NationStates Jolt Archive

What would the world be like if Al Gore had won the US election in 2000?

I think that there would be no Iraq war, the world wouldn't hate America's government (too much), and perhaps even Osama would be caught.

I don't think that political discussion in America would be so polarised and angry.

Maybe the Kyoto treaty would be ratified by the US.

What do you think?

Not to mention the recession, which Gore (with a little advice from Clinton) would pull us all out of with higher taxes!

Admit it; in retrospect, George Bush was the only option.

What would the world be like if Al Gore had won the US election in 2000?

I think that there would be no Iraq war, the world wouldn't hate America's government (too much), and perhaps even Osama would be caught.

I don't think that political discussion in America would be so polarised and angry.

Maybe the Kyoto treaty would be ratified by the US.

What do you think?

I think we would be bankrupt and Muslim.

Afghanistan would have been rebuilt, no counterproductive invasion of Iraq, no increase in terrorism, better economic management and a more confident Western world.

I think we would be bankrupt and Muslim.
Cutting taxes while expanding government and waging wars actually, believe it or not, costs more than whatever it is that Democrats do.

I don't see how you would be Muslims. Are you trying to say that al-Qaeda could have successfully taken over America? Uh, yeah. :rolleyes:

I would even say that the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped before they happened, if the anti-terrorism record of Clinton's presidency is anything to go by.

He would have stuck with Afghanistan, that is assuming sept 11 happened. I doubt he would have spent nearly as much time on holiday. Having stuck with afghanistan, he would have had a much higher chance of capturing Osama.

Our reaction to 9-11 would have been exactly the same. Do you think that what W. did was anything special? How much thought does it take to tell our people to unite, and then to invade our attackers? The differences would be great in the war in Iraq, though. If Gore felt the need to attack Iraq (which he likely wouldn't), he would probably attack it with Tomahawks or something, not with a full-scale, government-destroying invasion.

Also, with a continuation of Clinton's economic plan, the recession would never have happened. Taxes would definitely be higher than what they are now. But a much greater portion of them would be paid by America's rich. What we needed after 9-11 was a "lockbox", which was, of course, Al Gore's plan.

Another thing: Al Franken and Michael Moore would have much less money.

What else? Well, the plague of standardized tests that our school students are suffering would not be as severe. "Freedom Fries" would be unheard of, because Gore would not have alienated Europe.

I'm sure there's more, but I have to go now.

Cutting taxes while expanding government and waging wars actually, believe it or not, costs more than whatever it is that Democrats do.

I don't see how you would be Muslims. Are you trying to say that al-Qaeda could have successfully taken over America? Uh, yeah. :rolleyes:

I would even say that the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped before they happened, if the anti-terrorism record of Clinton's presidency is anything to go by.

No, I am saying that Al Gore would have given in to prevent any more attacks. Have you SEEN that guy lately? He is quite mentally unstable. We REALLY dodged a bullet on that one. The 9-11 attacks would not have been stopped by Gore. They were in the works since 1996 and they were going to happen. I would say that Gore AIDED the attacks by lobbying for the airlines to be given control of security, which was granted. Had he fought to tighten the rules maybe, but he ACTIVELY fought to weaken them.

As for the tax cuts, those were planned before 9-11. Bush campaigned on those in 2000. Gore "might" have tried to get the Kyoto protocol ratified, but I doubt it. Clinton was not even that crazy.

i have no idea what your saying biff, but i dont have to know to realise it is stupid, partisan and completely wrong and did i mention stupid

The Senate is pretty much composed of the same people that would be there if Gore would have been president, meaning that no matter who was in charge, the Kyoto treaty would not have been ratified.

Our reaction to 9-11 would have been exactly the same. Do you think that what W. did was anything special? How much thought does it take to tell our people to unite, and then to invade our attackers? The differences would be great in the war in Iraq, though. If Gore felt the need to attack Iraq (which he likely wouldn't), he would probably attack it with Tomahawks or something, not with a full-scale, government-destroying invasion.

Yeah, those cruise missle attacks Clinton did really solved the problem didn't they? :rolleyes: They did nothing to prevent the USS Cole attack or the US Embassy attacks.

Also, with a continuation of Clinton's economic plan, the recession would never have happened. Taxes would definitely be higher than what they are now. But a much greater portion of them would be paid by America's rich. What we needed after 9-11 was a "lockbox", which was, of course, Al Gore's plan.

The recession started in March of 2000 BEFORE Bush was elected. It is a normal phase of economics. Placing blame on any President for the shape of the worlds largest economy is silly. He has no real power over it.

The Senate is pretty much composed of the same people that would be there if Gore would have been president, meaning that no matter who was in charge, the Kyoto treaty would not have been ratified.
actually it is the presidents job to make and agree ot disagree with treaties, Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2

actually it is the presidents job to make and agree ot disagree with treaties, Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2

It is the House and Senate that RATIFY said treaties. One man CANNOT speack for the whole country in that way.

Perhaps he would have invented a better internet, but alas, without the porn.

Perhaps he would have invented a better internet, but alas, without the porn.

He would put the porn into a "lock box." :rolleyes:

If Al Gore had been elected President...

...9/11 would have still happened for the reasons given above...
...President Gore would have called for unity and promised to strike back, but....
...given the Clinton record and Gore's own statements post-9/11 and pre-Afghanistan, I suspect President Gore would have sought to work through the UN to respond and would have treated the incident more as a criminal matter than as a military matter...
...the US would not have invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban would be in power...
...the US would have indicted bin Laden and would be working with the UN to use sanctions to force his extradition to the US...
...al Qaeda's leadership would still be intact and other terrorist attacks around the world would have still happened, and possibly more...
...French intellectuals would still proclaim the dangers of American 'hyperpower,' while at the same time pointing out that the US increasingly looked like a 'paper tiger'...
...relations with the PLO would be warmer and relations with Israel would be cooler...
...Saddam Hussein would still be in power, the US and the UK would still be enforcing a no-fly zone, sanctions would still be in place and Saddam would still be building palaces while denying his people food and medicine and all the while blaming it on sanctions...
...Europeans would have marginally more positive views of the US but would still view it with a mixture of derision and suspicion, but would be far less vehement about it...
...the Senate would have refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement and the International Criminal Court treaty would never have been submitted, but Gore would not have repudiated it, keeping US non-compliance quiet...
...taxes would be higher and there would have been even less consumer spending and even less of an economic recovery; new domestic spending initiatives, if passed - an unlikely proposition - would have further eroded the economy...
...and Gore's approval ratings in the US would be in the low 40s and John McCain, Rudy Guiliani or some other Republican would well on his way to defeating Gore in the 2004 election.

...al Qaeda's leadership would still be intact and other terrorist attacks around the world would have still happened, and possibly more...
lets see have there been other terrorist attacks around the world? yes. have there been MORE terrorist attacks since our 'war on terrorism" started? YES. have we caught bin Laden? NO, the leadership of al-qaeda is still intact, you sir, are a lying moron.

...the Senate would have refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement and the International Criminal Court treaty would never have been submitted, but Gore would not have repudiated it, keeping US non-compliance quiet...
wrong, it is the presidents job to make or not make treaties, it was more than likely Bush who disagreed with the treaty as they interfered with his plans to be a militartistic christian theocratic dictator. even if the republican buffoons said anything the combined pressure from the president, democrats and rREST OF THE COUNTRY would have kept them from saying shit

...taxes would be higher and there would have been even less consumer spending and even less of an economic recovery; new domestic spending initiatives, if passed - an unlikely proposition - would have further eroded the economy...
what fucking economic recovery?


you are so full of shit its almost amusing

If Al Gore had been elected President...

...9/11 would have still happened for the reasons given above...
...President Gore would have called for unity and promised to strike back, but....
...given the Clinton record and Gore's own statements post-9/11 and pre-Afghanistan, I suspect President Gore would have sought to work through the UN to respond and would have treated the incident more as a criminal matter than as a military matter...
...the US would not have invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban would be in power...
...the US would have indicted bin Laden and would be working with the UN to use sanctions to force his extradition to the US...
...al Qaeda's leadership would still be intact and other terrorist attacks around the world would have still happened, and possibly more...
...French intellectuals would still proclaim the dangers of American 'hyperpower,' while at the same time pointing out that the US increasingly looked like a 'paper tiger'...
...relations with the PLO would be warmer and relations with Israel would be cooler...
...Saddam Hussein would still be in power, the US and the UK would still be enforcing a no-fly zone, sanctions would still be in place and Saddam would still be building palaces while denying his people food and medicine and all the while blaming it on sanctions...
...Europeans would have marginally more positive views of the US but would still view it with a mixture of derision and suspicion, but would be far less vehement about it...
...the Senate would have refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement and the International Criminal Court treaty would never have been submitted, but Gore would not have repudiated it, keeping US non-compliance quiet...
...taxes would be higher and there would have been even less consumer spending and even less of an economic recovery; new domestic spending initiatives, if passed - an unlikely proposition - would have further eroded the economy...
...and Gore's approval ratings in the US would be in the low 40s and John McCain, Rudy Guiliani or some other Republican would well on his way to defeating Gore in the 2004 election.


That sounds just about right. Good job!

