Originally posted by InsaneSith
theres no way hussien and bin laden can be connected. bin laden wants a theocracy ( god run govenrment) hussien wants a dictatorship ( hes in control)

Very well said, an important point dulled by the U.S. propoganda to a smooth nub.


Hard to believe no one else has pointed this out yet.

And Bush wants an Oligarchy (only the rich have rights, middle & poor classes must be silent).

Originally posted by InsaneSith
theres no way hussien and bin laden can be connected. bin laden wants a theocracy ( god run govenrment) hussien wants a dictatorship ( hes in control)

Yes there is and its because they both hate the US.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Yes there is and its because they both hate the US.

Lots of people hate the U.S., that doesn't connect them to Iraq or Bin Laden beyond sentiment.

Perhaps I was wrong to call George Dubyah a "tyrant" in my previous post. Well, at least I can admit my mistakes, unlike a certain former President who just gets his son to finish off his job...

What I meant was that, fair enough, Saddam Hussain is a purely evil being. However, I feel that George Dubyah is the person in the wrong over this crisis (war is the incorrect term to use since it has not been declaired by either side), because his atttude and approach will kill, injure or destroy more people than Saddam ever has. This conflict could well begin World War Three.

The American President is influenced by oil, by his father's mistakes, by the American mentality of "might makes right". Through all of this, his actions are not influenced enough by the one key factor in bringing Saddam Hussain down: the fact that Saddam is evil. Sure, Bush takes every oppertunity to use the word, but it doesn't mean that it is the one true reason for attacking Iraq.

France, Germany and Russia have sworn to defend peace. America is dead set on war. Great Britain (emphasis on the GREAT) is still deciding over the best course of action. The UN are debating away until the cows come home. The weapons inspectors are still fine-tooth combing Iraq.
All it takes is one spark. If George Dubyah orders "attack!" then the three peace-loving countries will be enraged. The UN will begin debating again. The weapons inspectors will be killed in the crossfire (or by Saddam lashing out at the nearest Western target). World War will decend... and you know who will win?

Taking advantage of the chaos, Korea will launch their new nuclear arsenal and destroy all of their targets within days. America will be helpless because they are all in Iraq. France, Germany and Russia will all be on peace marches, and not watching the radar. The UN won't hear the Korean weapons because everyone is shouting loudly in the debate. Great Britain, because of the rest of the world's incompetance, will not be able to lauch an effective counter-attack on Korea and will be destroyed.

And scientists are worried about a giant meteor in 2998? Why not let George Dubyah destroy the world for us now? Saves the waiting...

Originally posted by Commander Bond
Perhaps I was wrong to call George Dubyah a "tyrant" in my previous post. Well, at least I can admit my mistakes, unlike a certain former President who just gets his son to finish off his job...

Umm why does Old Bush even need to come into this now. Focus on here and now, not on the past.

Originally posted by Commander Bond
What I meant was that, fair enough, Saddam Hussain is a purely evil being. However, I feel that George Dubyah is the person in the wrong over this crisis (war is the incorrect term to use since it has not been declaired by either side), because his atttude and approach will kill, injure or destroy more people than Saddam ever has. This conflict could well begin World War Three.

Does that still make Saddam the better person just because a war in trying to bring him down will cost lives? Saddam killed out of cruelty which makes it worse time 2.

Originally posted by Commander Bond
The American President is influenced by oil, by his father's mistakes, by the American mentality of "might makes right". Through all of this, his actions are not influenced enough by the one key factor in bringing Saddam Hussain down: the fact that Saddam is evil. Sure, Bush takes every oppertunity to use the word, but it doesn't mean that it is the one true reason for attacking Iraq.

I take it you don't watch Bush's speeches. He hasn't said one thing about oil in the cause to bring Saddam down. And once again, you're basing the ENTIRE American people as a whole because of the actions of a few when you say "might makes right." Please don't do that again.

Originally posted by Commander Bond
France, Germany and Russia have sworn to defend peace. America is dead set on war. Great Britain (emphasis on the GREAT) is still deciding over the best course of action. The UN are debating away until the cows come home. The weapons inspectors are still fine-tooth combing Iraq.
All it takes is one spark. If George Dubyah orders "attack!" then the three peace-loving countries will be enraged. The UN will begin debating again. The weapons inspectors will be killed in the crossfire (or by Saddam lashing out at the nearest Western target). World War will decend... and you know who will win?

I assume you meant GREAT as in a large country right? Please, don't diss America because of the actions of a few and then go out and call you country "Great." It hypocracy. And you always seem to look for the dire things in life. How about this. Bush orders attack, Saddam is brought down and the tons of chemical and biological weapons are brought out to show the world that the US really did have means to justify an attack. The Middle East becomes a safer and better place and the 3 "peace loving" countries admit that bringing down Saddam was the right thing to do. That could happen. Don't take everything the US does as a WW3 starting threat.

Originally posted by Commander Bond
Taking advantage of the chaos, Korea will launch their new nuclear arsenal and destroy all of their targets within days. America will be helpless because they are all in Iraq. France, Germany and Russia will all be on peace marches, and not watching the radar. The UN won't hear the Korean weapons because everyone is shouting loudly in the debate. Great Britain, because of the rest of the world's incompetance, will not be able to lauch an effective counter-attack on Korea and will be destroyed.

In case you didn't know, N Koreas missles are not capable of hitting England. Just thought you should know before you go predicting the end of the world. AT MOST (and noone knows if this is true yet) the missles could hit Siberia (wow) and the western part of the US. Admittidly that would be a huge tragidy but it wouldn't bring about the demise of the entire world. Also, Bush is well aware of the threat N. Korea poses to the western US and steps are already being taken to defend the possibility of an attack from N. Korea.

Originally posted by Commander Bond
And scientists are worried about a giant meteor in 2998? Why not let George Dubyah destroy the world for us now? Saves the waiting...

Last time I checked he was interested only in bringing down Saddam and not blowing up the earth. Thank you and please, his name is spelled George W. Bush. I'm not saying that all his methods are right but it infuriates me to see someone make accusations of him that are nowhere near the mark.



Originally posted by SkinWalker
Lots of people hate the U.S., that doesn't connect them to Iraq or Bin Laden beyond sentiment.

But bin Ladens already done something to try and hurt the US and Saddam is able to do something... why wouldn't they want to "hook up?"

Is it really so hard to see? Bin Laden wants you to attack an arabian country! It'll much increase terrorist recrutation, and cause much more hate against the US. Why else would Bin Laden go out and say "You suck, we rule, we are going to kill you, oh and BTW Saddam's a good friend of mine."?

Umm why does Old Bush even need to come into this now. Focus on here and now, not on the past.

Then perhaps you could forget everything Saddam has done in the past. You can forget about 9/11 too, because that's past.

