Bush on clean air - What else is this murderer going to do?

[Mazdak]

I just heard Bush is "relaxing" clean air laws in the US. JUst wanted to use this to bash him more.
Oh, and at Moscow, he called St. Basil's "a museum of atheism" before the Fall of the USSR. What more can he possibly do?

[marxistdisciple]

He could declare war on countries that don't meet his agenda. No wait, already done that. Umm he could deny the importance of the World Poverty Summit, the Kyoto Treaty and the Geneva Convention. No wait he's already done them too...He could stop the freedom of press by telling political cartoonists to stop criticising him....nope done that one too (See UK Independent today)
I don't know, think of something unbelieveably misguided and stupid - that's probably what he'll do next. Tap into people's email? Done that. Acuse countries of being evil for no particular reason? Done that. Suggest attacking countries before they do anything wrong, to avoid unnecessary political work later? Done that too. Remove people's constitutional rights without anyone kicking up a fuss? Done that one too. Anything left? nahh he's covered most of it

[concerned]

Accuse countries of being evil for no particular reason?

HA! yea right, no particular reason..

Suggest attacking countries before they do anything wrong?...

Right, marxist, there is nothing wrong with Saddam building builogical and nuclear weapons. Given that he had no inconvenience in using those against its own people I think we all can feel pretty safe...

And btw UK Indepenjdent is full of shit, just like you.

[Moskitto]

The Independant is the best newspaper in the UK.

[Felicia]

Concerned,
Oh, puhlease! It's not like the U$ isn't building biological and nuclear weapons! As you may recall, Bush labeled some countries in the Middle East and Asia as being the Axis of Evil (Iraq, North Korea, etc). What was the reason for that? These countries build weapons of mass destruction, hey, the U$ does that too(and as I recall, the U$ has been the only republic to kill tens of thousands of people with nukes). These countries harbour terrorists, whoa! What a coincidence! The U$ does that too. No wait, sorry, the U$ grants terrorists "POLITICAL ASYLUM", yeah,my ass. The U$ is not any better than the dominions and republics it condemns.
btw, I'm not trying to single you out or pick on you in particular.

[Mazdak]

He is tightening the embargo on Cuba too!

[marxistdisciple]

The Independent is called the independent for a fairly obvious reason I think.
Bear in mind no one has seen any coclusive proof that saddam is building biological weapons either - unless you take W's word for it? I wouldn't trust him to tie his shoe laces. Famous bush quotes; "America is going to have the best educated American's in the world." "Anyone who thinks I'm not intelligent enough to be president is underestimating." I rest my case.

As for the case of him trying to remove "anti-patriotic" cartoons in the way the government have already tried to do with other articles, what else explains the lack of critical articles on the bush governemnt? You'd think people would protest about the overuling of the first amendment by the "patriot" act wouldn't you?

I like that Ceasar quote I heard on here, about the populace giving up their rights when the leader bangs the drums of war or something. Can anyone quote it again?

To try to answer the question in the thread again, the next stupid thing he did was ask for a new leadership for palestein. The "democratically elected" leader sticks his foot in it again.

Here it is in the aforementioned paper;
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=308777 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=308777)
I think his grammar or wording is bad...am I wrong; "I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders not compromised by terror"

No, sorry, it's just the irony of him saying the word "elect" :)

[concerned]

The US has never used biological weapons against its own people, as Saddam did with the Kurds in northern Irak. The US does not grant asylums to terrorist either. If there is someone that grant asylum to terrorists that is Europe, Europe, and specially Sweden is full of Farc terrorists that have sought political asylum.

Give me an example of terrorists the US have granted political asylum, don't just say things without justification.

And the only time the US has been forced to use nukes was in World War II when the whole stability of the World was a stake and when they found themselves involved in a war that they didn't really started.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from marxistdisciple on 8:07 pm on June 25, 2002
The Independent is called the independent for a fairly obvious reason I think.
Bear in mind no one has seen any coclusive proof that saddam is building biological weapons either - unless you take W's word for it?

Yeah Marxist, true, no proof, except that he had several stores of bio/chem weapons during the gulf war that we confiscated, he has actually used them on iraqi kurds, US intel and survelliance has seen chemical factories and suspiciously close missle batteries, and he refuses to let UN weapons inspectors into his silos and bunkers.

Other than that, no proof

[Felicia]

Why should I do the research if someone else has already done it for me? So maybe the US doesn' t grant the political asylums "publicly" permitting known terrorists to live in your country is just as bad,

This is taken from James in a previous thread (I trust his research):
"Terrorists in America.


Former general Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived in Florida since the 1990’s. As head of El Salvador’s military during the 80’s Garcia oversaw the murder of thousands of people by death squads connected to the army.

