Bush Leads World with "Get Tough" anti-bird flu strategy.

Quote:

---

Let's be honest here guys. Bush is not very respected in the international community and since coming into power he has very much hurt the US and its relations with other nations (and whether you like it or not you need good relations with other countries). I hope for the US's sake a good president follows him

---

And your idea of a good leader is...?

Probably one that agrees with your liberal politics. Face it, every time we elect a conservative president the "rest of the world" claims he is a bad leader. This criticism is more rooted in political bigotry than in fact.

Actually I considered Clinton a pretty good leader. Sure he had is vices but who amongst us doesn't?

As for my liberal politics I wouldn't expect any leader to agree with me 100% of the time, that is frankly a very naive viewpoint. All I ask is that a leader looks at a situation objectively, weighs the facts, ignores the fiction and has the conviction to follow it through to the end. This is why I respect Tony Blair. Sure I disagree with some of his policies, quite often actually, but I would still consider him a good leader...especially considering the opposition :sick:

Quote:

---

Actually I considered Clinton a pretty good leader. Sure he had is vices but who amongst us doesn't?

---

The biggest problem I had with Slick Willie was not his frequent peccadilloes, even though they served to distract him from the job he was sent to Washington to do, but his absolute lack of leadership. He did almost nothing during his eight years there, he was too busy sticking his finger in the wind to find out what he should do next.

In contrast Bush does what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. Some call this undiplomatic and arrogant, but I call it a refreshing display of leadership.

Quote:

---

All I ask is that a leader looks at a situation objectively, weighs the facts, ignores the fiction and has the conviction to follow it through to the end.

---

So you are a Bush fan after all! I knew you'd eventually come to agree with me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

he was too busy sticking his finger in ....

---

Nah, I won't do it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

I wonder how the people in the US can even buy such stupid arguments in such important decisions. I guess if your car broke down and if your mechanic told you something is wrong with the carb and you ask him why and he says "Trust me on this", I am sure you would check with another mechanic and try to get to the root cause of the problem in a more educated way than placing blind trust in someone. Too bad you don't think your nation's problems should be fixed the same way....

.

---

Similarly, I would suppose if a person who had eye treatment for an infection complained to the nurses about excessive pain, the nurses and doctors caring about this patient should take the time and inspect the eye.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_3793297.htm

Quote:

---

Scampering rats and stray cats and dogs sharing bed space with patients are not uncommon sights at India's overcrowded state-run hospitals that are used by millions of poor and middle-class people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

The biggest problem I had with Slick Willie was not his frequent peccadilloes, even though they served to distract him from the job he was sent to Washington to do, but his absolute lack of leadership. He did almost nothing during his eight years there, he was too busy sticking his finger in the wind to find out what he should do next.

In contrast Bush does what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. Some call this undiplomatic and arrogant, but I call it a refreshing display of leadership.

So you are a Bush fan after all! I knew you'd eventually come to agree with me. :)

---

To think that Bush ignores the polls is incredible! He just ignores the general populations. He jumps VERY high when the right people (very right, mostly christian right) speak. However, he is HIGHLY sensitive to manipulating the polls. The concept of the permanent campaign was developed by the republican party....(I forget, but I think the term was coined by a strategist during the Carter administration). Some folks have said that Bush is the ultimate example of that. He isn't running every four years, he is ALWAYS running. No action he has ever taken was conducted without regards to election potential. Thus, we see alot of loudly stated initiatives (like peace in the Middle East, etc) that are actually things that most people support. However, there is no effort spent backing these initiatives, because the announcement rather than the initiative is the important point.

Could you point to any examples of leadership on his part that have worked?

I realize that I am on the left in this forum, but in politics, I'm actually closer to the center simply because I grew up in them. What I like is the process....hmmm, process.....programming.....related? Somebody who does a masterful job at the game of governing has my support. I have always been a fan of our senator Mike Crapo, though he is a conservative. I believe that he is a good democratic leader, and the type of person we should have representing us, even if I don't agree with all of his positions.

