It might work with some of the little kiddies here but not with me.
Since I never made any claim to have any solutions to the world's problems it is a little silly for you to imply that it's obvious that I have the solutions for all of them.
I make my elected leaders follow my way with my vote. It's really simple. If I don't like their policies, I don't vote for them. I don't blindly follow a party line or party rhetoric. I vote with my head not because of a party.
Why am I concerned with other county's leaders? Because I am intelligent enough to know that the actions of the leaders of other countries can greatly affect my security and well being when I travel.
If more people would realize this and start asking questions then the world might truly be a safer place.
The US spends an exorbitant amount of energy interfering with other countrys' business. I find it amusing that you and others would wonder why people from other countries would question the motives.
-
06-22-2005, 07:24 PM #29Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 24,027
Originally posted by blue27
. . . The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.
The truth is noone knows if we're better off with the overthrow of Saddam, or worse off without the overthrow of Saddam. The timeline has moved in a different direction, and there's no going back. This was a huge issue in the recent aussie election, with the opposition party claiming the world was worse off after overthrowing Saddam.
Sure, it would seem America has more enemies, but that's only because they have stood up and actually fought against terrorism, rather than digging their heads in the sand and hoping it doesn't happen to them. It's a little known fact that American citizens went in hiding, during the Gulf War. I know several folks who spent mths in hiding, in Pakistan, during the Gulf War.
Don't get me wrong, I support the overthrow of Saddam, I support a democratic and free Iraq, and I support America's war against terrorists (who seem to mainly be in Iraq now), but I do think Pres Bush is dangerously incompetant to be the President of earth's most powerful nation. But luckily it's a team effort and not Bush running the show like some crazed halfwit dictator.• WLVPN.com • NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider •
• Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up •
-
06-22-2005, 07:33 PM #30Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by blue27
The "you" I refer to are Jasong and the many others who supported this war this President, and continue to support them.
Originally posted by blue27
I can understand backing a candidate to a point but not after he has shown countless examples of incompetence and ignorance and absolutely no willingness to listen to the international community.
Originally posted by blue27
Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear. The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.
-
06-22-2005, 07:33 PM #31Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by Aussie Bob
With all due respect blue, unless you can see 2 separate timelines - one with the war, and one without the war, you can only guess and make statements like that. And how would one measure something as vast as that, on a planetary scale?
Actually Bob, I think it is pretty easy to measure.
Terrorist incidents and deaths as a result of terrorism have hit a new record high every year that Bush has been in power.
At the same time Bush is claiming that the world is a safer place.
Originally posted by Aussie Bob
The truth is noone knows if we're better off with the overthrow of Saddam, or worse off without the overthrow of Saddam. The timeline has moved in a different direction, and there's no going back. This was a huge issue in the recent aussie election, with the opposition party claiming the world was worse off after overthrowing Saddam.
Saddam was certainly a threat to his own people. Very unfortunate but a reality in the world. There are many just like him operating as we speak. Korea, many former Soviet republics, many African countries etc etc. Why isn't the US invading all of these countries? Why is there no discussion by Bush about these countries?
Originally posted by Aussie Bob
But luckily it's a team effort and not Bush running the show like some crazed halfwit dictator.
That "team" is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
And the reality of it is the Coach of that "team" is viewed as a crazed halfwit dictator by many countries and people world wide.
-
06-22-2005, 07:38 PM #32Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 332
Originally posted by blue27
Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear.
-
06-22-2005, 07:40 PM #33Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by SniperDevil
Nor did I say that he's competent, knowledgeable, and open-minded. I just said that it wasn't our (the American people) decision to go to war in Iraq. Granted, we didn't have to reelect him, but for whatever reason, we did.
Do you think that countries that are not friendly to the US will look at things and say it wasn't the decision of the American people to go to war?
Of course they will. The reasons for going to war were already known to be completely false during the 2004 election.
The American people had all of the facts presented to them and they still handed Bush a second term.
Yes, the American people are responsible for this. Maybe not all of them, but unfortunately, the majority of them.
-
06-22-2005, 07:40 PM #34M*T
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- A Hut
- Posts
- 2,575
Wait a gall derned second here... Sailor? Sorry, I was never in the Navy.
OOOH, you "make them do" with your vote? Amazing concept.... oh wait, so de we. BUT.... aside from a few fanatics, we lick our wounds and try harder bnext time if our candidate does not win. Yeah, there is a lesson in that Blue...
America voted for a President. We also vote for MANY other eleceted officials. Checks and balances... will/vs funding and all of that. Come on, I know you are not that stupid to not know how it all works. ****, I know how your lil thing works up north.... and find it funny at times, but I do not make a hobby of posting insults against your Country at WHT.