Garcia’s successor, General Carlos Vides Casanova, who ran the feared National Guard, is another resident.

General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was over thrown, the U$ government flew him over to Florida.

The notorious Haitian death squad leader Emanuel Constant, whose thugs terrorised Haiti, mutilated people with machetes, lives in New York.

Armando Fernandez Larios, a member of a Chilean military squad responsible for torture and executions following the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973, lives in Miami.

Argentine Admiral Jorge Enrico, who was associated with the infamous “Dirty War” of torture and “disappearances” in the 1970s lives in Hawaii.

Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot’s henchman and apologist at the united nations, lives in Mount Vernon, New York."

But lets not get of track, Yeah Saddam kills his own people in horrible ways, I'm not in any way trying to defend him. I didn't say that the US uses the weapons on their own people, and for the most part I agree with you, I was just in a crabby mood when I logged on yesterday, PMS.

[marxistdisciple]

Not only do they let terrorists in (if it is economically helpful) but they breed them too...I mean train.

"Yeah Marxist, true, no proof, except that he had several stores of bio/chem weapons during the gulf war that we confiscated, he has actually used them on iraqi kurds, US intel and survelliance has seen chemical factories and suspiciously close missle batteries, and he refuses to let UN weapons inspectors into his silos and bunkers. "

Yeah he used them previously, and he commited terrible attrocities, and I am not condoning that. But I said "conclusive" proof, and have you seen the photos? If the USA got an excuse to attack Iraq again it would be hugely beneficial. He should allow weapon inspectors in, and he is an evil bas***d, but we cannot attack a country before they commit a war crime. USA has a tendancy to act "holier than thou" when their attitude for war is far from the clean slate they like to think.

[jimr]

Quote: from concerned on 10:11 pm on June 24, 2002
Accuse countries of being evil for no particular reason?

HA! yea right, no particular reason..

Suggest attacking countries before they do anything wrong?...

Right, marxist, there is nothing wrong with Saddam building builogical and nuclear weapons. Given that he had no inconvenience in using those against its own people I think we all can feel pretty safe...

And btw UK Indepenjdent is full of shit, just like you.


yet america should be allowed to continue stockpilling its own more devastating weapons of mass destruction?

Double standards are fun.,

[jimr]

Quote: from marxistdisciple on 6:29 pm on June 26, 2002
Not only do they let terrorists in (if it is economically helpful) but they breed them too...I mean train.

"Yeah Marxist, true, no proof, except that he had several stores of bio/chem weapons during the gulf war that we confiscated, he has actually used them on iraqi kurds, US intel and survelliance has seen chemical factories and suspiciously close missle batteries, and he refuses to let UN weapons inspectors into his silos and bunkers. "

Yeah he used them previously, and he commited terrible attrocities, and I am not condoning that. But I said "conclusive" proof, and have you seen the photos? If the USA got an excuse to attack Iraq again it would be hugely beneficial. He should allow weapon inspectors in, and he is an evil bas***d, but we cannot attack a country before they commit a war crime. USA has a tendancy to act "holier than thou" when their attitude for war is far from the clean slate they like to think.





The us also does not allow the UN to inspect its weapons sites. Plus there was no need to call these countries Evil. Evil has conatations of religeon. Was it not bush who said "and we know that God is not impartial in this war" For fuck sake he is saying that he is guided by god. How can this fuck be allowed to pick apart the world. Its disgusting.

Also America had no problem in the past with dealing with dictators, onl those that begin to question American Authority are targeted. All of Americans enemies are evil, all of their questionable allies are moderates. Jesus rhetoric just gets boring. Wake up, the motive of the US is what counts. Each US administration si responsible for killing far more than Saddam ever will. Saddam is localised, the US is international, it is THE superpower. It cannot be allowed to continue in its pursuit of its imperialist goals.

[marxistdisciple]

I agree, I like the way you put it....and it is an important point. Calling a country evil suggests that there is some way of measuring these values outside of religion. The problem with using the values in the real world is that both sides always think they are good (there is effect nno evil). Even if america had a sole religion, who decides what is good and evil? It should be god. Now Bush may be from Texas, and he may believe it, but he is most certainly not the christian god, if one exists. Like you say, it should be of intent, not religious rhetoric.

[Mazdak]

NOt granting asylum to terrorists? No, we simply train them in our own version of the Alquida(spelling) camps. Allende in Chile was only one example!!! And Batista lived a comfortable life in florida upon stealing all of the money from the Cuban bank. oh, i 4got, he is the kind of terrorist that will do anything the US says, so that makes him a good person who deserves a great life?!

[Power1]

Bush is doing an alright job. He's not the best president but not the worst would you guys really have preferred Al Gore.

