The Forum > Article Comments > Bush's legacy > Comments
Bush's legacy : Comments
By MA Khan, published 3/2/2009Bush's war on terror and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have played a central role in creating an awareness of Islam.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ›
- All
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 10:36:45 AM
| |
The article neglects two aspects of Bush’s presidency. He conducted neither a war against terror nor a war against radical Islam. He used the concept of both ‘wars’ to suit his purposes.
In conducting a war against terror one must confront it wherever it appears and cooperate with other entities in such a war even though we may disagree with them in some respects. A Cubana Airlines plane plummeted into the Caribbean Sea just before noon on Oct. 6, 1976. All 73 people on board died, including teenage members of Cuba's national fencing team. President Bush's post-Sept. 11 credo was that nations that harbor terrorists are guilty of terrorism. Luis Posada Carriles, a main suspect in the bombing was held on immigration charges in the United States. Bush refused to send Carriles to Cuba since the Cubans might torture him. Since the Bush administration used torture this is another inconsistency. Through the cooperation of the Bush administration a terrorism suspect never was called to account. Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. However, he was secular and no threat to the United States. Iraqi schools educated women, and there were female university professors in his Iraq. For those and other reasons Al Qaeda opposed Saddam Hussein. Bush manufactured a false connection of Hussein with Al Qaeda and with other lies to justify his act invaded Iraq. MA Khan also wrote: “We have noticed the hypocrisy of Europeans: they overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for his naïve but goody-goody gestures towards Islam, while a great majority of them feel uncomfortable with Muslims living among them: their attitude towards Islam is hardening, becoming unfavourable.” Obama opposed the war against Iraq from the beginning. Far from being naïve he saw through the manipulations of the Busherei in pushing the US into an unnecessary and stupid war. Less wise politicians such as Hillary Clinton supported the war. As an American citizen I feel much safer with Obama guiding my country than I felt with Bush. Posted by david f, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 11:03:42 AM
| |
I really do not understand the point of this type of article. The premise appears to be that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the rest of humanity and that therefore we are in some sort of existential war with the entire Moslem population of the world.
There are roughly 1.3 bn Moslems worldwide. If his premise is correct, the only solution is to convert them all or kill them all. From Australia's perspective, we are presumably supposed to see enemies in many of our nearest neighbours, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. Presumably we should also be terrified of the half a million Moslems who live here. What are we supposed to do? Forcibly convert them? Throw them all in jail? Throw them out of the country? Refuse to trade with them or allow them to visit Australia? This sounds like the perfect recipe for a safer country and a safer world! I would love to know what MA Khan's solution to this premise is. He claims: "Only by exposing Islam's design - based on its religious foundations - against the rest of humanity can this age-old menace to humanity be neutralised forever.". What exactly does he mean? Even assuming that the non-Moslem world agrees that Islam is inherently dangerous, how precisely would the menace be neutralised forever? Perhaps they would all spontaneously combust - or realise with a flash of insight that they should all become Christians instead. I personally would rather accept that the vast majority of Moslems have absolutely no desire or intention to incorporate the rest of the world into some sort of medieval Islamic caliphate, and that we can definitely live side by side with peoples of multiple faiths and ideals. After all that is what the evidence shows, despite whatever careful selective quoting from the Koran people like MA Khan choose to use. Thank heaven we now have a President in the White House who sees Moslems as people like him (or his grandfather!) rather than as some evil other. Posted by Cazza, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 11:27:32 AM
| |
Cazza writes
'Thank heaven we now have a President in the White House who sees Moslems as people like him (or his grandfather!) rather than as some evil other.' Typical of the Islamic apologist where they clearly refuse to see that the ideology behind Islam is the problem not the people. Any President that supports abortion is just as evil as a terrorist or someone who calls themselves a Christian and still supports legalised murder. The problem is the belief system not the people entrapped in it. The reality is that Islam has kept most Muslims so backward that most can't even read or write. Many Muslims are far nicer people than many Secularist or churchgoers. That has nothing to do with what the Koran teaches. They are bad Muslims if they love infidels. Some pople refuse to get it until one of their own is blown up. Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 12:08:08 PM
| |
