Why I'm voting for Bush

[postaldudeleo]

No, but they just lay the blame on the west for the west is rich. Again. The west is rich cause in the west you have to work productively and have to become educated. Same thing in not only the west, but in russia, china, japan, canada, all of europe, Israel, even in south africa.....................

 

Now they are even mad at saudia arabia for trading oil. Well geuss what, in saudia arabia those who work are also richer and have a at least minimum economy cause some people there use thier natural resources.

 

If people in the middle ast would work and strive to get more money in LEGAL ways then they would be just as good as Israel in money and economy.

 

So technically many there (not all) are blaming the other countries for going to work everyday and rasing thier own economy? Their reasoning is foolish by far. Thus they have no real expalnation for killing children in suicide bombimg. Thier killing fricken children.......

 

They definetly have no excuse for that. 90 percent of Muslims in civilized countries think that these terroists and the people who jion them are a disgrace to the muslim relegion. And terroist leader say there are waging jahad. Jahad my ass. My friend Mustafa showed me the koran when we were doing speach and debate in high school and we chose the topic of Israel vs palistine (we were on one team vs another team of 2 people)

 

Well geuss what, he said that the koran says jahad is only for REMOVING INVADING ARMIES OF ENEMIES FROM THIER LAND. THIS IS ONLY FOR ENEMIES WHICH ARE TRYING TO COUNQUER THEM WITH UNJUST CAUSES.

 

Countries like Israel just want to be left alone. Plus jahad doest mean going into the enemy country and doing terrorist acts. Thats not jahad. Thats bulshit.

 

The terroists dont even follow thier own holy book. Thus they cant use the word jahad. And thus they have no just cause. Thus thier just male without a father terroists.

______________________________________________________________________

 

My answer in one word..................................................C4.

 

1 block of c4 blows up a small house. 2 blocks blows up house and few few away. 20 blocks of c4 incinerate big area. 1 ton of c4 send everything straight to ****land.

Screw bunker busters. Those weigh a few tons and yet blow only a deep hole. Fill those up with c4 and blasting caps and weeeeeeeeeee youv just made a explosion the size of a nuke blast except without the radiation =)

 

PS. I have played too much of doom 3 on ultra setting so excuse anything that begins with c4. :wacko:

[surian]

Postal, I'll direct you towards my post (now it's own thread) on the Palestine issue. Most of the Muslim countries you are referring to are not 3rd world nations by choice. There are many factors playing into this and not least of which is the US and Israeli influence over these countries' economic power. Palestine is an extreme example but it is not alone by any means. By your apparent train of thought, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you think that the only reason African-Americans in this country are disproportionally under the poverty level is because they just don't want to work to better themselves. Saying something like that ignores centuries of abuse and injustice brought down upon African-Americans by the majority in this country. The same is true for the Arab nations. It's not as simple as "They don't want to work for it", there is much more to it than that. However, I understand the ease to which you are willing to jump to such a conclusion. It re-inforces your view that these people are sub-standard compaired to the rest of the world and that therfor they don't deserve to be treated with any human dignity. Your posts show your underlying feelings quite clearly.

 

By your definition of Islamic Jihad, which you have taken from the Qur'an:

REMOVING INVADING ARMIES OF ENEMIES FROM THIER LAND. THIS IS ONLY FOR ENEMIES WHICH ARE TRYING TO COUNQUER THEM WITH UNJUST CAUSES

I think that this qualifies as far as the Palestinians are concerned. The Islamic nations view themselves as a nation of Muslims seperated by political borders. This does not mean that they act as one country, they fight, bicker and argue amongst themselves, but they do look at themselves as unified as far as religion goes. In this way they see the Israeli/US actions in Palestine as exactly what you said are grounds for a Jihad. They see it as an invading army that has taken their land unjustly. Given that they are unified in Islam, many Muslims from other countries see this as an assault not only on the Palestinians, but on Islam itself. Remember, Jerusalem is one of the holiest sites in Islam also and right now it is entirely under Israeli control. This is seen as a grave insult to the Arab world given that most Palestinians are restricted in even accessing Jerusalem.

