George W. Bush

---

Do some more thinking about it...you've only scratched the surface of what would happen should Islamic countries go democratic. Think economics, consumerism and women...yes, women. In a democratic country their roles in society would change greatly from what they are today. They might eventually even go to work and broadent the consumer base. Hmmmm.

In reply to:What I'm saying is that if the US had not gone into Iraq that Saddam AND his WMD would still be there. The WMD was not moved to Syria until AFTER the US entered into Iraq. The convoy (by land) was seen by infra-red satellite but was about 100 miles away from the nearest US troops...no way to stop them. The whole objective of the war in Iraq, according to Bush, was to get the WMD and to remove Saddam from power. If they spotted a convoy only a 100 miles away that could have been transporting anything from WMD to Saddam himself, the US would have sent jets to check it out as soon as possible. Any number of the USAF supersonic jets could have made it out there in minutes. Even a group of Black Hawk helicopters could have made it in a little over an hour.

It was spotted right near the border of Syria by infra-red, at night, by satellite. What could a jet or black-hawk do anyway? Blow it up and spread it to the wind? Not a good idea.

A group of Black Hawks with a specialist team inside could have intercepted it and slowed them down at the very least until more forces could have gotten there. It seems rather stupid for them to allow the weapons to get away just because they were 100 miles away. In todays day and age, 100 miles is nothing!

Sitting right on the Syrian border...no, we didn't have time to stop them even with helicopters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what might have been in them (we didn't know for sure at the time). Interesting how the media probably figured the same...which is why they aired the episode once, then never again. Every other little thing we had to watch once every 20 minutes on CNN until something else developed. Can't be letting folks think maybe Saddam had WMD after all, now can we.

So you think that the media is out to get Bush?

There is no doubt about it at all...none whatsoever.

They're always looking for a scandal to print about, but if there's a republican president in office they'll cut him down any chance they get and twice on Sundays. Misrepresenting the truth (or at least ignoring it) is something they won't hesitate to do.

"...should Islamic countries go democratic. Think economics, consumerism and women...yes, women. In a democratic country their roles in society would change greatly from what they are today. They might eventually even go to work and broadent the consumer base."Leaving aside, for a moment, the extremist and terrorist and only giving regard to the average person on the street or in the field... As is suggested in many articles that study the issue, what if that's not what they want? What if they don't want to be consumers, what if they don't want radical change is their societal roles, what if they don't want a secular government?As far as these things would have no effect on our own freedoms, should we respect their own wants and desires or impose our own thoughts of what their future should be? Does or should what they want, claim to want, have any bearing on their future?

Well then do you not think that if the media found out that Bush let the WMD be transported out of Iraq, would they not highlight this as a massive blunder on his part?

"..should we respect their own wants and desires or impose our own thoughts of what their future should be?
Does or should what they want, claim to want, have any bearing on their future?"
Unfortunately OldFolks, from what I see going on in the world and from some of the opinions I've read on here, the above concepts don't have the slightest measure of bearing for some people. As far as people of that mindset are concerned a nation's right to self-governance is only applicable in the countries in which they themselves reside.

In reply to: Do you think you have the right to put words in my mouth? You havnt even addressed the points in my previous post and the points you make are rediculous. As soon as you realised your previous points are retarded (featuring silly presumptions about the situation in the UK, modern and historical) you've switched your arguement to a completely different angle. Your right I dont care about Iraqi national dignity. But what you've done is misinformation about a situation, which is worse (and yes, insulting). It really is just plain stupid to refer to Britain as England. Tony Blair and his likely successor Grodon Brown are Scots for example, so this is clearly not a solely English war. If nothing else, the term "British" makes sense. To use the word England is insulting and quite simply incorrect and nothing you say changes that. Nothing about my poltiical beliefs changes the fact that there are Scots and Walians in Iraq. When you use the word "English" to describe that war you are commiting a fallacy. Your right that nationality is a personal issue, it is in each and every one of our own minds. But England just doesnt exist politically. No question about it, the place hasnt existed as a state in nearly 300 years. Thus its impossible for a war to be "English". You are truely petty if it is so abhorrent to you to give recognition to the Scots and Walians that have been dying in Iraq. They certainly arent English. You dont have to like Britain and its unity, but at lleast by using the term "British" you are sticking to facts rather than fantasy.And btw, some Welsh and some Scots, and some Englishmen are more nationalistic about Wales, Scotland, and England, than about Britain. However polls show that well over half of residents from all areas still identify with Britishness. Anway Anglesey (which I have been to many tiems myself) doesnt speak for all Wales, I myself am proud to come from a region that said NO to Welsh autonomy during the refferendum.You are blinded by your prejudices. If your so uncomfortable with the term Britain, use an informal, politically unaligned term like "UK". Even if you dont recognise the British nation, the state of the UK deffinately exists. Would that not a sensible alterntive, both correct and uninsulting to anyone as it doesnt imply nationality (no Welsh nationalist can question that there is such a thing as the UK), only the state itself? The state that has gone to war in Iraq, rather than some long-dead English state.

Democracy gives the people the choice to make up their own minds. If they don't want to be consumers, that is their choice. Nobody is forcing it upon them. If they don't want a secular government, the same thing applies. Bottom line: They will have the ability to choose for themselves...aside from what you, I or anyone else thinks is or isn't right.