If we are to fairly judge the legacy of President George W Bush, then we need to learn the truth about the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The official explanation does not make sense and is full of gaping inconsistencies, and makes no account of a great deal of eyewitness testimony, including many of mysterious explosions in the World Trade Centres prior to their 'collapses'. In fact, there is abundant conclusive evidence that all three 'collapses' including the third 'collapsed' tower WTC 7 which was not even hit by a plane, were controlled demolitions. Even on the the day, news commentators commented on the striking similarity between the observed 'collapses' of all three towers and controlled demolitions. Such engineering disasters have never occurred before and never occurred since. To have three such unprecedented engineering disasters occur on the same day is an impossible coincidence. The reports produced by the 9/11 Commission and NIST to explain the 9/11 attacks and the WTC 'collapses' have been shown to be cover-ups rather than true investigations. Those demanding a new and proper investigation are listed on http://patriotsquestion911.com For further information, see "9/11 Truth" discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76, "Architects and Engineeers fo 9/11 Truth" at http://ae911truth.org http911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org http://firefightersfor911truth.org http://9110z.com etc., etc., etc. Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 12:21:06 PM
| |
Dear runner,
Let's assume you're correct and that Islam is an evil ideology. Please can you explain what your solution to the problem would be - a solution that is both effective and moral, of course. Thanks Cazza Posted by Cazza, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 1:34:01 PM
| |
The author completely ignores the following points –
Islam and Judaism are law-based religions that lay out specific social rules but that alone doesn’t necessarily make them incompatible with the rest of the world. The modern radicalisation of Islam is the result of the deliberate interference and exploitation of the Middle East, specifically by the USA and Britain. It can be directly traced back to the manipulated overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran in 1953, the ongoing support and sponsoring of quasi-kingdoms, republics and despots in the region as well as the training and subsequent betrayal of paramilitary groups in Afghanistan. Bush’s legacy will be that he deliberately avoided addressing the reasons behind the causes of this radicalism and only exploited the situation for local political and economic gain. Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 1:49:21 PM
| |
Dear Runner
See http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1578/article_detail.asp for reviews of two books, “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In” by Hugh Kennedy and God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570 to 1215, by David Levering Lewis. From the review: “The subject is the Battle of Poitiers, which English schoolboys of my generation were presented with as the Battle of Tours. This was the occasion in A.D. 732 when the Frankish ruler Charles "the Hammer" Martel defeated an Islamic army that had crossed the Pyrenees into France. Had [Muslim general] 'Abd al-Rahman's men prevailed that October day, the post-Roman Occident would probably have been incorporated into a cosmopolitan, Muslim regnum unobstructed by borders...one devoid of a priestly caste, animated by the dogma of equality of the faithful, and respectful of all religious faiths. ...[T]he victory of Charles the Hammer must be seen as greatly contributing to the creation of an economically retarded, balkanized, fratricidal Europe that, in defining itself in opposition to Islam, made virtues out of religious persecution, cultural particularism, and hereditary aristocracy.” Just think if the Muslims had won there would not have been the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation along with the other evils of intolerant, murderous Christianity. I think that the wrong side won. It is hard for me to think that Islamic rule would have been worse than what happened with Christianity. Posted by david f, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 2:27:14 PM
| |
Cazza
'Let's assume you're correct .." A good start is tell the truth as to what the Koran and its followers teach. You might or might not like Christianity but at least its teachings are not hidden. I might not like some aspects of secularism but at least its teachings are public knowledge. Telling the truth is the first solution. Peoples loathing of Bush is often due to their own inner corruption. It is interesting that the Dala Lama is one of Bushes biggest fans. Work that one out. Even he is smart enough to know "They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said. ' http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/dalai_lama_terrorism_resistant.html Secondly we should be a lot tighter with our immigration laws. To allow people who think Western women are meat and that Jews and Christians are dogs is asking for trouble and resentment. The number of rapes in Sydney by Muslim men on woman need to be publicized and not hidden by some pc ideology. Thirdly we should expose the press who blame every terrorist act (killing of innocent children) as the fault of the West. This victim mentality given to these criminals only encourages more blood shed. Some of the 9/11 terrorist were American trained doctors brainwashed by ideology. You can't blame the West for that ideology. We should insist on some sort of balance from our chronically inept and corrupt national broadcasters. Fourthly we could acknowledge that Islamic countries as a whole are very unpleasant places to live especially if you are a woman. You are likely to be denied an education, an opinion, freedom of religion or freedom of non religion. You are likely to be circumcised if you are a woman and live in a pig pen. You are right Cazza in implying that their are no easy answers to these issues. I do not propose violence against Muslims or anyone else. What I do propose is a truthful understanding of the issues. At least this would be a good starting point Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 3:02:15 PM