By that standard, I see Bush as the most inept president of my brief experience. He is like a golfer with a bag full of clubs, but regardless of the situation, he ALWAYS uses the 9-iron. Sometimes it's the right club....but usually it isn't.

Quote:

---

To think that Bush ignores the polls is incredible! He just ignores the general populations.

---

He does not base his actions on the popular opinion of the moment that's true.

Quote:

---

Thus, we see alot of loudly stated initiatives (like peace in the Middle East, etc) that are actually things that most people support. However, there is no effort spent backing these initiatives, because the announcement rather than the initiative is the important point.

---

Are we talking about Clinton again?

Quote:

---

Could you point to any examples of leadership on his part that have worked?

---

Tax cuts, War on terror, fixing the problems with the supreme court.

Can you name anything Clinton did in his eight years that would illustrate your idea of good leadership?

Areas where Bush's leadership is lacking: Failure to control the borders, Failure to reign in the congress on spending, makes too many goodwill gestures to the Democrats (such as allowing Kennedy to write the new medicare spending bill) who only turn around and stab him in the back at every opportunity they get.

Quote:

---

By that standard, I see Bush as the most inept president of my brief experience

---

I think brief experience might be the key phrase here. I'm not trying to insult you, but many people either do not have a long memory or are new to politics so cannot really compare one president with another.

As an example of this short memory, the major reason the war effort is losing popular support is the US body count. Hello! People die in war but this war has a record low level of both US and civilian losses of any major conflict on record.

As a side note - watch for news regarding the borders to come out very soon.

Why do I have to support Clinton if I oppose Bush?

Quote:

---

Tax cuts, War on terror, fixing the problems with the supreme court.

---

Tax cuts are certainly controversial. Cutting your income while greatly increasing your spending is not conservative, nor is it responsible. However, they have asserted that deficits don't matter (which is disingenous, since the folks in the adminsitration support the 'starve the beast' philosophy).

War on Terror: Nice words, where's the actions to back it up? Here's what I see, add to it:

Afghanistan: Good start, but from the small amount that still makes it to the news, we failed in EVERY stated pre-war objective, and are slowly losing the war.

Iraq: Didn't need to happen. They had no involvement with Queda (though they sure have an involvement now), they were no threat to us, no WMD, sanctions, which were much cheaper, were keeping them contained. The result has been great expense, loss of life, consumption of resources, and an increase in terrorism....except that the report that showed that was altered to show the opposite, then suppressed when it was corrected.

Dept of Homeland Security: Bush opposed it, but was forced to accept it. Never fully funded it, nor staffed it well. The result has been general mismanagement, and a huge expense burden passed to the states as an unfunded mandate (something conservatives have opposed historically).

Are we safer? Most people I know of are more fearful. Part of that was due to the changing alert levels (which stopped changing right after the election).

Fixing the problems with the supreme court: I didn't know there were any problems...except for them jumping into the Bush v Gore bit. As for appointing justices, Bush has only appointed as many as there were openings, nobody could do more.....but then again, nobody could do less, either.

As for age, I remember watergate, but I was REALLY young at the time. The Carter-Ford race was the first one I paid any attention to. Therefore, I have only watched presidencies from Carter to present. However, I am reasonably familiar with others back to the Civil War, since I have a strong interest in history.

Politics have become deliberately more divisive since the 80's. Somewhere in there, people decided that the ultimate goal was the power, not the leadership. The result has been a string of attacks that have been almost entirely based on character over substance, have generally originated from the right, have been only questionably honest, and have often been racist.

The first one I can remember was Willy Horton, which hurt Dukakis. We still talk about the "I created the internet" bit from Gore. Few people realize that this was a horrible corruption of what was actually said, and few people realize that the corruption was perpetrated by a conservative activist. Last election we saw the Swiftboat veterans. By the time they had been discredited (most of there statements appear to have been outright lies), they had done the damage. An honestly, repeatedly, decorated war veteran came across as more cowardly than a man who had been kept out of the war.

