Bush's visit to Britain

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
I hope you do not support fascism and Islamo-fascism.

In no way can any Islamic or Islamic inspired Republic ever be described as Fascist.

Hindis can be Fascist, because they support a caste system. Jews can be Fascist because they believe that they are the chosen people. Secularized Christans can be Fascist becasue they believe in social darwinism.
Shintoists can be Fascist because they believe they are the children of the sun.

Islam is the purest form of Republicanism there is. Yet they are not Democratic. That is because Democracy breeds inequality, injustice and Racism, all of these social sicknesses Islam considers evil.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


I read New York Times, L. A Times, and listen to the VOX POP here on Apolyton. Still I would say their spin on it is that the war is going badly. Many Americans are tired of the crap too.

You might say that the war is going well according to the present plan, which is a different plan from what they had yesterday, and the day before yesterday. Naturally if it was a goalkeepers plan to let the ball pass then that might be termed a succes by him, but I don't think his team-mates would think that.

The Wall Street Journal just had a piece on just how left-biased the NYTimes and LATimes are, using statistics to demonstrate the bias. They are highly partisan apologists for the Democrat party. Democrats are now spinning the war negatively in order to attack Bush, These two papers have adopted an Bash-Bush editorial policy on Iraq where before they supported our war against Afghanistan because the Democrats were on board for that one.

In posts a couple of weeks ago, I inquired whether anyone in Europe and Canada could get FOX or MSNBC? No one could. The people of Europe seem to have no access to media with that is not in the leftist spin mode except for perhaps a few, marginal right-wing hate rags that probably give nothing but spin in the other direction.

As I said, MSNBC has a full week of in-depth analysis on Iraq last week on the Chris Mathews show. He is a Democrat. It is important to know this so that you in Europe do not dismiss the conclusions as some sort of Republican spin. The conclusion of the show is that things are going well in Iraq overall, ranging from very well in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas, to fairly well in the Sunni areas where the Sunni Ba'athists continue to provide some resistance.

Soon the occuppation will formally end with a new, elected, Iraqi government. Democratic institutions will have been installed. A basic law guaranteeing human, civil and political rights will have been passed.

These are the facts. Do you fundamentally disagree with them?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Islam is the purest form of Republicanism there is. Yet they are not Democratic. That is because Democracy breeds inequality, injustice and Racism, all of these social sicknesses Islam considers evil.

Before I react, I would like you to explain this a little more because it does appear that you are against democracies and in favor of Islamic states.

[Sandman]

Once, again, just because he doesn't like your 'laws' doesn't mean he is against a world of laws.

Doesn't mean he is for it either.

Well that's mostly what he talks about. A world of democracies who fight against terror. An outlawing of terrorism by the countries of the world who will fight together against it.

Taking steps to halt terrorism is not the same as wanting a world of laws. Seeing as how Iraq had little to do with Al Qaeda, this 'fight against terrorism' appears to being used as a way to advance America's interests. It's like using the laws against stealing as an excuse to prosecute speeding drivers.

A good portion of his allies are not democratic, either. In fact, Wolfie castigated the Turkish military for NOT overiding their Parliament.

He already has. The laws that Western countries follow with respect to terrorist groups, at the very least, are laws that he has backed. Democratization of the ME will help lead to these laws, seeing as most terrorist groups seem to be based there.

I very much doubt that ME countries do not have laws prohibiting murder and the destruction of property. Which is what terrorism is, after all. And what about the hordes of terrorists in the rest of the world, many of them based in democratic countries?

Both democracies and dictatorships suffer from terrorism. Both have terrorists hiding in their countries. Both fund terrorism when it suits them.

What the 'war on terror' does provide is a nice cover for all sorts of shenanigans. Propping up compliant dictators, new markets for companies and repressive legislation back home.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
Sandman, what the US wants is democratic governments that protect human, civil and political rights rather than trample on them. I hope you share this overall objective. I hope you do not support fascism and Islamo-fascism.

But your idea that the US could simply lay down the law and have other nations simply voluntarily accede to them is somewhat ridiculous if you think about it for a few seconds. What fascist regime will voluntarily give power to the people?

Your first paragraph is nothing but a troll.

The notion that the US should simply lay down the law is ridiculous. Because international laws have to be built on consensus, not invented by America. And that means taking measures to build up the international community. Not tearing it down in order to settle a score with a third-rate tyrant, before trying to justify it with the very institutions which America constantly undermines.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Your first paragraph is nothing but a troll.

The fact that you actually believe it is a troll demonstrates your pre-disposed hostility to the United States.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned


Before I react, I would like you to explain this a little more because it does appear that you are against democracies and in favor of Islamic states.

Not really, since I am an atheist. I just think that this continuing refusal to understand what the ideals of Islam are is counter-productive.

And, hey, America is a Republic you know. It is not a Democracy.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Nice try at ducking the issue.

Would you care to articulate a policy, or do you just want to keep signing oil contracts with these kind folks?

In contrast to the Bushies, I'm not interested in Iraq's oil.