| |
Bush Legacy Truth
In the interest of Truthful and Accurate History; the 2006 book that accounts for all of George W. Bush’s mindless exploits on September 11, is now posted online for free reading. http://www.bushseptember11legacy.com/ Ron Schalow Author Bull$#!@ Artist – The 9/11 Leadership Myth Posted by rschalow, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 3:05:19 PM
| |
Cazza,
Thats the problem. There is no solution. Unless and until the Koranic trilogy is bought into the modern world that book is always going to be the source of trouble.That isnt going to happen The Koran has a history and that is indisputable. It isnt the immutable word of anyone other than the fertile imagination of bunch of Arabs,hell bent on conquest and control, as a well as rape and pillage. How can one beat the huge sums of money being poured into its propogation by the Saudis and Ahmadinejad et al, and the rantings of thousands of mad mullahs of all persuasions, spewwng stuff that is straight out the 11th century. The stats in this document show just what a lie the concept of Jihad being an inner struggle is-- and thats just for starters http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/28244/sec_id/28244 It is going to get a lot worse before it may even look like getting better-- if it does so at all Posted by bigmal, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 4:23:35 PM
| |
Runner,
You mention "the number of rapes in Sydney by Muslim men" as if you are aware of some statistic. Given that even last year, 81% of victims were Australian, that typically around 70% of victims know their attacker plus the fact that alcohol is a significant factor - particularly in gang-rapes - these factors seem to suggest that the average rapist is less likely to be a Muslim than a drunken family member or party-goer. Despite the horrific incidents of early 2001 and the anecdotal stories sensationalised in parts of the media ever since, I can't find anything to prove that rape is a cultural or religious phenomenon. If you have the official stats, I'd really be interested - or is this just the same sort of prejudicial thinking that the Christians earlier used toward the Jews. You're right about truthful understanding but hey, we used to burn witches for far less not so very long ago. Posted by rache, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 8:12:12 PM
| |
When the emotions of hate against the Bush administration cool down and people will be able to make an objective analysis of his war policies in the context of the great danger fanatical Islam posed and continues to do so to Western civilization, they will fully justify his Administration for its determination to confront this menacing danger with the force of arms. And history’s judgment about Bush will be more generous and SWEET than the liberal intelligentsia’s condemnation and BITTERNESS for being irretrievably wrong about the outcome of the war in Iraq.
http://civcontraislam.typepad.com Posted by Themistocles, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 9:01:07 PM
| |
Themistocles
Well said and spot on . Posted by bigmal, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 9:07:54 PM
| |
Big Mal and Themistocles...
I totally agree.. Just the other day some elections went nice smoothly in Iraq with bearly any boycotts in voting this time.. they were council elections al over Iraq I think. He did good. Posted by meredith, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 10:05:05 PM
| |
Bush's legacy
1. War in Iraq Did you see the Al-Qaeda in Iraq, cooperating with Santam? Bush had the proofs! did you see the weapons of mass distruction, nuclear, chemical, biological etc? Bush had the proofs! Did you see the imports of uranioun raw material from Nigira, from Santam? Bush had the proofs! Bush used lies to invate into Iraq, he violated the international law and he is responsible for hundrends thousands of lifes of innocent Iraqis. He must be in prison for crimes against humanity. 2. Human Rights Do you know how many innocent people abduct from CIA worldwide and tortured hard? You know the infamous Guandamo, a shame for our civilization, you know the terture of prisoners in Abu Grab,etc Bush violated the Human Rights with one milion ways, He had to be in prison for crimes against humanity. 3. Democracy With his laws, patriot acts he spied American people and violated their basics rights. Anyone who was against his extreme, crazy policy could considered as terorist threat and have big problems. He terorized American people! 4. Economic-Social policy. He is responsible for the financial crisis in USA and world wide. His wars costs trillion of dollars, which borrowed from overseas, about 50% of tax payers money went for his wars or for former wars. He did not spend enouph money for social programs and converted his country in a huge prison!. The USA is number one in prisoners and beyont from any competision with any country in the world. 5. He left free the big corporations to do everything they wanted and limited their taxes. The financial system did not colapse for no reason nor the white people voted Obama for no reason. 6. Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal court. He was totaly irresponsible and provoced the international community, he did not care for the environment, did not care for the future of our planet, he did not care for an international justice system. He was an international buller, an international cowboy. david f, YOU ARE A GOOD, PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN. Antonios Symeonakis Adelaid Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 1:23:13 AM
| |
He was a failed oilman.