This message is hidden because Biff Pileon is on your ignore list.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

12 year olds should be in school.

lets see have there been other terrorist attacks around the world? yes. have there been MORE terrorist attacks since our 'war on terrorism" started? YES. have we caught bin Laden? NO, the leadership of al-qaeda is still intact, you sir, are a lying moron.


wrong, it is the presidents job to make or not make treaties, it was more than likely Bush who disagreed with the treaty as they interfered with his plans to be a militartistic christian theocratic dictator. even if the republican buffoons said anything the combined pressure from the president, democrats and rREST OF THE COUNTRY would have kept them from saying shit


what fucking economic recovery?


you are so full of shit its almost amusing

A number of al qaeda leaders are dead or in custody and bin Laden has not been heard from recently and may be dead. Does al qaeda still exist? Yes. Is its leadership in tact? No. Would there have been more attacks under President Gore? I believe so.

Article II Section 2 (2) He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;

The President signs treaties and the Senate - by a two-thirds vote - must approve them. You, my angry, foul-mouthed young man should actually do your homework once in a while.

As for the economy, a recession is defined as negative GDP growth. We are currently have positive GDP growth and (while admittedly disappointing) job growth. In fact, current unemployment is well under 6% which used to be considered the lowest possible unemployment rate (in the 1970s) in an advanced capitalist society.

Really... can't you guys talk politics civilly? You know, maybe America wouldn't be a divided country that's falling apart if Americans didn't fight with one another visciously over political platforms...

Really... can't you guys talk politics civilly? You know, maybe America wouldn't be a divided country that's falling apart if Americans didn't fight with one another visciously over political platforms...

There will always be those who seek attention. Our friend Chess Squares is a total liberal who sees EVERYTHING in a bad light unless it is from the Democrats. He is an anomoly and has YET to win a debate. So his ignore list grows ever longer.

If Gore felt the need to attack Iraq (which he likely wouldn't), he would probably attack it with Tomahawks or something, not with a full-scale, government-destroying invasion.

How do you think you win wars?

Also, with a continuation of Clinton's economic plan, the recession would never have happened. Taxes would definitely be higher than what they are now. But a much greater portion of them would be paid by America's rich.

Who do you think owns many of America's factories and businesses? Clinton's economic plan was a joke.

It wasn't funny, either.

How do you think you win wars?



Who do you think owns many of America's factories and businesses? Clinton's economic plan was a joke.

It wasn't funny, either.

Under Gore we would lose wars. The "feel good, politically correct" crowd are finally gone and now we have to deal with the mess their weakness allowed to grow.

A number of al qaeda leaders are dead or in custody and bin Laden has not been heard from recently and may be dead. Does al qaeda still exist? Yes. Is its leadership in tact? No. Would there have been more attacks under President Gore? I believe so.

And you know for a fact that al-Qaida's leadership is no longer intact?

Personally, I think its rather pointless to argue what the world would be like if Gore had become president rather than Bush. Too many variables to consider what the world may have been like.

Would there have been more attacks under President Gore? I believe so.
I don't belive so. Cause the only reason al Qaeda attacked USA is cause they take the big brother role over the world though it should be the UN. Sure al Qaeda may have sone the attack but they'd noted that Gore is president and not Bush and Gore is not so happy on the trigger an Bush. Did you ever note that both Bushes started the gulfwar 1 and 2?

...given the Clinton record and Gore's own statements post-9/11 and pre-Afghanistan, I suspect President Gore would have sought to work through the UN to respond and would have treated the incident more as a criminal matter than as a military matter...
...the US would not have invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban would be in power...
...the US would have indicted bin Laden and would be working with the UN to use sanctions to force his extradition to the US...
...al Qaeda's leadership would still be intact and other terrorist attacks around the world would have still happened, and possibly more...
How do you reckon that? Considering there was broad and overwheming international support of the US invasion of Afghanistan at the time, with a UN mandate, why do you think Gore would have sat back and done nothing?
The excuse 'he would have waited for the UN to decide' doesn't really work, as the UN supported the hunt for Osama. It was only when the Bush admin started making up stories about Saddam, did the international support dry up and the World turned against the US.
I think Osama would have been captured cause Gore would have left more than just the paltry 11 000 troops now stationed there to hunt for him.
I think there would have been little done domestically as there would have been gridlock between Gore, the Senate and Congress.

A number of al qaeda leaders are dead or in custody and bin Laden has not been heard from recently and may be dead. Does al qaeda still exist? Yes. Is its leadership in tact? No. Would there have been more attacks under President Gore? I believe so.
From AFP (http://www.afp.com/english/home/):
The Al-Qaeda network headed by chief terror suspect Osama bin Laden is a shadowy organisation with worldwide reach that espouses one overriding cause -- holy war against the United States.
Seen as the force behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that left some 3,000 people dead, Al-Qaeda has since stepped up its attacks around the world.
"The chances of seeing a rapid end to Al-Qaeda-related terrorism are nil. Using minimal resources and exploiting their global notoriety, they have been able to create the impression of an international crisis," experts said in a UN report published last month.

Bush has certainly achieved his aim. :rolleyes:

I don't belive so. Cause the only reason al Qaeda attacked USA is cause they take the big brother role over the world though it should be the UN. Sure al Qaeda may have sone the attack but they'd noted that Gore is president and not Bush and Gore is not so happy on the trigger an Bush. Did you ever note that both Bushes started the gulfwar 1 and 2?

Wow, the amount of disinformation in this post is amazing......

1. Al Quada attacked the US because they want US troops OUT of the "holy lands." Why do they want this? Because they want to overthrow the House of Saud that rules Saudi Arabia. Your anti-american sentiments are showing, but that is hardly surprising on this BB.

2. The planning for 9-11 was done during Clintons term. it started in 1996.

3. Saddam Hussein started the gulf war by invading Kuwait. He caused the second one by not following the numerous UN resolutions. He COULD have prevented both actions but he failed....

After the Florida recounts (long after the Supreme Court selected Bush as the president), it was shown that Gore actually won by 500 votes. But we won't go into that.

My prediction: the country would've been waaaaaaaaay better off if Al Gore were President right now. The Supreme Court killed democracy when it announced Bush as the President. They didn't allow every vote to be counted, which goes against democracy.

What a shame. :headbang:

On edit: I would've complained if it happened the other way around, if the Supreme Court decided that Gore won and didn't allow every vote to count. I'm pro-democracy.

After the Florida recounts (long after the Supreme Court selected Bush as the president), it was shown that Gore actually won by 500 votes.
Where'd you get that from? Everything I've seen, all the recounts prove that Bush won Florida.

What would the world be like if Al Gore had won the US election in 2000?

I think that there would be no Iraq war, the world wouldn't hate America's government (too much), and perhaps even Osama would be caught.

I don't think that political discussion in America would be so polarised and angry.

Maybe the Kyoto treaty would be ratified by the US.

What do you think?


Lets start off by saying this whole thread is based on speculation. its like saying kerry would have handled the war differently. remember...we bombed both irac and afganistan during the clinton administration. A predator drone had bin laden in its cross hairs 3 times during the clinton admin.. we did nothing. not saying its clintons fault. it goes father back than clinton. but clintons foreign policies (like giving china nuclear secret documents) did nothing to help us out.and to say that somehow gore,kerry, or clinton could have swayed france or the other countries solely opposed to the war is rediculous. listen. gore was a wuss. i speculate that if gore was faced with the same situation"mr. environment" would have pulled our rescue workers out of ground zero for espestus. and would have been more mad that the plane crashed in a forrest where an indangered frog lives than the people in the plane dying. again pure speculation.

After the Florida recounts (long after the Supreme Court selected Bush as the president), it was shown that Gore actually won by 500 votes. But we won't go into that.

My prediction: the country would've been waaaaaaaaay better off if Al Gore were President right now. The Supreme Court killed democracy when it announced Bush as the President. They didn't allow every vote to be counted, which goes against democracy.

What a shame. :headbang:

On edit: I would've complained if it happened the other way around, if the Supreme Court decided that Gore won and didn't allow every vote to count. I'm pro-democracy.

Wrong again....Bush won by 523 votes. You really need to get off that soap-box you are on.

Lets start off by saying this whole thread is based on speculation. its like saying kerry would have handled the war differently. remember...we bombed both irac and afganistan during the clinton administration. A predator drone had bin laden in its cross hairs 3 times during the clinton admin.. we did nothing.
Well in his defence, you need to remember that it would have taken over 3 hours to prime and send a cruise to that site, by which time the general consensus was he would have moved (he doesn't spend more than a few hours in any one spot). There was fear that the cruise might kill and injure innocents. And also this was before there was much to link him to anything. So really all it would have most probably caused, would have been a huge international incident as they were attacking a Saudi national in a village on foreign soil, near the Pakistan border.
It's IraQ, not irac btw.

What would the world be like if Al Gore had won the US election in 2000?

I think that there would be no Iraq war, the world wouldn't hate America's government (too much), and perhaps even Osama would be caught.

I don't think that political discussion in America would be so polarised and angry.

Maybe the Kyoto treaty would be ratified by the US.

What do you think?

Oh my, what a heaven!
You sound like a dreamer...
If Al Gore had won, there would be no war with Iraq, the world would have found some other great reasons to hate the american government, Ossama wouldn't be caught because there would have been no war with Afghanistan either, in my opinion.

I still think this is a ridiculous topic, but here is my arguement anyway

If Gore was elected...
Saddam would have accidentally shot himself with one of the guns from his collection, sparking a coup in Iraq.

