Why we are at war

Scary doesn't even begin to describe it.

Yeah, theories and speculation can be scary, and so are Stephen King's books

People have thought that they were living in the "end times" virtually since the Book of Revelations was written. My opinion, the end times will come, not when God or the Angels, as GWB puts it, come down and decide, but when we as a race go past the point of a sustainable existence on this planet....

saddam is the devil. south park taught me that

The only speculation in the article is that Bush might want to bring on Armageddon. Even if that is not the case, a foreign policy based on the belief that we are doing God's will and fighting "Evil" is literally crazy.
Look at Bush carefully when he making his next speech. I wonder if he is going to be the first president to suffer a mental breakdown while in office.

When that times comes, I'll just move to Mars colony

I expect better than that from the BBC

No, the speculation in this article is the speculation about GWB believing he is doing God's will. Just because he mentions god and his particular faith in speeches, and I agree probably a little too much, doesn't equate to him having some delusion that he is enforcing the devine will of god. Until he gives a speech stating that the face of Jesus appeared to him on a waffle and commanded that he go forth smite the wicked, I'll just choose to accept that our president happens to be a devote christian, just like a whole lot of them that came before him. Anything can be ominous if you spin it the right way.

the day you hear bush mention his jihad is when we have to worry. until then we can worry about those that do

A. Let's finish this war by removing the Saddam regime including the almost hysterical and certainly out-of-touch Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

B. Let's take a leading stance by ignoring Rumsfeld and reform Iraq into a true democratic nation -somthing that even most of the Iraqi citzenry has never seen in their lifetime.

C. Tell the UN that we strongly want their advice, but because of their continued insistance on following the diplomatic policy of Jacques Chirac that we may not necessarily use it.

D. Elect a majority-winning US President that isn't a fruitcake and then can restructure and/or jumpstart the American economy. (hint, it's not done with tax cuts)

E. Balance the situation with North Korea by giving the regional superpowers (China, Japan...) the leverage they need in order to affect positive change in order to avert another US lead war.

F. Upon taking Iraq, remove all or most of the Weaponry from Saudi Arabia in order to affect positive change and goodwill towards Americans in that country.

G. Use gunboat diplomacy force against the head of the Al-Jazeera network to present a more positive view of America.

H. Americans need to somehow encourage the rest of it's citzenry to stand in defiance of a possible future police state by blatently and openly defending personal civil liberties

I. Cancel the Apple Expo in Paris -at least for this year.

What's really ominous is when someone's opponents try to turn virtues into weaknesses. This is just the beginning of the campaign for the White House, and we'll see lots more subtle references about faith and spirituality between now and then, all designed to make people who have religious convictions look like Jebus freaks.

that's the really scary part. Using someone's morality and virtues against them is true evil.

A. Agreed
B. Fat chance
C. Bad losers as well, just like the French
D. Fat Chance
E. China???? As in giving China anything??? Fat Chance
F. Right, put it in Iraq instead. Goodwill- Fat Chance
G. More goodwill, right?
H. Fat Chance. Time to start learning to say "Sieg Heil".
I. Who ****en cares. At most Apple.

You mean like Osama bin Laden?

The really scary thing is that you folks can't seem to understand that this is exactly the motivation of your enemies in this conflict. They see our western society as the evil antithesis of their moral values. And God knows there is ample evidence that our everyday TV-centric (and web-centric perhaps more so) lifesyles reinforce that perception in spades.

From the BBC story: "If America prevails, millions will say it was divinely ordained." I believe that this is exactly what we have already seen for a dozen and more years since the fall of the Soviet Union. That event has been taken as divine ordination for the pre-emptive spread of the American democratic model around the globe, and accounts for the economic terrorism the US has been waging since then.

I lived in the US for a few years in the mid-seventies, and, ironically, it was a "kinder, gentler" America then. I loved the Americans I lived amongst, was the beneficiary of their generosity in countless ways. I felt for their self-recriminations over Viet Nam and their honest daily seeking to enrich their lives through self-betterment.

But that seems to have changed, and the focus now seems to be on improving others, through the zealous export of 'The American Way'. As divinely ordained. Hence, we have Mr. Bush.

And yes, it could get a whole lot scarier.

(And, again yes, Mr. Bush has used a jihad word (crusade) in his justification. But in this case, I can't fault him in the circumstances.

Please don't do that. We'll do everything you want

Jebus never issued a fatwah or called for jihad against the infidels. Look it up.

The tendency to look for moral equivalence is part of the "scary part."

Funny, no one ever complained when every president before him didn't win the election because of the majority. Why is that? Crybabies?

That isn't how the system works. That isn't how the system SHOULD work. I suggest the people making such claims, do some studies on the electoral process, and why it is done the way it is.

It will be a good read, and will stop these silly "But Bush didn't win the popular vote!!!" comments.

Very nice post, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

The electoral process was devised for a reason, and every candidate knows what they need to win the presidency. Furthermore, i don't think you should dismiss tax cutsas a factor in boosting one's economy. It's not the only factor, but when you look at the administration's goals, tax cuts are an important element of the broader package.

