Title: World War III
Jesina Dreis - May 8, 2006 02:14 AM (GMT)
World War III
I don't care if he was merely agreeing with someone who said it, which is how it sounds from the article, that is ridiculous
As if I wasn't already depressed enough.
LaneWinree - May 8, 2006 02:37 AM (GMT)
Just reading this sounds like something that was taken out of context.
That said, no, it's not right to likening this to a world war. It's right up there on the stupid scale with PETA saying that eating meat is "a holocaust on your plate."
Once again, its an instance where the political party I affiliate with most often is jumping off the deep end. That kind of irresponsible talk is just another indication that the party is being hijacked by far-right extremists.
With that statement, I say again, "John McCain for the Republican Ticket '08"
Jesina Dreis - May 8, 2006 02:44 AM (GMT)
Oh, yes, I freely admit that it appears to have been taken out of context. But I would be very surprised if Bush didn't say that, even in another context.
I would associate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more closely with Korea and Vietnam than anything else. War on Communism ---> War on Terrorism. By no means should this be considered a world war.
LaneWinree - May 8, 2006 02:46 AM (GMT)
No, these are definitely conflicts, not wars, and most certainly not a world war.
Valin_Halcyon - May 8, 2006 04:01 AM (GMT)
It's not a war against a nation; it's a "war" against individuals. Fighting terrorism has more to do with police forces than armies, Iraq and Afghanistan ashide.
Mirax_Corran - May 8, 2006 09:09 PM (GMT)
First, *bangs head on desk*
Second, I agree with Jes's analogy.
Spee - May 8, 2006 09:55 PM (GMT)
Bush needs to take a political science course. Or a history course. Or something.
LaneWinree - May 8, 2006 09:59 PM (GMT)
Personally I think the Republican Party should be appaled by Bush. He's spent more than any President in recent memory. Of course, thats just indicitive of the problem, the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists.
Once again "McCain '08"
RedBirdie - May 8, 2006 10:02 PM (GMT)
it's very interesting that in the United States, dealing with terrorism is seen as a "war." The European Union considers terrorism a matter for Justice and Home Affairs (I forget what the new name is, but JHA sounds a heck of a lot better than the new one anyways!). It's a matter to be dealt with WITHOUT bringing out the army-of course the lack of a European army does weigh into this, but its interesting. Never mind that I highly doubt you'll EVER hear a European refer to anything being World War III.
The fact that Bush is even agreeing with the statement just adds to my list of reasons why he's the worst thing to happen to America.
LaneWinree - May 8, 2006 10:04 PM (GMT)
In fairness, Bush is not the worst President we've ever had. Unfortunately, in todays age of political polarization, he's portrayed to be that way.
Of course, that doesn't excuse him if he agreed with that statement (provided this entire thing wasn't taken way out of context).
Jesina Dreis - May 8, 2006 10:38 PM (GMT)
I'd be interested to see if Bush could pass the citizenship test.
I've had a big problem with the "War on Terror" from the get-go.
It's not a winnable "war" - if you can even call it that. It's on a culture. Yes, not all Muslims hate the US, and even of all those that do, they're not all going to commit acts of terrorism. There's a whole mindset, that can't be defeated.
Europe also tended to recognize what happened on September 11th for what it was - yet another in a string of terrorist acts. Yes, it was terrible. Yes, a lot of Americans died. But that's, comparably old hat for many other nations...
Valin_Halcyon - May 8, 2006 11:41 PM (GMT)
I believe that the average citizen wouldn't be able to pass the citizenship test, seeing as a large part of it deals with the constitution...
RedBirdie - May 8, 2006 11:42 PM (GMT)
I'm going to have a respectfully and complete disagree that Bush isn't the worst....I dare say even Nixon was better, and I abhor what Nixon did in the name of politics.
You'd think the utter failure of "The war of drugs" would have shown that these "wars" are unwinnable. You can't fight a war against something that isn't a polticial unit.
Killik_Twilight - May 9, 2006 12:19 AM (GMT)
Yes, you can. Edited. The problem isn't fighting a 'War on Terrorism' or 'War on Drugs,' it's trying to fight it the way you would fight a regular war such as World War II or Korea. That's what's stupid.
However, calling this a war is a bit of a misnomer. It's more of an ongoing police action than an actual war.