Either way, it seems you are enjoying the legality of Canadian Govy Supplied Pot and Heroin. Wait? Your Govt is making that stuff avail. ? (pot I can see.... some need it. Heroin... is hard narcotics such an issue up there that the Govt needs to supply it to its citizens?)
If you say we threaten your security, I can say YOU threaten ours by making widely available heroin etc.... Bad enough the best Pot comes from your "peaceful lil nation), not heroin will be next? What will Blue27's "peaceful country" export most of... 1. Terrorists. 2. Pot. 3 Heroin 4. Drug addicts? Hmmm
See what I am saying?
Originally posted by blue27
That's a nice try Sailor. It might work with some of the little kiddies here but not with me.
Since I never made any claim to have any solutions to the world's problems it is a little silly for you to imply that it's obvious that I have the solutions for all of them.
I make my elected leaders follow my way with my vote. It's really simple. If I don't like their policies, I don't vote for them. I don't blindly follow a party line or party rhetoric. I vote with my head not because of a party.
Why am I concerned with other county's leaders? Because I am intelligent enough to know that the actions of the leaders of other countries can greatly affect my security and well being when I travel.
If more people would realize this and start asking questions then the world might truly be a safer place.
The US spends an exorbitant amount of energy interfering with other countrys' business. I find it amusing that you and others would wonder why people from other countries would question the motives.Don't you walk thru my words
You got to show some respect
Don't you walk thru my words
'Cause you ain't heard me out yet
-
06-22-2005, 07:42 PM #35Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by cowabunga
The only folks that live in fear are those that align themselves against us through acts of violent cowardice and terrorism along with their sycophantic supporters who seek similar ends, although through the even the more cowardly acts of sedition and worded support. Both are assured certain death, eradication and erasure- it’s only a matter of time. Only those that cower in their own fear and inadequacy seek to ascribe it to others. On that note, think I’ll have a good’ol USDA prime rib eye, some frites, a bottle of latour and watch some Fox news before I get a good nights rest.
I rest my case.
Fortunately, even most right wing Americans find this kind of talk idiotic and ignorant.
It's nice to see you supporting the French though. I didn't think you had it in you.
-
06-22-2005, 07:50 PM #36Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 876
In reality nuclear power is a viable alternative, perhaps the only viable alternative, to fossil fuels for the future. That's not to say it doesn't have downsides - it certainly does - but you need to think of the lesser evil and currently I'd rather have nuclear than something far more polluting. Solar and hydro just aren't going to meet the steadily increasing need for power.
That doesn't mean it should become freely accessible. The US has proven as a reliable user of this technology and it is obvious that they should be able to expand their usage of it, particularly where it decreases or at least minimises the increase in the use of fossil fuels. Other countries are not as stable and do not have the same track record. Access to nuclear technology is not a right. It is a potentially dangerous weapon and access should be restricted to stable countries.
-
06-22-2005, 07:59 PM #37Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by TalkMilitary
Wait a gall derned second here... Sailor? Sorry, I was never in the Navy.
LOL, that is hilarious.
I've had so many discussions with Sailor in the past somehow my keyboard automatically inserted his name.
Originally posted by TalkMilitary
OOOH, you "make them do" with your vote? Amazing concept.... oh wait, so de we. BUT.... aside from a few fanatics, we lick our wounds and try harder bnext time if our candidate does not win. Yeah, there is a lesson in that Blue...
The US voters had the opportunity to right the wrong and they failed to do it.
Originally posted by TalkMilitary
but I do not make a hobby of posting insults against your Country at WHT.
Originally posted by TalkMilitary
Either way, it seems you are enjoying the legality of Canadian Govy Supplied Pot and Heroin. Wait? Your Govt is making that stuff avail. ? (pot I can see.... some need it. Heroin... is hard narcotics such an issue up there that the Govt needs to supply it to its citizens?)
As far as the marijuana thing goes, you have legalized alcohol in the US do you not? I believe that alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than marijuana. So I guess that is a mute point.
Originally posted by TalkMilitary
If you say we threaten your security, I can say YOU threaten ours by making widely available heroin etc.... Bad enough the best Pot comes from your "peaceful lil nation), not heroin will be next? What will Blue27's "peaceful country" export most of... 1. Terrorists. 2. Pot. 3 Heroin 4. Drug addicts? Hmmm
See what I am saying?
Your suggestion that the Canadian government is making heroin "widely available" is foolish at best and purely ignorant on the other end.
Where do you think that heroin is coming from though? Maybe via the US?
Maybe we are getting all of this heroin because the US had no plan in place when they went into Afghanistan to control drug trafficking (why would they, they can't even control it in their own country) and allowed Afghanistan to become the worlds biggest heroin producer?
Perhaps that is it, I don't know.
I know you would like to believe that terrorist and drugs come to the US via Canada but the reality is it's the other way around.
How many terrorists who attacked the world trade center and the pentagon came to the US via Canada? Riiiiight. None. They came from your buddies in Saudi Arabia.
