First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Was George Bush All Bad?
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/10/10

Northboundsnow wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Please refrain from saying ''muslims'' started the war, your not in war with all muslims over the world, do NOT blame all muslims for 9/11.
It was a bunch of extremists.


Muslim extremists.

So yes, a group of Muslims started the war.

So Bush didn't start the war, Muslims did, If someone punches you in the face, you don't curl up into a ball and let them wail on you, you retaliate and beat em up.


At wich they will punch you back, hence a never ending cycle until one party dies, wich seems to be perfectly fine with you.
This is what needs to be ended, this attitude only causes harm to everyone in the world, I'm sure your gonna say/think I am weak but if weakness is what it takes to end wars and conflict then I'm more then willing to be weak.


Its weird but I think both you two statements sound right yet wrong on some levels.

For AllhailOdin, you relate to a person being punched, retaliate and beat them up. But since you are talking about Bush and Muslims, its akin to a guy in a red shirt punching your lights out, you retaliate by taking down the neighborhood, beating all the people in red shirt. In a way that basically pretty much makes you out to be an a$$ H$$e. There are also instances where one must not retaliate or be hot-headed and provoked, eg. In a game (look what happen in World Cup to Zidane when that Italian player insulted his mother and sister) or even on the streets.

For Amersfoort, there are times where one must stand up for ones selves as allowing oneself to be abused will invite more abuse upon oneselves or bring harm to one's love ones (Nazi genocide of Continental Europe population, eg Yugoslavia, Netherlands, ) or one principles (American civil war against slavery).



Nicely put. So nicely put, that I hesitate to quible.. but..

The american civil war of 1863-67 was much more complicated that 'against slavery' nor was justice uniquely on the side of the North.


10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/10/10 , edited 9/10/10

amersfoort wrote:

At wich they will punch you back, hence a never ending cycle until one party dies, wich seems to be perfectly fine with you.
This is what needs to be ended, this attitude only causes harm to everyone in the world, I'm sure your gonna say/think I am weak but if weakness is what it takes to end wars and conflict then I'm more then willing to be weak.


War is sometimes unavoidable. Heated conflict is in our core nature. Earth is to culturally and religiously diverse for peace. A ton of these religions and cultures are in direct violation of one another, and that provokes fights and on a larger scale war. Similar to when some homophobic beats up a gay dude for being gay because he doesn't understand it, only on a much larger scale.


The best deterrent from conflict is strength.

ie, "I don't think I wanna pick a fight with him, he looks like he could beat the shit out of me" Is what you think when you look at someone with huge muscles. Tho some times you get the narcissistic jock who goes "I bet I could take him", then tries it and gets his ass beat.


Weakness will not prevent war and conflict, It will provoke it.

ie "I think I'm going to go pick on him, he looks like he won't be able to fight back"

This occurs on a larger scale with entire countries.


Individuals do it, groups of people do it, entire countries do it, What you can observe from that is conflict is hard coded into our nature. We conflict over anything from resources to insignificant things like "Hey you stole my pencil".
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/10/10 , edited 9/10/10

Northboundsnow wrote:

Its weird but I think both you two statements sound right yet wrong on some levels.

For AllhailOdin, you relate to a person being punched, retaliate and beat them up. But since you are talking about Bush and Muslims, its akin to a guy in a red shirt punching your lights out, you retaliate by taking down the neighborhood, beating all the people in red shirt. In a way that basically pretty much makes you out to be an a$$ H$$e. There are also instances where one must not retaliate or be hot-headed and provoked, eg. In a game (look what happen in World Cup to Zidane when that Italian player insulted his mother and sister) or even on the streets.


I say its different because it wasn't some random individual who punched you in the face, it was a member of an group devoted to punching you in the face. The enemy is not the individuals who bombed the trade center, they died in the crash, but the entire group devoted to the same cause.

That imo makes it different, as the enemy is the entire group not just the individuals who committed the act.

I'm not talking about all muslism, I'm talking about the muslim extremists.
Posted 9/10/10 , edited 9/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:



War is sometimes unavoidable. Heated conflict is in our core nature. Earth is to culturally and religiously diverse for peace. A ton of these religions and cultures are in direct violation of one another, and that provokes fights and on a larger scale war. Similar to when some homophobic beats up a gay dude for being gay because he doesn't understand it, only on a much larger scale.


