OT: Was 9/11 Really That Bad?

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



You have said EXACTLY how I feel about this country and the position we are in. That is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. The damage has been done, it will take years to fix that damage. There is no easy solution to this problem.



I honestly feel Venezuela and Hugo Chavez has the same attitude against the USA as the Middle East does. Venezuela has major oil deposits in the ground and that country has been molested by the Big Oil companies with the support and blessing of the US government.





Tom

 

[Johnny O]

So, we are in this mess. It took over 50 years. We stirred up a hornet’s nest and positioned ourselves the once-removed ruler, and we tried to do it in an area of the world that hasn't seen peace in over a thousand years.

My understanding is that countries there got carved out by France and England with a little input from us after WWI, putting together people used to a tribal and/or nomadic society and who didn't necessarily get along with each other under one flag.

Can't fix the whole place overnight, but far right-winger that I am, I agree with a few of the Dems in Congress who'd like to partion Iraq into three countries for the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Then build some long walls. They'd still try to kill each other though.

Remember, Bill Clinton worked a deal to give the Palestinians 95% of the land they wanted and Arafat still said no. Because land and a nation isn't what they really want. They want all the Jews dead (driven into the sea were the exact words I think) and no other solution will suffice.

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaida

I don't make this stuff up.

 

[Johnny O]

So, we are in this mess. It took over 50 years. We stirred up a hornet’s nest and positioned ourselves the once-removed ruler, and we tried to do it in an area of the world that hasn't seen peace in over a thousand years.

My understanding is that countries there got carved out by France and England with a little input from us after WWI, putting together people used to a tribal and/or nomadic society and who didn't necessarily get along with each other under one flag.

Can't fix the whole place overnight, but far right-winger that I am, I agree with a few of the Dems in Congress who'd like to partion Iraq into three countries for the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Then build some long walls. They'd still try to kill each other though.

Remember, Bill Clinton worked a deal to give the Palestinians 95% of the land they wanted and Arafat still said no. Because land and a nation isn't what they really want. They want all the Jews dead (driven into the sea were the exact words I think) and no other solution will suffice.

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaida

I don't make this stuff up.

 

[Adam Smith 2]

Further, is chopping off peoples' hands, limbs, tongues, and heads as punisment okay with you? Is a complete lack of women's rights okay with you? Is barricading a dozen schoolgirls inside a burning school because if they escape the fire they'd be seen without their heads covered (better to be dead I guess) okay with you? Is the church and the government being one in the same and having religious police okay with you?

All fair points. Obviously, none of that is OK by me. I'm not pro-Saddam, pro-Regime, and I there are certainly parts of the islamic culture that don't agree with me. But... this is not why we have a war in Iraq. George Bush did not take out Saddam's regime to make life better for Iraqi women, or to get rid of their religion-based judicial system. Bush is as much anti-women's rights and anti-separation of church and state as you can get away with in this country. He's at the far right end of American politics, just past which is the more extreme religious fundamentalism like you see in the middle east. Bush's only motivation is looking out for himself and his compadres--there is money in them there hills!



As of right now, Iraqi civilian deaths due to the U.S. invasion are estimated at 55,000-60,0000. We're approaching twenty times the 9/11 U.S. civilian casualty mark. So.. "Is the Iraq War Really That Bad?" Sure is!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JohnnyO, I never said you made anything up. The rhetoric you quoted I believe...I'm not saying it's your rhetoric. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an example of one of those articulate zealots that the poor masses are looking to follow. In the absence of true leaders people will cling to any voice, any idea.



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

George Bush did not take out Saddam's regime to make life better for Iraqi women, or to get rid of their religion-based judicial system.

Well, Bush said from the beginning that human rights was a part of it. Further, Iran did not have a religious-based judicial system, they had a Saddam-based judicial system. For a middle-eastern country, Iraq had become pretty secular because Saddam didn't want the competition from Mohammed or any other god. Saddam would only bring up Islam when it suited him. Iran and Afghanistan do have religious-based judicial systems. So your statement above is only proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

The Iraq war is mostly about two things...eliminate a regime who supports terrorism, and the free flow of oil at market prices. I don't have a problem with that. If the Leftys would let us drill for our own wherever it is found, for the most part we wouldn't need the middle east. I don't have a problem with that.

