Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to SOME OF THE REASON AS TO WHY THINGS ARE WORSE BECAUSE OF BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ
Very well said Westwend
examin the person or persons and their motives - don't just throw a lable at us and expect us to all to fit in to one (box) or another.
posted by
jamryn
on November 18, 2004 at 8:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Klara
If I have the time I do have post that will talk about who the US is seen by others and what is and is not important in that.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 17, 2004 at 4:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Absolutely correct, West.
But being a US citizen seems to bring the opinions out of others about the US. It just has always been like this. Others love to comment and make suggestions about the US. I just get tired of hearing it, as I hear it way too much.
posted by
KlaraRoberts
on November 17, 2004 at 4:34 PM
| link to this | reply
wonder where some of these people have been?
it had to be in another world altogether.
Middle East -- conquered by Britain and under their control basically between the WW's. people hated Britain.
Colonial powers such as France and Spain -- constant revolts against them. Morocco for one -- people hated France and Spain.
Jews left Europe for their hoped for homeland, Israel. bombed British targets -- were terrorists. won their cause.
United Nations mandate for the area of 48 -- made Israel a nation and gave Palestinians their own land -- was rejected by the Arabs who instantly attacked Israel, lost. The reason for the Arab nations rejecting this is unclear to me.
Cold War -- U.S. supported Israel, USSR supported Arab states -- division caused enmity by Arab states toward US -- Jordan and Saudi Arabia closest to US. North Africa seemed friendly -- U.S. people built highway across North Africa (my uncle was involved in that and stayed in Casablanca during the uprising against the French.
Certain states were friendly: Lebanon, which had a substantial Christian population. Iran under the Shah. Saudi Arabia. Other leaders, such as Gamel Nasser, played both sides, both the USSR and the USD, to get certain desired things.
1956 -- another war -- ended in retaining the status quo.
1967 another war -- Israeli tanks nearly entered Cairo, Egypt, Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan and the Sinai Desert from Egypt.
enmity grew and the US was the prime recipient -- mainly due to our backing of Israel.
1973 another war -- things settle down after that from the Arab States. The Camp David accord was signed through Jimmy Carter.
Palestinian uprisings begin and continue. Many Arab states support the Palestinians.
Lebanon undergoes civil war. U.S. stations troops -- over 200 are killed in bomb blast -- Israel occupies much of southern Lebanon, for protection, it would seem.
Hussein's Iraq is a prime adversary of Israel. Meantime our industries supply him with war materials.
GW Bush takes office. He seems to want to wage a Holy War against Moslem nations. He ups the ante, so to speak, raises the heat level, when he talks like this is a Christian versus Moslem situation. This increases the scope and intensity of the conflagration.
If this is what Christianity is about, then I -- and many other Christians like me -- would want to announce that this is not the Christianity we espouse.
It would seem either these so-called war-like Christians would have to change their name in order not to be associated with us -- or we others might have to -- but then we others are more Christians that they are so maybe they should be finding themselves a new name other than Christian.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 17, 2004 at 3:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Kooka, you know I enjoy reading you, and you and I can "agree to
disagree" gently.
Bush is also an American, and many that read these posts are from other countries. To show such hostility towards each other, or our President actively in front of others, does more harm than most of us realize. I have an international business, Kooks, and I do get input from my international clients about all this. It's rather depressing overall.
I posted on Election Day about liberal behaviors in my own business. I won't get into it here in depth, but there are behaviors there that could be changed also.
We just now, for the sake of unity, need to stop the haranguing of each other. It does none of us any good, and although I disagree with much, every country has its problems, and for better or worse, we are all Americans. I know you feel strongly that if Kerry had been elected things might have been different, and you could very well be right. He wasn't, and this will never be known.
posted by
KlaraRoberts
on November 17, 2004 at 11:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Klara
I am insulted greatly by Bush doing this myself. Bush has gone and turned us into what they have been saying we were. I do not blame the country (Although I am at a lost as to why so many keep defending Bush. If you are unable to se the country as being different from Bush, then you should be able to see just how badly we must look to those in the Middle East. Bush is the problem. I find the fact that anyone defends Bush when he commits such obviously wrong and evil actions to be the greatest insult to our country. Bush's actions go against the principles of our country and so the man himself should not be defended by any truly patriotic American as far as I am concerned. Bush is not America. Id onto care if just over half the country voted for him. I did not and he is not a person I wish to have represent America. He is a poor leader and is only making things worse. Attacking his character is not the same as attacking America. I can dislike the great idiot that is Bush, and still love the country. Just because Bush himself wishes to make us all we ar claiming ot not be and basically go against the ideas of America, does not mean I have to sit back and say he is right when he is so obviously wrong. And I won't. Bush has messed things up and I find it greatly offensive that people are still defending all of his great mistakes.