And for those of you who think that a mindset can't be defeated, oh, yes it can. It would be incredibly expensive in both lives and materiél, but it could be done. All it would take is a price the American people will probably never pay – occupying the entire Middle East and reeducating everyone in school in Western culture. They're fighting against us because they've been told from the time they were babies that we are the 'enemy.' Teach them something else and that's what they'll follow.
As the Jesuits said, "Give me a boy when he is young and he will be mine for life."
And as Albert Einstein said, "I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but I do know that World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Jes Edit: Let's avoid anything akin to baiting and flaming here. Thanks.
Valin_Halcyon - May 9, 2006 12:30 AM (GMT)
They're fighting against us because they've been told from the time they were babies that we are the 'enemy.'
That's not true across the board. Many people have had their views radicalized in late teenhood and early adulthood, and weren't born in an environment that taught them terrorism against the US was good.
Killik_Twilight - May 9, 2006 12:48 AM (GMT)
Not true across the board, no, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate, either.
I'm not going for 100% accuracy here, just a general representation. ;)
However, if you've ever read the Qu'ran, it does say to 'kill the infidels,' which would include us. And most people over there are Muslims.
Valin_Halcyon - May 9, 2006 01:02 AM (GMT)
The Koran explicity orders Muslims to kill infidels? Where'd you get that?
Spee - May 9, 2006 01:05 AM (GMT)
|You can't fight a war against something that isn't a polticial unit. |
KT, I think what Birdie is trying to get at here is that you can fight something that is not a political unit, but that it can't be considered a war. The word "war" is something very specific, and I'm afraid the current "War on Terror" doesn't qualify.
|However, if you've ever read the Qu'ran, it does say to 'kill the infidels,' which would include us. And most people over there are Muslims.|
Oh dear. Have you read the Bible? It has some quite similar stuff about killing and defeating the enemy. You can't use words from any religious text to justify sweeping generalizations about the group that uses it.
Killik_Twilight - May 9, 2006 01:18 AM (GMT)
Oops, your markup choice confused me for a second. Anyhoo…
Okay, I see that. And I did say I thought calling it a war was a misnomer.
Yes, I have read the Bible. And the Bible also says that God commanded the Israelites to destroy their enemies then, not now. I'm quite certain that Jesus wants us to love others, not destroy them. As far as I can recall (without getting too into it) just because God commanded the Israelites to wipe out certain people groups during the Old Testament doesn't mean that still applies. As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Qu'ran still commands Muslims to jihad against the nonbelievers.
Spee - May 9, 2006 01:28 AM (GMT)
|Yes, I have read the Bible. And the Bible also says that God commanded the Israelites to destroy their enemies then, not now. I'm quite certain that Jesus wants us to love others, not destroy them. As far as I can recall (without getting too into it) just because God commanded the Israelites to wipe out certain people groups during the Old Testament doesn't mean that still applies. As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Qu'ran still commands Muslims to jihad against the nonbelievers.|
I'm not sure what you are getting at trying to make some sort of argument about time differences here...both the Bible and the Koran were written long ago...how can any part of either of them "still apply" or not "still apply?"
I'm not a Muslim scholar or anything, but from what I've heard from friends the stuff in the Koran about killing unbelievers isn't meant to be taken literally and the vast majority of Muslims DON'T. The statements in the Koran that aren't meant to be taken literally are no different than any of the statements (many!) in the Bible that most Christians agree are not meant to be taken literally.
Killik_Twilight - May 9, 2006 01:37 AM (GMT)
I'm not bringing time into this. That's not what I'm getting at at all. What I meant was that the Jews were commanded to destroy those particular groups, and not go out and kill everyone – just those groups. When I mentioned time I was referring to how it was back then that they were commanded to do that and they're not now.
Well, if we're bringing in people we know, I know a guy who works with Muslims and has for nearly twenty years. He lives most of the year in Indonesia, talking to Muslims and spending a vast amount of time with them (Indonesia also happens to be the largest Muslim country in the world). From what he's told me, the Muslims he speaks to do believe that the Qu'ran's commands to kill infidels still apply, and are to be taken literally. He's had to leave the country before because of the Muslims rioting and destroying property and killing non-Muslims, in fact. And that leaves me with a question – well, a couple, actually. Are your friends that you're referring to Muslims? And were they raised here in the US, or over in the Middle East or Asia?
EDIT: And I've just realized I've gotten way off subject regarding the original intent of this thread.