I take it you don't watch Bush's speeches. He hasn't said one thing about oil in the cause to bring Saddam down.

He hasn't. But his speeches are rubbish anyway seen through a non-american's view. For instance, he claims that it's Saddam urging for war and not him, and his pathetic threats against the UN about "do presicely as we say or you're dead" or perhaps the rubbish about France and Germany being "traitors".

How about this. Bush orders attack, Saddam is brought down and the tons of chemical and biological weapons are brought out to show the world that the US really did have means to justify an attack. The Middle East becomes a safer and better place and the 3 "peace loving" countries admit that bringing down Saddam was the right thing to do. That could happen.

But it's not very likely. The middle east is most likely going to be much more unstabile and dangerous, the Muslim hate against US will much increase (and so will terror actions). Saddam will most likely get away and there will be gigantic wars in Iraq, with loads of casualties on both sides. The war will harm the civillians greatly, and millions will die of hunger and diseases. And WW3 will break out.

That could also happen. Are you going to take such a massive risk?

But bin Ladens already done something to try and hurt the US and Saddam is able to do something... why wouldn't they want to "hook up?"

I'm able to jump into a plain, hijack it and fly it straight into Empire State Building. I won't do it, but I'm still able to. Does this mean that I am hooked up with Bin Laden?

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Then perhaps you could forget everything Saddam has done in the past. You can forget about 9/11 too, because that's past.

Got me there. :D What I emant to say is don't bring old Bush back into this. :)


Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
He hasn't. But his speeches are rubbish anyway seen through a non-american's view. For instance, he claims that it's Saddam urging for war and not him, and his pathetic threats against the UN about "do presicely as we say or you're dead" or perhaps the rubbish about France and Germany being "traitors".

Yes sadly thats what it looks like. :(

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
the Muslim hate against US will much increase

Actually most of Iraq would happily see Saddam gone but they've been frightened into submission for fear of what he will do to them. So it is unclear what will happen.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
I'm able to jump into a plain, hijack it and fly it straight into Empire State Building. I won't do it, but I'm still able to. Does this mean that I am hooked up with Bin Laden?

Are you trying to defend that there's absolutely no way on earth that they have ties? You're reading me very literally here.

I thought I read somewhere that N.Korea could potentially hit my home state with nukes.. that scares me just a bit.

Though, Russia has had that ability for decades, but at least we're at peace with them now. ; p



Incidentally, I find it interesting the turn of events in the last 30 years or so. The US has gotten almost constant flak for "propping up" or coddling third world dictators, only because they were "friendly" to US interests.

I guess we were supposed to overthrow them with military force. But now, when we oppose those dictators (again, supposedly in our "US interests"), we're labelled warmongers.

I'm not saying Bush is always right, but it seems just a little bit strange. I guess the philosophy that peace is better than war is pretty strong in much of Europe, rather than freedom is better than slavery. Note: I'm not bashing them, just trying to look at this in a broader scope...


It is true, in Iraq there are elections, but the results have been 98-100% for Saddam. And he's running unopposed, for life. I don't think those are exactly the kind of free elections most of us would want. ; p

Also, I question the use of the term "oligarchy." This is defined as "a political system ruled by a few." Isn't that the definition of a Republic (representatives elected by the people), or a government in general?

The US is not a pure democracy, but then most countries aren't (the people decide the laws and govern directly, not through reps). It seems this form of government only works well in smaller countries or confederations of smaller democratic states.

I've been thinking about this for a long time... what is the purpose of the UN? It doesn't seem to be about freedom, because it seems that having dictatorships and authoritarian regimes (like China and Russia when it was the Soviet Union) was tolerated, just so long as you didn't murder a bunch of people on purpose.

Instead it seems to be about preventing war (which is an admirable goal), which it hasn't done such a great job at since it was founded. International Law sounds like a good idea on paper, but the only way to enforce it is with... well.. force, and doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? The countries with the nukes and the money end up making the decisions anyway. Who can oppose them?

I guess its good that nations are talking....

Originally posted by Commander Bond
Taking advantage of the chaos, Korea will launch their new nuclear arsenal and destroy all of their targets within days. America will be helpless because they are all in Iraq. France, Germany and Russia will all be on peace marches, and not watching the radar. The UN won't hear the Korean weapons because everyone is shouting loudly in the debate. Great Britain, because of the rest of the world's incompetance, will not be able to lauch an effective counter-attack on Korea and will be destroyed.

And scientists are worried about a giant meteor in 2998? Why not let George Dubyah destroy the world for us now? Saves the waiting...

Sounds to me like it would be North Korea that would be destroying the world, not US. I see no reason why the U.S attacking Iraq is in ANY way related to North Korea firing nukes at the entire world.
Now, I understand nationalism is big to a lot of people, but seriously, the entire world is going to be so confused and stupid as to allow us to get the **** nuked out of us EXCEPT Great Britain? you guys are so freeking amazing you would be the only nation aware of what was going on? If you're so wonderfully smart why don't you guys just fix all of the worlds problems?

I appologize for the attack there.....but you've been bashing my country pretty hard. I agree with Kurgan, it seems that we can do no right. I understand that we do things wrong, but EVERYTHING is wrong to everyone else. Support the dictators who are tormenting their people, we are evil. Try to take down the dictators who are tormenting their people, we are evil. Even after all that we've done for Europe, and don't say we haven't...unless perhaps you're from germany or austria......because we kinda screwed them over in WWI...
But in World War I it was US reinforcments who allowed the French to keep the Germans out of Paris, and that defeat basically ended the war. We loaned SO MUCH money to europe after BOTH World Wars which we will probably NEVER get back. And yet, do we get a thankyou? nope. Do we ASK for a thank you? No. But hey, ya know, you're probably right, we're just an evil warmongering nation who doesn't care at all about the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
But bin Ladens already done something to try and hurt the US and Saddam is able to do something... why wouldn't they want to "hook up?"

Bin Laden doesn't particularly like Saddam. He probably doesn't trust him. The latter is a secular dictator/tyrant, the former is an Islamic fundamentalist.

Although... one could make the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguement.

Skin

Originally posted by Commander Bond

The American President is influenced by oil, by his father's mistakes, by the American mentality of "might makes right".

I wouldn't say that the "mentality of 'might makes right'" is an American idea. Not exclusively or even mostly. But Bush may well be influenced by Pride ("his father's mistakes"). One thing I'm sure of.... it's not about oil. I've looked at that issue and I can't see it adding up. I don't see what advantage we'll (the Western world) have over oil by defeating Iraq.

Skin

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Yes there is and its because they both hate the US. does that somehow connect me to bin laden:confused:

by the way i live in texas.

Originally posted by C'jais
I wasn't aware that Hussein supported the Al Queda network.