You don't need a long memory to have seen this grow. Unfortunately, it has been succesful. The thing about Clinton is that he was able to connect with so many voters (in more ways than one) in a time when politics was being steered straight for the gutter. Now we're down there. Will we come back out? My fear is that the Democratic party will see the last two elections as an example of how to play, and mimic the Republican example.

Shaggy,

It is very interesting to read your comments. You make statements to you that are matters of fact, but to me are lies and distortions. We are obviously either getting our information from two different realities, or only hear the news that we want to hear. A couple of examples:

Quote:

---

Afghanistan: Good start, but from the small amount that still makes it to the news, we failed in EVERY stated pre-war objective, and are slowly losing the war.

---

Afghanistan: Good start, and going very well to date despite the fact that very little news is reported from there except body counts.

Quote:

---

Fixing the problems with the supreme court: I didn't know there were any problems...except for them jumping into the Bush v Gore bit. As for appointing justices, Bush has only appointed as many as there were openings, nobody could do more.....but then again, nobody could do less, either.

---

The problem with the courts is in the news everyday. When Appointed judges (not elected by the people) decide it is within their power to write new law that is a problem. I know Democrats don't see this as a problem because this is the final avenue they have left to them to put their policies into place since they can no longer get elected by the people of the country.

Quote:

---

Last election we saw the Swiftboat veterans. By the time they had been discredited (most of there statements appear to have been outright lies), they had done the damage. An honestly, repeatedly, decorated war veteran came across as more cowardly than a man who had been kept out of the war.

---

Last election we saw one of the candidate proclaim what a great veteran he was until a group of pissed-off fellow veterans told the country the truth. We also had a major news organization embarrass itself by using forged documents to try to discredit the candidate they did not like.

Quote:

---

Afghanistan: Good start, and going very well to date despite the fact that very little news is reported from there except body counts.

---

How is it going well? Our stated objectives before the war were: 1) Get Osama, 2) Get Mullah Omar, 3)Topple the Taliban, 4)Shut down the terrorist training camps.

1)Failed.
2)Failed.
3)Success, but the Taliban is resurgent, so the final word is not in yet.
4)Temporary success, but reports in the news are that there are terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, they are simply more mobile than they were. Thus, Failed.

Also, only two cities are stable, heroin production is sky rocketing, and the warlords rule much of the country. None of those had to do with our stated objectives. Looking back in five years, will 3 remain a success? I think it probably won't, since it is such a back-burner issue now.

No court has EVER written a law in this country, they only rule on an interpretation. Those rulings have favored the left over the right for a few decades, and that may (or may not) shift. In general, judges move left as they stay on the court.

However, the right does not wants the court to be activist. They wanted the court to intervene in the Terri....uhhh, can't spell it, but you know what I mean....case, even though the FL law on the subject clearly stated the case. That would have been VERY activist. Abortions tougher, since you will violate somebodies perceived rights one way or the other. On school prayer, conservatives would like a ruling that reads the Establishment of Religeon clause in a laughably narrow way. And so on. They want activist judges, they just want them to be activist in their way.

Quote:

---

Last election we saw one of the candidate proclaim what a great veteran he was until a group of pissed-off fellow veterans told the country the truth. We also had a major news organization embarrass itself by using forged documents to try to discredit the candidate they did not like.

---

I honestly thought that everybody had realized that these folks had been discredited for lying. None of them were at any of the fights leading to the medals, none of the people who WERE at the fights were able to corroborate anything they had claimed (one of the news organizations, CNN or somebody, actually went out and interviewed the other side (Vietnamese) on this one). Basically, nothing they had stated matched the facts remembered by combatants and civilians on either side of the conflicts in question. What more evidence of deception do you need? But again, I thought everybody had dispensed with this months ago. My memory of it has faded a bit, so I would have to do some digging to cite sources on it.