The best deterrent from conflict is strength.

ie, "I don't think I wanna pick a fight with him, he looks like he could beat the shit out of me" Is what you think when you look at someone with huge muscles. Tho some times you get the narcissistic jock who goes "I bet I could take him", then tries it and gets his ass beat.


Weakness will not prevent war and conflict, It will provoke it.


ie "I think I'm going to go pick on him, he looks like he won't be able to fight back"

This occurs on a larger scale with entire countries.


Individuals do it, groups of people do it, entire countries do it, What you can observe from that is conflict is hard coded into our nature. We conflict over anything from resources to insignificant things like "Hey you stole my pencil".
No, when mirror neurons are in fact proven to be in our brains, just like any other specie of mammals does. You OTOH completely ignored your contradiction, because you simply don't understand the nature of humanity. That we are social animals, and the only way for us to not consider other people is a lack of understanding via ignorance, not strength nor weakness.

What's worst, your uncritically irrational claim of "heated conflict is in our core nature" completely contradicted on a collective level. Because how would you explain organizational social movements, when members of the same organization are constantly conflicting each others?

Finally, and I do mean it with all due respect of your entitlement claim, your obsession on strength and weakness fits the individual profile of a psychopathic personality disorder.


Allhailodin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Please refrain from saying ''muslims'' started the war, your not in war with all muslims over the world, do NOT blame all muslims for 9/11.
It was a bunch of extremists.


Muslim extremists.

So yes, a group of Muslims started the war.

So Bush didn't start the war, Muslims did
, If someone punches you in the face, you don't curl up into a ball and let them wail on you, you retaliate and beat em up.
That's a combination of both "no true Scotsman" and "post hoc" logical fallacies right there.

So what part of intentionally killing/murdering innocent civilians justifies your American brand of retaliation?
17952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Online
Posted 9/11/10 , edited 9/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Northboundsnow wrote:

Its weird but I think both you two statements sound right yet wrong on some levels.

For AllhailOdin, you relate to a person being punched, retaliate and beat them up. But since you are talking about Bush and Muslims, its akin to a guy in a red shirt punching your lights out, you retaliate by taking down the neighborhood, beating all the people in red shirt. In a way that basically pretty much makes you out to be an a$$ H$$e. There are also instances where one must not retaliate or be hot-headed and provoked, eg. In a game (look what happen in World Cup to Zidane when that Italian player insulted his mother and sister) or even on the streets.


I say its different because it wasn't some random individual who punched you in the face, it was a member of an group devoted to punching you in the face. The enemy is not the individuals who bombed the trade center, they died in the crash, but the entire group devoted to the same cause.

That imo makes it different, as the enemy is the entire group not just the individuals who committed the act.

I'm not talking about all muslism, I'm talking about the muslim extremists.


the Muslim extremists make up about half their population or something like that.

how close do you think that is..

As for the Americans part in this, I do not consider their war worthy of respect as well.
55344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/14/10
Well bush with all his fault has been the best of last three presidents, I wounder i f Obama will give clemency to former president Clinton for lying under oath. then again I wounder If Obama knows what he doing?
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 9/15/10

tarakelly wrote:

Well bush with all his fault has been the best of last three presidents, I wounder i f Obama will give clemency to former president Clinton for lying under oath. then again I wounder If Obama knows what he doing?

Best president out of the three, well you are entitled to your opinion and history will be the judge of that.

Still its a toss-up isn't it, about lying about having a sexual affair, or leading a nation into war on a lie. Wonder which is worse?
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/15/10

Northboundsnow wrote:


tarakelly wrote:

Well bush with all his fault has been the best of last three presidents, I wounder i f Obama will give clemency to former president Clinton for lying under oath. then again I wounder If Obama knows what he doing?

Best president out of the three, well you are entitled to your opinion and history will be the judge of that.

Still its a toss-up isn't it, about lying about having a sexual affair, or leading a nation into war on a lie. Wonder which is worse?


Granted My interest and right to have an interest is limited to when the USA starts messing with the rest of the countries in the world. But I care a lot more about mobilising armies on a lie than who is banging whom in the white house. Clinton may have been a sleazeball in his personal life but he didn't seem bad for you guys as a president.

I'll take a competent sleazeball over a "true believer" who will drag me into a war any day.