Btw, this thread is hilariously stupid, even for poly standards. ned is just absolutely amazing.

On the issue: You asked for a general policy. But you talk about Iraq which clearly is a special case based on extreme hypocrisy. So do you want the Iraq policy applied to every crazy regime?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taking steps to halt terrorism is not the same as wanting a world of laws.

So Bush is against the humantarian law? He is against the law of the seas? Aren't those part of a 'world of laws'. Or, by 'world of laws' do you mean everything is codified by world 'government'.

A good portion of his allies are not democratic, either. In fact, Wolfie castigated the Turkish military for NOT overiding their Parliament.

So having a military check means that a country is not democratic? They have an elected parliament that makes most of the decision in the country. They aren't an autocracy.

Seeing as how Iraq had little to do with Al Qaeda, this 'fight against terrorism' appears to being used as a way to advance America's interests.

Bush is a neoconservative. It means he thinks America's interests are in promoting friendly democratic regimes.

I very much doubt that ME countries do not have laws prohibiting murder and the destruction of property. Which is what terrorism is, after all.

Yes, and countries like Saudi Arabia and the such have really used those murder and destruction of property laws to prosecute terrorists . Laws on the books are nothing if they are not used.

What the 'war on terror' does provide is a nice cover for all sorts of shenanigans. Propping up compliant dictators, new markets for companies and repressive legislation back home.

You were speaking of trolls?

[Tripledoc]

Ned.
Regarding your understanding of European media I would have to say they are somewhat deficient. All European media are essentially capitalist. The BBC was pro-war for instance. they like to hide behind a sort of hypocritical communist attitude, but in reality they are pro-war. They just think, mistakenly, that it will make them more authoritative if they throw a bone to the anti-Americans once in a while. The Economist was pro war.

I dont know much about each individual country, but here In Denmark we have three major national newspapers. One Facsist which was pro-war (naturally). One Monarchial which was pro-war. One Social-Democrat which was sort of wishy washy Saddam-is-a-horrible-dictator-but-bush-is horrible-too-but-we-are cowering-idiots-so-we-will-do-what-you-say.

Then there is the tabloids. One populist which have since been instrumental in causing a thorough investigation at the highest level of why on earth Denmark ever sent troops to Iraq. Another does not even know there is a war on.

Then there is a Communist one which is anti-war which is read by maybe 3000 people.

So to say that the media is slanted to the left in Europe is simply emphatically wrong.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Ned


In posts a couple of weeks ago, I inquired whether anyone in Europe and Canada could get FOX or MSNBC? No one could...

Say that again?

Then I've been fooled big time!! I really thought that I was watching That 70's show on FOX but thanks to you I know now it's really a rip off!

Sue them I say! SUE THEM!!!!




Spec.

[Sandman]

The fact that you actually believe it is a troll demonstrates your pre-disposed hostility to the United States.

Reasoning with you is like wading through treacle. Your paragraph had nothing to do with my point, and contained a veiled insult by suggesting that I was fascist or 'Islamo-fascist'.

So Bush is against the humantarian law? He is against the law of the seas? Aren't those part of a 'world of laws'. Or, by 'world of laws' do you mean everything is codified by world 'government'.

I didn't say that Bush is against all international laws. And it's pretty clear that Wilson meant more than the pre-existing stuff like the laws of the sea when he was talking about his 'world of laws'.

What's the 'humanitarian law'? That could mean anything.

IMO, a world of laws doesn't entail a far stronger world government than we have now; the UN.

So having a military check means that a country is not democratic? They have an elected parliament that makes most of the decision in the country. They aren't an autocracy.

Nice strawman. My point was a high-ranking US official expressing the opinion that Turkey was TOO democratic, not whether Turkey was a democracy or not, which it is, for the most part. Although I didn't phrase it too well, I admit. You must agree that other US allies in the 'war' on 'terror' are not exactly beacons of democracy.

Bush is a neoconservative. It means he thinks America's interests are in promoting friendly democratic regimes.

The problem with that is that a democratic 'regime' has no innate reason to be friendly with the US. And I'm pretty sure he places 'friendly' before 'democratic' when deciding how to pursue America's interests.

Yes, and countries like Saudi Arabia and the such have really used those murder and destruction of property laws to prosecute terrorists . Laws on the books are nothing if they are not used.

I wouldn't say prosecute. More like locked in jail with the key thrown away.

You were speaking of trolls?

Sorry. Although the fact that a scheme as monstrous as 'TIPS' was actually proposed scares the hell out of me.

[Ned]

HO, Admit it. You are a socialist and would oppose anything Bush does or did on general priniciples?

[Ned]

Sandman, When I said the US wants democratic governments, etc., and that I hope you shared that goal, you called this a troll. I assume that you do want democratic governments. So the reason you said this was a troll is that you do not believe we have good intentions.

Now. Is that better?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler {Trolls snipped}
So do you want the Iraq policy applied to every crazy regime?

No. Which was precisely the point of asking for effective alternatives. Now will you please answer the question?