Quote:

---

How is it going well?

---

Terrorists are no longer launching attacks against the US from Afghanistan any more. That was our sole reason for going there.

Quote:

---

No court has EVER written a law in this country,

---

really? Where in the constitution does it give women the right to an abortion? I'll tell you; no where. This is a right given to women of the US by the supreme court in the absence of any law that addressed the issue. To me this is writing new law and it is not the court's place to do it. What should be done is Congress should pass a law giving women this right because it is the Congress' job to write law.

Quote:

---

one of the news organizations, CNN or somebody, actually went out and interviewed the other side (Vietnamese) on this one

---

this is a joke; right? The Vietnamese actually have exhibits in their museum dedicated to the great war hero Kerry. The lies he told when he came back, for his own political purposes, were shameful. This is the sort of behavior Kerry exhibited that the SB vets were trying to inform the American people about, not whether or not a splinter he received during a battle qualified him for a purple heart and an early return home.

Shaggy, we could go on forever arguing these issues which will never be put to rest. I read and hear both sides of these agruments and still do not think the other side of the opinion makes any sense to me and i'm sure you see it the same.

I wish we could get together in a coffee shop somewhere regularly and have these discussions becuase I really do enjoy discussing such things with someone like you and a few others on these forums, who take the other position and have obviously thought these things through. Most people I run into in person are only spouting what someone else told them but have no depth to their opinions once I start to question them.

Idaho is a little far to go for coffee :)

Quote:

---

Shaggy, we could go on forever arguing these issues which will never be put to rest. I read and hear both sides of these agruments and still do not think the other side of the opinion makes any sense to me and i'm sure you see it the same.

---

You're right. I had a reply to your posts, but killed it off. On these issues, we see it in a completely different way. Kind of funny, since it all makes sense to each of us.

Glad you're here.

Have a nice day. :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Similarly, I would suppose if a person who had eye treatment for an infection complained to the nurses about excessive pain, the nurses and doctors caring about this patient should take the time and inspect the eye.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_3793297.htm

---

So if Indian hospitals have rats, Bush can lie to the American people? That's wonderful! Somehow I find this kind of linking very close to what Bush did to justify the Iraq invasion: Al Qaeda and Iraq, two completely unrelated topics. Maybe it's in the system that you learn to make such weird (dis)connections?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Hey honeybee - why don't you worry about your own nations problems. Find some answers for those now that you have all the answers to ours.

---

Ouch, did I step onto your raw nerves? Sorry for that :)

Let me tell you a story in case you haven't heard it already:

In a village a woman was convicted of adultery and as per the custom she was going to be killed by people throwing stones at her. Just then Jesus Christ happened to visit the village. He enquired about the whole affair and agreed in the end that the punishment was just. He only put one condition to the people: The person who hasn't committed a single sin in their life will throw the first stone.

Read the news. Your government's officials are all over the world telling everybody what's good and what's not good for them. If you get so pissed off about others commenting on your problems, you had better tell your own arrogant government to stop having opinions on everything and everybody in the rest of the world. I guess that's fair and square, isn't it?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

In a village a woman was convicted of adultery and as per the custom she was going to be killed by people throwing stones at her. Just then Jesus Christ happened to visit the village. He enquired about the whole affair and agreed in the end that the punishment was just. He only put one condition to the people: The person who hasn't committed a single sin in their life will throw the first stone.

---

Please do not attempt to force a response by including religious preaching in a thread with no religious conetations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

So you are a Bush fan after all! I knew you'd eventually come to agree with me.

---

Actually I dislike Bush greatly. When the conservative christians tell him to do something he does so without question. No, he is very opinionated and frankly is not well respected. As for him basing his choices on popular opinion, no he doesn't but that is only because he listens to a select group with an alterior motive.