Bin Laden dies of food poisoning from drinking bad goat milk, Al-qeada disbands

9-11 Ringleader & Hijacker gets run over by a bus on way to airport and dies, mission aborted.

China invades the US and overruns half the country before our allies, the French arrive and drive them off and save the day! USA now owes France a debt that can never be repaid!

Ok, so the last one is a long shot...

ahhh if only. but as things are all skrewed up now we can only hope to look to the future and make plans on how to clean up the mess teh Bush administration has gotten us into.

I say we take a little advice from George Bush and start our own "Operation Ignore" but this time instead of ignoring terrorism we ignore the Dems and REps and start a enw party called "The Democratic Progress Party" and put our focus on making a real party that is about helping to create domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", with candidates that can understand what the majority of people in this country live like rather than those who live posh lifestyles and care only about their bank account and having power over the people.

We need someone who works for us....


Boycott Bush.

If Al Gore had been elected President...

...9/11 would have still happened for the reasons given above...
...President Gore would have called for unity and promised to strike back, but....
...given the Clinton record and Gore's own statements post-9/11 and pre-Afghanistan, I suspect President Gore would have sought to work through the UN to respond and would have treated the incident more as a criminal matter than as a military matter...
...the US would not have invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban would be in power...
...the US would have indicted bin Laden and would be working with the UN to use sanctions to force his extradition to the US...
...al Qaeda's leadership would still be intact and other terrorist attacks around the world would have still happened, and possibly more...
...French intellectuals would still proclaim the dangers of American 'hyperpower,' while at the same time pointing out that the US increasingly looked like a 'paper tiger'...
...relations with the PLO would be warmer and relations with Israel would be cooler...
...Saddam Hussein would still be in power, the US and the UK would still be enforcing a no-fly zone, sanctions would still be in place and Saddam would still be building palaces while denying his people food and medicine and all the while blaming it on sanctions...
...Europeans would have marginally more positive views of the US but would still view it with a mixture of derision and suspicion, but would be far less vehement about it...
...the Senate would have refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement and the International Criminal Court treaty would never have been submitted, but Gore would not have repudiated it, keeping US non-compliance quiet...
...taxes would be higher and there would have been even less consumer spending and even less of an economic recovery; new domestic spending initiatives, if passed - an unlikely proposition - would have further eroded the economy...
...and Gore's approval ratings in the US would be in the low 40s and John McCain, Rudy Guiliani or some other Republican would well on his way to defeating Gore in the 2004 election.

First Gore would have attacked Afganistan, the UN was beind us. Thus any republican who says oitherwise is full of it.
After all, the Repubs say we would wait till UN approval which we got. lol so its foolish to think Gore wouldn't attack Afganistan after getting approval.
Secondly, since Iraq wasn't justified, we would'nt have attacked it.
The sanction kept Saddam from making WMDs so they were working.

The no-fly zone was not created by the UN so they aren't a premise for war, that is a falacy to think there were.
Al-queda's leadership is intact right now, but under Gore it wouuldd be weaker.

You ask why? Well, we would have made Afganistan a Democracy example that is fully a better country proving what Bush wants in Iraq.

Our taxes higher? Well our money would be worth more under Gore so it evens out. Under Bush our money is worth less.
Our health care would be better/cheaper, and more efficient.

Republicans would say how the place is under Gore and say its Reagons prosperity not Gores. (They said that about Clinton too)

The economy would be recovering faster under Gore.
Social security would be better funding since we wouldn't give it out as a surplus like Bush did, he stole from Social security!

I still think this is a ridiculous topic, but here is my arguement anyway

If Gore was elected...
Saddam would have accidentally shot himself with one of the guns from his collection, sparking a coup in Iraq.

Bin Laden dies of food poisoning from drinking bad goat milk, Al-qeada disbands

9-11 Ringleader & Hijacker gets run over by a bus on way to airport and dies, mission aborted.

China invades the US and overruns half the country before our allies, the French arrive and drive them off and save the day! USA now owes France a debt that can never be repaid!

Ok, so the last one is a long shot...

Dag nab it....
Now I gotta clean the monitor from the pepsi I spewed all over it.
Heh, that last one did cause me to chuckle :D

What would the world be like if Al Gore had won the US election in 2000?

I think that there would be no Iraq war, the world wouldn't hate America's government (too much), and perhaps even Osama would be caught.

I don't think that political discussion in America would be so polarised and angry.

Maybe the Kyoto treaty would be ratified by the US.

What do you think?

Gore for President? The very thought makes me shudder. As terrible as Bush is, at least Bush isn't the extremely radical, Earth-worshipping pantheist Gore is.

China invades the US and overruns half the country before our allies, the French arrive and drive them off and save the day! USA now owes France a debt that can never be repaid!
I think France would find a way by forcing the US to accept Gerard Depeardiu as their President, exporting tonnes of runny stinky cheese to be used on McDs 'Cheese Royales', since 1/4 pounders would also be outlawed due to the US finally having to accept the metric system. Sales of soap will plummet, as would lady under-arm shavers. On the plus side, you'll be able to get a decent cup of coffee and glass of wine anywhere in the States.

Gore for President? The very thought makes me shudder. As terrible as Bush is, at least Bush isn't the extremely radical, Earth-worshipping pantheist Gore is.
When did Gore worship the earth? What is a pantheist?

When did Gore worship the earth? What is a pantheist?

A pantheist is someone who worships nature.

What would the world be like if Al Gore had won the US election in 2000?


I do so love speculative politics ....

May as well ask what the world would be like if Taft won election 2000.

I'll just answer with this: Same as always. We'd have our problems, there'd be plenty of partisan infighting, there would be lots of "controversial" books and movies, and Saturday Night Live would still suck ass.

I think we would be bankrupt and Muslim.

Beats the hell out of being Christian. At least Islam has tolerance for Pagans.

There will always be those who seek attention. Our friend Chess Squares is a total liberal who sees EVERYTHING in a bad light unless it is from the Democrats. He is an anomoly and has YET to win a debate. So his ignore list grows ever longer.
You are just as bad. For you it appears that everything done by Democrats is 100% bad and that everything by Bush and Republicans is perfect and brilliant.

You say you're not a Republican, so why do you talk exactly like one?

If Clinton's record is any indicator, if Gore had been elected we would not have retalliated for Spetember 11th.

I base this on the fact that Clinton did not retalliate for Mogadishu, the Cole bombing or the embassy bombings. And before anyone tries to contradict me on that last part, firing cruise missiles at some medicine factories and the spot where Bin Laden was spotted days prior is NOT retalliation.

Beats the hell out of being Christian. At least Islam has tolerance for Pagans.

You're kidding right? Islam has no tolerance for ANY other religion...period.

You are just as bad. For you it appears that everything done by Democrats is 100% bad and that everything by Bush and Republicans is perfect and brilliant.

You say you're not a Republican, so why do you talk exactly like one?

Not true....you do not know me. Nor do you have any knowledge of my experiences serving under Democratic presidents vs. Republican presidents. The Democrats have done a lot of good things in the past, but they are NOT the party they once were.

A number of al qaeda leaders are dead or in custody and bin Laden has not been heard from recently and may be dead. Does al qaeda still exist? Yes. Is its leadership in tact? No. Would there have been more attacks under President Gore? I believe so.
im sure if i looked up bin laden i could find something dated with a month. its leadership is still intact if we dont have ben ladin in custody. and are you stupid or just unable to read? ever since the start of the war on terror terrorist attacks around the world have went up



The President signs treaties and the Senate - by a two-thirds vote - must approve them. You, my angry, foul-mouthed young man should actually do your homework once in a while.
again, it is the PRESIDENT who agrees to or makes treaties. A 2 S 2 C 2, yes he does it with CONSENT of the Senate, it was BUSH who turned down the kyoto treaty, not the senate.if it was the senate it would've said so, but it was BUSH who refused to agree to the treaty

As for the economy, a recession is defined as negative GDP growth. We are currently have positive GDP growth and (while admittedly disappointing) job growth. In fact, current unemployment is well under 6% which used to be considered the lowest possible unemployment rate (in the 1970s) in an advanced capitalist society.that is inane , unless you missed it the 1970s have been opver for a good 20 years nd the populations has gone much farther up. what good is a "positive" economy if job growth is shit. there are continually more people going into the work force than there are jobs for them, thus unemployment will keep going up. and 6% is SHIT copnsidering we were in the 5% and so under the majority of clinton after pulling our asses out of Bush father's job loss

If Clinton's record is any indicator, if Gore had been elected we would not have retalliated for Spetember 11th.

I base this on the fact that Clinton did not retalliate for Mogadishu, the Cole bombing or the embassy bombings. And before anyone tries to contradict me on that last part, firing cruise missiles at some medicine factories and the spot where Bin Laden was spotted days prior is NOT retalliation.
those incidents are completely different and to pretend they arnt is stupid

and ALSO to pretend clinton may not have prevented attacks the scale of 9/11 is ludicrous, did you watch the 9/11 commission? bush memo: "al-qaeda determined to attack in the US" and there3 was another one about hi jacking planes. good job, you support an incompetent half wit or an evil tactician who doesnt care about america

ahhh if only. but as things are all skrewed up now we can only hope to look to the future and make plans on how to clean up the mess teh Bush administration has gotten us into.

