What do you believe?
cjacks
While Bush has spoken of creating democracy in the Middle East, his actions indicate a different agenda. Without speaking to what that agenda is, the reaction of a people to tyranny would be to unite against that tyranny. Call it homeland defense.
The moderate Muslim is then put into a quandary over whether to rise to the defense of their homeland and be seen as aligning with those who would chose violence or to chose other means of resistance to a west intent on violence. Colonialism begets violence as its modus operandi is violence towards another's freedoms and self determination.
We will not see peace in the Middle East as the west is unwilling to allow the peoples of the Middle East their freedoms and self determination.
3/27/2004 9:08:55 PM
Violence is an admission of defeat. If one does not think one's ideas are sufficiently superior to be taken up by others freely and that they must be coerced at gunpoint then one has admitted a lack of support for one's own ideas. While Bush has spoken of creating democracy in the Middle East, his actions indicate a different agenda. Without speaking to what that agenda is, the reaction of a people to tyranny would be to unite against that tyranny. Call it homeland defense.
The moderate Muslim is then put into a quandary over whether to rise to the defense of their homeland and be seen as aligning with those who would chose violence or to chose other means of resistance to a west intent on violence. Colonialism begets violence as its modus operandi is violence towards another's freedoms and self determination.
We will not see peace in the Middle East as the west is unwilling to allow the peoples of the Middle East their freedoms and self determination.
imdancin
3/24/2004 11:52:34 PM
I'm with you Mohammed.........proud to be an "independent"
lucilius
It takes a while – too long, in my opinion – for each to shift positions; but it does happen. I think that so long as that continues, the two parties will endure and remain generally relevant.
A problem would arise if one particular constituency was so adamantly opposed to any accommodation with others that it would rather lose than change. I think that may be happening now with the extreme right, which would rather abandon Republicans than include the "wicked" opinions that could continue to guarantee its victory.
3/24/2004 2:59:38 PM
That is indeed a pretty general picture of the two-party system, mohammed.mussulman, and I don't think it's entirely inaccurate. But the flip side of that is what gives the system its stability and endurance: as enough people become discontented with the actions of each party and form independent groups, the Democratic and Republican parties each adjust their platforms and efforts to co-opt the minor parties' issues.It takes a while – too long, in my opinion – for each to shift positions; but it does happen. I think that so long as that continues, the two parties will endure and remain generally relevant.
A problem would arise if one particular constituency was so adamantly opposed to any accommodation with others that it would rather lose than change. I think that may be happening now with the extreme right, which would rather abandon Republicans than include the "wicked" opinions that could continue to guarantee its victory.
mohammed.mussulman
It appears this discussion thread has sort of fallen into a hotly debated Republican v. Democrat thing...
I think the truth of the matter is that both parties are old, a bit corrupt, and that their primary purpose is to perpetuate their own survival rather than actually serve the needs of the people.
For this reason, I like to think of myself as an "independent".
Peace and guidence.
3/23/2004 7:39:10 PM
Bismillâh.It appears this discussion thread has sort of fallen into a hotly debated Republican v. Democrat thing...
I think the truth of the matter is that both parties are old, a bit corrupt, and that their primary purpose is to perpetuate their own survival rather than actually serve the needs of the people.
For this reason, I like to think of myself as an "independent".
Peace and guidence.
lucilius
Latest update: the Chicago Tribune is reporting that the U.S. is building 14 long-term bases in Iraq, major facilities to house a large force for years to come.
So much for a speedy withdrawal. So much for letting Iraqis govern themselves. So much for our humanitarian disinterest in permanent domination of the Mideast.
This war was a power grab, plain and simple, seizing the region's second-largest oil reserves and letting us intimidate anyone we want in the region immediately. That many troops in the oilfields are a goad to use on OPEC for the benefit of Bush's and Cheney's oil buddies, and no one else.
3/23/2004 2:29:05 PM
(Cont., III):Latest update: the Chicago Tribune is reporting that the U.S. is building 14 long-term bases in Iraq, major facilities to house a large force for years to come.
So much for a speedy withdrawal. So much for letting Iraqis govern themselves. So much for our humanitarian disinterest in permanent domination of the Mideast.
This war was a power grab, plain and simple, seizing the region's second-largest oil reserves and letting us intimidate anyone we want in the region immediately. That many troops in the oilfields are a goad to use on OPEC for the benefit of Bush's and Cheney's oil buddies, and no one else.
lucilius
This is, by the way, the same tyrant actually funded and supplied by previous Republican presidents; and of whom Bush I gave a very cogent argument for avoiding in his own autobiography: if we did it without substantial international help and a clear threat to U.S. interests, we'd be bogged down for years, restoring order in a country full of angry factions; and we'd lose whatever international support we had. Surprise, surprise: it's happened. Looks like Junior was too dumb even to read Daddy's book.
Did the Iraqis need to be rid of Hussein? Sure. But answer this: how many dead Americans is he worth?