The mini-boom will come (as a result of these tax cuts), just not as quickly as we'd like. Regardless, they need to be set into motion as, at the very least, a precaution in case consumer confidence (ultimate economy determinant IMHO) is slow to rise.

Ok, I stand corrected on D:

(hint, it's not done with tax cuts)

to

(hint, it's not usually done with tax cuts)


Let's assume that most economic growth is perceptual. Company A does very well, Company B does well and so on... so that the population feels secure about it's purchasing habits.

Ok, in order to achieve positive (more than 5% per year) economic growth Tax cuts for the mass population and for existing businesses are not the key ingredients.

The key ingredients are eliminating SOME taxes or tariffs in old markets or by slowing or killing the implementation of new taxes for new markets. It's also about having open markets that are not boggled down with tedium, paperwork and a pervasive fear of terrorist attacks.

Also, the government should always have NEW fantastic incentives to start smaller and better businesses. Much of the economic growth of the nineties was achieved by the success of small businesses -not corporate America which usually has gotten so big that there is no where to go but downhill.

What Enron hinted for America is that you almost need a ton of elephant **** just to hide the debt load which all elder companies accumulate via one method or another.

GW even suggested a new future hydrogen-powered market. I just say that he's nuts because A: He, his family and Texan friends would make far less in selling hydrogen than oil. B: because it would require massive capital investment (in those new and old businesses) to establish a new hydrogen-powered marketplace.

What would really impress me about GW more than anything else is that when this war gets wrapped up is if he fully pushed America to embrace a hydrogen-powered economy. He would need to give speech after speech that basically says yes, times are shitty, but in order to go forward we have to leap headfirst into a new energy market concept. He could do it because he has the ties, he has the whole "Only Nixon could go to China" scenario working for him.

But he won't do it because fundamentally I think he's a coward not to mention stupid. Which makes him almost ineffectual to truly support positive change that even he sees as important. In short, he's a fruitcake.

It's been replaced and now being held in...


...FABULOUS BAGHDAD!!!!

That's right, the Apple finally returns to the Garden of Eden after a multi-millenia absence. See Steve Jobs' bomb-dropping keynote address in one of many opulent, recently evacuated palaces (subject to availability). If you pre-register NOW, attendees receive free rides in either Bradley fighting vehicles or Abram tanks with.....Al Gore! Yes, the man who invented the internet will make an appearance showing off the lastest AirPort/Patriot Extreme technology with the new Kevlar-enhanced PowerBook Enterprise.*



*Subject to FCC/DoD approval.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scottiB:
It's been replaced and now being held in...


...[b]FABULOUS BAGHDAD!!!!


LOL

Makes a good story

That sentence didn't make much sense, but assuming you meant to claim that no one has ever complained about the electoral college's role in actually selecting the President: Sure they have. You might want to read up on the elections of 1824 and 1877. It might also help if you read up on the 1976 election, and 1968 might help further your education as well. Actually, my entire life, I have read and heard complaints about the electoral college immediately before and after Election Day. Actually, it comes out around almost every Election Day, even when it's not close. And people complain about it. Then we go back to doing it the same way anyway.

Funny, how you think other people need to study up on things. Funny, how your support of President Bush usually is expressed through an almost robotic sycophancy. Why don't you just ask him for a date and get it over with?

You're still missing the boat on the whole tax cut thing. Some people in this country pay a SH*TLOAD of taxes. Me for one. And most of my friends and coworkers. And we're really really tired of it, especially given the results we see with those tax dollars. We are less likely to work for that next dollar if taxes take it away. We're less likely to save the next dollar if taxes are going to eat it up when we cash out.

Believe it or not, it really is that simple, politics aside.

It's not that simple.

You and I and even our friends are nothing. In the grand scheme we're nothing. We pay taxes whether they are misused or not because we were taught by our grandparents and hopefully our parents to help our fellow human beings. By doing this it is hopefully one way of helping. And I know that's a really shitty way to spin it.

Your right in that it makes us less inclined even pissed off that our hard earned cash is often squandered -it ticks me off to no end.

Yet, the point is to somehow deal with change and push forward, you can't do that without sacrificing something somewhere. It's not medicine that's easy at all to swallow but it does (presumeably) make you better.





...

Geez, I hate being pushed to the liberal side of an idea or issue. But I'm sick to death of liberals always thinking that idealism belongs to them.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Because he wouldn't stand a chance - there's too many executives already oiling up Georgie's back door.

-s*

I think he did a little more than suggest.

"In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. The hydrogen fuel initiative will include $720 million in new funding over the next five years to develop the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. Combined with the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) initiative, President Bush is proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030206-2.html

Somehow I think that someone else involved in the war puts god on his side too, but to a more annoying level. I haven't heard Bush use the following phrases in his speeches:

"Jihad"
"Fatwa"
"God is great. God is great."
"Infidels"