Yes, W Really Was an End Times Crank

[Schneibster]

Not responsible for where children decide to have their temper tantrums.

[maiforpeace]

Not responsible for where children decide to have their temper tantrums.

Wise words.

[Jason]

Of course you're right. Anything contrary to your opinion is a 'lie' or 'gaming the system' or 'trolling'.
Why don't you throw a tantrum now?

[maiforpeace]

I asked you a question earlier Pord...are you British? I only ask because the Brits didn't produce much better than Dubya in Tony Blair, Dubya's biggest ally.

[Jason]

I asked you a question earlier Pord...are you British? I only ask because the Brits didn't produce much better than Dubya in Tony Blair.

Tu quoque.

The simple fact is that it is all too easy to paint Islamic nations as religious nutters intent on destroying the world when the same is true of many non-Islamic nations, including the U.S.A.

So when I see some patriotic nincompoop dismiss evidence of this due to their intellectual incompetence and cognitive biases I roll my eyes. I don't waste my time arguing with persons like that.

Oh, and there is a difference between criticizing the U.S.A. and criticizing its citizens. It is similar to the way one can criticize Israel but not Jews. Further, a nation does not constitute a 'race' nor does criticism equate to bigotry. These things should not have to be explained.

[maiforpeace]

I asked you a question earlier Pord...are you British? I only ask because the Brits didn't produce much better than Dubya in Tony Blair.

Tu quoque.

The simple fact is that it is all to easy to paint Islamic nations as religious nutters intent on destroying the world when the same is true of many non-Islamic nations, including the U.S.A.

So when I see some patriotic nincompoop dismiss evidence of this due to their intellectual incompetence and cognitive biases I roll my eyes. I don't waste my time arguing with persons like that.

Is that what you think of me? That's fine, just wondering. Otherwise if you're referring to Schneibster that's between you guys...have at each other, just don't break the rules.



Something went totally over my head here. Am I missing something? The religious nutter that is the subject of this thread is George W Bush, isn't it?

Back to George...

Years ago there was a letter online that anyone could sign, addressed to all other nations EXCEPT the US. It was an apology for having elected George as president twice. I didn't vote for him but I still am ashamed of him and for him. I signed the letter then and stand behind that signature today.

[mistermack]

Where is the verification of this story? How do we know it's true? Not that I doubt it. Bush was certainly loony enough. But without verification it's not worth repeating.

[Jason]

I asked you a question earlier Pord...are you British? I only ask because the Brits didn't produce much better than Dubya in Tony Blair.

Tu quoque.

The simple fact is that it is all to easy to paint Islamic nations as religious nutters intent on destroying the world when the same is true of many non-Islamic nations, including the U.S.A.

So when I see some patriotic nincompoop dismiss evidence of this due to their intellectual incompetence and cognitive biases I roll my eyes. I don't waste my time arguing with persons like that.

Is that what you think of me? That's fine, just wondering.

Nope. Schneibster waves his political views all about so I have a good picture of them, I haven't seen you post much re politics so I have no opinion.

Something went totally over my head here. Am I missing something? The religious nutter that is the subject of this thread is George W Bush, isn't it?

One of my points was that criticism of a nation state does not necessarily entail criticism of the citizens of that nation though it may cast a light on some. The problem I have is that a change in leaders of government, such as in the U.S.A., is so often used to whitewash the actions of the nation state for any years prior to the new leader coming into power. I'd take what Ambrose Bierce said and apply it to such democracies: "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." With that in mind, it may help you to understand that I look at nations as a contiguous whole, rather than a segmented series of figureheads each only dubiously attached to the actions of their predecessors in the eyes many of the people they govern. This latter, as I've explained, is a great mechanism for shedding responsibility - at least locally. Global perspectives are rather different. This may account for the negative view much of the world population takes of the U.S.A as they don't look to so much figureheads as a nation state.

Back to George...

Years ago there was a letter online that anyone could sign, addressed to all other nations EXCEPT the US. It was an apology for having elected George as president twice. I didn't vote for him but I still am ashamed of him and for him. I signed the letter then and stand behind that signature today.

He was simply a figurehead. Obama is similarly a figurehead. If one were to only look at the process of governance in the U.S.A. it would be enough to see that to set blame on the figurehead of the process is simply silly. They are not dictators who impose their will. They are a part of the nation state. As such responsibility is not waived with the election of a new figurehead.

[Jason]

Otherwise if you're referring to Schneibster that's between you guys...have at each other, just don't break the rules.

He's not worth my time. Let him go off thinking he's right, it doesn't matter.