3/23/2004 10:36:08 AM
(Cont., II):This is, by the way, the same tyrant actually funded and supplied by previous Republican presidents; and of whom Bush I gave a very cogent argument for avoiding in his own autobiography: if we did it without substantial international help and a clear threat to U.S. interests, we'd be bogged down for years, restoring order in a country full of angry factions; and we'd lose whatever international support we had. Surprise, surprise: it's happened. Looks like Junior was too dumb even to read Daddy's book.
Did the Iraqis need to be rid of Hussein? Sure. But answer this: how many dead Americans is he worth?
lucilius
How 'bout the emerging scandal of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, grossly inflating prices for just about everything it's doing in Iraq?
Then there's Cheney's secret policy-writing confab with his big-oil buds. If they weren't paying for legislation, then why all the secrecy about who was there and what they got for their campaign contributions?
As for Sept. 11, you will remember that it did happen on Bush's watch, more than seven months after he took over. If you'd been keeping up, you would have heard how Bush ignored increasingly desperate calls for some attention to al-Qaeda well before Sept. 11. Richard Clarke's revelation is only the most recent.
Nor has anyone defended Saddam Hussein's murderous tendencies; that's a lie, and you damn well know it. Nobody wanted him to remain in power. But the "humanitarian" angle on why we did so only emerged after the weapons-of-mass-destruction claim proved bogus, and stories of his connection to Sept. 11 turned out to be lies.
3/23/2004 10:35:44 AM
(Cont.):How 'bout the emerging scandal of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, grossly inflating prices for just about everything it's doing in Iraq?
Then there's Cheney's secret policy-writing confab with his big-oil buds. If they weren't paying for legislation, then why all the secrecy about who was there and what they got for their campaign contributions?
As for Sept. 11, you will remember that it did happen on Bush's watch, more than seven months after he took over. If you'd been keeping up, you would have heard how Bush ignored increasingly desperate calls for some attention to al-Qaeda well before Sept. 11. Richard Clarke's revelation is only the most recent.
Nor has anyone defended Saddam Hussein's murderous tendencies; that's a lie, and you damn well know it. Nobody wanted him to remain in power. But the "humanitarian" angle on why we did so only emerged after the weapons-of-mass-destruction claim proved bogus, and stories of his connection to Sept. 11 turned out to be lies.
lucilius
The decisive state disqualifies thousands of legal voters in heavily Democratic areas through a bogus process run by a major Republican contributor; disallows absentee ballots from Democrats while counting illegal votes from Republicans; rewards the architect of this process with an unopposed Congressional seat; has the deal sealed by a divided Supreme Court, on which two close friends of the "winner" sit, and two of whose children are quickly rewarded with administration jobs.
Then let's talk about ignoring the California energy crisis (caused by Reagan-era deregulation, by the way), as Republican-buddy corporations including Enron gouged the state into bankruptcy.
3/23/2004 10:34:57 AM
What corruption? Well, let's start with the 2000 election. (I know, you'll say "Haven't you gotten over that yet?", but we're talking about a the theft of the most powerful office in the world. I'm sure Georgie-boy would love for us to forget.)The decisive state disqualifies thousands of legal voters in heavily Democratic areas through a bogus process run by a major Republican contributor; disallows absentee ballots from Democrats while counting illegal votes from Republicans; rewards the architect of this process with an unopposed Congressional seat; has the deal sealed by a divided Supreme Court, on which two close friends of the "winner" sit, and two of whose children are quickly rewarded with administration jobs.
Then let's talk about ignoring the California energy crisis (caused by Reagan-era deregulation, by the way), as Republican-buddy corporations including Enron gouged the state into bankruptcy.
ElGabilon
3/22/2004 7:53:22 PM
If the US does not know what to focus on here are a few items: Poverty, Lack of School Funding, Child Slavery, Kiddnaped children being used for world prostitution, jobs going overseas, lack of jobs, a deficit that is beyond belief, Congresspersons taking PAC monies and disregarding the best interests of the nation, Too many subsidies to business, to much money going to foreign countries, an income tax that needs revision, a crackdown on business who fail to pay taxes, a curb on religious organizations who are tax exempt from interfering in politics, the arrest, conviction and punishing of anyone who breaks federal law regardless of their status, the cleanup of the District of Columbia which is a responsibility of the US Congress, The withdrawal of American troops for 120 different countries, the list is endless.
ElGabilon
3/22/2004 7:46:25 PM
It was a mistake for the US to go to war with Iraq, especially when we had not concluded our war in Afghanistan. This unjustified attack has united radical Islam. The Spanish have suffered the consequences. Although true that Sadamn killed many of his people, there are those who are worse than he and we have done nothing...especially in North Korea who HAS atomic weapons whereas Iraq did not. This attack on Iraq was a personal vendetta by the US President to get even for the attempted assination of the first George Bush. Note please that the Vice President is into Oil, and the Defense Secratary is into Drugs. Then ask yourself what is the most costly things in your everyday life.
kaveh500
chracks
totaly
scandle
mutral
liberail
defrent
3/22/2004 4:57:00 PM
Acolytejohn; you mispelled the following words:chracks
totaly
scandle
mutral
liberail
defrent