I say we take a little advice from George Bush and start our own "Operation Ignore" but this time instead of ignoring terrorism we ignore the Dems and REps and start a enw party called "The Democratic Progress Party" and put our focus on making a real party that is about helping to create domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", with candidates that can understand what the majority of people in this country live like rather than those who live posh lifestyles and care only about their bank account and having power over the people.

We need someone who works for us....


Boycott Bush.


Wow....I would join such a party.

Yeah, those cruise missle attacks Clinton did really solved the problem didn't they?
You can't assume that the Clintonite anti-terrorism policy would have continued as before after 9/11. Obviously, the policy would become much more aggressive - even if Nader were president this would be true.

For a real-life example, look at the Bush administration. Their anti-terrorism policy was almost non-existent before 9/11. After, it became the most aggressive ever pursued by the US. Thousands of people were killed in the US, and this is the reason for the policy change.

Not true....you do not know me. Nor do you have any knowledge of my experiences serving under Democratic presidents vs. Republican presidents. The Democrats have done a lot of good things in the past, but they are NOT the party they once were.

Agreed. The great Democratic Party- the party of the people, of states' rights, of limited government, of decentralization, of laissez faire- died many, many years ago. Woodrow Wilson mortally wounded it. Franklin Roosevelt killed it and then shredded apart and utterly destroyed its corpse.

You are just as bad. For you it appears that everything done by Democrats is 100% bad and that everything by Bush and Republicans is perfect and brilliant.

You say you're not a Republican, so why do you talk exactly like one?
i would also like to point out i do not agree with everything done by the democrats, i am a very strong opponent of the democrats pet AA, itsj sut hte democrats do alot of shit that makes alot more sense than the republican destroy america crap. and i cant win arguments against the see no "liberal", hear no "liberal", speak no "liberal" apes.

If Clinton's record is any indicator, if Gore had been elected we would not have retalliated for Spetember 11th.

I base this on the fact that Clinton did not retalliate for Mogadishu, the Cole bombing or the embassy bombings. And before anyone tries to contradict me on that last part, firing cruise missiles at some medicine factories and the spot where Bin Laden was spotted days prior is NOT retalliation.


This is for you so that you might learn something... you others that think this way can learn a few things too from it:

Excerpt from:
Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Chapter Operation Ignore

Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.
Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.''

Which brings me to a lie. When Time asked about the conversation, Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present" Perhaps so, Dr. Rice. But might I direct our mutual friends, my readers, to a certain December 30, 2001, New York Times article? Perhaps you know the one, Condi? Shall I quote it? "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.'' (Italics mine.)

When I read this, my instinct was to shout for joy and dance around the room, naked, celebrating the finding of a lie. And I did. "Badda Bing!" I cried, as I ran around the house, my genitals flopping wildly, embarrassing my wife and her bridge group.

After the dressing down from my wife, who really read me the riot act, it occurred to me that all I had really found was a contradiction between Time and the Times. Maybe The New York Times had it wrong. Maybe Dr. Rice, considered a paragon of integrity, had told Time magazine the truth-that her predecessor had never warned her about the impending threat from al Qaeda and its evil mastermind. It was time for the Franken investigative juggernaut to assert itself. I called Dr. Rice's office, prepared to pierce the infamous White House veil of secrecy with a lance of white-hot journalistic enterprise. I left a message, and they called me right back with the answer. A White House official told me that Dr. Rice had met with Berger at a briefing, and he had told her about the seriousness of the al Qaeda threat. Condi lied to Times! Badda Bing!

Anyway. After Berger left, Rice stayed around to listen to counterterrorism bulldog Richard Clarke, who laid out the whole anti-al Qaeda plan. Rice was so impressed with Clarke that she immediately asked him to stay on as head of counterterrorism. In early February, Clarke repeated the briefing for Vice President Dick Cheney. But, according to Time, there was some question about how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Outgoing Clinton officials felt that "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism."

The Bushies had an entirely different set of obsessions. Missile defense, for example. The missile defense obsession proved prescient when terrorists fired a slow-moving intercontinental ballistic missile into the World Trade Center. If only Clarke had put his focus on missile defense instead of obsessing on Osama bin Laden.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was obsessed with a review of the military's force structure, which had the potential of yielding tremendous national security dividends ten or fifteen years down the road. I, personally, am a longtime proponent of force structure review, as anyone who has had the misfortune to spend any time around me when I am drunk can attest. But I don't think it should be to the exclusion of everything else. Let me give you one little example: I also believe in FIGHTING TERRORISM.

While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under Clinton. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism- fighting was to the Clinton White House.

Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern'' and said that America was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic'' domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: "A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security” that would include the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and more than a dozen other government departments and agencies.

The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unanimous conclusion: "This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."

The report generated a great deal of media attention and even a bill in Congress to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided that the best course of action was not to implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, but instead to launch a sweeping initiative dubbed "Operation Ignore."

The public face of Operation Ignore would be an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. Its mandate: to pretend to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met. Operation Ignore was in full swing.

Unbeknownst to Bush and Cheney, Richard Clarke was doggedly pushing his plan to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden. Thanks to Clarke's relentless efforts, the plan was working its way back up the food chain, after having been moved to the bottom of the priority list, right below protecting the public from giant meteors.

On April 30, Clarke presented a new version of the plan to the deputies of the major national security principals: Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; the State Department's Richard Armitage; DOD's Paul Wolfowitz; and the CIA's John McLaughlin. They were so impressed, they decided to have three more meetings: one on al Qaeda, one on Pakistan, and a third on Indo-Pakistani relations. And then a fourth meeting to integrate the three meetings. Sure, scheduling these meetings would take months, and would delay the possibility of actually acting on the plan and eliminating al Qaeda, but, according to a senior White House official, the deputies wanted to review the issues "holistically'' which as far as I can tell means ''slowly.''

On July 10, 2001, nearly five months after the Hart-Rudman report had warned of catastrophic, mass-casualty attacks on America's homeland and called for better information sharing among all federal intelligence agencies, Operation Ignore faced a critical test. Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo to headquarters regarding concerns over some Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school. Al Qaeda operatives, Williams suggested, might be trying to infiltrate the U.S. civil aviation system. He urged FBI Headquarters to contact the other intelligence agencies to see if they had information relevant to his suspicions. Had Williams's memo been acted upon, perhaps the CIA and FBI would have connected the dots. And had Hart-Rudman been acted upon, perhaps the memo would not have been dismissed. Operation Ignore, now in its 146th day, had proved its effectiveness once more.

The holdovers from the Clinton era - Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet-were going nuts. Bush administration insiders would later say they never felt that the two men had been fully on board with Operation Ignore. Tenet was getting reports of more and more chatter about possible terrorist activity. Through June and July, according to one source quoted in the Washington Post, Tenet worked himself nearly frantic'' with concern. In mid-July, "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," an official told Time.

Only Time would tell what happened next.

On July 16, the deputies finally held their long-overdue holistic integration meeting and approved Clarke's plan. Next it would move to the Principals Committee, composed of Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Rumsfeld--the last hurdle before the plan could reach the President. They tried to schedule the meeting for August, but too many of the principals were out of town. They had taken their cue from the President. August was a time to recharge the batteries, to take a well-deserved break from the pressures of protecting America. The meeting would have to wait till September 4.

No one understood better the importance of taking a break to spend a little special time with the wife and dog than President George W. Bush. Bush spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. As he told a $1,000-a-plate crowd at a fund-raiser in June, Washington, D.C., is a great place to work, but Texas is a great place to relax." That's why on August 3, after signing off on a plan to cut funding for programs guarding unsecured or "loose” nukes in the former Soviet Union, he bade farewell to the Washington grind and headed to Crawford for the longest presidential vacation in thirty-two years.

On its 172nd day, Operation Ignore suffered a major blow. Already, the operation was becoming more and more difficult to sustain as the intensity of terror warnings crescendoed. Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo.

Actually, that's not entirely fair. The President did follow up, a little bit. Sitting in his golf cart the next day, Bush told some reporters, "I'm working on a lot of issues, national security matters.'' Then, Bush rode off to hit the links, before dealing with a stubborn landscaping issue by clearing some brush on his property. The next day, he followed up again, telling the press, I've got a lot of national security concerns that we're working on Iraq, Macedonia, very worrisome right now."

But Iraq and Macedonia weren't the only things on Bush's mind. "One of the interesting things to do is drink coffee and watch Barney chase armadillos," he told reporters on a tour of the ranch later in his vacation. "The armadillos are out, and they love to root in our flower bed. It's good that Barney routs them out of their rooting.''

On August 16, the INS arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, a flight school student who seemed to have little interest in learning to take off or land a plane. The arresting agent wrote that Moussaoui seemed like "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center." Trying to pique the interest of FBI Headquarters in Washington, a Minneapolis FBI agent wrote that a 747 loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon. lf this information had been shared and analyzed, for example by a newly founded Homeland Security Agency, it might have sparked memories of the Clinton-thwarted 1996 al Qaeda plot to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA Headquarters.

On August 25, still on the ranch, Bush discussed with reporters the differences between his two dogs. "Spot's a good runner. You know, Barney-terriers are bred to go into holes and pull out varmint. And Spotty chases birds. Spotty's a great water dog. I'll go fly-fishing this afternoon on my lake." And you know something? He did just that.