Bush is as much anti-women's rights and anti-separation of church and state as you can get away with in this country. He's at the far right end of American politics, just past which is the more extreme religious fundamentalism like you see in the middle east.

If you really believe that, then there is no point in trying to talk sense to you.



93 octane

John out.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Adam said and JohnnyO disagreed with the following:

Bush is as much anti-women's rights and anti-separation of church and state as you can get away with in this country. He's at the far right end of American politics, just past which is the more extreme religious fundamentalism like you see in the middle east.

I think if one were to reword Adam's statement "slightly" as such, I content few can really disagree:

Several of Bush's policies and sentiments are as much anti-women's rights and anti-separation of church and state as you can get away with in this country. He's at the far right end of American politics, past which is the more extreme religious fundamentalism like you see in the middle east.

(note the word "just" removed before "just past")



The point is, Adam is right. Bush is against a woman's right to choose, he has pushed the limits on seperation of church and state, and he has extremist views on these things. It doesn't make him bad, it just is as it is. Way past that, you have Islamic fundamentalist willing to kill for their beliefs. Oh, and from the Iraqi point of view, Bush is clearly ready to kill for his beliefs too.

 

[Bill V]

Well, Bush said from the beginning that human rights was a part of it.

If Bush actually believed that, he wouldn't just be invading Iraq--he'd have troops and policies directed toward imposing gender equity in Saudi Arabia as well. But no, they're our "friends"--so we're looking the other way.

 

[TrainTrac]

he has pushed the limits on seperation of church and state, and he has extremist views on these things.

Tom,



Can you cite some examples of this? How exactly has he pushed the limits on separation of church and state? What "extremist views" does he hold on these things? Just curious, because he doesn't seem to be as far to the right as he's made out to be on many things.



1. Federal spending levels have been higher under him than any President since, I believe Lyndon Johnson.

2. He's increased the size and scope of the Federal gov't by working with Ted Kennedy on and signing the ridiculous No Child Left Behind Act and creating a whole new department in the Executive Branch (Homeland Security).

3. He's not vetoed a single spending bill that has hit his desk.

4. He should've vetoed the idiotic Campaign Finance Reform Act. (I can't believe that made it past the Supreme Court!:angry



By no means do I think George W. Bush has been a great President. His domestic policies have been horrible. But, as far as the Global War on Terror goes, overall, his policies have worked. Ask any troops that have been to Iraq, and they'll tell you that the majority of the "insurgents" (P.C. term for Muslim-extremist terrorists) are not even Iraqi citizens. They're foreign Muslims coming to Iraq to fight our troops and undermine their efforts there. So, by taking the fight to Iraq, we've focused their attention there instead of on attacks here in the USA.



I think one of the biggest detractors to our success in Iraq has been the whole concept of "embedded media" and the fact that we live in an age of instant information. This prevents our troops from carrying out their mission to the fullest extent for fear of political and media repercussions that could either end their careers or result in criminal charges for simply doing what they're trained to do.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac,



One very good example of where Bush pushed the limits on separation of church and state is his providing federal funding to faith-based, charitable organizations. Many saw this a quid-pro-quo for his re-election. That's right, our tax dollars went to programs that helped those that would accept or at least listen to the merits preached of a certain version of god.



I don't have examples at my fingertips, but most of this happened right after the re-election and it was HUGE news at the time.



Hey, I'm a Christian, and even I can see that such funding is pushing the limit. I give to many faith-based charities and have donated both my time and money, and think most do a lot of good. That's my choice, as it should be. But if I were an Athiest, or an American Muslim I would be a little miffed seeing my tax dollars go there.



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

One very good example of where Bush pushed the limits on separation of church and state is his providing federal funding to faith-based, charitable organizations.

Is Federal funding being provided to faith-based charitable organizations affiliated with one specific religion, such as Catholic Charities, Jewish charities, or Muslim charities? If the funds are going to more than one specific religion, than this is not violating the First Amendment in any way whatsoever.

Amendment I



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The whole "separation of church and state" concept has been perverted by the Left to fit their ant-religion agenda of a completely secular government. It is a well documented historical fact in both the First Amendment shown above and writings and records of discussions by the Founding Fathers that the intention of the First Amendment was to prevent the Federal Government from establishing one state religion, like the Church of England. Many of the individual states had their own official state religions well into the 20th century.