Sourcage?

President Bush... :p


Insane look at all my posts about them. They both hate the US, want to get rid of it, the US doesn't like either of them. Couldn't they make a connection somewhere to "help each other out". Like Saddam gives bin Laden bio weapons to do something in the US in return for something? Are you telling me thats not possible?

its not possible. they want completely different things. bin laden wants the governments to be run through religion. hes a fanatic. sadam wants to be incharge of the world. no way they can let their hatred for the us make them join together. its like me joining with a southern baptist to destroy something.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
its not possible. they want completely different things. bin laden wants the governments to be run through religion. hes a fanatic. sadam wants to be incharge of the world. no way they can let their hatred for the us make them join together. its like me joining with a southern baptist to destroy something.

I'm not talking about governments here. I'm talking about destroying the US. Bin Laden wants the US GONE and so does Saddam. Ever if it was just the exchanging of weapons or something, that would be considered hooking up.

I am getting Really ******* pissed of here. People saying It's Bush's fualt on 9/11. You sound like a bunch of idiots. Bush does care about ALL ALL ITS SPELLED A-L-L classes of people.
But since that is unlikely for the near future, (until we get rid of Bush) war will happen. I think Bush is the best president we have since. I mean people say Cliton was good. My ************* @ss. Bush knows what he is doing. These people attack us and then we get people who say we caused this. HOW? How in God's name we caused it. War is needed.The American President is influenced by oil
No no don't even start. He is on a mission. To defend us. Now if you have a problem with a president defending his country then you need to see some help.Why not let George Dubyah destroy the world for us now? Saves the waiting... What WHAT!? Your insane. Wants to take over the world.... you know what. Save your breathe. I'm so sick of people bashing the president. This is to all those who hate President Bush and call him names and accuse him of this that are just stupid.....YOU ALL ACT LIKE CHILDREN. CHILDREN! THATS WHAT WE SHOULD TREAT YOU LIKE. U.S.A Is not evil. (and evil does exist) But when you say U.S.A Your jumping to conclusions. I just needed to blow steam. But think again and again of what you have to say about the U.S.A or Bush.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I'm not talking about governments here. I'm talking about destroying the US. Bin Laden wants the US GONE and so does Saddam. Ever if it was just the exchanging of weapons or something, that would be considered hooking up. what i was saying is that their beliefs would never let them join together. bin laden hates saddam and other dictators just as much as he hates the US. which means he will never let his hatred for the US allow him to join forces with saddam.

Reborn, you view the entire middle east area as a completely monolithic evil with regards to the US.

It's not like they don't hate themselves down there.

Originally posted by C'jais
Reborn, you view the entire middle east area as a completely monolithic evil with regards to the US.

It's not like they don't hate themselves down there.

Which post of mine are you referring to? Yes I know they ahte themselves. Most of the people in Iraq hate Saddam but they can't do anything about it. And Isreal? Well they're hated by most of the Middle East.

And Insane, I'm reffering to a 3 hours exchange of weapons in return for information, not joining together for like 5 years, though I do see your point and agree, it doesn't mean they couldn't do something simple.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Bush does care about ALL ALL ITS SPELLED A-L-L classes of people.


...except those who cannot vote for him (people from other countries)

These people attack us

Who attack you? Iraq has never attacked you. Al Quida did. But what has Al Qaida to do with Saddam?

and then we get people who say we caused this. HOW? How in God's name we caused it.

Well, if you bomb a guy's home, kill his family and friends, just so you can "protect" yourself, people tends to get a bit mad.

War is needed.

Why?

He is on a mission. To defend us.

Saddam has never attacked you. And it's not probable he will. Bush is not defending anyone, he's just attacking.

YOU ALL ACT LIKE CHILDREN. CHILDREN! THATS WHAT WE SHOULD TREAT YOU LIKE

:rofl: hehe that's funny. I have my own ideas on who's acting immature here, but I have no reason to say.

(and evil does exist)

Evil people does not excist. Use your sense of logic instead of blindly following your president, and you will understand that too.

But think again and again of what you have to say about the U.S.A or Bush.

Why is it so bad to critizise? No one here has ever said that USA is evil, only been critizising it's foreign politics.

Originally posted by Psydan
Wow, Been doing some reading, and I found out that Iraq's government is a republic (wow, I thought it was dictatorship)

Yeah, and Hussein got 100% of the vote in the last election... If he's really nice in this period he might even get 110% next time. [/stinging sarcasm]

theres no way hussien and bin laden can be connected. bin laden wants a theocracy ( god run govenrment) hussien wants a dictatorship ( hes in control)

Read up on your government forms. Theocracy is the worst possible form of dictatorship. But you are right, the connection is unlikely. However, if the US do go in, all guns blazing, then the Al Queda and Mr. Hussein might join forces against their common foe.

I take it you don't watch Bush's speeches. He hasn't said one thing about oil in the cause to bring Saddam down.

Oh, and you expect a politician to be honest? Sorry, but their environment is not conductive to that kind of behavior... You could say that politicians have 'evolved' a resistance to being honest (well most of them).

Is it really so hard to see? Bin Laden wants you to attack an arabian country! It'll much increase terrorist recrutation, and cause much more hate against the US. Why else would Bin Laden go out and say "You suck, we rule, we are going to kill you, oh and BTW Saddam's a good friend of mine."?

LOL. I think that that is kinda conspiratorical, but I also think that bin Laden does want the US to attack. It would either rid him of an enemy and get him new recruits from the arabian world, or gain him a new ally, and new recruits from the arabian world. That's a win-win situation.

But think again and again of what you have to say about the U.S.A or Bush.

Well, he had an IQ of 80-something last time I checked... Lowest ever for an el Presidente.

Whew, done with the answering... Now for my own stand:

If you look at Iraq as an isolated case, I think that it would be better for the civilian Iraqis if Hussein was ousted by a war. We have loads of Iraqi exiles who say that too. And these people experienced Gulf War I, and most of them still have relatives in Iraq.

However, you cannot look at Iraq as an isolated case. Hussein is not popular in the arabian world, but US is even less loved. So if US goes in, then there will be resentment, and it might very well destabilize the entire area.

Personally I think that the US should pull out of the Middle East. Completely. Whatever it does it will look bad in the eyes of the locals, which will be serving bin Laden's purpose.

There are, reportedly, revolutionary movements in Iran, for example. I believe that these, and their like-minded in the rest of the Middle East, will lose support if the US invades.

We should let them solve their own problems. Not that that is optimal, but I'm damn sure that they won't accept our help.

Now if there was a dictator who was well on his way to create long-distance rockets, on the other hand...

