Quote:
Only a total idiot would think Bush was more dangerous than Kim Jong Ill.
Quote:
Democrats tend to prefer idiocy over evil, while republicans favor evil over stupidity.
Printable View
Quote:
Only a total idiot would think Bush was more dangerous than Kim Jong Ill.
Quote:
Democrats tend to prefer idiocy over evil, while republicans favor evil over stupidity.
Didn't have to laugh at me, I've -always- been against the war. I was actually shocked that people voted Bush back into the presidency. The terrorists egged us into a war and got what they wanted, wouldn't it be more productive to turn that money into strengthening security than going over to Iraq and blowing shit up?
If you want my opinion, I believe that they are terrorists to their own country as well as ours because they had to know that attacking the US would prompt a war. They would have had to have the mentality of a dislexic three year old not to.
Call me a stupid hippy if you want, but I don't think that losing all the men and women for an iffy war is a good thing. Men are annoying, always wanting to make things go boom. :mad
I am in the same shocked boat that you are!Quote:
Originally posted by Rijiny
I was actually shocked that people voted Bush back into the presidency.
Its what they do best dear. If it doesn't work, either try to fix it (and generally fail), or blow it up. The later has the better 'results' ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Rijiny
Men are annoying, always wanting to make things go boom. :mad
We also have a vast British population, and have overly healthy populations of hindu's, and europeans. A moderate muslim population, who, as a general rule wanted to -escape- their own country to come here, I don't think that has much of a bearing.Quote:
Originally posted by xaxer
Well England does have a large Muslim population, so depending on who was polled the #'s can reflect what the pollster wishes.
"Oh bugger it?"Quote:
Originally posted by xaxer
What will the polls say the next time a bomb goes off on an underground train?
We've dealt with the IRA for a long time, I know a lot of people in the UK are immune to those sorts of attacks. Yes, its tragic, but there is far less anxiety and hypersensitivity over here, or so it appears to me.
I'm not totally ashamed. The reason why we have the shift towards Bush instead of Kim Jong-il is because over here, there is simply more debate over Bush. There is more articles on how badly the war went than on North Korea. Its just more in the public eye at the moment (perhaps because of our own fears of the fact that our current PM is in the lap of Bush?)Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I think Bush blows chunks, but that poll makes the British look bad, not Bush.
Only a total idiot would think Bush was more dangerous than Kim Jong Ill.
If I was British, I'd be totally ashamed of that. It would make me feel about the way I feel as an American whenever they release data on how well our students know math or geography.
So no, I'm not "totally ashamed" by it. Its not a lack of intelligence, moreover, its more of a fear of similarity. The UK is not similar to North Korea, however, there are similarities between it and the USA - hence why, as a nation, it appears that we are more concerned about your president.
And don't forget, we're not alone. The canadians, and mexicans agree, as do, what was it, 49% of the USA last election (from what we were told)?
Of course! But then again, the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda and advocated terrorism against American targets. So basically your claim fails in the test of reality - they are not terrorists against their own country. Their own country advocated it (and the same for Saddam).Quote:
Originally posted by Rijiny
If you want my opinion, I believe that they are terrorists to their own country as well as ours because they had to know that attacking the US would prompt a war. They would have had to have the mentality of a dislexic three year old not to.
I completely disagree with you here, Kiania.Quote:
Originally posted by kiania
We also have a vast British population, and have overly healthy populations of hindu's, and europeans. A moderate muslim population, who, as a general rule wanted to -escape- their own country to come here, I don't think that has much of a bearing.
The fact that they escaped their country is right, but they escaped because of poverty, not because they do not agree with the ideals. They moved to England and took their beliefs with them, not left them behind.
Just look at France and the problem it's facing right now. Do you think that will not happen in the UK as well? I'm sure it will when the Muslims decide to raise their heads.
Now - I want to clarify something - I don't think every Muslim has intentions of taking over the world, however, you only need to listen to the Imams and understand how much incitement there is in the Mosques.
Admittedly, a lot took their beliefs with them, but the number of Al-Qaeda supporting Muslims is small compared to ones that are just supporting their faith (although the string of 'outrages' is pushing it somewhat!).Quote:
Originally posted by Jidoe
I completely disagree with you here, Kiania.
The fact that they escaped their country is right, but they escaped because of poverty, not because they do not agree with the ideals. They moved to England and took their beliefs with them, not left them behind.
Just look at France and the problem it's facing right now. Do you think that will not happen in the UK as well? I'm sure it will when the Muslims decide to raise their heads.
Now - I want to clarify something - I don't think every Muslim has intentions of taking over the world, however, you only need to listen to the Imams and understand how much incitement there is in the Mosques.
And I remember a while ago, there was something in the news about the UK stopping illegal immigrants, and them all being left stuck in France. Perhaps that is why France is having the problems?