The war agaisnt teror is justified and America should attack Iraq. They do have weapons of mass destruction. America may have these weapons as well but they are a stabilising force in the world. Many conflicts would appear if they weren't around.

I think people should be allowed to criticise Bush and banning cartoons is wrong because freedom of speech is importent. Would you guys be willing to die for your country?

[marxistdisciple]

I would die for my beliefs...or to protect my home, but never just for my country. A country is but a piece of land. Lots of countries hold weapons of mass destruction, is the US going to attack them all? India and pakistan would be a good start. Why not the UK? We have your nukes stationed here, it'd be a fun fight.

"Bush is doing an alright job. He's not the best president but not the worst would you guys really have preferred Al Gore. "

Bush is messing up years of fighting for things like environmental policy, the kyoto treaty, the first admendment (how much do you value that one? it's all about the right to due process in court.)
He is also an ignoramous, and quite possibly a puppet of the rest of the executive. I mean, someone must help him write his speeches now :)

"America may have these weapons as well but they are a stabilising force in the world. Many conflicts would appear if they weren't around"

America seem to get involved in more wars than anyone else as far as I remember, In my lifetime, The gulf war, afghanistan, bosnia, yugoslavia, umm so many more I can't think of. If they are a stablising force, why are they planning on attacking other countries first? Surely that is what warlords do? Oh, I forgot, the US holds the magic joker card of morals....terrorism. Everything is about terrorism now....the ultimate justification of any action, military, or social. Start questioning these policies, it's your democratic right! (at least for awhile anyway)

[Red Revolution]

Surely the defenition of a stabalizing force is one that balances out power. The US is definetly not balanced compared withn the rest.

Also a president is supposed to be smart and literate and not make mistakes. Here are some so called Bushisms:

"They misunderestimated me."

"We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work."

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote."

"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."

[Power1]

Conflicts would arise if America wasn't around. China would invade Taiwan and North Korea would invade South Korea.

Bush is messing up in some areas. I support Kyoto and Bush should have signed it like the UK and rest of Europe. But Bush is doing alright in some areas.

I'm not Americian but the first amendmant is important but it's better than where i live where freedom of speech is suprresed. Anyway i'm more concerned about the 2nd ammendment but it's beeter than the Uk where handguns are banned. You didn't answer the question about Al Gore.

How can you not support Bush in the war agaisnt terror remember America was attacked and it had to respond.

[Moskitto]

And you want annother Dunblane Massacre? or how about Hungerford 2?

[Power1]

I don't want those Massacres to happen again obviously.

Hand gun regulation doesn't work. All it has done has taken handguns out of the hands of law abiding people. Criminals still use them and they are very easy to obtain. Hand gun ownership has stayed the same or increased since the ban anway. So the only thing the ban does is stop law abiding people from defending their property and themselves. Did you know the states in the USA with lowest home robberies have basically no gun controls. So handguns are a very useful deterrent.

[marxistdisciple]

Al Gore better? No, probably not...just less extreme.

Sure, Sept 11th was bad....of course it was, terrible, attrocious, many bad words etc...I keep saying that. If something bad happens does that give you the instant write to throw away the rulebook? Of course not. It's an excuse. It may be an exceptionally good excuse...but still, it's just an excuse for more imperialism.

The second amendment is misinterpreted, I don't really think they meant for everybody to have guns. what's wrong with banning hanguns? We have a few hundred murders a year in the uk. How many does america have? 20000 or so I believe. Speaks for itself really....most of them are gun crimes.

Why should any moron be able to own a lethal weapon? Sure they can all buy knives, we wouldn't be able to chop vegtables otherwise. Not many people can kill someone from 10 feet away with a knife. That's the important distinction - you can run away from someone with a knife. A gun is a pussy weapon for people who can't fight.
"It takes more than combat gear to make a man, takes more than a licence for a gun." - Sting

Like moskitto said, we had the dunblane masscare. Let me repeat, a school shooting. Handguns were promptly banned. Hasn't happened again. America has loads of school shootings, gun law hasn't been changed. They are dumb if they think the two aren't linked.

There are other military powers in the world besides the US, we just don't get so involved in wars that our none of our business - unless we can do something reduce the destruction and death toll.

[marxistdisciple]

Guns also seem to assist suicides. It's a really easy way to kill yourself. One of my friend's brother killed himself (he was american.) He used his grandfather's gun.

Sure, there are other ways to kill people. What's easier, and further from moral repugnance, pulling a trigger on a gun or stabbing someone repeatedly? Opening fire on helpless students, or trying to strangle them all to death?

The point is guns facilitate killing. They make it an easy thing to do practically. A gunshot wound to the heart or head will usually kill someone, and you can do it from far away too.

They are designed to kill people. If people are equiped with an easy way to kill someone, don't be surprised if they have a tendancy to do it and regret the concequences.