Couldn't even make money in the family business. He lied repeatedly. He spied on his own people. He oversaw kidnapping and torture world wide. He knowingly consumed his own propaganda and called it evidence. (Howard too) He was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. God told him to do this. (Yes really!) He took the world's leading economy and in 10 years allowed it to be "restructured" to third world status. (Wait for it.) ...and from all this you conclude that his legacy was basically good because he stoked the flames of a religious war that has been going on for centuries? If Saddam was *really* a threat the CIA could have taken him out easily. Ever heard of "Project for the new American Century"? or "School of America"? You cannot understand the Bush era without understanding his peer group masters. Like Howard he is a dweeb who became a figurehead. Runner. You are murderous enough now. Imagine if your family had been bombed and empoverished for 50 years or so. You too would distrust and want to kill them. I can forgive blood lust if brought on by multiple deliberate family deaths. To stop this you need to stop bombing wedding parties, not bomb more! (Shouldn't this be common sense?) Let a generation grow up educated and free and they will depose the fanatics themselves, as they probably would have by now if the US and England didn't play terrorist themselves in the region. (School of America stuff again.) The only good legacy of Bush is the lesson (hopefully) learned. Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 8:55:44 AM
| |
Runner writes: ‘The reality is that Islam has kept most Muslims so backward that most can't even read or write.’
Here's an overview of literacy rates in a cross-section of Islamic nations: Kazakhstan 99.6%, Tajikistan 99.6%, Turkmenistan 99.6%, Azerbajan 99.3%, Kuwait 93%, Malaysia 91%, Indonesia 91%, Bahrain 88%, Turkey 88%, Saudi Arabia 84%. [Wikipedia] As for the controversial Islamic nations – the ones we are trying hard to save from themselves: Iraq’s literacy rate was 95% in 1991, but fell to 45% by 2004 and is now at 74%. Prior to 1991, Iraq had the highest literacy rate in the Middle East and won the UNESCO prize for literacy three years in a row (1987-9). [New Internationalist, #316] The dramatic drop between 1991 and 2004 was almost certainly due to crippling economic sanctions, followed by the US-led invasion in 2003. Iran’s literacy rate rose from 72% in 1980 to 88% in 1990, and is now at 85%, with a projected goal of 92% in 2015. [UNESCO] Unsurprisingly, Afghanistan’s literacy level is 28% (down from 35% in 1999) [Wikipedia] - which is almost certainly the product of 30 years of war and invasion (and before that, a history of education being available only for the rich), rather than Islam per se. Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 1:33:31 PM
| |
david f writes
'I think that the wrong side won. It is hard for me to think that Islamic rule would have been worse than what happened with Christianity.' In actual fact under Secularism you are far more likely to be a target of violence and/or murder than Islam or Christianity. The mother's womb is the most dangerous place to be under Secularism. Stalin and Mao murders in the name of secularism/atheism make the crusades look like kinder garden stuff. Your blatant bias in your conclusions from history are shown to be crap from the fact that no one wants to live in Islamic countries where people have always lined up to live in countries founded on Christian principles. In fact you would not be allowed to spew your vile in a Islamic nation. Your anti Christian views really do blind you of any reasonable conclusions Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 3:42:16 PM
| |
David F,
Whilst I strongly agree with Runners reasoning, I do agree that that is a pretty crazy statement... Are you actually saying you'd prefer to live under strict Islamic law over living within secular Christian society? Not the use of "under law" and "within society" these are the differences in the two... It comes down to religions thinking being able to be legally imposed on us or not. Posted by meredith, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 3:51:03 PM
| |
Give me one - just one - instance of Stalin or Mao citing atheism or secularism as a motive for killing.