What scares me sometimes is the severe lack of anything resembling either intelligence or common-sense, and for the most powerful man in the world, this is truly terrifying :sick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Please do not attempt to force a response by including religious preaching in a thread with no religious conetations.

Actually I dislike Bush greatly. When the conservative christians tell him to do something he does so without question. No, he is very opinionated and frankly is not well respected. As for him basing his choices on popular opinion, no he doesn't but that is only because he listens to a select group with an alterior motive.

What scares me sometimes is the severe lack of anything resembling either intelligence or common-sense, and for the most powerful man in the world, this is truly terrifying :sick:

---

Of course you dislike Bush. You're British. It's becoming a damn stereotype with you Brits. Plus you people talk funny. :lol:

I am only British by nationality, I am in fact Welsh so please get your facts straight first. Your comment implies that the country of my birth dictates my thinking which must therefore suggest that I must dislike ALL US presidents prior to Bush. If you had taken the time to read this thread you would know that is not the case, as there have been many good leaders, and good men, who were President of the US.

As for us talking funny, to whom are you referring? Welsh talk very differently to the English, Scots and Irish. We even have local accents in Wales itself (a country whom is vastly smaller than Florida I might add). I have not stooped low enough to take cheap shots, so please do not try and drag this thread down as thus far it has been very interesting, and highly respectful.

Quote:

---

Actually I dislike Bush greatly. When the conservative christians tell him to do something he does so without question.

---

This of course it simply untrue. He does what he thinks is right. If he always did what the conservatives were pressuring him to do he would: crack down on illegal immigration, veto spending bills passed by congress, prosecute the war more vigorously and stop extending the hand of friendship to the Democrats; each time he does they bite it.

Quote:

---

No, he is very opinionated

---

A good thing

Quote:

---

and frankly is not well respected.

---

Don't care.

Quote:

---

As for him basing his choices on popular opinion, no he doesn't but that is only because he listens to a select group with an alterior motive.

---

All presidents listen to a select group with an ulterior motive, this group is called his advisors. The one difference with Bush's group is that their ulterior motive is to do what is good for the country.

Quote:

---

What scares me sometimes is the severe lack of anything resembling either intelligence or common-sense, and for the most powerful man in the world, this is truly terrifying

---

Here we go again... This is always said by the libs around the world each time we elect a conservative president. I remember very clearly the same thing when Reagan was president. In fact I was doing it back then because I was a lib myself.

Were Bush and Reagan the most intelligent presidents we’ve had? Probably not, but compared to the general population they certainly had above average intelligence or they couldn’t have accomplished the things that they have. I’ve come to realize that superior intelligence usually does not make a good president. Two of the most intelligent presidents we’ve had in the recent past were Carter and Nixon. Not looked upon today as two of our best.

I guess I'll stay out of it this time.

However, I do have a question:

It has been my observations that when it comes to Bush on this forum, Americans are divided, which is an accurate reflection of this country. However, it seems that the non-Americans on this forum (regardless of nationality) are VERY strongly or even unanimously anti-Bush. Is that correct? Show of hands?

Of course it's correct. They get their news from the main stream media, and their view is exactly what it's supposed to be. When it comes down to it though, it really means nothing.

Me too . I can't stand the man. That and the fact that he appears to have no consideration for other nations and future generations of his own people. Who knows where his true agenda lies. :confused:

Show of hands http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2005/11/1.gif http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2005/11/1.gif

Sorry...

Quote:

---

Who knows where his true agenda lies.

---

I think it is pretty clear since he states it all the time. Why does there have to be some hidden agenda with each adminisration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I think it is pretty clear since he states it all the time. Why does there have to be some hidden agenda with each adminisration?

---

Maybe thats the problem, he's lost his agenda and now doesn't know what to do :D

maybe not hidden but clearly influenced (and quite a bit at that) by the Judeo-Christian right... or is that propaganda that we, the dumb "liberal" Euros are eagerly lapping up?