And the whole Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program wasn't created by the President as a quid-pro-quo for getting re-elected, but was in fact established by Executive Order in January of 2001 to provide grants to faith-based charitable organizations irregardless of religion.



I don't believe that it was in violation of the First Admendment at all (unlike the Campaign Finance Reform Act). But, I still don't think it was a good idea, because it just increased gov't spending and control over private organizations (by establishing eligibility criteria for grants).

 

[Johnny O]

4. He should've vetoed the idiotic Campaign Finance Reform Act. (I can't believe that made it past the Supreme Court!

He did that to look good for the election, figuring that the Supreme Court would knock it down anyway. They let it ride, so he was screwed. Didn't make sense to me either, nor did the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. 5-4, gotta get some more conservatives on the court when the moderates retire.:lol:

The best campaign finance reform is 1) enact the Fair Tax and 2) any contribution amount but politicians gotta have full disclosure on who gave them how much. Eliminate the govt picking winners and losers with the tax code and you eliminate a whole lot of lobbyists....and reasons campaign contributions, so I wouldn't look for that to happen.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks, TrainTrac, I am well aware of the 1st Amendment and I even think the whole notion of "separation of church and state", and it's implication of said in the 1st is somewhat BS too. But what you and I think are just two thought points on the spectrum (and probably not that far apart).



I'm just reporting on the perceptions and the opinions. You may not agree with them, but you can't dismiss them. The perception and opinion by many is that Bush is far right.



TJR

 

[Bill Ellis]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment as it is written. Nowhere does it say anything about seperation of church and state. That is a concept that has been created by the courts over the years. In fact, the courts themselves are violating the amendment every day because the "free excercise thereof" has been made unlawful by unelected, liberal judges.

 

[Johnny O]

The perception and opinion by many is that Bush is far right.

FWIW, I didn't vote for Bush in either primary although it was pretty much decided (for the Dems and GOP both) by the time we voted in my state. Straying way off-topic, but we've got to come up with a different way of scheduling the primaries. Somebody loses a few early ones and their funding dries up, a large number of states have no say, leaving the party conventions a mere formality.

I say every four years borrow a lottery machine, load it with a ping-pong ball for each state, and have the First Lady pluck them out.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill-E, I agree with you regard Sep of Church and State. The problem is that most of those that are making, passing, and upholding the laws of our land do not.

 

[TrainTrac]

Bill-E, I agree with you regard Sep of Church and State.

Didn't I say pretty much the same thing? I think so, except that I didn't cite the entire First Amendment.



Tom,



You said:

Bush is against a woman's right to choose, he has pushed the limits on seperation of church and state, and he has extremist views on these things.

As this statement is read, you appeared to be stating a fact. That's why I asked you to cite an example to back up what appeared to be a factual statement. And when rebutted your example, you then said:

Thanks, TrainTrac, I am well aware of the 1st Amendment and I even think the whole notion of "separation of church and state", and it's implication of said in the 1st is somewhat BS too. But what you and I think are just two thought points on the spectrum (and probably not that far apart).



I'm just reporting on the perceptions and the opinions. You may not agree with them, but you can't dismiss them. The perception and opinion by many is that Bush is far right.



TJR



Regards, Tom

So now, you're not stating a fact, but "reporting on perceptions and opinions"?:huh: I agree that that is the common perception on the Left, because they'll say anything to bash President Bush. But that's not in fact the case if you look at the big picture.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac,



I think you missed my point.



Bush did do what I said and what Adam stated. He has pushed the limits on the "so-called" seperation of church and state, and I cited an example. He is anti-abortion. He is perceived as far-right and correctly and rationally so.



Do you deny any of the above? Would Bush deny any of the above?



Furthermore, I voted for the man twice, am a Christian, find abortion to be a tragic choice to make, and believe in a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment.



*YET* in light of all that, I can see merit in Adam's statement:

Bush is as much anti-women's rights and anti-separation of church and state as you can get away with in this country. He's at the far right end of American politics, just past which is the more extreme religious fundamentalism like you see in the middle east.

The only thing I would remove from Adam's comment is the word "just".



I have said it in many threads before on varying topics:

The BEST way to not improve is to dismiss the comments of your critics.