-
06-22-2005, 08:02 PM #38Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by -T{H}R-
Other countries are not as stable and do not have the same track record. Access to nuclear technology is not a right. It is a potentially dangerous weapon and access should be restricted to stable countries.
You mean a potentially dangerous weapon like the hydrogen bomb. The kind of bomb that the US is the only country in history to use against another nation?
What exactly determines what is a stable or unstable country?
Your media and your government tells you what to think and you do it.
Reality is a much different place.
-
06-22-2005, 08:10 PM #39M*T
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- A Hut
- Posts
- 2,575
(poof, just like that)
Don't you walk thru my words
You got to show some respect
Don't you walk thru my words
'Cause you ain't heard me out yet
-
06-22-2005, 08:12 PM #40Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 876
I knew that you were going to reply about that, you're too predictable - it was 60 years ago, the world was a much different place and that is an entirely different argument, completely irrelevant to the current topic... you cannot keep reliving that for the next 1,000 years.
And I do not necessarily follow what the media and the government think - there is a wide variety of sources to receive information. I am not following specifically the US but the UN also oppose Iran having nuclear capacity as they have doubts as to the true intentions of the program.
Stability is not an easy thing to assess but it's just common sense to prevent the technology from becoming freely available.
-
06-22-2005, 08:24 PM #41Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by -T{H}R-
I knew that you were going to reply about that, you're too predictable - it was 60 years ago, the world was a much different place and that is an entirely different argument, completely irrelevant to the current topic... you cannot keep reliving that for the next 1,000 years.
And I do not necessarily follow what the media and the government think - there is a wide variety of sources to receive information. I am not following specifically the US but the UN also oppose Iran having nuclear capacity as they have doubts as to the true intentions of the program.
Stability is not an easy thing to assess but it's just common sense to prevent the technology from becoming freely available.
The US has isolated themselves. You make these claims and you present them as fact. In a narrow theater it may be believed to be fact but you have to step outside the box and consider other perspectives.
There are many countries and more importantly, many people who do not see Iran as a threat.
If you were living in Iran right now you would probably not perceive the US as much of a direct threat but you might consider Israel to be one. Would you not want to protect yourself?
That is all assuming that Iran is even interested in nuclear weapon development which is a point that is far from being proven.
-
06-22-2005, 08:30 PM #42Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by cowabunga
The only folks that live in fear are those that align themselves against us through acts of violent cowardice and terrorism along with their sycophantic supporters who seek similar ends, although through the even the more cowardly acts of sedition and worded support. Both are assured certain death, eradication and erasure- it’s only a matter of time. Only those that cower in their own fear and inadequacy seek to ascribe it to others. On that note, think I’ll have a good’ol USDA prime rib eye, some frites, a bottle of latour and watch some Fox news before I get a good nights rest.
Although sedition -- depending on the country that is being targeted -- may be assured death, I fail to see its cowardly qualities.
Regarding cowards seeking to ascribe their fears to others, I think the exact same can be said about President Bush. He blames everything on "the terrorists" -- those god-awful, subhuman, worthless pieces of crap, they're causing everything. He (and everyone else who subscribes to this ideology of paranoia and scapegoating) fails to consider just what he's doing, and the funny part is that he doesn't realize he's fueling the fire of these supposed cowards. Cowards will always be cowards.Last edited by SniperDevil; 06-22-2005 at 08:35 PM.
-
06-22-2005, 08:51 PM #43Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 876
Originally posted by blue27
The world is a vastly different place but you still cannot ignore perception.
The US has isolated themselves. You make these claims and you present them as fact. In a narrow theater it may be believed to be fact but you have to step outside the box and consider other perspectives.
There are many countries and more importantly, many people who do not see Iran as a threat.
If you were living in Iran right now you would probably not perceive the US as much of a direct threat but you might consider Israel to be one. Would you not want to protect yourself?
That is all assuming that Iran is even interested in nuclear weapon development which is a point that is far from being proven.
I did allude to the fact than the UN was not satisfied that their claims of its usage being solely for power generation were correct, but I never said I was against them having the technology.
My point being that the US, and a lot of other nations, has a valid conern. It is not being hypocritical, it is being sensible.Last edited by -T{H}R-; 06-22-2005 at 08:57 PM.
-
06-22-2005, 09:01 PM #44Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 876
Great logic by the way - nuclear weapons are a form of defense, it will deter people. Why don't we just give nuclear weapons to every country, that way nobody will ever attack anyone? Let's make sure every household has their own personal nuclear weapon to deter all forms of criminal acts.
-
06-22-2005, 09:02 PM #45Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by -T{H}R-
I never mentioned that I was against Iran having the technology and made no statement purporting that as fact. I said I was against unstable countries having it and ddi not mention any specific countries.