I don't care what he does on the US domestic front but his foreign policy is at the very least suspect. The only redeeming point is that he doesn't really go out of his way to hide his true motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Please do not attempt to force a response by including religious preaching in a thread with no religious conetations.

---

Religious preachings? Because I mentioned Jesus Christ? You must be kidding. I simply wanted to stress the matter of the person having not sinned throwing the first stone.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

Of course you dislike Bush. You're British. It's becoming a damn stereotype with you Brits. Plus you people talk funny. :lol:

---

Have you ever wondered whatever you have said about him applies to you and other Bush supporters better than anyone else? Till now I have to find a single post here which answers all the questions raised by people about the Iraq invasion, its so-called justifications put forth by Bush and the shocking truth discovered later. Also none of the Bush supporters has had the honesty of admitting Bush was completely wrong on the WMDs and the Al Qaeda - Iraq link, both points having been proven beyond doubt now. All of them simply seem to agree with Bush on just one pretext: Whatever he does is supposed to save America. None of them wants to dig deep into the American foreign policy over all these years to find out if there was something fundamentally wrong. It just seems to be a reflection of Bush's arrogance in the handling of the domestic and international affairs. Whatever he thinks is right, he doesn't need to justify it to anyone and those who don't agree with him are against the US. The same goes with the Bush supporters here too. Instead of answering questions and admitting they were lied to and misled by Bush they are still content in name calling and personal criticism.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I am only British by nationality, I am in fact Welsh so please get your facts straight first. Your comment implies that the country of my birth dictates my thinking which must therefore suggest that I must dislike ALL US presidents prior to Bush. If you had taken the time to read this thread you would know that is not the case, as there have been many good leaders, and good men, who were President of the US.

As for us talking funny, to whom are you referring? Welsh talk very differently to the English, Scots and Irish. We even have local accents in Wales itself (a country whom is vastly smaller than Florida I might add). I have not stooped low enough to take cheap shots, so please do not try and drag this thread down as thus far it has been very interesting, and highly respectful.

---

Shh.... don't educate him. Education brings knowledge and then he won't believe in Bush anymore.

.

We can but hope, it's obvious enough that he needs it :D

Quote:

---

maybe not hidden but clearly influenced (and quite a bit at that) by the Judeo-Christian right

---

Well he is a Christian and he is some what a conservative so is it any surprise that his policies are also?

Quote:

---

none of the Bush supporters has had the honesty of admitting Bush was completely wrong on the WMDs

---

And so as it appears was the rest of the world, the U.N. and Britain included.

Quote:

---

and the Al Qaeda - Iraq link,

---

There clearly was one before the war, how strong it was is still unclear.

Quote:

---

None of them wants to dig deep into the American foreign policy over all these years to find out if there was something fundamentally wrong.

---

This is not true. investigations have been made and are continuing to be made about failures in the intelligence community. Just because they don't conclude that Bush lied or in any way manipulated the intelligence you ignore them.

Quote:

---

Instead of answering questions and admitting they were lied to and misled by Bush they are still content in name calling and personal criticism.

---

So Bush, the dumbest man around, can fool the world, make them believe Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and convince many of them to go to war against Iraq? Which is it? Is he dumb or intelligent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Well he is a Christian and he is some what a conservative so is it any surprise that his policies are also?

---

Frankly yes it is. He is the most powerful man in the world so he should be impartial. In times when religious fanatacism is increasing he shouldn't be seen as a christian leader, he should be seen as political leader.

Quote:

---

Frankly yes it is. He is the most powerful man in the world so he should be impartial. In times when religious fanatacism is increasing he shouldn't be seen as a christian leader, he should be seen as political leader.

---

I completely disagree with this statement. I am not a religious person, but understand how powerful a religion is in a person's life. It can define everything they do, it is an integral part of them. You cannot separate the religion from the man. Saying a man should ignore his religion when dealing with state matters is the same as saying he should ignore his morals. (I know, many politicians seem to.)

