Bush More Dangerous to World Peace

I hope I didn't give the impression was that was the way things should be. I was just saying how they are. But yeah, that's for another thread.

As far as the survey goes, I find it very misleading. The question is regarding <i>World</i> Peace, and in that regard I can see how people would poll the way they would. People might not vote for Kim Jong-il because they think his actions affect only one small region of the world, and they might vote for Bush because his actions have much more widespread effects. As someone said before, Bush = World Leader, Kim Jong-il = not so much.

So I'm not comfortable with what what people are extrapolating from this survey. I don't think this says that people think Bush is worse than Kim Jong-il. I do think people are concerned that Bush's presence destabilizes the world as a whole more than Kim Jong-il does. There is a small but important difference there.

I mean, I don't think Bush is real helpful to world peace either, but that doesn't mean I lump him in with the villains of the world. But you couldn't tell that from how I would poll.

Well we're worse off now than we were before we invaded Iraq, I think everyone can agree to that. I wonder how much money has been spent on it? I wonder what that money could have been put towards. Probably would have been wasted anyway.

I hate to be a jaded asshole but I really don't care about the Iraqi people. You see there's two sides to every story and I honestly believe those people hate us (their civilian populace). I see them throwing rocks at our troops and allied forces and their staring, dirty looks. They don't seem very willing to stick it out for their own country, either. I also don't think they're capable of governing themselves and probably need a dictator just to keep them in line. Pull out and let'em bleed themselves out- that's what I say. Terrible thing to say I know, but I'm saying it cause I know I'm not alone.

Muslims are also violent. Am I wrong? Well if I am I can't imagine where I got the notion from. I think it bothers them because as a society they're poor and corrupt and here we are, The Great Satan, thriving and doing exponentially better on so many levels. Oh the irony of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Savaric
Well we're worse off now than we were before we invaded Iraq, I think everyone can agree to that.

---

I don't think people agree to that at all. Since all the terrorists have decided to focus on Iraq, it seems like we're better off. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US for 5 years now. That's probably better than it would have been otherwise.

At the very least, it is *arguable* that we (the US) are better off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US for 5 years now. That's probably better than it would have been otherwise.

---

So in the last six years there was one major terrorist attack. But how many years previous to September 11th was there terrorist attacks against US soil?

Thats a little like saying that a volcano is now dormant because it hasn't erupted in 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elvion
So in the last six years there was one major terrorist attack. But how many years previous to September 11th was there terrorist attacks against US soil?

---

The Cole (spelling?) bombing springs to mind since I was still in the military at the time it was hit........by terrorists

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elvion
So in the last six years there was one major terrorist attack. But how many years previous to September 11th was there terrorist attacks against US soil?

Thats a little like saying that a volcano is now dormant because it hasn't erupted in 5 years.

---

Terrorists don't work like a volcano though. They don't just go dormant due to natural laws. When they start getting some success, they exploit it until they get their way.

But keep in mind, my point was that it definitely can be argued that we are better off. I'm not saying we definitely are or are not. Savaric said nobody would argue that we are worse off, and I don't think that is true at all.

Personally, I think we are a tad better off, because at least we are taking some pro-active action (irregardless of whether it is the wrong action) and we have the terrorists focussed somewhere other than on our own soil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elvion
So in the last six years there was one major terrorist attack. But how many years previous to September 11th was there terrorist attacks against US soil?

Thats a little like saying that a volcano is now dormant because it hasn't erupted in 5 years.

---

the stem of activity against U S intrests has halted as a result of the efforts by the millitary in the Middle east I think

But we have never been the easiiest of targets over the years either for we and the military are alert of the threat, more so now

Here are the terrorist activity against the US from the 40's


http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/ter...line.html#2000

Quote:

---

Muslims are also violent. Am I wrong? Well if I am I can't imagine where I got the notion from. I think it bothers them because as a society they're poor and corrupt and here we are, The Great Satan, thriving and doing exponentially better on so many levels. Oh the irony of it all.

---

I can't stand these types of statements, as they're horribly ignorant, grossly inaccurate, and demonstrate an unwillingness to have an open mind.
And to answer your question, yes, you're wrong!!

There are Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

When will people stop putting so much stock in lefty sensationalist media. Whenever I hear another 'world hatez teh bush' article, my hand automatically reaches for the 'off' switch. You can't trust modern media as far as you can kick them. Seriously, you've got to be pretty credulous to take some of that shit at face value.

Iraq has cast a pall over the American image. Whatever sympathy or tolerance we had from muslim moderates is going down the tubes because Iraq has turned into a blood pit. The Iraqi's are way worse off than they were before we toppled Saddam and the anti-american sentiment is growing. So what have we gained from the war? Safety? Yea right. The terrorists are not some cohesive ganglion working on the same current goal. Most are probably insurgents in Iraq right now, but plenty are still plotting and trying to work attacks on U.S. soil. I don't think we've got them "distracted" or "occupied" with anything. It's more likely we've just given them more fuel to work with, i.e. more reasons to hate and fresh supplicants. It's probably a lot harder than people think to execute a well-planned terrorist attack post 9/11, but those reasons don't have anything to do with us occupying Iraq.

Are we safer? I think we're as safe as we've always been. We just needed to seal our borders and impliment all the things we did after 9/11. Alas, we haven't seen any other attacks because our hindsight is excellent and we've patched holes in our system. And 9/11 could have been avoided with the proper intelligence and communication, and now we have that and more. By taking the fight to them (inadvertantly, remember, because we went there to destroy wmd's and liberate the Iraqi people?) we're enflaming the muslim world -- and it is this muslim world that contains a nearly limitless resource of pissed-off muslims. The more muslims jumping on the "death to America, death to Israel" band wagon then the more impossible it becomes to contain them, and the more unsafe we become. We're working hard but not very smart- and it's a little too late to switch gears now. And yea, that upsets me.