I did allude to the fact than the UN was not satisfied that their claims of its usage being solely for power generation were correct But I never said I was against them having the technology.
My point being that the US, and a lot of other nations, has a valid conern. It is not being hypocritical, it is being sensible.
It would be hard to argue that Pakistan is a "stable" country and yet the US backs them and does not publicly condemn their nuclear program.
The hypocrisy also lies in the "we can have it but you can't" attitude.
If the US were truly serious about eliminating nuclear proliferation then they would take the lead in doing it.
-
06-22-2005, 09:16 PM #46Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by blue27
The hypocrisy also lies in the "we can have it but you can't" attitude.
If the US were truly serious about eliminating nuclear proliferation then they would take the lead in doing it.
Secondly, to end its nuclear program would be foolish. It is just a fact of modern life that there are some ruthless countries, regimes, factions, groups, and individuals who would like to obtain and possibly use nuclear weapons. It's sad that the US has to be the international policeman, with the UN as its seeing eye dog, somewhat blindly hunting around the world for these supposed nuclear proliferators.
Unless we find a way to magically find and get rid of all of the naturally-occurring uranium, it's pretty much a given that somebody or some group is going to capitalize on and use it. There was a study released yesterday that put the likelihood of the US being attacked by a WMD (biological, radiological, or nuclear) at 70% in the next ten years. Iran probably has at least one nuclear warhead in development or assembled, and North Korea has at least a few. If this world were ideal, uranium and plutonium's special qualities would never have been discovered -- but it isn't.
-
06-22-2005, 09:29 PM #47Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 876
The US was publicly against both India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons throughout the eighties and nineties but now that they have them there is no real point in protesting, is there? They have them now, you can't go back, but at least they can prevent other similar countries obtaining them.
I agree that the US should eliminate their own weapons and use the technology solely for beneficial purposes (i.e. power). I will concede that point and agree with you. I actually found it particularly distressing when Bush came to power he considered (is still considering?) tactical nuclear weapons.
-
06-22-2005, 09:35 PM #48Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by -T{H}R-
The US was publicly against both India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons throughout the eighties and nineties but now that they have them there is no real point in protesting, is there? They have them now, you can't go back, but at least they can prevent other similar countries obtaining them.
-
06-22-2005, 09:39 PM #49Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by SniperDevil
First of all, the US does not proliferate its nuclear weapons; you'd better check the definition of "proliferate".
Secondly, to end its nuclear program would be foolish. It is just a fact of modern life that there are some ruthless countries, regimes, factions, groups, and individuals who would like to obtain and possibly use nuclear weapons. It's sad that the US has to be the international policeman, with the UN as its seeing eye dog, somewhat blindly hunting around the world for these supposed nuclear proliferators.
Unless we find a way to magically find and get rid of all of the naturally-occurring uranium, it's pretty much a given that somebody or some group is going to capitalize on and use it. There was a study released yesterday that put the likelihood of the US being attacked by a WMD (biological, radiological, or nuclear) at 70% in the next ten years. Iran probably has at least one nuclear warhead in development or assembled, and North Korea has at least a few. If this world were ideal, uranium and plutonium's special qualities would never have been discovered -- but it isn't.
Where did I say that the US were proliferating their own nuclear arsenal? I am very well aware of the definition of proliferation, thanks anyway.
What I said is that if the US wanted to eliminate nuclear proliferation they would have to take the lead.
This means they would have to start reducing their arsenal to encourage other countries to do likewise. Quid pro quo.
I also didn't suggest that the US "end" their nuclear program. They definitely need to start reducing it to be taken seriously. Try not to forget that other countries consider the US to be exactly what you describe as a ruthless country or regime.
Can you point me to the link that proves that Iran likely has at least one nuclear warhead assembled or in development? Or at least a print source?
-
06-22-2005, 09:55 PM #50Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by blue27
Try not to come to false conclusions. Read the posts.
Where did I say that the US were proliferating their own nuclear arsenal? I am very well aware of the definition of proliferation, thanks anyway.
What I said is that if the US wanted to eliminate nuclear proliferation they would have to take the lead.
This means they would have to start reducing their arsenal to encourage other countries to do likewise. Quid pro quo.
I also didn't suggest that the US "end" their nuclear program. They definitely need to start reducing it to be taken seriously. Try not to forget that other countries consider the US to be exactly what you describe as a ruthless country or regime.
Reducing countries' arsenals of nuclear weapons is not what the US is talking about when it talks about "proliferation", so I still don't understand what you're talking about. There might be a correlation between a country decreasing its arsenal and the availability (or lack thereof) of uranium, enriched plutonium, and hence the ability to successfully construct a bomb, but that's immaterial to the concept of proliferation.
Originally posted by blue27
Can you point me to the link that proves that Iran likely has at least one nuclear warhead assembled or in development? Or at least a print source?