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
[BWhy is it so bad to critizise? No one here has ever said that USA is evil, only been critizising it's foreign politics. [/B]

No.... critisism should always be tolerated in a free society. But if we (American citizens) would take the time to notice, our President shows signs that he does not tolerate critisism. Bush stated recently: , ...it's like deciding, 'Well I'm going to decide policy based up on a focus group'. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security - in this case - security of the people.'

Clearly the will of the people are insignificant in this instance. This would indicate that the will of the people may be irrelevant in other instances (past or future) as well.

I am *not* an "anti-republican" or a "conservative basher" in any regard. I voted for one of Reagan's terms (wasn't old enough for the first), I voted for Bush (the original) twice. I have gone out of my way to attend functions that Bush (Sr.) was speaking at since his defeat by Clinton. I believe that if Bush (Sr.) was in power today, we would not be facing the crisis we are. Things would be different.

Bush (the current) has never given me that feeling of trust. When making public speeches I didn't take note his lack of oratory skill as others did, but his tone of voice. G.W. Bush's tone has always been condescending. His attitude has always been elitist. The one solid voice of reason he has (IMHO) is Gen. Powell, whose loyalty and duty Bush takes advantage of.

War with Iraq makes no sense. In order to go to war with Iraq, the United States must justify it:

1) Iraq is a periphery nation-state with "weapons of mass destruction" and therefore must disarm or face military action.

2) Iraq is a nation-state that has one or more United Nations resolutions imposed upon it that it has failed to acknowledge. Military action is necessary to enforce these resolutions.

3) Iraq is a periphery nation-state that is ruled by a dictator/tyrant that has commited atrocities against his own people and violated human rights of his own people.

In doing so, we set precedents that we cannot live up to:

1) Other periphery nation-states also have WOMD. In fact many periphery nation-states have WOMD. Which of these are next? Pakistan? India? N. Korea? Libya? According to the Dept. of Defense (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/020109-D-6570C-001.pdf) (go to slide #5), 12 nations have nuclear weapons programs, 13 have biological weapons, and 16 have chemical weapons. That they know of.

2) Many, many nations are in violation of UN resolutions. N. Korea, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and even (especially?) Israel. Israel is, and has been, in violation of Resolution 242, which requires a complete withdrawal from lands seized in the 1967 Mideast war. Is Israel next on Bush's hit list? Or will it wait until after one of the more periphery nations?

3) Let us not foget Castro, Kim Jong-il, Sharone, Arafat, Mugabe and others. They oppress their people and are the causes of many human rights violations. Iraq's Hussein is not alone in his tyrrany.

Bush stated the following in a speech: "We are going to respond in a determined, focused, effective way by defending freedom no matter what the cost, and that includes understanding we cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail the United States or our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons," Bush said.

If we take him at his word, it will not end with Iraq. But I think it will. Bush has broken his word in the past.

The war with Iraq will have consequences:
1) American lives will be lost.
2) Innocent Iraqi's will be killed.
3) Iraqi infrastructure will be destroyed
4) Global economy will be affected (even more than it already has)
5) Either anarchy will prevail in the aftermath of Iraq's defeat, or...
6) Long-term occupation will need to occur
7) Kurds will want their own country that noone in the middle east will want them to have (especially Turkey and Iraq)
8) Global terrorism will rise in frequency, especially in western nations and, especially, with U.S. interests.
9) Untold billions of dollars will be spent by the U.S. alone, some of it to be bribes to Turkey for use of staging areas.
10) Turkey will be left unchecked by the U.S. as they commit human rights attrocities against Kurds.

Those are the minimum consequences as I see them. There may be others... Saddam may sabatage the Iraqi oilfields, deploy chemical/biological weapons against anyone he can, etc.

This war will happen, though. There has been too much expense utilized in troop/equipment movement not to go through with it now. Plus, Bush's ego won't allow for anything else at this point.

Bush is betraying the trust of the American people and is acting deceitfully in his pursuit of absolute power. The next step for him will be to put a couple of very conservative Supreme Court Justices in place that will tip the balance in his favor. That will prevent a ruling against any legislation he pushes through Congress. This is a unique time in American history: nearly every branch of Federal Goverment is conservative-Republican.

But that's just the way I see it. I'm sure those American citizens that just blindly follow what their government leaders (and party leaders) tell them, see it differently.

SkinWalker

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Personally I think that the US should pull out of the Middle East. Completely. Whatever it does it will look bad in the eyes of the locals, which will be serving bin Laden's purpose.

If the US pulls out completely it will also be serving bin Ladens purpose far better than he could have planned. Now he would have free reign to plan whatever he wanted if the US pulled out of it completely. Its a no win situation for the US.

Send in 'special forces' disguised as Weapons Inspectors and assassinate Sadam Hussain.

Whaaat? That would utterly crush any trust placed in the UN from the Arabian countries (and most other countries infact).

Undermining the integrity and authority of the UN isn't exactly conductive to world peace and security, which is why I voted for the last option (BTW: Finally a well-thought-out poll... Great).

And Reborn: Maybe you're right that it would give bin Laden a free reign, but, as Leia says in A New Hope: "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."

Plainly put: He already has a mostly free reign, and the longer you stay, the greater the resentment. Since you can't stay forever, pulling out ASAP would be whatsitcalled 'damage control'.

A couple of notes on people's comments:

Read up on your government forms. Theocracy is the worst possible form of dictatorship. But you are right, the connection is unlikely. However, if the US do go in, all guns blazing, then the Al Queda and Mr. Hussein might join forces against their common foe.

Not necessarily. A theocracy is defined as (dictionary.com):

A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

It doesn't HAVE to be a dictatorship. One could argue that Great Britain and Germany, both of which have state churches are "theocratic."

However, the term has come to have a derrogatory connotation.. as in, a state that discriminates against its citizens if they don't belong to the majority faith.

I guess where you run into problems is when the tenents of the majority religion are codified into laws, and applied to everyone, including those who do not subscribe to that faith, which is the case in various Muslim theocracies that we keep hearing about today(such as the former Taliban government or Saudi Arabia).

Iraq isn't one, its a secular state, even though there is a muslim majority (they're not Wahabi Muslims though IIRC.. which is Bin Laden's sect. The Wahabi's are a strict fundamentalist group). Lately Saddam has been using more "Muslim" rhetoric, probably in an attempt to get other Muslims in the world on his side, which isn't surprising for a politician to do (note all the "I'm a faithful Christian/Jew" rhetoric in the last US presidential election).

I'm not military/political strategist, but I'd say the two biggest things that the US cares about in the middle east are Israel and Oil. Without those, I don't think we'd be as tied up there as we have been in the last 50 years.

Its only a happy coincidence that Saddam is also a brutal dictator who has had (and may also secretly continue to have) WMD.