Among those left to swelter in the D.C. heat that August was one Thomas J. Pickard. No fly-fishing for him. In his role as acting FBI director, Pickard had been privy to a top-secret, comprehensive review of counterterrorism programs in the FBI. The assessment called for a dramatic increase in funding. Alarmed by the report and by the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request $58 million from the Justice Department to hire hundreds of new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to improve the Bureau's capacity to detect foreign terror threats. On September 10, he received the final Operation Ignore communique: an official letter from Ashcroft turning him down flat. (To give Pickard credit for adopting a professional attitude, he did not call Ashcroft the next day to say, "I told you so.'')

Clarke's plan to take the fight to al Qaeda lurched forward once more on September 4, 2001. Eight months after he had first briefed Condi Rice about it, and nearly eleven months after Clinton had told him to create it, Clarke's plan finally reached the Principals Committee that served as gatekeeper to the commander in chief. Bush was back from his trip, rested up, and ready for anything.

Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the other Principals debated the plan and decided to advise Bush to adopt it with a phased-in approach. Phase One, to demand cooperation from the Taliban and make fresh overtures to al Qaeda opponents such as the Northern Alliance, would begin the moment the President signed off on the plan. Phase Zero, however, came first: wait several days as the proposal made its way to the Bush's desk.

On September 9, as the plan cooled its heels, Congress proposed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs. The money was to come from Rumsfeld's beloved missile defense program, the eventual price tag of which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at between $158 billion and $238 billion. Congress's proposal to shift $0.6 billion over to counterterror programs incurred Rummy's ire, and he threatened a presidential veto. Operation Ignore was in its 207th day.

On Operation Ignore Day 208, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn't make the list.

On that day, I left for Minneapolis to visit my mom and play some charity golf.

On the next day, the world shook.

The day after that, they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America.

Hart-Rudman Report - February 15, 2001
http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf

You can't assume that the Clintonite anti-terrorism policy would have continued as before after 9/11. Obviously, the policy would become much more aggressive - even if Nader were president this would be true.

For a real-life example, look at the Bush administration. Their anti-terrorism policy was almost non-existent before 9/11. After, it became the most aggressive ever pursued by the US. Thousands of people were killed in the US, and this is the reason for the policy change.

You are probably right....but I think it should have escalated much faster. Reagan went after Libya for bombing a disco in Germany that killed a few Americans. Clinton really did nothing after the embassies and the USS Cole were hit. What kind of signal did that send? Compare the two....then decide.

Agreed. The great Democratic Party- the party of the people, of states' rights, of limited government, of decentralization, of laissez faire- died many, many years ago. Woodrow Wilson mortally wounded it. Franklin Roosevelt killed it and then shredded apart and utterly destroyed its corpse.
at least the democrats dont pretend to still be for small government and states rights where are the republicans do.

having a republican sit there and tell me he is for small government and having the government support me and the entire nation with a healthcare plan like other 1st world countries is a ludicrous idea and should be disregarded becuase it give to much pwoer to the federal government and THEN tell me that my wife cant have an abortion ever and my gay friend cant marry his gay lover and that should be banned at the federal level makes me want to SEVERELY injure someone. especially the people who listen to that unintelligent dribble and believe the republicans are looking out for the "little guy" and "state's rights"

Not true....you do not know me. Nor do you have any knowledge of my experiences serving under Democratic presidents vs. Republican presidents. The Democrats have done a lot of good things in the past, but they are NOT the party they once were.
I'm just going by what you post here, of course I don't know you. I agree with your last sentence, the return (to power) of the party of FDR would be nice.

Agreed. The great Democratic Party- the party of the people, of states' rights, of limited government, of decentralization, of laissez faire- died many, many years ago. Woodrow Wilson mortally wounded it. Franklin Roosevelt killed it and then shredded apart and utterly destroyed its corpse.

That sums it up pretty well.....thats why the south, which used to be almost totally Democrat shifted to the Republicans.

A pantheist is someone who worships nature.

I had to look it up, because I thought that "pantheist" was someone (or a society) who worshiped many gods (hence the Greek Pantheon), but I didn't want to post on blind faith and good job that I didn't.

Pantheism: n 1 a doctorine or belief which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. 2 rare worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

Not sure which of these was originally meant, I suspect the 2nd dictionary definition whereby (as I currently read it) he may or may not have a particular belief himself but he has no prejudice against those with other beliefs. It says 'rare', but maybe that's just describing the state of affairs on the NS forum... :)

Definition 1 looks a lot like an extended Gaia theory, to me, but could cover the most fundimental aspects of Christianty to a tee, too.

I still like the idea I initially had, though, whereby absolutely every natural process has its attendant diety or incarnation of power... :)

I'm just going by what you post here, of course I don't know you. I agree with your last sentence, the return (to power) of the party of FDR would be nice.

Yes, but that party has been crushed and the present Democrats would never go back to those ideals. If they would they would get far more support....now they are the party of big government and having the government take care of everyone.

I would even say that the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped before they happened, if the anti-terrorism record of Clinton's presidency is anything to go by.

Right lets look at the anti-terrorism record under Clinton:
World Trade Center(basement level bombing in an attempt to topple both Towers)
2 US Embassies
Khobar Towers
U.S.S. Cole
Oklamahoma City(not international but before 9/11 was the worst attack of terrorism in US history)

Right if Gore followed Clinton's Anti Terrorism record 9/11 would have been a mushroom cloud.

It doesnt matter who was in office. 9/11 was being planned while Clinton was still in office. So this point is rather moot.

You're kidding right? Islam has no tolerance for ANY other religion...period.

"Let there be no compulsion in Religion." (Sura 2:257)

"... If they become Muslims, then are they guided aright: but if they turn away -- thy duty is only preaching; and God's eye is on His servants." (Sura 3:18-19).

"God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you over religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion..." (Surat al-Mumtahana: 8-9)

Pagans have never fought Muslims or tried to drive them from their homes.

"Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to heedfulness. Heed God (alone). God is aware of what you do." (Surat al-Ma'ida: 8)

Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) explained that "the greatest jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul". What is meant by "lower soul" here is the selfish desires and ambitions.

When Mohammed sent his freedman Zaid against the Christians at the head of a Muslim army, he told them to fight in the cause of God bravely but humanely. They must not molest priests, monks and nuns nor the weak and helpless people who were unable to fight. There must be no massacre of civilians nor should they cut down a single tree nor pull down any building.

When you say Muslims, I'm pretty sure you mean "al-Qaeda" because you clearly know nothing of Islam.

Yes, but that party has been crushed and the present Democrats would never go back to those ideals. If they would they would get far more support....now they are the party of big government and having the government take care of everyone.

They've been that way ever since that traitor Roosevelt hijacked the party and utterly sabotaged it.

Right lets look at the anti-terrorism record under Clinton:
World Trade Center(basement level bombing in an attempt to topple both Towers)
2 US Embassies
Khobar Towers
U.S.S. Cole
Oklamahoma City(not international but before 9/11 was the worst attack of terrorism in US history)

Right if Gore followed Clinton's Anti Terrorism record 9/11 would have been a mushroom cloud.

It doesnt matter who was in office. 9/11 was being planned while Clinton was still in office. So this point is rather moot.
how many on US soil

World trade center bombing

wow. the rest were off US mainland and are not under watch of whatever wtaches this kind of shit in the US. i think thats a decent record

under bush
WTC ELIMINATED
several embassies bombed
general increase in world terrorism

your partisan ignorance astounds me

They've been that way ever since that traitor Roosevelt hijacked the party and utterly sabotaged it.
because we all know haivng the government make sure everyone isnt poor and sick and fucknig dying is the worst conceived idea EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


idiots

"Let there be no compulsion in Religion." (Sura 2:257)

"... If they become Muslims, then are they guided aright: but if they turn away -- thy duty is only preaching; and God's eye is on His servants." (Sura 3:18-19).

"God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you over religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion..." (Surat al-Mumtahana: 8-9)

Pagans have never fought Muslims or tried to drive them from their homes.

"Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to heedfulness. Heed God (alone). God is aware of what you do." (Surat al-Ma'ida: 8)

Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) explained that "the greatest jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul". What is meant by "lower soul" here is the selfish desires and ambitions.

When Mohammed sent his freedman Zaid against the Christians at the head of a Muslim army, he told them to fight in the cause of God bravely but humanely. They must not molest priests, monks and nuns nor the weak and helpless people who were unable to fight. There must be no massacre of civilians nor should they cut down a single tree nor pull down any building.

When you say Muslims, I'm pretty sure you mean "al-Qaeda" because you clearly know nothing of Islam.


Thats all fine and well.....but look at the history of Islam...it is the ONLY religion that has been spread by the sword. The Arabs forced the Egyptians to accept Islam AND the Arabic language. The same is true of the people of Jordan, the Hasimites (sp) and the Syrians. The ONLY two middle eastern Muslim countries that resisted the Arabic language are Iran and Turkey. Islam is a religion that has many factions, some of which are very violent. The same is true of every religion, but the Muslim fanatics see death as a reward and that spurns them on.

Thats all fine and well.....but look at the history of Islam...it is the ONLY religion that has been spread by the sword.

The ONLY one? You haven't heard of the Crusades?