 

If you want to continue this subject then come to my other thread and post your response there.

[Malchik]

This is the last warning to everyone to keep the subject of the Palastine conflict out of this thread. I will delete further posts of that nature. It is not relevent to the subject in hand.

 

And terrorists are not confined to the Middle East. There are as many white 'Christian' militia groups that fall into the same category in the USA.

 

But that has nothing to do with voting for Bush either. If you want a debate on what constitues terrorism, that's a new thread altogether!

 

Now it's closing time here on the ranch. I shall be peering at this debate very closely tomorrow!!!

[Darnoc]

The definition "Countries are poor because the inhabitants are too lazy" is naive, totally naive. As surian said, there are many factors playing into it. Let's take Africa, probably the best example to show what is referred to as "Predator-capitalism".

 

Africa is full of resources, take Congo and Angola, they should be among the richest nations, only considering their resources. But they are battling in long, wearing civil wars which destroy economy and drive these nations into dependance of great cooperations, mostly US and European cooperations.

 

Predator capitalism is when you are acting capitalistic in means which are beyond any ethic or morality. This is when you acctually add fuel to conflicts only to gain money from it... mostly because during civil wars the prices of resources are going down, because every party in the conflict wants to gain control of the resources and sell them.

 

Some coorperations practically own certain African nations. Not only this, as soon a president is elected by the people who wants to bring his country out of the dependance of the West, the West takes actions against him. Sometimes directly as against Fidel Castro in Cuba or indirectly through support of the enemies of the president, like guerillas or rebel groups. In Indonesia, Chile and Congo the US-government supported revolutions against the elected president which led to that a dictator who supported the US-government and US-economy came to power in those three nations. I talk about Suhurta, Pinochet and Mobutu.

 

In Angola it was even worse. Since the end of the colonization by Portugal in 1975 there is a civil war between the communistic MPLA and the democratic UNITA. The USA long supported the UNITA and its leader, John Savimbi, while Russia and Cuba supported the MPLA. But at the beginning of the Nineties, oil was discovered at the coast under control of the MPLA, suddenly the US-government switched sides and supports now the MPLA and its so called "president" Dos Santos.

 

Why do they hate us? Because we rule them - indirectly through our economy.

 

What does this have to do with Bush? Everything. Bush and his staff are deep inside economy, they have shares in great coorporations and are therefore partial guilty for what is happening in the Third World. Now that they also have political power they can even held these countries better in their grasp.

 

I don't say that Kerry is not involved in this, probably he is too. My oppinion is that there is no president who is truly the right man for the job, they are all too deeply involved in raping the rest of the world. Perhaps Nader, but I don't know him too good.

 

And the EU is not better at all, they are also involved in the great rush to exploit the third world.

 

P.S.: A woman or an afro-american for president! ;)

[postaldudeleo]

I agree agian with everything except I didnt say that they suck because their lazy, thier just o busy hating us that the dont get educated or work in a good job because thier busy burning flags. Those that do on he other hand get educated do it in communites and sooner or later move away like nikki's family moved away from iran. Now his dad is a very good computer programer. Its like what happened in russia after the ability to move away was allowed, many of the very educated moved straight to USA. Also i didnt talk about african countries.

 

What you said about african countries excluding egypt as that really goes closer to middle east.

 

Anyhow, lets take an example conflict. There where 2 countries, forgot the names (read this over a year ago in national geographic) and between them were areas rich in diamonds. Now both countries where just out of an inner civil war and each then strechted its boundries to say that this area is thiers. Thus what ended up was no one could get the diamonds otherwise they could face death or execution from he other side's government. Thus no one profited from it except raiders that took the diamonds and quickley sold them at much lower prices to Israel, USA, and even more to european buyers. If thats what you mean about the west being the source from which 3rd worlkd countries depend on economy then your right. At least south africa isd on the way to becoming stable as afar as ive read in an issue 2 months ago. But they still have way to go as thier crime rate is at a 7000+ thefts per day in thier largest city.