So, I guess its sort of like tracking down the mafia crime boss, who just so happens to also be the guy who ran over your dog.

As to the crack about GW being mentally retarded, that's a common slur on him (note his many public verbal gaffs when he was campaigning and just elected.... similar to what happened to Dan Quayle):

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnotes3.htm)

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm)

(especially the second link)

He was simply the victim of a smear (as are most politicians at some time in their careers.. deserved or not). If you think they're a biased source, note that they also defended Clinton from the "Clinton Body Count" rumor, which was far more nasty.

A joke becomes an urban legend, and people who hate him anyway assume its true!


Basically from day 1 it was decided that Bush would be an ineffectual leader, who would never win the White House, because he was a the son of a rich Texas oilman (they said the same thing about Bush Sr.. he was "born with a silver foot in his mouth" as they said) and only cared about money. I guess the"rich playboy syndrome" also applied to JFK, although Kennedy was thought of as being "smart" because he could give great speeches.

Anyway, they gave him crap about the election (which was really too close to call anyway). I didn't think the US really had much of a choice between Bush and Gore anyway. But that's how it goes...

Bush's ratings went up a bit because a lot of people felt he handled 9-11 well, and his harsh rhetoric against the corporate fraud guys that recently were caught, etc. I don't know, for all of his weaknesses and for all the complaints, I think he's doing an okay job. Not a great man by any means, but no worse than our previous presidents I guess. I didn't vote him in though, so that's my excuse to complain. ; )

Its true, the rest of the world doesn't vote for the US president, but that's a red herring. You don't see my complaining about how I didn't get to vote Putin into office, or Tony Blair, or any other world leader. The fact is, getting elected means you have connections and money.... in order to run a successful campaign which will attract voters. It doesn't give you divine right or anything. I don't think anybody honestly believes that.

There is this little matter of the US being the Hyperpower of the world... I guess that that is why people complain that they don't get to vote for or against the American el Presidente.

The thing you wrote about theocracies not having to be dictatorships is strictly so-so. A dictatorship doesn't have to be oppressive either, it's just that it usually does turn out to be.

And there is a great, great difference between having a state church and being subjected to religious autority. In Denmark, for example, it's the other way around: The state bosses the church around (much to the discontentment of the Bishops BTW), whereas the US, which has no state church, is by and large dominated by Christianity, which makes it a half-and-half theocracy (and yes it's oppressive too, so don't try to use that as a counter to what I said about theocracies above).

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
...except those who cannot vote for him (people from other countries)



Who attack you? Iraq has never attacked you. Al Quida did. But what has Al Qaida to do with Saddam?



Well, if you bomb a guy's home, kill his family and friends, just so you can "protect" yourself, people tends to get a bit mad.



Why?



Saddam has never attacked you. And it's not probable he will. Bush is not defending anyone, he's just attacking.



:rofl: hehe that's funny. I have my own ideas on who's acting immature here, but I have no reason to say.



Evil people does not excist. Use your sense of logic instead of blindly following your president, and you will understand that too.



Why is it so bad to critizise? No one here has ever said that USA is evil, only been critizising it's foreign politics.

1. The people who support him in other countries. Even the peope, who don't he still cares. But these people want to fight us. We must defend.

2. He will attack us. He does have weapons. The inspectors need just some more time but they will find it I know they have weapons. They stalled long enough to let the inspector in. Just enough to hide any weapons.

3. Sommone attacks you. What you do fight back. What you want us to use harsh language?

4. They will just try attacking us again. We need to show them who they're going up against.

5. Not defendsing anyone you say? Your ignorance annoys me. He wants us dead. He has weapons that are hiding. We need to remove the possible threat and he is.

6. I seen people who think calling bush names and saying absoultly stupid things are mature.

7. So someone mugs or robs you he thinks he is doing good? So someone kills your family just for fun you think he is doing good. So someone threats to kill you he is doing good? Think about it Evil is well alive. Bush knows and everyone who really takes a moment to think about it know evil is all over the world.

8. Yet some people say things so idiotic. They should really think of what they're saying.

Well, he had an IQ of 80-something last time I checked... Lowest ever for an el Presidente.

Where you read that, the False magazine. Thats a load of Bull**** Don't always believe what you hear. He is very smart. Or are you trying to make a insult but not put the blame on you. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

2. He will attack us

Probably not. If he does, he will be chrushed. He's not stupid, you know.

He does have weapons.

Prove it.

The inspectors need just some more time but they will find it

We'll see.

I know they have weapons.

Why? Because Bush said so? Do you really blindly trust him?

3. Sommone attacks you.

Who attacked you? Certainly not Saddam. Bin Laden and Al Qaida did. I know George Dubyah is pretty bad in geography, but honestly! Bombing the wrong countries is a bit too far.

4. They will just try attacking us again.

"Again"? I ask you once more, when did they attack you?

He wants us dead.

A lot of people does. But why should that go out over the innocent?

He has weapons that are hiding.

Prove it.

7. So someone mugs or robs you he thinks he is doing good?

He certainly thinks he does good for himself. And he doesn't really care about many others. But is ignorance evil?

So someone kills your family just for fun you think he is doing good.

Well, when that rarely happens (if ever) it is caused by mental disease. So he has a sickness. Does that make him evil?

So someone threats to kill you he is doing good?

Ignorant, pretty rude, but evil?? Neh.

Think about it Evil is well alive. Bush knows and everyone who really takes a moment to think about it know evil is all over the world.

If you will admit that there is evil in the US too, I would respect that sentence a lot more.

8. Yet some people say things so idiotic. They should really think of what they're saying.

I actually agree.

Don't always believe what you hear. He is very smart.

But where did you heard that he is very smart? Why should you belive in that then?

I don't know what his IQ is, but I belive that he's not really smart, because IMO his speeches are rather moronic.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
2. He will attack us.

How do you know?

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
He does have weapons.

How do you know?

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
The inspectors need just some more time but they will find it I know they have weapons.

How do you know?



Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
3. Sommone attacks you. What you do fight back. What you want us to use harsh language?

What attack are you referring to? Saddam appears to be content to just sit back in his own country.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
4. They will just try attacking us again. We need to show them who they're going up against.

He's never tried to attack us in this decade. During the Gulf War I suppose, but not lately.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
5. Not defendsing anyone you say? Your ignorance annoys me. He wants us dead. He has weapons that are hiding. We need to remove the possible threat and he is.

A lot of people want a lot of people dead. What makes Iraq any different? Nobody argues that the guy is bad. What he's done is disagreeable with the vast majority of the world. But that's not enough reason to go to war.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
6. I seen people who think calling bush names and saying absoultly stupid things are mature.

I've seen people who think that too. Name calling is a waste of time. Pointing out problems and possible solutions during informed discussions is more productive use of the average citizen's time.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
7. ... evil is all over the world.