Especially those that are so spot-on. When did calling a spade a spade become such a bad thing in this country. Bush is a polarizing president. Don't shoot the messenger.



As for the difference between perception and fact...that's a debate for philosophy class.



So, my point, and I am sorry if I strayed from it, was that what Adam said pretty much is accurate and hard to debate (except for the "just" part). It may sound like left-wing rhetoric, but where exactly is it inaccurate?



TJR

 

[Dre L]

What if Israel masterminded 9/11 to push the U.S. into a war against terrorism, and not being able to criticize an invasion of Lebanon and Palestine? I'm not trying to cheapen 9/11 with a conspiracy theory, I know what happened, we all do, or at least we think we do, but why do we take sides with our "friends" when they aren't really all that right, look the other way when they act foolish, call our sworn enemies "friends" when the right price is met, criticize, chastise, and flat out insult our "friends" when they call us on questionable actions and do not want to take part in them. Lately I have this feeling about my America, my world, my corporate life, my day-to-day interactions in society, it's a familiar feeling and seems to fit world politics lately. The feeling is that everyone is still in high school, and a few of us have grown up.



I once had a nice long conversation with a young Israeli soldier while he was stateside, before 9/11, before a lot of things. Discussed different aspects of military life, the mandatory service, etc... Eventually the conversation turned to the conflict with Palestine. He told me of all the atrocities of Palestine, and went on and on about it. When he was done, all I could do was nod my head up and down in agreement and say "True, true, but I've got to tell you, I've never shot a kid with a combat round for throwing a rock at me, but I do know a story about a kid with a rock and a giant."

"regime supporting."

Example of:

So now, you're not stating a fact, but "reporting on perceptions and opinions"? I agree that that is the common perception on the Left, because they'll say anything to bash President Bush. But that's not in fact the case if you look at the big picture.

 

[TrainTrac]

Tom,



You're right, I am missing your point. Maybe I'm a little thick-headed, but please clarify, because I still don't get it.

Bush did do what I said and what Adam stated. He has pushed the limits on the "so-called" seperation of church and state, and I cited an example.

And your example was:

One very good example of where Bush pushed the limits on separation of church and state is his providing federal funding to faith-based, charitable organizations. Many saw this a quid-pro-quo for his re-election. That's right, our tax dollars went to programs that helped those that would accept or at least listen to the merits preached of a certain version of god.

And I asked you for further clarification on this example, because I found factual inaccuracies:

Is Federal funding being provided to faith-based charitable organizations affiliated with one specific religion, such as Catholic Charities, Jewish charities, or Muslim charities? If the funds are going to more than one specific religion, than this is not violating the First Amendment in any way whatsoever.



And the whole Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program wasn't created by the President as a quid-pro-quo for getting re-elected in 2004, but was in fact established by Executive Order in January of 2001 to provide grants to faith-based charitable organizations irregardless of religion.



I don't believe that it was in violation of the First Amendment at all (unlike the Campaign Finance Reform Act). But, I still don't think it was a good idea, because it just increased gov't spending and control over private organizations (by establishing eligibility criteria for grants).

If I'm wrong on this, Tom, please enlighten me.

He is anti-abortion. He is perceived as far-right and correctly and rationally so.

So if one is anti-abortion, they're far-right?:huh:



And I don't believe Adam's statement has merit either, because he's basing it on only two things. I listed several other things that President Bush has done while in office that are typical of a moderate or more Left-leaning politician:

1. Federal spending levels have been higher under him than any President since, I believe Lyndon Johnson.

2. He's increased the size and scope of the Federal gov't by working with Ted Kennedy on and signing the ridiculous No Child Left Behind Act and creating a whole new department in the Executive Branch (Homeland Security).

3. He's not vetoed a single spending bill that has hit his desk.

4. He should've vetoed the idiotic Campaign Finance Reform Act. (I can't believe that made it past the Supreme Court!):angry:

The link below has a wealth of information on the White House Faith-Based & Community Initiative program, and links to other departments to see how they're carrying out this program. It doesn't appear that any one single religious agenda is being pushed, rather that many different charitable organizations with religious affiliations are simply receiving Federal grants to assist them in carrying out their mission. So, I'll say it again: I don't see how this is "pushing the limits on separation of church and state".