Bush's Christianity is as much to blame for the mess he made as his Satanically evil offsiders are. Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 3:51:37 PM
| |
Sancho you ask
'Give me one - just one - instance of Stalin or Mao citing atheism or secularism as a motive for killing.' How about you giving one just one example of a death because someone is following the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching. One could easily argue that the Catholic church was acting a lot more like heathens, atheist, secularist or Muslims when killing innocent people. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 4:10:35 PM
| |
Meredith asked: Are you actually saying you'd prefer to live under strict Islamic law over living within secular Christian society?
Dear Meredith, I certainly prefer to live in the secular Christian society of Australia. However, I wrote: “Just think if the Muslims had won there would not have been the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation along with the other evils of intolerant, murderous Christianity. I think that the wrong side won. It is hard for me to think that Islamic rule would have been worse than what happened with Christianity.” My writing above clearly referred to an earlier period. Islamic society in the eighth century was a much kinder more tolerant society in general than Christianity. When Jews were expelled from Spain many of them fled to the Islamic dominions. Christian society has historically been murderous and intolerant. I don't think I have any anti-Christian prejudice. I just recognise the way things have been between Islamic and Christian societies for most of history. In medieval times Islamic universities had Buddhist, Christian and Jewish scholars while universities in Christian areas were restricted to Christians. My answer to your question depends on which secular, Christian society you are talking about. Secular, Christian societies still contain much of the hatred and prejudice promoted by Christianity. Nazi Germany was a secular, Christian society where the Christian churches in general backed Hitler and his murderous program. My chance for life in a society under strict Islamic law would be much better than in the secular Christian society of Nazi Germany. Posted by david f, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 7:01:31 PM
| |
In 1935, in a book called "It can't happen here", the author Sinclair Lewis said
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." In the West (and especially under the Bush regime) we have experienced - Extreme nationalism (you're either with us or against us), The disdain of human rights, Unprecedented secrecy, Military supremacy over domestic needs, Fraudulent elections, Suppression of labor power and the protection and strengthening of corporate power, Use of religion to manipulate public opinion, Tightly controlled mass media, Th sanctioned use of torture and The hatred of intellectuals... and the list goes on. All are typical symptoms of emerging and growing fascism. History will indeed be the judge. Since the time of the Roman Crassus, political success historically comes from the existence/creation of a dangerous enemy and the notion that only the encumbent can protect the voters. Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 11:03:27 PM
| |
David F
What is your problem with Christians? 1. We had some genosides from the colonists but do you know any better way to spread the christian spirit world wide? 2.We had 1-2 world wars between christians but this was only a test from the god, even after so many milions of deaths the holy christian spirit remained alive! That is the superiority of the christian spirit. 3. Thay was top crusaiders, but on the way to holy land many christian people lose their wealth or even their life. Muslim's blad, who died from the sharp swords of crusaiders, created a red river and their bodies a high maountain. If this is not a proof from the christian superiority then what is it. Even the Bush, before the attack of AL QEADA in New York, said, "Now we start a new crusaid" Poor muslim, get out from christian's way, Bush is coming! 4. Of cause we had the dark ages of cause christianity, but to be honest these years was not dark at all, as the representatives of the christian god followed his advices. Lucky Galilaio you had to die on the flames! 5. Christians was the best slave traders, but do you know how many churches created from the slaves? do you know how usefull was the slaves to christians? They was a bless from the god! 6. Forget the women! is not the god man? was not the woman responsble for the lost paradise? Women must obey to men! That is a direct order from the christian god! It is not only the christian representatives who speak direct with the god, Bush very often speaks to the god. In realy the war in Iraq was in to the god's plan. In the war against terror, the christian god converted to a war lord! Antonios Symeonakis Adelaide Posted by ASymeonakis, Thursday, 5 February 2009 1:53:15 AM