Evil is a concept of perspective. There is no good or evil, but rather man's perspective of what is acceptable in a society and what is not. But I think more people agree that Saddam is "evil" than not. Unfortunately, there are many that contend that Bush is evil... but that is theirperspective. Personally, I just think he's just "ineffectual," to quote another person in this thread.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
8. Yet some people say things so idiotic. They should really think of what they're saying.

I agree... one should always think before speaking (or writing).

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
.... Don't always believe what you hear. He [Bush] is very smart.


I wouldn't disagree. He obviously has a better than average intelligence. But that doesn't make him right. One can be an "intelligent" ineffectual leader. And, indications are (IMHO) that he is a megalomaniac or, at the very least, has an elitist mentality.

SkinWalker

I was just reading an (admittedly biased) opinion piece saying how Muslims should be more mad at Saddam, considering he's been responsible for more Muslim deaths than just about anybody else in recent history. ; p

I think they were assuming that arab/Muslims overwhelmingly support him, but I wouldn't take that as a given. I figure people living in Iraq would be forced to at least give lip service to supporting him, out of fear... but the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing might apply in many of those cases.

Frankly, I don't think much good can come from this. Sure, the US could take Saddam out of power if they did everything right, but what about after that? That's almost more difficult a question...

I guess I'm just talking about using the proper definitions of words.


Again, "dictatorship" has a negative connotation, for people who uphold democracy as an ideal form of government, obviously.

However what a dictatorship is, is simply a government run by one person, an autocratic ruler. Absolute power (more or less). He doesn't have to be a tyrant (but he often is). Often he'll have backing of the military (to stop those who would oppose him), and often has taken power by force (but not always).

Some governments we call "dictatorships" are actually what we should call "authoritarian" meaning the government has absolute power over its subjects, but authority is delegated to others, not just the head guy.

So I guess you could ask.. could Saddam do whatever he wanted, or would he have to consult with his generals first, or would he make all the decisions or have his head guys trusted to make certain decisions on his authority, etc.

But yeah, a theocracy just means the government is intertwined with a religion. In an Islamist state, that would usually mean that the laws of the country would be based on (an interpretation of) the Shariah (religious law) of Islam, from the teachings of Muhammad (contained in the Quran and the Hadith), according to that branch of Islam's interpretation of course.

Then lawyers would be religious scholars (makes sense right?) and religious laws would be binding on citizens. Some rules would apply differently to Muslim citizens and non Muslim citizens. How those laws are enforced would also depend on those interpreting the laws. They might expell non Muslims from the country, force them to convert, or have them pay a "tax" and allow them to practice their religion in peace. Or they might appoint some kind of judge for their minority community that operates under a non Islamic law (that's just a guess).

It's true, a dictator wouldn't have to be an evil tyrant. The trouble with dictators is that if he IS, there isn't a legal way to remove him from power to prevent him causing damage or abusing his office.

So he usually either has to flee into exile, or you have to kill him in a revolutionary coup. ; p

And what is "better" or "worse" is subjective. Corruption exists in all government forms. I guess the judge of a government in moral terms would be how well it treats its members, and the social form would be how stable it is, and how easily it can adapt to changing circumstances.

Now, the Soviet Union tried to base itself on communism, which upholds the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariet." So you have worker councils, which become the party, and then the party rules for life. The problem there, pretty much, is that the party stays in power, and they eventually cease to become "the people" and end up being the same despots you'd have in any other government, and there's no way to get rid of them or vote for some other opposing party (since all other parties are banned).

Now I'm no expert on China, but some communist countries have changed a lot of things in that regrad, to try to circumvent the inherent weaknesses of the system. I guess in a more general sense, a dictatorship is an authoritarian system where power is in the hands of a VERY FEW. And it doesn't have to be theocratic.

Again, a theocracy could be very tolerant of religious minorities, its just that religion and politics would be intertwined. To what degree and what religion (or blend of religions) would depend on the individual case. Again, like I said, in the broadest definition, you could consider Great Britain or Germany, who have state churches, to be theocracies, even if they don't actively persecute non members of the official faith.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Read up on your government forms. Theocracy is the worst possible form of dictatorship. But you are right, the connection is unlikely. However, if the US do go in, all guns blazing, then the Al Queda and Mr. Hussein might join forces against their common foe. they will never join forces. and a theocracy is not a quote dictatorship though in a way it is. what it is is they decide laws based on their religion and enforce it with the strictest consequences. trust me they will never join together they hate each other just as much as they hate the US.

I wonder.. is Vatican City a theocracy?

After all, that's basically the Pope's country (it's a tiny city state). I hear he has advisors and people who do the main business, while he's kind of a figure head, but essentially it would be a Roman Catholic state (surrounded by Italy which would be majority Catholic, but not a theocracy I think its secular.. correct me if I'm wrong).

There are no "strict consequences" there. The death penalty is outlawed in VC.

It might be unjust to force somebody to do penance for breaking a religious law for a religion they don't believe in, but surely you can't compare that to execution or torture (as occured in Afgahnistan?) for breaking a tiny religious rule or for speaking "blasphemy."


I guess the fear with theocracies, is that if one religion has too much power, the government might use it to persecute non-members of that religion. But, when you think about it, there's nothing intrinsically evil with having a state church (it goes against the US Constitution, but that's another discussion). It would be no worse than having a majority ethnic group or race in charge.

Now out of a sense of fairness, one could argue that ALL groups should be represented fairly in government. But how does one go about that? Do the reps have to be members of the various racial, ethnic or religious groups in proportions to the population? Or do they simply represent geographical areas?

A theocracy in the US won't happen because the Constitution would have to change. There's constant debate between religious and secular circles about how MUCH public presence or influence religious groups should be allowed to have (or not have)... etc.

Originally posted by Kurgan
I wonder.. is Vatican City a theocracy?

After all, that's basically the Pope's country (it's a tiny city state). I hear he has advisors and people who do the main business, while he's kind of a figure head, but essentially it would be a Roman Catholic state (surrounded by Italy which would be majority Catholic, but not a theocracy I think its secular.. correct me if I'm wrong).

There are no "strict consequences" there. The death penalty is outlawed in VC.

It might be unjust to force somebody to do penance for breaking a religious law for a religion they don't believe in, but surely you can't compare that to execution or torture (as occured in Afgahnistan?) for breaking a tiny religious rule or for speaking "blasphemy."


I guess the fear with theocracies, is that if one religion has too much power, the government might use it to persecute non-members of that religion. But, when you think about it, there's nothing intrinsically evil with having a state church (it goes against the US Constitution, but that's another discussion). It would be no worse than having a majority ethnic group or race in charge.