Spee - May 9, 2006 01:41 AM (GMT)
|EDIT: And I've just realized I've gotten way off subject regarding the original intent of this thread.|
Yeah, we both have. Why don't you start a new thread if you want...I will put my two cents in later, I need to finish grading these damn papers.
RedBirdie - May 16, 2006 04:58 PM (GMT)
I just wanted to add this. Gene Weingarten is a hilarious columnist at the washington post who skwers the president (and the givernment in general) weekly and makes no bones about his absolute loathing of the current administration. Here's sunday's column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6050901374.html
and here's what someone wrote in response:
You need to have a better understanding of why we (the USA) are at war. We didn't start it, nor did the USA want to go to war. The fact is we are in a world war, and by going into Afghanistan and Iraq we are keeping the fighting away from US soil. That is pretty simple. Do you understand? Do you think I should have used a different word than "we" in the above sentences so as to not include you in the context of being part of the USA? It appears you do not know the answer to that question, or you don't want to be included as a person who cares about our country.
and just for kicks, Weingarten's absolutely brutal response, which sums up pretty nicely how I feel:
1) I agree we had to go to war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan attacked us, in the person of a terrorist to whom they were giving safe haven. We had to go in, wipe those people out, topple the government, and replace it with our own. We failed in the "wipe those people out" part, which was very, very inept of us. But we definitely had to go into Afghanistan. I was all for it.
2) Iraq? We are in Iraq to to draw fire from American soil? Really? Wow. I thought we were there because the Iraqi leader posed a threat to us, and was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction to deploy against us, and because he was involved in 9/11? That is certainly why our president TOLD us we were going to war. Now we learn it is to draw enemy fire? Geez, you know, I think George Bush should specifically admit that to the moms and dads and widows and orphans of the men and women who died there, and to the men and women who came back in pieces. Don't you? "Hey, folks, I just want you to know I sent you over there as cannon fodder. I was kidding about the WMD and ties to al Qaeda, as the whole world knows now. It was to get you shot up, to draw fire from our homeland!"
Listen, don't question my patriotism. That's a sickening thing to do, coming from someone like you. And by someone like you, I mean someone who is willing to accept whatever his government dishes out, without questioning it. It is our duty as Americans to think and question and speak up when there is reason for outrage, and only a fool or a child would equate disagreement with disloyalty. The loyal American does not sit back, docile, and allow our leaders to run roughshod over our rights, and to squander our good will, and to fearmonger, and to dismantle everything good about our wonderful country. I'm sorry, but apparently I care more about America than you do, and I'm proud of it. Shame on you. Where is your patriotism?"
Killik_Twilight - May 16, 2006 06:41 PM (GMT)
I'll be more interested to know if he acts the same way the next time we have a Democratic administration. ;)
Valin_Halcyon - May 17, 2006 01:58 AM (GMT)
If a Democratic administration went to war based on totally false information he would be impeached. Interesting parallel, eh? ;)
Jesina Dreis - May 17, 2006 02:26 AM (GMT)
We live in a nation whose leaders impeached a man for lying about having an affair, and yet continues to let a man do as he pleases despite the fact that it's become clear he mislead the nation.
That scares the hell out of me. Partisan politics at its finest, folks.
And, KT, there are some politicians/pundits/reporters/columnists who will criticize both sides of the aisle. I've seen people mock Bush and Ted Kennedy in the same breath. Watch the Daily Show. Stewart's decidedly liberal, but he'll ream a Democrat if he sees a reason.
There is little that offends me more than people assuming everyone is blindly partisan.
Killik_Twilight - May 19, 2006 03:11 PM (GMT)
When is the Daily Show on? I don't watch TV much anymore, so I don't really know.
And, Valin, that's obvious, and no, it's not interesting. :p
RedBirdie - May 19, 2006 03:27 PM (GMT)
11 pm, weeknights on Comedy Central. Jon Stewart does some of the best journalism in America. The "fake fake" news is far more hard hitting than the real news.
Jesina Dreis - May 19, 2006 04:12 PM (GMT)
I find it very interesting, KT. You say that it's obvious that if a Democrat went to war based on false information he'd be impeached. But given the political climate and the reality of our current situations regarding foreign affairs, I don't think it's obvious at all.
The Republican President who did just that wasn't impeached.
Killik_Twilight - May 19, 2006 06:24 PM (GMT)
The comment was obvious. The reality is less so. Sorry.