55344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/15/10
Well the US stayed out of wars mostly but Europe never could get it's act together, We been called on by other counties to intervening. So every one thinks the USA is the bad guy. Well if are economy went before the Soviets Unions Then the Soviets would be the big bad wolf. I wished people would have understood why we did not go into Iraq the first time. So many blame the Bush 2 and never thought about all the treaty violation prior to are war with them. Second we had cut down are standing army from thirty division down to ten. The equipment was still ragged would would have lost many more solder the first go around then the second. Just some thing to think about allot of military budget cuts went through house senate well before Reagan took office. The army really needed better equipment but most of it did not get into production until after the first Bush left office. Vietnam was a French screw up and they reneged on the treaty with Hochman. I can tell you we had advisors over there before 1960 helping the French and watching them. so please tell me in the last 60 years were did we go with out being provoked or by the UN.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 9/16/10

tarakelly wrote:

Well the US stayed out of wars mostly but Europe never could get it's act together, We been called on by other counties to intervening. So every one thinks the USA is the bad guy. Well if are economy went before the Soviets Unions Then the Soviets would be the big bad wolf. I wished people would have understood why we did not go into Iraq the first time. So many blame the Bush 2 and never thought about all the treaty violation prior to are war with them. Second we had cut down are standing army from thirty division down to ten. The equipment was still ragged would would have lost many more solder the first go around then the second. Just some thing to think about allot of military budget cuts went through house senate well before Reagan took office. The army really needed better equipment but most of it did not get into production until after the first Bush left office. Vietnam was a French screw up and they reneged on the treaty with Hochman. I can tell you we had advisors over there before 1960 helping the French and watching them. so please tell me in the last 60 years were did we go with out being provoked or by the UN.


Can you or someone here explain any of this and how this is even related to the topic at hand or even the past few posts being discussed? Is any of this even true for that matter. The only thing i see here in your post, is boo-hoo, everyone is blaming the US, its all the Europe, the French, the soviet's or the UN's fault.
55344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/16/10
Very simple the many people painted bush as a war monger. Maybe if you understood the condition and had some knowledge on the subject you would not be talking out of the seat of your pants. Many said bush lied and that was far from the truth pull your head out and get some fresh air.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 9/16/10

Northboundsnow wrote:


tarakelly wrote:

Well the US stayed out of wars mostly but Europe never could get it's act together, We been called on by other counties to intervening. So every one thinks the USA is the bad guy. Well if are economy went before the Soviets Unions Then the Soviets would be the big bad wolf. I wished people would have understood why we did not go into Iraq the first time. So many blame the Bush 2 and never thought about all the treaty violation prior to are war with them. Second we had cut down are standing army from thirty division down to ten. The equipment was still ragged would would have lost many more solder the first go around then the second. Just some thing to think about allot of military budget cuts went through house senate well before Reagan took office. The army really needed better equipment but most of it did not get into production until after the first Bush left office. Vietnam was a French screw up and they reneged on the treaty with Hochman. I can tell you we had advisors over there before 1960 helping the French and watching them. so please tell me in the last 60 years were did we go with out being provoked or by the UN.


Can you or someone here explain any of this and how this is even related to the topic at hand or even the past few posts being discussed? Is any of this even true for that matter. The only thing i see here in your post, is boo-hoo, everyone is blaming the US, its all the Europe, the French, the soviet's or the UN's fault.


tarakelly wrote:

Very simple the many people painted bush as a war monger. Maybe if you understood the condition and had some knowledge on the subject you would not be talking out of the seat of your pants. Many said bush lied and that was far from the truth pull your head out and get some fresh air.

Once again I posted both your posts without spoilers so you and others in forum can judge for yourself, and its weird again that I be repeating my question again? What are you talking about? Where is your citations and proof to back up your statements and how is this related to topic or past posts.

All you are doing is making general statements and its ironic because the one doing the talking out of the seat of their pants and not understanding or having knowledge on this subject is you.
55344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/16/10
Was George Bush All Bad? Topic Is there another topic under this one let me know
860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Washington Metrop...
Offline
Posted 1/3/11
Well I wouldn't say bad, he had some ups and downs. But he wasn't the greatest president in the world. Although he did a good job creating Homeland Security.
15153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 1/3/11
Hell yes he was bad... Like kanye west said... Bush is a racist.. Bush does not like black ppl...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.