Now out of a sense of fairness, one could argue that ALL groups should be represented fairly in government. But how does one go about that? Do the reps have to be members of the various racial, ethnic or religious groups in proportions to the population? Or do they simply represent geographical areas?

A theocracy in the US won't happen because the Constitution would have to change. There's constant debate between religious and secular circles about how MUCH public presence or influence religious groups should be allowed to have (or not have)... etc. yes vatican city is a theocracy but has no status as a country. as for a radicalist theocracy they would either kill you for going against the religion or put you on the rack.

yes vatican city is a theocracy but has no status as a country. as for a radicalist theocracy they would either kill you for going against the religion or put you on the rack.

You may be right about the first point.. since IIRC VC has only an "observer" status in the UN. It is awfully small, and more than anything a home for the Papal offices.

Sure, a radical theocracy might do that, but then any "radical" government might do that to you, for whatever reason. My point was a theocracy doesn't HAVE to be evil or oppressive, but then, there are many that are.

Originally posted by Kurgan
My point was a theocracy doesn't HAVE to be evil or oppressive, but then, there are many that are.

A theocracy, by very definition, is always oppressive.

You are forced to comply to a single religion, a system of laws that is shaped around this, and a ruling body that enforces their interpretation of dogmas on you.

Or you will be persecuted.

Of course, this doesn't have to be "evil" per se, but if it isn't oppressive, I'm calling Iraq a healthy democracy.

A theocracy, by very definition, is always oppressive.

So is Great Britain oppressive? They have an established state Church, after all... the Church of England.

On the other hand, China has several established/state sponsored religions (including flavors of Christianity and Buddhism, etc.), of course they actively persecute some non-established ones (like the Fulon Gong sect, followers of the Dali Lama in Tibet, and Roman Catholics).


You are forced to comply to a single religion, a system of laws that is shaped around this, and a ruling body that enforces their interpretation of dogmas on you. Or you will be persecuted.

Does England do this to non Anglicans?


Of course, this doesn't have to be "evil" per se, but if it isn't oppressive, I'm calling Iraq a healthy democracy.

Iraq isn't a democracy, because a democracy is by definition rule by the people (note: according to dictionary.com, a democracy CAN be one where the people rule through elected representatives.. which would make the US a democracy under one possible definition. Not a "pure" democracy, but still one).

In Iraq, Saddam Huessin came to power via the power of the military. His is sustained by their power, and though there are elections, there are no opposing candidates, and no one dares vote against him (for fear of reprisal from their government).

In the US you can vote for Nazis and Communists. They probably won't win, but you still have that freedom, and the variances in votes given to different candidates shows that there is healthy disagreement and competition.

One could compare a dictatorship to a monopoly, and a democracy to a competative market. ; )


My point about theocracies, is that a theocracy could be authoritarian, or it could be democratic, or somewhere in between. It wouldn't have to be just one.

Btw, sorry for getting off topic. ; p

Originally posted by Kurgan
Sure, a radical theocracy might do that, but then any "radical" government might do that to you, for whatever reason. My point was a theocracy doesn't HAVE to be evil or oppressive, but then, there are many that are. usually they are because they are usually observed by radicalists.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Probably not. If he does, he will be chrushed. He's not stupid, you know.



Prove it.



We'll see.



Why? Because Bush said so? Do you really blindly trust him?



Who attacked you? Certainly not Saddam. Bin Laden and Al Qaida did. I know George Dubyah is pretty bad in geography, but honestly! Bombing the wrong countries is a bit too far.



"Again"? I ask you once more, when did they attack you?



A lot of people does. But why should that go out over the innocent?



Prove it.



He certainly thinks he does good for himself. And he doesn't really care about many others. But is ignorance evil?



Well, when that rarely happens (if ever) it is caused by mental disease. So he has a sickness. Does that make him evil?



Ignorant, pretty rude, but evil?? Neh.



If you will admit that there is evil in the US too, I would respect that sentence a lot more.



I actually agree.



But where did you heard that he is very smart? Why should you belive in that then?

I don't know what his IQ is, but I belive that he's not really smart, because IMO his speeches are rather moronic.

1. Hmmm.. In a way I agree with you but..... He might be waiting for a moment of attack or waiting for some sort of forces.

2 First answer this what took him so long to let us in?

3 We shall

4 You know what take that "me being blinded by Bush" Bull**** somewhere else. Like I said before what took him so long?

5 The terroist. Hello did you think of that. Also who supports him.. hmmmm? Saddam. Also it's Gorge w . Bush not Dubyah, makes you sound more stupid.Bombing the wrong countries! So your telling me he bombs Canada, South America, England? He fought back at the right ones I'm for sure.

6&7 He WILL. he wants to.

8 Answer What took him so long? But he knows he is doing evil and does again. Good for him but evil.

9. Did you look at his medical log? No you did NOT. Crinimals liked to have some sick and EVIL fun.

10 Bad example. my bad.

11 Guess what their is but don't look at Bush look at the crinimals. The people who do crimes.

12 Now lets see. 1st was New York Post. 2nd was New York times. 3rd was a republician magazine. 4th was a science article 5th was on tv.... Must I go on? He is good in geography or else he won't become president. I would love to have him president again. Why becuase he KNOWS what he is doing. Are they moronic or you have a hard time with big words? I should slap you right now for that. He stumbles on words once or twice but their not moronic.

Notice when Cliton was in office the democrates were all happy. The republicans kept quiet. When Bush enters all of sudden he's satan? Thats usiual Democratic Bull. Why don't you grow up.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
5 The terroist. Hello did you think of that. Also who supports him.. hmmmm? Saddam. Also it's Gorge Dubya Bush not Dubyah, makes you sound more stupid.Bombing the wrong countries! So your telling me he bombs Canada, South America, England? He fought back at the right ones I'm for sure.

The "he" in this case wasn't Saddam Hussein. It was Bin Laden and his followers. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iraq funded, trained or otherwise supported Bin Laden or Al Queda. It's like attacking Canada because so many Mexicans bum-rushed the Texas border.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
8 Answer What took him so long? But he knows he is doing evil and does again. Good for him but evil.

Sorry... I've lost track of your quoting method.... Are we still talking about Bush?

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
9. Did you look at his medical log? No you did NOT. Crinimals liked to have some sick and EVIL fun.

Oh.... perhaps we are :P j/k


Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Why becuase he KNOWS what he is doing.

That's what should scare people.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Are they moronic or you have a hard time with big words?

LMFAO! :D

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
Notice when Cliton was in office the democrates were all happy. The republicans kept quiet.

As I recall (but you may not have been old enough to have understood what was going on), we Republicans (I was at the time) attempted to impeach President Clinton. Something about getting a ЯJ in the oval office.

Cheers,
SkinWalker

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
2 First answer this what took him so long to let us in?