No iraq war. US now wastes time and money asking permission to do anything form the UN, who haven;t done anything in 4 years. Gore approval rates at 22%, taxes at 80% for anyone productive, unproductive still unproductive, but, hey, they now have subsidized cable in their subsidized house. US economy in tatters, as demand has dropped due to overtaxation and extended recession, no economic stimulus for demand in place results in near record gdp contraction. business demand and employment never recovers due to the 2/3 of demand in US economy being pressured by overtaxation, world economy falling off a cliff as the demand for exports from by the biggest consumer drops considerably. Republicans in a snit, but haven;t come up with a productive idea other than John Mccain, who once again gets muzzled. unskilled labor receives more government help (read manufacturing jobs) inflation of basic prices continue to skyrocket, China laughs at overpaid workers doing what 3 months off the farm chinese are doing for 1/40th the cost Kyoto receives 2 votes for ratification instead of 0 votes it got in US senate under Clinton. Universal health care in place, now takes 8 weeks to get checked for strep, polio makes dramatic return. yet, costs for coverage up dramatically for majority of population. polarization is now at the point of open conflict, conservatives caught trying to blow up san andreas and set california adrift, digging ditch in central Pennsylvannia attempting to float northeast over to france. Christian Taliban forming and growing rapidly. South talks of receding openly again. Midwest applies to join Canada, their socialist but a hell of a lot nicer and better looking than the socialist US northeasterners....Gore, during news brief, simpers, whines, and rolls eyes so often he never says a word in english. tipper in sex scandal with shaquille o'neal.

If Al Gore was president I would not be laid off.

you read your history.....the Crusades were an attemopt to liberate the Holy Land form the savages....who were, er, more advanced than europeans back then, too bad they never evolved much past 100 ad.....but it was not a war for conversion. was a war to eradicate islam from the Holy Land. TAotally different than the Islamic hordes descending throughout north africa and central asia, converting by the sword...ever heard of the berbers, persians, etc.? not arab, and certainly not muslim, before the Islamic war expansion.

The ONLY one? You haven't heard of the Crusades?

You obviously do not understand the crusades do you.....you might want to read up on them. Religion was the LAST reason for the crusades. the prior-genitor laws, the population explosion from the Popes outlawing of war in Europe AND the robbing of Christian pilgrims had MUCH more to do with them than religion.

The ONLY one? You haven't heard of the Crusades?
dont forget the inquisition

how many on US soil

World trade center bombing

wow. the rest were off US mainland and are not under watch of whatever wtaches this kind of shit in the US. i think thats a decent record

under bush
WTC ELIMINATED
several embassies bombed
general increase in world terrorism

your partisan ignorance astounds me

Hold on, that makes it better? And technically your own ignorance astounds me. U.S. military installations and embassies are considered US soil. So the Khobar Towers and both embassy bombings count on US soil. As for a general increase in world terrorism, thats nothing new. Terrorism has been on the increase agaisnt the US since the Marine Corps Barrack Bombing back in the 80s. Infact Clinton did just as much to provoke just as much terrorism as Bush did. But if you wish to be the avid Bush hater and not listen to anyone elses arguement then feel free to do so.

how many on US soil

World trade center bombing

wow. the rest were off US mainland and are not under watch of whatever wtaches this kind of shit in the US. i think thats a decent record

under bush
WTC ELIMINATED
several embassies bombed
general increase in world terrorism

your partisan ignorance astounds me

*sigh*...I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you, but, here goes...

U.S. Embassies, in any country, are considered American soil. That is why the are guarded by U.S. Marines. An attack on an embassy is an attack on U.S. soil. True, it's not on the mainland, but does that make it an excuse? Is it okay to bomb americans, as long as it is not in the continental U.S.?

The global threat of terrorism and terrorist attacks were ignored to a large degree by every sitting president for the last 20 years...all the way back to Beirut. WTC happened under Bush, was planned under Clinton, Was sparked Bush senior, and was trained under Reagan. We're all at fault for not watching closely enough.

As for a "general increase in world terrorism"...the rate has fundamentally not changed...just the scale. And that is due to the fact that our passivity and failure to monitor the growing threat allowed the terrorist organizations to firmly root themselves, train, equip, and finance their activities over a period of decades.

Further, as for not being "under watch of whatever wtaches this kind of shit in the US" (whatever that means), the president is responsible for ALL american citizens, property, and interests, both at home and abroad.

Ok, ChessSquares...I anxiously await your insults with bated breath...because we all know that you are right, enlightened, and omniscient.

you read your history.....the Crusades were an attemopt to liberate the Holy Land form the savages....who were, er, more advanced than europeans back then, too bad they never evolved much past 100 ad.....but it was not a war for conversion. was a war to eradicate islam from the Holy Land. TAotally different than the Islamic hordes descending throughout north africa and central asia, converting by the sword...ever heard of the berbers, persians, etc.? not arab, and certainly not muslim, before the Islamic war expansion.
under the muslims the holy land they were trying to "liberate" was free to pilgrims from all religions, and the muslims kept it that way.

and you seem to forget the inquisitions, the murder of the "savages" in america and technically the destruction of the USSR.

the freeing of the holy land was the excuse used by the church to get the faithful to go along.....many other reasons for it, too, not all at all wholesome....

Hold on, that makes it better? And technically your own ignorance astounds me. U.S. military installations and embassies are considered US soil. So the Khobar Towers and both embassy bombings count on US soil. As for a general increase in world terrorism, thats nothing new. Terrorism has been on the increase agaisnt the US since the Marine Corps Barrack Bombing back in the 80s. Infact Clinton did just as much to provoke just as much terrorism as Bush did. But if you wish to be the avid Bush hater and not listen to anyone elses arguement then feel free to do so.
but they are NOT part of the united states mainland and cannot be covered by the same actions taken to cover buildings and places within the united states. FALSE ANALOGY

and you miss the fact THER HAVE BEEN MORE INSTANCES OF TERRORISM SINCE THE START OF THE WAR ON TERROR THAN BEFORE IT.

sheesh, if you are going to be anti-christian, at least be halfway good at it. the inquisition was the eradication of conquering islam from re-conquered spain, known as the reconquistadore.....Spain fought and got their land back, then used the inquisition to eradicate non-christians.....quite backward and reactionary....good thing Europe evolved a bit since...too bad Islamic world in many areas has not, eh?

ooops I meant the Inquisition.... d'oh!

Have you forgotten about the Inquisition? Was that not a bloodbath in order to force Christianity on others?

Thats all fine and well.....but look at the history of Islam...it is the ONLY religion that has been spread by the sword. The Arabs forced the Egyptians to accept Islam AND the Arabic language. The same is true of the people of Jordan, the Hasimites (sp) and the Syrians. The ONLY two middle eastern Muslim countries that resisted the Arabic language are Iran and Turkey. Islam is a religion that has many factions, some of which are very violent. The same is true of every religion, but the Muslim fanatics see death as a reward and that spurns them on.

Christianity was very much spread by the sword and has been responsible for far more death and wars than Islam, yet Christianity still claims to be a peaceful and tolerant religion.

Why can Christianity do it and not Islam?

I've read the NT and I've read the Koran and both seem to preach the same message of brotherhood, peace, fellowship, hope, and love for *all* of mankind.

When it gets in the hands of power hungry people, though, watch out!

Islam does not teach intolerance, people do. I already know you're smart enough to know the difference and be saddened by it. However, try not to spread the stereo-types.

For every militant nutcase Muslim you show me, I will show you two peaceful and tolerant Muslims.

Also, you cannot use the politics of Saudi Arabia or Iran when you speak of the Muslim world. There are an estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The Organization of Islamic Countries has 55 member states. The ten countries with the largest Muslim population are: Indonesia (170.3 million), Pakistan (136 million), Bangladesh (106 million), India (103 million), Turkey (62.4 million), Iran (60.7 million), Egypt (53.7 million), Nigeria (47.7 million) and China (37.1 million). Of these countries only Egypt is an Arab country. Most Arabs are Muslims, but most Muslims are not Arabs.

Some very famous American Muslims:
Paula Abdul -- Singer/dancer
Spencer Abraham -- U.S. Secretary of Energy
Elias Corey -- 1960 Nobel Prize Winner
Shannon Elizabeth -- Actress in "American Pie"
Doug Flutie -- 1984 Heisman Trophy Winner
Jeff George -- Football player
Dr. Michael De Bakey -- Pioneer heart surgeon
George Mitchell -- Former Senate Majority Leader
Danny & Marlo Thomas -- Actors
John Sununu -- Former White House Chief of Staff
Helen Thomas -- Former Dean of White House Press Corps
Bobby Rahal -- Indy 500 Race Car Champion
Current Congressmen -- Darrell Issa and Nick Rahall
Casey Kasem –- Radio personality and Shaggy from Scooby-Doo
Lucie Salhany -- First woman to head a TV Network (FOX)
Jaime Farr -- Actor from M*A*S*H
Kathy Najimy -- Award winning actress and Peggy Hill
Ralph Nader -- Consumer advocate
Christa McAuliffe -- Teacher & space shuttle astronaut
Joseph Abboud -- Designer
F. Murray Abraham -- Oscar Winning Actor
Michael Nouri -- Actor in Flashdance

To generalize is to dehumanize.

but they are NOT part of the united states mainland and cannot be covered by the same actions taken to cover buildings and places within the united states. FALSE ANALOGY

and you miss the fact THER HAVE BEEN MORE INSTANCES OF TERRORISM SINCE THE START OF THE WAR ON TERROR THAN BEFORE IT.

By your own logic since none of it has been on the US mainland then it doesnt count.