Maybe. If it had been possible to stop them from entering Syria. But by then the media had already planned to make not only US citizens but folks of the world angry by crowing "Where is the WMD?!" They were only too happy to ignore the truth when it suited them to.

But take a channel such as Fox News, a blatantly right wing "news" channel. Would they not report something like that? They are quite supportive of the current administration.

And just as a point, the US media may be making the effort to discredit your own government, but the world media has a slightly more objective view. If there were serious reports of possible WMD then the world mediawould have reported it with less bias and/or spin.

They didn't...so there goes that theory.

“I dont care about Iraqi national dignity”Yes, I know. You don’t care about the national dignity of any nation or state other than your own; you have already done a very thorough job of establishing that.“You dont have to like Britain and its unity”What unity? Where is the unity where a sizable minority of the people it is supposed to represent do not want to be aligned with or represented by it? Your dogged belief in the myth of british unity is simply naïve. As you say yourself: “polls show that well over half of residents from all areas still identify with Britishness” That may be so, I don’t doubt it, but it is also true, and you know as well as I do, that a sizable minority do not; so how does it make sense to describe such a people using a collective term? I KNOW that 45% of the population of Northern Ireland are Nationalists whose ideology utterly objects to any association with ‘britain’; if you add those people together with the millions in Scotland and Wales who also object to such an association, again, where is your unity? The term ‘the uk’ is a fallacy for the same reason. United Kingdom? - My arse. Both of those terms are interchangeable to the Irish Nationalist psyche in that they are regarded equally repellent here. Both of those terms were and are used to subjugate our nation and the residents of it, so if you think you can demand of an Irish person that he or she use them you’d better think on. In fact, should you ever choose to visit this island you’d be far better off, in the interests of your own personal safety, keeping any such demands out of the equation, because if you were to make such demands in the wrong Irish pub I can assure you you’d find yourself in the back on an Irish ambulance on your way to an Irish hospital. You really have no idea the residue of bitterness that has been left here as a result of nine hundred years of imperialist persecution. On this point also, you are very naïve. You might remember that you asked all the readers of this thread to use the term ‘british’ rather than English a couple of posts before you framed that same demand to me. I did not make any comment at that time because it is not my business what way you’d like other readers of this thread to identify England, Scotland and Wales, and because it’s not my business if they choose to indulge you either; but when you ask the same of me, and Irish national, you stepped over a line you didn’t even seem to be aware existed, which is why I can only presume you are totally ignorant of the history that is at question here and the repercussions of it.You just don’t seem (or perhaps want?) to understand that it is totally unacceptable of you to demand of an Irish person that they use terminology which was imposed upon us with the forcible alignment of Ireland, a sovereign island nation, with its Colonialist subjugator for many hundreds of years. If you are historically and politically ignorant enough not to understand when you are causing offence yourself you have no right to ask anybody else to be considerate of your own views. Your assumption that I am prejudiced against people from England, Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland is simply false; if it were not so I’d hardly have had relationships with a Scouser, Londoner, and a northern Protestant. One of those relationships resulted in my own son, who, consequently, is half English. By your argument I’d have to be prejudiced against my own child – cop on.Even if I were to concede to use the terms ‘britain’ and ‘the uk’ upon a full withdrawal from my country, at which point those terms will not be seen to affix England along with the lands it has stolen here, I would still refuse to use them in consideration of the many Scottish and Welsh people who do not wish to be identified in such terms.“If a Black was called a n***** on her you'd expect them to respond right?” This disagreement has arisen as a result of my refusal to apply a collective term to the nationals of your country which you would prefer that I used, not as a result of my using any personal term to describe you that you found derogatory. The two don’t equate, so you can trot out bullshit like the above if you choose and I won’t elaborate any further, because I’m pretty sure anyone reading this thread can work out the difference for themselves.There was a situation in recent Irish history which any black person with half a sense of their own history will be able to relate to; it was captured in the scenes filmed at Holy Cross Catholic School in northern Ireland, which were flashed around the world of young children, some four years old and just beginning school, fighting their way there through a missile-throwing yowling ‘british’ mob. Those scenes struck me as very reminiscent of the situation faced by young black children in the southern states in the 60’s going to white schools for the first time. Perhaps if you had some sense of what we have had to live with here in the name of ‘britishness’ you would have known better than to ask an Irish person to incorporate that term into their speech in the first place. A perceptive person would likely learn a lesson in foreign relations out of this; though I don’t hold out much hope for you on that score, which is a pity, because God knows you could do with it.

I found this article online, is this the report that you saw?"What we do know is that late one night just before the allied aerial bombardment commenced, a convoy of at least six transport trucks departed the al Jesira Factory loading dock near Mosul. Also targeted for destruction by allied war planners, al Jesira produced uranium hexaflouride.One of the most essential components of extremely high-tech nuclear bombs. Camouflaged with mud and traveling only at night, the convoy drove south to its second loading stop in a Baghdad suburb. “Officers City” was one of dozens of chemical-biological warfare facilities working around the country and around the clock.Still traveling in darkness, the muddy, blacked-out convoy next drove east to..."

Oh no, the sleep inspector caught me online at twenty past twelve! You're not going to tell me to go to be now are you? Ha ha.

Damn right you should be in bed! Unless you contribute to the Insomnia thread, you gotta go!

Ha ha, I'll have to have a look at that insomnia thread now, since I may be getting close to being qualified to contribute to it. I'm actually drinking a cup of strong coffee now, stupid I know..