Could be a lot of reasons.

4 You know what take that "me being blinded by Bush" Bull**** somewhere else.

Never said you were blinded by him. Just asked if you trust him completely in everything he says.

5 The terroist. Hello did you think of that. Also who supports him.. hmmmm? Saddam.

Saddam has said himself that he does not support Bin Laden and Al Qaida.

Also it's Gorge w . Bush not Dubyah, makes you sound more stupid.

Ok. "Gorge" w. Bush. I'll remember that. :D

Bombing the wrong countries!

Bin Laden isn't in Iraq, is he? Bombing does not stop terrorism anyway.

6&7 He WILL. he wants to.

Just because he wants to doesn't mean he will.

But he knows he is doing evil and does again. Good for him but evil.

You are wrong there. He thinks he is doing good. Evilness is not in human nature.

9. Did you look at his medical log? No you did NOT.

Did you then?

Crinimals liked to have some sick and EVIL fun.

As I said before, evilness is not in human nature.

11 Guess what their is but don't look at Bush look at the crinimals. The people who do crimes.

What crimes? How will you define a crime?

12 Now lets see. 1st was New York Post. 2nd was New York times. 3rd was a republician magazine. 4th was a science article 5th was on tv.... Must I go on? He is good in geography or else he won't become president. I would love to have him president again. Why becuase he KNOWS what he is doing. Are they moronic or you have a hard time with big words? I should slap you right now for that. He stumbles on words once or twice but their not moronic.

Don't you think calling France and Germany "traitors" is pretty moronic? Don't you think calling people from Greece for "Grecians" is pretty moronic? And how about this:

"Some of his minor screw-ups included his declaration on day two of his trip that he intended to "securitize" Russia's dismantled nuclear weapons. Other blunders were a bit more profound as exemplified by a video clip widely played in Europe that shows the President of the United States spitting out his gum into his hand before signing the "historic" Treaty of Moscow. This must be the simple, down-home brand of skill and grace his supporters refer to.

Then there were the impromptu speaking engagements that surprised Bush and quickly put an uneasy hush on co-speakers and audiences alike. During one such moment in France, Bush childishly lambasted an American reporter for asking Jacques Chirac a question in, of all languages, French.

Bush angrily interrupted the reporter, suggesting that he was only speaking French to show off. When the reporter offered to continue, Bush defensively blurted "Que Bueno" and proceeded to claim that he was bilingual too.

Gerard Baker described the scene for the Financial Times, "Reporters shuffled their notebooks and looked at their feet, embarrassed by this spectacle of an American president jeering at a fellow American for speaking their host's language." No wonder Bush's handlers won't let him address the public without a well-written, well-rehearsed script. Que bueno indeed Mr. President. "

Notice when Cliton was in office the democrates were all happy. The republicans kept quiet. When Bush enters all of sudden he's satan? Thats usiual Democratic Bull. Why don't you grow up.

Jeez. People should be able to take a bit of critic without getting mad. And why would the republicans keep quiet anyway?

saddam didnt train bin laden and his men. the US did. they did when russia was trying to invade the middle east. we trained him knowing he was a terrorist and known US hater. america also taught irag to build bombs when they were at war with iran. we even gave them materials to build the bombs. there is no connection between iraq and al queada and never will be.

usually they are because they are usually observed by radicalists.

Granted. However, a democracy "observed by radicalists" (you mean radical fundamentalists?) can be just as bad. Ever heard of the term "mob rule"?

I'm not calling for theocracy or saying its an ideal government form, but in and of itself, it is not more or less evil than a non-theocratic model. As an American I've been programmed to be against the idea purely on principle, so no need to worry.
; )

i think we should be run by a democracy and not a republic.

Originally posted by Kurgan
So is Great Britain oppressive? They have an established state Church, after all... the Church of England.

Britain isn't a theocracy in any way. It's a government run by elected people, as far as I know, and they're in no way priests justifying their position by claiming divine right.

Denmark also has an established state church, but there's still religious freedom for everyone. Our laws aren't based on Christian principles, they're just good, healthy morals.

On the other hand, China has several established/state sponsored religions (including flavors of Christianity and Buddhism, etc.), of course they actively persecute some non-established ones (like the Fulon Gong sect, followers of the Dali Lama in Tibet, and Roman Catholics).

While China most certainly is oppressive, it's not a theocracy. A country can be oppressive and still not be a theocracy.


Iraq isn't a democracy

I know, I meant it as a joke (:

My point about theocracies, is that a theocracy could be authoritarian, or it could be democratic, or somewhere in between. It wouldn't have to be just one.

Iran is a textbook example of a theocratic government - that's the only one I can remember right now.

I think of us have invented our own definition of "theocracy."

According to dictionary.com:

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.


It does not say "A dictatorship where only one (fundamentalist) religion is legal, and all others are persecuted."

Again, I cite the examples of Great Britain and Germany, both of which have state churches.

Is not the Queen of England (Elizabeth II), the head of the Church of England (with the Archbishop of Canterbury under her)? I rest my case.

Britain isn't a theocracy in any way. It's a government run by elected people, as far as I know, and they're in no way priests justifying their position by claiming divine right.
Denmark also has an established state church, but there's still religious freedom for everyone. Our laws aren't based on Christian principles, they're just good, healthy morals.

Notice in the defintion it doesn't say "officials are not elected." It doesn't say "priests justify their position by claiming divine right." A Buddhist or Confucianist government probably wouldn't claim divine right, but it could still be a theocracy.

With a majority Christian population, you could argue, those majority morals are in fact informed by Christian principles, but that's not the point either.

Religious AUTHORITY, the Queen has that, she's the head of the Church... even if she is a figurehead.

Perhaps China isn't ruled by or subject to religious authority, but in fact RULES religious authority and makes it subject to the state. Maybe that's a better explanation. ; )

But you certainly wouldn't see that kind of state involvement and sponsor ship of religions in the US.

If you assume that theocracy = Iran, then all theocracies have to be just like Iran. That's a distorted view. One might as well say that all democracies have to be like the US.

It might be a text book example of a "bad" theocracy (ie: oppressive, corrupt), though.

i think we should be run by a democracy and not a republic.

Who? I guess that would be ideal, but again, the bigger a nation, the more difficult it is to run a pure democracy, which is why republics exist. Plus, its hard to get that many people to agree on anything.

the greeks got it to work back in so odd ago. ( cant remember the year sorry)

Sure they did, although ancient Greece barred women and slaves from voting.

However, Greece itself isn't that big. Perhaps through the use of technology (not having to physically be there to vote) it could be made easier, but the larger the pure democracy and the more spread out over territory, and the more people, the more unweildy.

actually only prisoners of war slaves werent allowed to vote. women were held equal as men if not greater.