| |
Dear Antonios,
Your great post follows in its beautiful entirety: “David F What is your problem with Christians? 1. We had some genosides from the colonists but do you know any better way to spread the christian spirit world wide? 2.We had 1-2 world wars between christians but this was only a test from the god, even after so many milions of deaths the holy christian spirit remained alive! That is the superiority of the christian spirit. 3. Thay was top crusaiders, but on the way to holy land many christian people lose their wealth or even their life. Muslim's blad, who died from the sharp swords of crusaiders, created a red river and their bodies a high maountain. If this is not a proof from the christian superiority then what is it. Even the Bush, before the attack of AL QEADA in New York, said, "Now we start a new crusaid" Poor muslim, get out from christian's way, Bush is coming! 4. Of cause we had the dark ages of cause christianity, but to be honest these years was not dark at all, as the representatives of the christian god followed his advices. Lucky Galilaio you had to die on the flames! 5. Christians was the best slave traders, but do you know how many churches created from the slaves? do you know how usefull was the slaves to christians? They was a bless from the god! 6. Forget the women! is not the god man? was not the woman responsble for the lost paradise? Women must obey to men! That is a direct order from the christian god! It is not only the christian representatives who speak direct with the god, Bush very often speaks to the god. In realy the war in Iraq was in to the god's plan. In the war against terror, the christian god converted to a war lord!” You are a true Greek inspired by the spirit of Aristophanes. Evoe! Posted by david f, Thursday, 5 February 2009 8:10:27 AM
| |
Thermi
Spot on. George Bush is the only US president in 63 years to have put the US in a winning position in a hot war. That sticks in the craw of the socialists. (Ronnie of course won the cold war) That is only one of several striking positive outcomes the US achieved under his custodianship of the Office of US president. History will indeed view him favourably. His unpopularity is reversable ... the facts evidencing his success arn't. Meredith, Not only were the Iraqi regional council elections run smoothly but by all accounts the voters to have chosen almost exclusively secular candidates... they appear to have dumped rule by a theoracy and that fact appears very much at odds with many of the the claims in the article as well as with it's overall thrust. It's not hard to work out when intolerance, bigotry and racism appear ... facts just go straight out the window. Now here is another highly relevant fact most people are not aware of, the fact the GDP of Iraq is currently 30% higher than the best it ever was under Saddam. Not only has he won the war but he might even have won the peace. He's put the Iraqis on a road to a sustainable economic and democratic basis. He might even eventually be credited with leading the mid east onto the path to peace ... as long as Obama doesn't stuff up all the successes. Regards to you both. Posted by keith, Thursday, 5 February 2009 12:47:58 PM
| |
*That is only one of several striking positive outcomes the US achieved under his custodianship of the Office of US president. History will indeed view him favourably*
Hehe, of course Keith :) Even the Economist, not exactly a socialist rag, admits to what a dummy he has been. George of course drove the global economy into a ditch, now Obama has to try and hire some tow trucks to tow it out. As we are now finding out, his regime called off any FBI investigations into corporate fraud, they were diverted to searching for Osama under the bed. Wall St would regulate itself they said. Yeah sure lol. Nothing was achieved in Iraq, that could not have been achieved with the use of a couple of missiles and some good intelligence. You don't need to kill hundreds of thousands of people, when you are after just three of them, ie Saddam and the two boys. George will go down in history as one of the biggest dummies on earth, who nearly bankrupted the US economy and sent the global economy into a tailspin like has seldom been seen in human history. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 5 February 2009 1:48:38 PM
| |
And of course Yabby you still can't back your opinions with logical evidence. You are still just mouthing off hysterically held beliefs.
Have you sold those shares yet? It's time. Posted by keith, Thursday, 5 February 2009 9:19:09 PM
| |
Mr Bush didn't do this Yabby, The Dems did with loans to people with no means of paying them back, who were really stupid to take them.
