The terrorists want Bush re-elected
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
RussSchultz said:
People feel alone, and are afraid to speak out, when they turn on the TV and it appears as though noone supports them. And yes, to a great degree the American public was ignorant about the Iraq situation. If there was something that even resembled balance in the American media, people's opinions would be different. For all the complaining conservatives have about media bias, I would think you should be able to understand this argument.
First off, I wasn't aware that there were any polls on Afghans, if you could post them I'd like to see them. And I mean that genuinely, as I wasn't aware of them, nor was I able to find any reference doing a quick search.
As to Iraqis, there are conflicting statements there, as well. Most Iraqis, when polled, say they're glad that Saddam is gone, but at the same time say they view the U.S. as occupiers. They may be glad their country isn't run by the Ba'ath party, but that doesn't mean they feel overwhelming trust and love towards the good 'ol U.S. of A.
Edit: Iranians are glad Saddam is gone, too. But once again, that doesn't mean that they like us all that much.
As to Iraqis, there are conflicting statements there, as well. Most Iraqis, when polled, say they're glad that Saddam is gone, but at the same time say they view the U.S. as occupiers. They may be glad their country isn't run by the Ba'ath party, but that doesn't mean they feel overwhelming trust and love towards the good 'ol U.S. of A.
Edit: Iranians are glad Saddam is gone, too. But once again, that doesn't mean that they like us all that much.
...whom they don't want to leave anytime soon.
RussSchultz said:
I think that they will eventually realize that America is not an occupier I think already the tides are turning for the coalition in Iraq. Soon enough they will start to see that indeed they are liberators. The terrorist bombing the hell out of Iraq will only turn more and more people away from their cause it is simply a matter of time.
Guess what , the neo-conservatives feel the same way!. They believe that America's culture is decadent and amoral. The media we export that Al Queda rails against is the same media neo-conservatives rail against in this country! Fundamentist vs. Fundamentalist. You can try and parrot the "hater's of freedom" propaganda but I'm not buying it. America is the "haters of freedom" when it comes to Kuwait , Egypt , Suadia Arabia , Qatar , Palestine , etc..
Sabastian said:
By invading foreign nations under false pretenses? And Bush and Ashcroft have both made very fundamentalist-sounding comments in the past few years. I'm sorry, but fundies of any stripe scare the piss out of me.
This is where that 'irrational hatred of anything Bush' comes in.
If you haven't noticed, Bush & Co (and that whole neo-con thing you rail against) is about changing our foreign policy to stop propping up dictators and start promoting democracy.
You complain that we prop up dictators, yet when we deposed a dictator in Iraq you complain that we did.
And yes, promoting democracy could mean funding "opposition groups". Its hard to have a democracy where its so lopsided that there is no dialogue or real choice.
Clashman said:
Democratically elected governments like in Iran? North Korea? Why don't you list all these countries anyhow? Oh setting up a democracy and funneling money into Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't you explain just exactly how it is that the US is an enemy of democratic values? Just how is it that "America is the "haters of freedom" when it comes to Kuwait , Egypt , Suadia Arabia , Qatar , Palestine , etc.." I think only the most brainwashed hyperventilating left wing zealot could actually say such a thing and keep a straight face. This garbage rhetoric about a repressive America is political propaganda for Christ sake, and guess what? I’m not buying it.
John Reynolds said:
I can't believe what I am reading here. To advocate that they are Fundamentalist is a meager attempt to connect Bush with the same stigma attached to the likes of Bin Laden. It requires a weak mind and a stretch of the imagination to fathom it. I am not going to go on and on with you guys on this. It is utterly ridiculous and preposterous to make such a parallel.
EDIT:B#D server is really pissing me off today. Bla.
RussSchultz said:
Gimme a break, Russ. The people being funded in most of these cases are not exactly the best examples of those interested in democratic principles. The opposition groups in Haiti in particular have numerous ties to death squads, organized crime, and the Duvalier dictatorship. If we wanted to talk about getting dialogue or real choice in elections, I'd suggest we start with our own.
Furthermore Russ, just where the fuck do you get off equating my opposition to present foreign policy as "Bush hatred"?!? I fought against the same damn things when Clinton was in office, and I intend to do so again, regardless of who's elected next term. If there's anything I do hate, it's this knee-jerk bullshit about how anything other than outright support of the Bush administration's policies is construed as "irrational Bush hatred".
There were two groups in Haiti--a intellectual/political group that opposed Aristide, and the armed gang. Some folks say they were connected, yet they denied it.
Would it be wrong to fund a political group? Or, supposing Aristide had been 'democratically' elected (much like Saddam was affirmed as recently as 2002), is it wrong to oppose him by supporting opposition groups, armed or unarmed?
Would it be wrong to fund a political group? Or, supposing Aristide had been 'democratically' elected (much like Saddam was affirmed as recently as 2002), is it wrong to oppose him by supporting opposition groups, armed or unarmed?