I do apologize for my general statement about conservatives. It is not all conservatives who do this. But I do not see the Liberals going around calling the conservatives names just for disagreeing with them.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 17, 2004 at 11:01 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm a moderate conservative, Kooka. I've never called you a name because
of your opinion, and have respected it as far as I can tell. If I haven't tell, me, and I will amend my ways.
The statement though, that the we have now proved to the Middle East that we are "what they have claimed us to be" is very hurtful to me. And I'm assuming to other citizens of the US. While it is fine to be emotional about issues, and have "spirited" discussions, a statement like that seems to imply that you hate your fellow countrymen. I know logically that this isn't the case, but it comes across as such. Others here are becoming overly emotional about the issues, not because you are a liberal, but because it feels like you are attacking our country.
posted by
KlaraRoberts
on November 17, 2004 at 10:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Ah Steelerman
As mature and as ever I see.
The middle East was never with us, but they ar now more against us than ever before. Sure they have always hated us, but now they have actual proof that we are what they have been claiming us to be. This can only full their hatred of us more and recruit more soldiers for the terrorist because they now see us as as active threat against them, instead of just the propaganda. There is a big difference in being told something is a threat to you and then seeing that threat attack your neighbor. Not that such logic ever matters to you. Just keep on kissing Bush's ass there.
I believe that is Kerry were in office the priority would switch from Iraq to Bin Laden, as it should have been to begin with. Bush pushed the priority to Iraq in the dumbest move in American History. That is the difference I see having happened. At that point Bin Laden would be on the offensive and it would make it harder for him and his group to attack. Right now Laden and his people are relaxing away, knowing that Bush is not going after them.
Now why is it that Conservatives seem to need to call Liberals names? I look through my comments and posts and such and I see all the immature name calling coming from the conservatives. I have been labeled as Liberal and so now it is fair game for the conservative to call me names. I guess I just do not know how such a game is played. Still, I refuse to sink down to that level. It is my experiance that those who resort to name calling do so to distract people from the simple fact that they really have nothing to say. I have a lot to say, so I do not use name calling.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 17, 2004 at 7:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Charming steelerman. I agree with you kookla.
posted by
SlyCy
on November 17, 2004 at 6:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Hey, liberal waste!
As a true liberal, you managed to include my name in a complete twist or spin of what I said. As long as Bin Laden is alive the possibility of him striking again is very high. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THIS WAY NO MATTER IF BUSH WAS IN OFFICE OR NOT. UNDERSTAND THAT. This post of yours is extremely weak. No substance at all in this one. Like Sarooster said, :When was the Middle East ever "with" us? When? You liberals have now gone off on some very weak attack that things are worse now. The Middle East people have been jumping up and down in the streets for many years burning our flag. WAKE UP! You must be extremely naive to think this would not have ever happened. Imagine if Kerry would have won, (wait to be attacked, then call the U.N. of thugs and ask them what we can do and then take a global test while being attacked again and again). Thnak GOD Bush is in office!!!
posted by
RedStatesMan
on November 16, 2004 at 7:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Could you explain when the
Middle East was ever "with" us?
posted by
sarooster
on November 16, 2004 at 7:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Too true,
We would be far better off bringing the National Guard and troops home to guard ports, utilities and borders. What a badly managed fiasco.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 16, 2004 at 5:10 PM
| link to this | reply
I agree with kooka
just because we have not been attacked means NOTHING, they hit the World Trade Center in 1993 and then waited until 2001 to hit it again, don't get complacent. I will almost say for certain there are terrorist cells waiting to strike in the U.S. because of our pourous border to the south and our inept security in our ports. Homeland Security is nothing but colors of the day.
posted by
scoop
on November 16, 2004 at 5:01 PM
| link to this | reply
loanlady
Think about this though, how long has it normally been between terrorist attacks on US soil? Just becuase we have not had another atack yet is meaningless. They are willing to wait until the time is right. I see no proof that we are any safer now than we were before 9/11. I hope I am wrong about this, but just give it time and we will most likely see anotehr hugh attack on American soil.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 16, 2004 at 3:56 PM
| link to this | reply
maybe afghanistan held up the acts of terror -- but not Iraq.
altogether we're more at risk -- more people are flocking to the extremist camp.
it's WWIII -- and it will be worse than any war before if we don't try to reverse it.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 16, 2004 at 2:44 PM
| link to this | reply
The war surely is a sink hole. Nothing good can come out of the depths of that quick sand.
One point I disagree with, for a temporary time we seem to have scared some terrorists or killed some off and they have not been able to do any large scale gestures on our soil. I can guarantee they have tried and are working on these evil plans and more. Scare tactics won't have any further sucess with "extremists"
posted by
the-loanlady
on November 16, 2004 at 2:33 PM
| link to this | reply