Would you loan money you couldn't pay back? That is a dumb thing on both sides... nothing to do with Mr Bush or the Republicans... Posted by meredith, Thursday, 5 February 2009 9:22:31 PM
| |
<< Not only were the Iraqi regional council elections run smoothly but by all accounts the voters to have chosen almost exclusively secular candidates... they appear to have dumped rule by a theocracy >>
Your ignorance is truly astonishing. Iraq was always secular, as you'd know if you'd bothered to learn the slightest thing about it. That's one reason the Americans and British put Hussein in charge of the place, and why Osama bin Laden hated him. Theocracy only became a threat after the invasion created a power vacuum. --- << How about you giving one just one example of a death because someone is following the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching. One could easily argue that the Catholic church was acting a lot more like heathens, atheist, secularist or Muslims when killing innocent people. >> Ah, so you mean that when Christians maim and slaughter in the name of Christ, they're not actually maiming and slaughtering in the name of Christ? That'd come as a shock to thousands of goodly Crusaders and Inquisitors. But it gets better: when Christians kill, they're actually atheists or Muslims! Oh, and can you point me the atheist or secularist holy book? The one that has all the bits about killing? Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 5 February 2009 9:43:29 PM
| |
*Mr Bush didn't do this Yabby *
Actually Meredith, he did. As Prez, for most of the time he had control of both houses, he and Dick ran the show. He was Prez, he had the choice to do as he pleased. He ignored those who screamed that there was a problem. It was his administration who took FBI agents off corporate fraud and put them onto the the Osama under the bed hunt. It was his administration who decided that Wall St could rule itself, no Govt involvement was required. It was his administration who appointed the head of the SEC, which became a toothless tiger. This stuff is openly discussed on Bloomberg TV and commentators largely agree on these points. Now that is hardly a left wing tv station, but at the heart of corporate America. Things really went nuts in the US in 03-04-05-06-07, all years when George and Dick ruled. The buck stops with them. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:06:10 PM
| |
Yabby, Yeh no problem, in part you may be right... Maybe he didn't clean up all their mess for them, but it doesn't change it was the Dems that did this.
The logic here is left-wing... and it sucked. Have what you can't afford... Posted by meredith, Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:25:44 PM
| |
'Theocracy only became a threat after the invasion created a power vacuum.'
Eubbish. Theoracy is a threat eveyrwhere in the mid east and always has been. In the first round of provincial elections the majority of candidates were selected along religious lines. Remember Moktar al Sadr and his Mardi Army? Remember the influence of Iran in the Southern and Border regions where representative were openly supportive of Iran. That's all gone now. This is a fact and is not a display of ignorance. Posted by keith, Saturday, 7 February 2009 6:17:33 PM
|
I particularly like this one. http://www.howardbloom.net/islam.htm
The author also proffers an interesting thesis re the functions of MEMES and their inevitable drive to endlessly expand via conflict and the conquest of ALL other memes.
That having being said the auhor of this most makes this statemet: "Allahs ultimate goal of creating a global Islamic state".
This statement is pure B-S.
Allah is the Islamic name for the formless Indivisible Divine Conscious Light which by its very nature has no goals or aims of any kind whatsoever. Other religious and Spiritual traditions use different names to describe this Formless Divine Conscious Light.
What is true however that both Islam and Christianity are now engaged in a fight to the death war for global rulership. Such a war being the INEVITABLE HIS-torical outcomes of the drive to total power and control at the root of these would be world-conquering totalitarian MEMES.
Plus both Islam and Christianity reinforce these power drives with the insistance that they (each) possess the "one true faith/way/revelation" and that their tribalistic "god" has thus given them a "divine" mandate to convert all of humankind to the "one true way"---using whatever means they can, including of course violent conquest and murder of those who will not submit.
Of course global capitalism which is an extension of, or a variant upon, Christianity is also a major player or world conquering MEME in the now deadly universal drama being played out on the world stage.
The capitalist meme of course being even MORE DEADLY than either of the two "religious" memes.
It doesnt even pretend to offer an integrated moral vision of the good life---just never-ending amoral consumerism.
Plus capitalism has a huge almost unstoppable historical momentum behind it---the momentum of over three millenia of the drive to total power and control. Lewis Mumford, in The Pentagon of Power describes the origins, developments and consequences of this global power drive.
It has already ground all Tradition based cultures to rubble.