Here is an interesting editorial from the Wall Street Journal about the supposed Iraq-Atta connection.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007584

Where does the impartiallity come from? What world leader is impartial - and why should they be?

And as for casting the first stone - exactly what I was eluding to with this:

Quote:

---

Hey honeybee - why don't you worry about your own nations problems. Find some answers for those now that you have all the answers to ours.

---

Guess that was like the roof joke, over your head.

How many religious leaders in the western world do you see? Only Bush, because the others understand that the needs of their respective people come before the resepective leader's personal beliefs.

For example, if his beliefs and choices are based on the christian faith, what about Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Muslim, Hinduism, Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic?? Those choices he makes will be against these beliefs. A policy should be based on what is needed, not what is morally correct from a single religions point of view.

Yeeeha, kicked the ant nest.

Still, I was asking for any non-Americans who SUPPORTED Bush. Well.....no, I guess I didn't really, but it was what I MEANT to ask.

Also, lest we all be tarred with the same brush, some folks are suggesting that all Americans support Bush. That isn't true. I AM American, proud of it, and embarrassed by the current regime. So DON'T CALL ME WELSH!!!

Quote:

---

There clearly was one before the war, how strong it was is still unclear.

---

Couldn't pass this one up. What link are you referring to, the one where Osama called for the overthrow and execution of the infidel Saddam? Since I feel politics is all a game, I suspect that if you really looked into Osama's soul, you would find that he needed America, but wanted to kill Saddam.

NOBODY does well without an opponent. We've demonstrated that again and again, especially in this country. We pretty much suck when we have no obstacles in front of us. Osama NEEDS America, just as Bush NEEDS Osama. The rhetoric of both sides means nothing to the majority of either persons audience if there isn't a demonizable opponent. Bush was losing ground in the polls prior to 9/11, since then he has tried to keep the publics eye on the challenge ahead. Osama provided that challenge. Love Bush or hate him, a view of his political fortunes since 2000 shows that Osama has been beneficial to Bush, if not to this country.

The same could be said for Osama. Where would he be without America? Some petty local leader, probably. His whole organization is built around demonizing the US. The war in Iraq has only strengthened him, because it makes his central message all the more significant to that sector of the community out there that is receptive to it. A vague opponent a long ways from your village cannot compare with a tangible opponent on your doorstep when it comes to motivating militants.

On the other hand, Saddam was a threat of a different source. He lived in the same house as Osama. In effect, his base was Osama's base, and, as you all well know...All your base....etc.

Therefore, I think Osama probably hated Saddam more than America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Therefore, I think Osama probably hated Saddam more than America.

---

Which is why he attacked Iraq with civilian jetliners killing over 3000...oh wait, nevermind.

Valleysboy - Can you give a concrete example of a policy decision based solely on Bushs religious beliefs, or is this just an extension of the rhetoric you hear from the media?

Under 3,000, and your statement is not inconsistent with my point. Did you think it was?


That question to Valleysboy is weird. Are you suggesting that Bush is not influenced by his religious beliefs? Frankly, I have a hard time thinking of any policy decision by anybody, even the pope, that is based solely on religious beliefs. However, I think Bush's actions on several things, such as his statements on Terri Shiavo (or however you spell that), faith based initiative, court appointees, etc. may have been based on his religious beliefs. Of couse, it is possible that they were not, and either it was pure coincidence that the decisions coincided with his stated beliefs, or it is possible that he is a hypocrite and the decisions were based on a belief he doesn't honestly hold.

However, in all of those cases, I don't believe the decisions were based solely on religion. What does that prove? In short, what would you like the answer to that second question to be, and why?

3,030 actually. And your point was that Osama hated Sadaam more than the US - attacking the US would pretty much invalidate your conclusion, making my statement pretty consistent with your point.

As for the question to Valleysboy - why is that weird? He stated "A policy should be based on what is needed, not what is morally correct from a single religions point of view." Just asking for examples. What I would like the answer to be, or why, is irrelevant.