[Seth]

Yeah, the Council on Secular Humanism is a really objective source for "top secret" conversations between world leaders...not.

And Chirac is French, so he's to be believed why, exactly?

And this tidbit from the article, "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after all, and wasn’t in league with terrorists, as the White House alleged" is a flat-out lie.

Saddam had WMD's, and there is absolutely no disputing this fact because he used Sarin on his own people (the Kurds of Northern Iraq) in the mid-80's. He also funded international terrorism by setting up thousands of bank accounts which he filled with Iraqi money that he gave terrorists access to. His agents meetings with terrorists were adequately documented.

But most importantly, he himself admitted that he was TRYING to convince the world that he had nuclear and biological weapons programs in progress during the dozen years of the cease-fire that he played shell-games with UN weapons inspectors by refusing them complete and open access for inspections. He controlled when and where the UN inspectors could go, and convoys of semi-trucks were seen leaving facilities that were scheduled for inspection as inspectors were on the way to them.

In short, the invasion was fully justified by the fact that he was under a cease-fire agreement due to his defeat during the Kuwait invasion, and he refused to comply with the terms of the cease-fire agreement. No other justification was required for the US to go back in and take him out. None. The WMD issue was just icing on the cake, and there was, at the time, plenty of credible intelligence that he had, or was attempting to develop more WMD's of all three types: chemical, nuclear and biological. It's also known that his long-held stocks of chemical weapons, including Mustard Gas and Sarin, were shipped out of the country to Syria in truck convoys, concealed as "earthquake aid" and in more than 40 747 flights, which were documented by his Air Vice-Marshal Georges Sada in his book, "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein."

[Seth]

Stereotyping is a typical bigoted activity.

Which then begs the question of why you do it so much...

Could it be that you're a.....bigot?

[mistermack]

He also funded international terrorism by setting up thousands of bank accounts which he filled with Iraqi money that he gave terrorists access to. His agents meetings with terrorists were adequately documented.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Can you supply a link for that?

[Seth]

He also funded international terrorism by setting up thousands of bank accounts which he filled with Iraqi money that he gave terrorists access to. His agents meetings with terrorists were adequately documented.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Can you supply a link for that?

Here's one example:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_ ... saddam.htm

And another source:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _95358025/

Even the UN was funding terrorists:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/issues/united-nations/

And another source (two, actually):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Here's a lawsuit by victims of Saddam's terror funding (dismissed on standing grounds, but instructive):

http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/d ... missal.pdf

And here's a comprehensive article by Deroy Murdoch on the subject:

http://www.hudson.org/files/publication ... rticle.pdf

[maiforpeace]

One of my points was that criticism of a nation state does not necessarily entail criticism of the citizens of that nation though it may cast a light on some. The problem I have is that a change in leaders of government, such as in the U.S.A., is so often used to whitewash the actions of the nation state for any years prior to the new leader coming into power. I'd take what Ambrose Bierce said and apply it to such democracies: "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." With that in mind, it may help you to understand that I look at nations as a contiguous whole, rather than a segmented series of figureheads each only dubiously attached to the actions of their predecessors in the eyes many of the people they govern. This latter, as I've explained, is a great mechanism for shedding responsibility - at least locally. Global perspectives are rather different. This may account for the negative view much of the world population takes of the U.S.A as they don't look to so much figureheads as a nation state.

I appreciate your views, and don't disagree.

I have relatives all over Europe and in Vietnam, not to mention all my international friends, so I have a pretty good idea of how the rest of the world views the US, both favorably and unfavorably.

Back to George...

Years ago there was a letter online that anyone could sign, addressed to all other nations EXCEPT the US. It was an apology for having elected George as president twice. I didn't vote for him but I still am ashamed of him and for him. I signed the letter then and stand behind that signature today.

He was simply a figurehead. Obama is similarly a figurehead. If one were to only look at the process of governance in the U.S.A. it would be enough to see that to set blame on the figurehead of the process is simply silly. They are not dictators who impose their will. They are a part of the nation state. As such responsibility is not waived with the election of a new figurehead.

I didn't blame it on the figurehead, I blamed the American voters for voting him into office. I take responsibility for not having done enough to get my guy elected.

When Americans blame one president or the other in the US it's often about party politics, that's all. I'm sorely ignorant of UK politics, but isn't that how it works there too?

[mistermack]

SETH, I'm not giving an opinion one way or another on what you claimed, but none of that is evidence of any sort.
Those links are a load of rubbish. Is that where you glean your information from?