But this is off topic (worrying subject none the less though!).
I still doubt that the people asked in the report were in the majority of Muslims. It is not -just- their extremists that are against Bush being in presidency, or against the war. There are plenty of been-here-since-before-the-romans Brits that have the same opinions shown in that poll.
Sorry, it is a lack of intelligence and education on the part of those polled and it is something to be ashamed of. I could possibly cut them some slack since the European media is heinously biased and has been engaged in a campaign of outright brainwash for the last 6+ years. They weren't prepared to have their love affair with Bill Clinton cut short after just 8 years and could never forgive Bush for beating Gore.Quote:
Originally posted by kiania
So no, I'm not "totally ashamed" by it. Its not a lack of intelligence, moreover, its more of a fear of similarity.
Not liking someone because of their politics is light years away from someone being a murderous, oppressive dictator. Drawing even a tiny equivalency between the two is asinine to the extreme and anyone who does it really should be ashamed of themselves. Further, they should be embarassed to make such a ridiculous comparison.
As for why Bush got re-elected, well I have a two word answer for that: John Kerry.
With the example of his recent idiotic statements amounting to saying only stupid people are in the military, is it any surprise he lost? Bush was incredibly beatable, and the democrats chose a real wanker for their candidate. I sometimes wonder when was the last Presidential election where we had such a horrible slate of choices. I'd go back to Carter and Ford, but even that may not be as bad as choosing between Bush and Kerry.
I have actually been considering a thread on that question (worst total choices for President in history).
It isn't that I like Bush, because I don't. I think he has been a terrible president, and a real disgrace to the concept of conservative politics. But people really need to keep their dislike in perspective.
Mind you, alot of what is happening in France is due to joblessness and France's policies in terms of employment. It says alot of about their social issues if you have a particular ethnicity rioting in any country.
But yes, world support is waning primarily because there is no real goal in this war.
War on Terrorism? That is not something you cannot stop unless you make some fundamental changes to so many different societies, groups, etc, that it is much simpler to kill everyone we perceive as terrorists. It is far easier to do that than to fix or work on the actual causes of such behavior.
If concrete, plausible goals were set out, the world would go along with it for much longer than we are now. The 'war' on terror is something that will not be ended in a year, a decade, or even a generation.
We are a society of war. If there is a problem, our solution is to war against it. War on Drugs.. War on Homelessness... War on Terror. Except... none of these are even close to coming to a close. Drug trafficking and homelessness grow every year. In regards to the War on Terror, there are signs that more terrorists groups have risen and are operating.
Am I surprised more of the world sees Bush as more as a threat than Kim Il Jong? No, not really. Are they right? Well.. Bush has done a poor job proving them wrong.
I just wanted to quickly comment on this. My understanding is that Islamic extremism and ideology has not played a major role in the problems France has had with its Muslim population. Those problems have had much more to do unemployment, discrimination, ghettoization, and the government's labor policies. These social issues have made it difficult for immigrants to get jobs (30% unemployment for French citizens of Algerian/Moroccan descent compared to 10% for the regular population), and anytime you put that many twentysomethings out of work in a crappy social environment, you're bound to get trouble.Quote:
Originally posted by Jidoe
Just look at France and the problem it's facing right now. Do you think that will not happen in the UK as well? I'm sure it will when the Muslims decide to raise their heads.
So I don't mean to sidetrack the thread, but (at least from what I've read and what I've chatted with my father, who is a diplomat in Paris) the thought that radical Islamism is a major cause of French unrest is probably a misconception. I'm sure there is jihadist encitement there, but that's not what has driven riots so far.
Did not mean to imply it had anything to do with radical Islamism, just to point out that the problem does exist.Quote:
Originally posted by Yatar
I just wanted to quickly comment on this. My understanding is that Islamic extremism and ideology has not played a major role in the problems France has had with its Muslim population. Those problems have had much more to do unemployment, discrimination, ghettoization, and the government's labor policies. These social issues have made it difficult for immigrants to get jobs (30% unemployment for French citizens of Algerian/Moroccan descent compared to 10% for the regular population), and anytime you put that many twentysomethings out of work in a crappy social environment, you're bound to get trouble.
So I don't mean to sidetrack the thread, but (at least from what I've read and what I've chatted with my father, who is a diplomat in Paris) the thought that radical Islamism is a major cause of French unrest is probably a misconception. I'm sure there is jihadist encitement there, but that's not what has driven riots so far.
And sorry, I don't buy what you wrote. Being poor does not give you the right to burn down a whole city. There are lots and lots of poor people in the world and communities where 30% unemployment is actually a good thing, but you don't see that kind of violence.
I'll stop here because this thing is simply continuing an argument we had on another thread, but I do feel the things are connected. It's all about the incitement.