If Gore had won the election in 2000 then it would be the republicans, rather than the democrats upset about the state of this country. I hate to say it, but there really isn't much difference between Gore and Bush, just as there really isn't much difference between Kerry and Bush, and before I'm set on by rabid democrats, I intend to vote for Kerry, mostly because I only vote for incumbants if they are doing a good job, and I don't think Bush is, and while Kerry may not be much better, he's the evil we haven't tried yet.

*sigh*...I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you, but, here goes...

U.S. Embassies, in any country, are considered American soil. That is why the are guarded by U.S. Marines. An attack on an embassy is an attack on U.S. soil. True, it's not on the mainland, but does that make it an excuse? Is it okay to bomb americans, as long as it is not in the continental U.S.?

The global threat of terrorism and terrorist attacks were ignored to a large degree by every sitting president for the last 20 years...all the way back to Beirut. WTC happened under Bush, was planned under Clinton, Was sparked Bush senior, and was trained under Reagan. We're all at fault for not watching closely enough.

As for a "general increase in world terrorism"...the rate has fundamentally not changed...just the scale. And that is due to the fact that our passivity and failure to monitor the growing threat allowed the terrorist organizations to firmly root themselves, train, equip, and finance their activities over a period of decades.

Further, as for not being "under watch of whatever wtaches this kind of shit in the US" (whatever that means), the president is responsible for ALL american citizens, property, and interests, both at home and abroad.

Ok, ChessSquares...I anxiously await your insults with bated breath...because we all know that you are right, enlightened, and omniscient.

and again, they are technically US soil but they are NOT in the US and cannot be covered by the methods used to protect the US homeland.

i will look up the terrorist rates for you

he's the evil we haven't tried yet.

Now *that* is a cool campaign slogan ... I think I'll use it ...

Elect Keruvalia for President in 2008: "I'm the evil you haven't tried yet!"

:D Me likey.

[QUOTE=Chess Squares]but they are NOT part of the united states mainland and cannot be covered by the same actions taken to cover buildings and places within the united states. FALSE ANALOGYQUOTE]

Again...Embassies are considered sovereign American soil. America is justified in doing ANYTHING within its power to protect it, it it chooses. There is no distinction. I'm in the military, and have worked at many embassies. I know this for a fact.

By your own logic since none of it has been on the US mainland then it doesnt count.
i can swim in the logical fallacies


there are two points here

point 1: terrorist acts on US homeland cannot be related to those offhomeland even if it was of US posession

point 2: the "war on terrorism" has done nothing but increase terrorist attacks internationally

[QUOTE=Chess Squares]but they are NOT part of the united states mainland and cannot be covered by the same actions taken to cover buildings and places within the united states. FALSE ANALOGYQUOTE]

Again...Embassies are considered sovereign American soil. America is justified in doing ANYTHING within its power to protect it, it it chooses. There is no distinction. I'm in the military, and have worked at many embassies. I know this for a fact.
you are missing the point, that there are actions that can be taken in the US homeland that cant be take other places because of the simple fact they are other places

Christianity was very much spread by the sword and has been responsible for far more death and wars than Islam, yet Christianity still claims to be a peaceful and tolerant religion.

Why can Christianity do it and not Islam?

I've read the NT and I've read the Koran and both seem to preach the same message of brotherhood, peace, fellowship, hope, and love for *all* of mankind.

When it gets in the hands of power hungry people, though, watch out!

Islam does not teach intolerance, people do. I already know you're smart enough to know the difference and be saddened by it. However, try not to spread the stereo-types.

For every militant nutcase Muslim you show me, I will show you two peaceful and tolerant Muslims.

Also, you cannot use the politics of Saudi Arabia or Iran when you speak of the Muslim world. There are an estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The Organization of Islamic Countries has 55 member states. The ten countries with the largest Muslim population are: Indonesia (170.3 million), Pakistan (136 million), Bangladesh (106 million), India (103 million), Turkey (62.4 million), Iran (60.7 million), Egypt (53.7 million), Nigeria (47.7 million) and China (37.1 million). Of these countries only Egypt is an Arab country. Most Arabs are Muslims, but most Muslims are not Arabs.

You are correct that there are fanatics in every religion. However, the Muslim extremists are FAR more dangerous than any other group. If the example of Iran, Syria, Libya and Afganistan under the Taliban are any indication of where Islam is going, then the Muslims of the world need to clean up their house. Also they were the only group seen dancing on 9-11. That was quite telling as well.

I know full well that there are Muslims that are great people. I know quite a few of them in Turkey from my trips there. My brother-in-law is Iranian and even HE says the US is too tolerant of Muslims here. Of course he is on a death list in Iran so he might be a bit biased....

i can swim in the logical fallacies


there are two points here

point 1: terrorist acts on US homeland cannot be related to those offhomeland even if it was of US posession

point 2: the "war on terrorism" has done nothing but increase terrorist attacks internationally

I know this is futile...but...

1. Would we protect Hawaii? Alaska? Guam? The U.S. Virgin Islands?

It is not a matter of U.S. possession. It is U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL.

2. I'm waiting on your rates.

are you serious? destruction of the USSR was bad? how, lol?
and remember, the USSR was formed by the butchery of Lenin and Stalin, all to forward the Marxist ideal, and were avowed atheists. remember?

i hardly call a land grab and Europe getting rid of its' "undesirables" who then conquered the land a Christian religon fault....same as the crusades...a land grab and extension of power is a human failing and fault, the Christian religion never teaches that....powerful institutions have always deceived its' people to extend its' power....had nothing to do with the religion whatsoever. yes, there were christian missionaries...but the extension of the US government extending its' power and reach and resources is hardly the fault of a religion....its' pleasant for an anti-Christian bigot to simplify, but simply isn't true.
Might want to read on the history of the Catholic church at the time on the ral motivations and the railrods' lobbying of the US government on the real causes of these things...

Well in his defence, you need to remember that it would have taken over 3 hours to prime and send a cruise to that site, by which time the general consensus was he would have moved (he doesn't spend more than a few hours in any one spot). There was fear that the cruise might kill and injure innocents. And also this was before there was much to link him to anything. So really all it would have most probably caused, would have been a huge international incident as they were attacking a Saudi national in a village on foreign soil, near the Pakistan border.
It's IraQ, not irac btw.

1993 WTC bombing? Landmark Plot? Manila plot?

I know this is futile...but...

1. Would we protect Hawaii? Alaska? Guam? The U.S. Virgin Islands?

It is not a matter of U.S. possession. It is U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL.

2. I'm waiting on your rates.


Give it up.....he has no knowledge of anything. He has a record going in his head that says... "Bush bad!" over and over again.....

I know this is futile...but...

1. Would we protect Hawaii? Alaska? Guam? The U.S. Virgin Islands?

It is not a matter of U.S. possession. It is U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL.

2. I'm waiting on your rates.
all of which are in US posession, you continue to throw in false analogies, it appears to be out of not knowing what im talkngi about. the US cannot police a nation it doesnt control, it cannot police the nations in the middle east ebcause it doesnt control them, thus it cannot protect its embassies there as well as in a nation it controls

2) ill be damned if i can find anything, its all insurance bullshit (wrong search words -_-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31971-2004May16.html

you are missing the point, that there are actions that can be taken in the US homeland that cant be take other places because of the simple fact they are other places

What sense does that make? Why do we station Marines at embassies, Chess? For protection.

If the "actions" you are referring to are military in nature, then those actions can, and have, been taken at virtually all points of the globe. The U.S. Global force projection capability is conceived for just that purpose.

i can swim in the logical fallacies


there are two points here

point 1: terrorist acts on US homeland cannot be related to those offhomeland even if it was of US posession

point 2: the "war on terrorism" has done nothing but increase terrorist attacks internationally

Point 1: BS. Your playing down terrorist attacks overseas and it wont cut it. Simply because you have very little reasoning for it. President Truman once said "The buck stops here" which means when it comes to terrorist attacks overseas the President is the one which has to deal with it.

Point 2: BS fact probably supported by those who dont like the war on terrorism, or Bush in general.

all of which are in US posession, you continue to throw in false analogies, it appears to be out of not knowing what im talkngi about. the US cannot police a nation it doesnt control, it cannot police the nations in the middle east ebcause it doesnt control them, thus it cannot protect its embassies there as well as in a nation it controls

2) ill be damned if i can find anything, its all insurance bullshit

OK, Chess...you do have one thing right: The U.S. does not have as much power physically present in the middle east to protect its embassies. I know. I've been there.

What I am talking about is the right to defend, or if necessary, to retaliate against an attack on U.S. soil. Which inludes embassies.

Incidentally, what analogy am I "throwing"? These are not analogies. These are statements of common, well known (I thought) facts.

you're ignorance in your statements are breathtaking

name one Christian war that was motivated by conversion. Not the crusades, not the inquisition, the Crusades, as we said, was to "liberate the Holy Land"...doesn;t make it right, but it wasn;t to convert everyone, it was to kick them out......the inquisition was post rconquistadore war when the spanish kicked the Muslim out, after the Muslims had conquered Spain to eradicate Jews and Muslims.....again, the motivation was to rid the land of non-Christians after BEING CONQUERED...

and most names on your list are Arab, not Muslim, SHEESH! Arabs in the US before 1960 were more than 90% Christian (per http://www.arabamericanresearch.com/pages/4/)

Arabs weren;t always so overwhelmingly Muslim, until the last 50 years when harsh oppression of non-muslims began in most countries, led by the house of saud conquering arabia.....wow, what are college students being taught these days? what crap! nader a muslim? lolol! arab does not mean muslim, at least until islamic oppression led to mass migration out of north africa and the middle east!