 

Now, if wee talk about middle east, the same would apply to saudia arabia. But other countries are too mad to begin to even use thier resources. Thats what im talking bout.

What you say is appling to 3rd world african countries and saudia arabia, + kuwait. Not applying to Afganistan, iraq, palistine, iran, jordan, ect.

 

Yes Bush and his accosiates got rich of Kuwait and Saudia arabia but Kuwait is actually doing not bad for iteslf. Plus we need oil for our cars. Now think on this, china is now going up the chart in oil heavy cars. Belive it or not, in national geographic they showed an chinease car show a and now many people in china are buying cars over $100,000. The hummer is now growing in popularity in china. Soon china is gonna overtake usa if this trend continues. And hummer burns 4 miles per gallon of diesel fuel...............

[surian]

let's keep these subjects in the other thread unless it's about Bush specifically. I blame myself for starting the hijack of this thread... Sorry.

[Darnoc]

I didn't hijak the thread, I connected what I have said to Bush and the presidential elections. Let's just face it, no matter who gets president, the third world will loose. Either because the president invades their countries or he lets the economy exploit them. Both ways are devastating.

 

The problem is, there is no end to it. There is no solution to the problem. If we kickass the economists, no one buys the products of the Third world at all and they starve. If we let things as they are, the third world will always be in the grasp of the west and stay poor.

 

OK, perhaps they will fall back into a pre-industrial age, most of those countries lived nicely during these times, because the population wasn't to great and in most times there was enough food.

[sixtofive]

You don't want to talk about the torture chambers, and the rapes rooms, and the beatings, etc.

 

Two words - Abu Ghraib.

I have to say this has got to be one of the most idiotic comments that I have heard in a long time. What happened in that prison is a grain of sand on the beach compared to what you are putting it up against. Yet another wonderful example of how the biased media is will to help propogate lies in a manner that should strip them of all crediblity. Even worse is the fact that they tried to blame this on Bush. How can any rational person make this accusation?

[surian]

I never heard the media specifically blame Bush for this. What I did hear were some (very reasonable) requests from not only the media but members of the senate for a deeper investigation going up the chain of command to see whose responsiblility it was. Conservatives feel there is a liberal bias in the media and liberals feel there is a conservative bias in the media, in my opinion I feel that there are certain groups that do have a major bias but there are many that don't and it evens itself out as far as political bias goes.

 

Bush, however, is to blame for what happens under his leadership. That's part of being a president. He simply can't say: well, i didn't know about that, it was done by one of my cabinet members or someone lower down the chain of command. He is fully responsible for what goes on in his administration or as a result of a movement that his administration spearheaded.

 

Abu Grab prison was definately not as bad as what had happened in Iraq under Sadam, that's to be sure. However, it doesn't excuse any of those involved from what they did there. I'm not going to go so far as to blame Bush personally for what happened, but I'm upset that the investigation was stopped before it could reach anyone who was in real power. The investigation was done by a military group and was led by a 2 star general. By military law he is not allowed to question those above him in the chain of command and therfor anyone who was really in any position to make any decisions or to be held responsible was effectively let off the hook.

[sixtofive]

The investigation stopped when they found out who was responsible, and these people are currently undergoing hearings and facing a full court martial with a penalty of up to 38 years in prison for this. The acts in this specific prison have been accounted for and the blame has been preperly placed on those who acted out of conduct. As for the media issue, I agree that there are definitely outlets for news that are biased on both sides. I suppose my frustration with that was how so many people were making it out to be so much bigger of a deal than it really was, talking about how terrible it was and how absolutely disgusted with it they were (many members of our government), while at virtually the same time there were videos coming out with our citizens getting their heads cut off. The videos didn't get nearly the coverage by either side of the media.