[Power1]

There are a lot of murder with handguns in the USA but people should have the right to own a gun.

Germany has very strict gun control all handguns are banned but there was a school shooting where 13or 14 teachers died. It shows that gun regulation doesn't work.

[Mazdak]

Hey, What is wrong with China invading Taiwan??? China is supposed to recieve taiwan anyway but we refuse to let china have it. And South Korea was stolen from North Korea anyhow

[Stormin Norman]

People that advocate gun control do not understand the significance of the second amendment. The framers of the U.S. political system understood government to be a surrepticious entity. Eventually all governments erode the rights of the people, as it becomes a self serving overlord. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington new this to be true. "The Federalist Paper's" discussed this natural procession in detail. I believe it was Washington who said, "government is a dangerous servant and a fearfull master". When our system of government was designed certain compromises had to be made in order to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Some men were hesitant to give so much power to a central authority, and that is why the Bill of Rights exists. Antifederalists had to be convinced that laws were to be enacted that would ensure the rights of the people. In addition to a bill of rights, congress debated how to keep the government from becoming tyranical. A system of checks and balances was drafted in order to keep one branch of government from usurping the rights of the people. Congress writes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the judiciary reviews the constitutionality of the laws. This method will slow the erosion of freedom, but in no way guarantees its success. Therefore, a final check was put into place. The right of the people to keep and bare arms. When a government tends towards tyranny, which it will, as sure as the universe tends towards chaos. The people have the duty to destroy the government's ability to rule. This is an idea, which is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Man has a right to certain equal freedoms, and when these freedoms become threatened by a tyrant, the body politic (the people) have an obligation to disband all ties to the current governent. That is the final system of checks and balances. God help us when the American liberal destroys this notion, for it will be the end of freedom for mankind.
Ask yourself which is worse, a few sporadic killings (like the school shootings), or mass graves (like that of Bosnia, Nazi Gemany, or any communist governments). The only logical reason for a government to want to disarm its people is to secure its stranglehold over the system. It is no wonder so many of you communist/socialists support gun control, for you know the logical outcome, and support it wholeheartedly.

[marxistdisciple]

The reason I support gun control is because I don't believe every moron should have a lethal weapon. It is nothing to do with future revolution. Surely we would be the first to advacate guns if it helped overthorw the government. the fact is, guns are designed to kill people. I don't believe in killing people, therefore I don't believe just anyone should be able to have a gun. Guns cause more trouble than they "prevent." that is evident enough by the murder rate. You are probably the same kind of person that sees civilian deaths as "colateral damage." Killing is wrong in my opinion, therefore I don't believe every bloody mornic texan should be allowed to carry lethal weapons...in the same way that I don't believe every stupid country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. I don't trust the people behind the barrel. I think something so dangerous as a handgun or a rifle should only be possessed by people who are sound enough in mind and are trained to use one, and actually NEED one (if there should ever be such an ocassion). Crime is so damn high in american cities because anyone can be robbed at gunpoint....shot, raped, or just generally injured by the stupidly leniant gun laws. It is almost like the americans cannot quite over the fact that guns cause the crime. You almost take the attitiute that a few kids get shot and that doens't matter. Sure it happens in other countries, but as a matter of daily life. In texas kids could co round firing uzis and throwing grenades if they felt like it, wouldn't be hard to get hold of them. In fact it's probably easier for an 18 year old to buy a gun, than to get themselves some alcohol. Now that's messed up.

In the UK when someone gets shot it is remembered for years afterwards. In the US it is a fact of life.
Like the schoolboy, 16 years old broke into a farmers house, and the farmer shot him dead with a shot gun. People do that in america all the time. Do you really think death is a proportionate punishment for burglary?

[Moskitto]

Except, the way a modern army works in a country such as the US, all the citizens owning guns are not going to be able to overthrow an oppressive government because the oppressive government would simply bomb every pocket of resistance from the sky. And as Capitalism also limits gun ownership (source: capitalism.org) by only allowing individuals to own weapons that are actually for self defense eg. NOT S-A Missiles. The resistance would be wiped out.

In densely populated Europe where there are gun controls people can still overthrow the goverment because most of us live close enough to airbases to steal planes before they can be used. Also we're far better at urban warfare.

Also those events you mentioned (except Nazi Germany) happened because of Guns.

Communist Russia- revolution because the Bolsheviks had Guns
Communist China- One army with Guns defeats annother army with Guns
Bosnia-Herzagovena- Basically, you've got 3 groups who totally want to kill each other and they've got, you guessed it, guns. Guess what happens? Ethnic Cleansing happens. I can't believe you thought that the Muslims having guns would have helped them because they did have guns, that's why they started pounding the Serbs near the end of the war.