Point 1: BS. Your playing down terrorist attacks overseas and it wont cut it. Simply because you have very little reasoning for it. President Truman once said "The buck stops here" which means when it comes to terrorist attacks overseas the President is the one which has to deal with it.
im not playing it down, im saying its a differnet matter than homeland terrorist attacks (US states and all owned territories)

Point 2: BS fact probably supported by those who dont like the war on terrorism, or Bush in general.
true fact, the Bush team is manipulating the facts to pretend terror went down

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31971-2004May16.html

welcome to several months ago

What I am talking about is the right to defend, or if necessary, to retaliate against an attack on U.S. soil. Which inludes embassies.
i am NOT disputing THAT, i agree there but that is actually quite irrelevant when taking in what you granted me to be right

Incidentally, what analogy am I "throwing"? These are not analogies. These are statements of common, well known (I thought) facts.
false analogy - terrorist actions occuring in other countries not under US control can be compared to terrorist actions in countries udner US control

you already admitted that you agree US has more power in countries it controls, THUS, it can more easily PREVENT those terrorist actions from occuring in countries it controls. trying to compare homeland to foreign is not logical, even when comparing US holdings

im not playing it down, im saying its a differnet matter than homeland terrorist attacks (US states and all owned territories)


true fact, the Bush team is manipulating the facts to pretend terror went down

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31971-2004May16.html

welcome to several months ago

The frequency of terrorist attacks haven't fundamentally changed. Two things have changed:

1: They're increasing in scale and sophistication, and

2: We're finally starting to notice.

you're ignorance in your statements are breathtaking

name one Christian war that was motivated by conversion. Not the crusades, not the inquisition, the Crusades, as we said, was to "liberate the Holy Land"...doesn;t make it right, but it wasn;t to convert everyone, it was to kick them out......the inquisition was post rconquistadore war when the spanish kicked the Muslim out, after the Muslims had conquered Spain to eradicate Jews and Muslims.....again, the motivation was to rid the land of non-Christians after BEING CONQUERED...

and most names on your list are Arab, not Muslim, SHEESH! Arabs in the US before 1960 were more than 90% Christian (per http://www.arabamericanresearch.com/pages/4/)

Arabs weren;t always so overwhelmingly Muslim, until the last 50 years when harsh oppression of non-muslims began in most countries, led by the house of saud conquering arabia.....wow, what are college students being taught these days? what crap! nader a muslim? lolol! arab does not mean muslim, at least until islamic oppression led to mass migration out of north africa and the middle east!

Actually...the inquisition was an attempt by Phillip II to make his kingdom the MOST Catholic. He was an inbred clown like many European rulers and spoke with such a lisp that he decreed that anyone who did not speak like him was mocking him. To this day the Spanish pronounce the letter "Z" as a "TH" sound.

The frequency of terrorist attacks haven't fundamentally changed. Two things have changed:

1: They're increasing in scale and sophistication, and

2: We're finally starting to notice.
yet they have still increased, the bush government asserts that terrorism has decreased and the war on terror is working, it obviously isnt

i am NOT disputing THAT, i agree there but that is actually quite irrelevant when taking in what you granted me to be right


false analogy - terrorist actions occuring in other countries not under US control can be compared to terrorist actions in countries udner US control

you already admitted that you agree US has more power in countries it controls, THUS, it can more easily PREVENT those terrorist actions from occuring in countries it controls. trying to compare homeland to foreign is not logical, even when comparing US holdings

Alright, Chess. I think I understand what you are trying to say. You're right that we don't have the physical presence. However, physical presence does not prevent attacks. Intelligence does.

As for the false analogy...the U.S. doesn't "control" any other countries. We have agreements with them. Quid pro quo. I believe a "homeland" attack and a "foreign" attack are equal in their import.

I know this is futile...but...

1. Would we protect Hawaii? Alaska? Guam? The U.S. Virgin Islands?

It is not a matter of U.S. possession. It is U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL.

2. I'm waiting on your rates.

He's prolly just talking about the states which are on the mainland. Oh but Hawaii and Alaska would could too since they're states. The point seems partly accurate, as it would seem to be easier to prevent attacks on the mainland than an embassy in the middle of another country. Especially if the country is filled with people who hate the country with the embassy.

Alright, Chess. I think I understand what you are trying to say. You're right that we don't have the physical presence. However, physical presence does not prevent attacks. Intelligence does.

As for the false analogy...the U.S. doesn't "control" any other countries. We have agreements with them. Quid pro quo. I believe a "homeland" attack and a "foreign" attack are equal in their import.
but our ability to stop an attack on a foreign base compared to our ability to stop one on our homeland control is much less, taking into account both intelligence and military presence

He's prolly just talking about the states which are on the mainland. Oh but Hawaii and Alaska would could too since they're states. The point seems partly accurate, as it would seem to be easier to prevent attacks on the mainland than an embassy in the middle of another country. Especially if the country is filled with people who hate the country with the embassy.
forumwalker looks like he gets most of the point and keljamikstan or something gets at least the gist of it

"but our ability to stop an attack on a foreign base compared to our ability to stop one on our homeland control is much less, taking into account both intelligence and military presence"

Actually, I disagree. Intelligence efforts in, I don't know, Iceland could turn up a terrorist plot in Wisconsin. The "attack" you are referring to, I believe, is a conventional military assault. If that is the case, then you are correct in saying that our ability to defend a continental base is greater than the ability to defend U.S. interests abroad.

As pertains to terrorism, however: Intelligence on terrorist acts and activities are not bound by borders or nations. They are potentially everywhere. That's why most of our intelligence efforts are directed abroad...so that we may prevent an attack at home.

Look, let's clarify something here:

Chess - you are saying that we can better protect our continental interests than our foreign interests. You are correct in a conventional sense. If an enemy were to conventionally attack a US base on continental soil, we would be better equipped to handle it.

Your original argument was concerning prevention. Not defense. Prevention lies more under the purvue of intelligence gathering and monitoring. That's all I'm saying.

BTW, Chess. I am proud of you. You actually debated without childish insult-hurling! What a step!

You are correct that there are fanatics in every religion. However, the Muslim extremists are FAR more dangerous than any other group. If the example of Iran, Syria, Libya and Afganistan under the Taliban are any indication of where Islam is going, then the Muslims of the world need to clean up their house. Also they were the only group seen dancing on 9-11. That was quite telling as well.

Allow me to agree and disagree with you. I will agree that Muslim extremists are far more dangerous than any other group, but only now. There was a time where Christian Extremist were just as dangerous, or Hindu, or about any religion, just not right now during this day and age. It's almost as if the middle eastern region is going through what Europe, spreading to the west, went through 500 or so years ago, very similar to the landscape at that time.

>If Gore Won.. the entire rest of the world would be very very very very happy!! i repeat if gore won america wouldnt be so dredfully hated by the rest of the world as it is now under the bush administration!! happy world for all!

Look, let's clarify something here:

Chess - you are saying that we can better protect our continental interests than our foreign interests. You are correct in a conventional sense. If an enemy were to conventionally attack a US base on continental soil, we would be better equipped to handle it.

Your original argument was concerning prevention. Not defense. Prevention lies more under the purvue of intelligence gathering and monitoring. That's all I'm saying.

BTW, Chess. I am proud of you. You actually debated without childish insult-hurling! What a step!
prevention is more than just knowing about it, its about stopping it

Originally Posted by Chess Squares:
how many on US soil

World trade center bombing

wow. the rest were off US mainland and are not under watch of whatever wtaches this kind of shit in the US. i think thats a decent record

under bush
WTC ELIMINATED
several embassies bombed
general increase in world terrorism

your partisan ignorance astounds me

-------------------------------------------

This was your original argument: "not under the watch of whatever watches this kind of shit in the US".

There is no difference between what happens here at home, or abroad on US soil. It's all under the same watch, as you put it.

Defensibiltiy varies, that is true. But the president is responsible for ALL of it. Not just what happens at home.

http://www.crimsonbird.com/terrorism/timeline.htm

Nice little timeline, here.

Allow me to agree and disagree with you. I will agree that Muslim extremists are far more dangerous than any other group, but only now. There was a time where Christian Extremist were just as dangerous, or Hindu, or about any religion, just not right now during this day and age. It's almost as if the middle eastern region is going through what Europe, spreading to the west, went through 500 or so years ago, very similar to the landscape at that time.

Yes, but the Muslim extremists are able to cause much more death and destruction than ANY other group has been able to. THAT makes them far more of a threat than any other group.

prevention is more than just knowing about it, its about stopping it


That goes without saying.

Look, it all comes down to this: If it happens to U.S. interests, it is the responsibility of the sitting U.S. President.

Any terrorist act against U.S. interests on foreign soil is just as much the responsibility of the President (Bush OR Clinton) as it is on domestic soil.

MAY I JUMP IN ON THE RELIGION FOR A MOMENT?

My belief is that any religion, virtually, is at some point in its history responsible for death and destruction, control and condemnation.

A TRUE muslim or a TRUE christian would be an exception. All beliefs are distored to the point of violence, but the original form of those beliefs are typically inherently good and peaceful.

"but our ability to stop an attack on a foreign base compared to our ability to stop one on our homeland control is much less, taking into account both intelligence and military presence"

Actually, I disagree. Intelligence efforts in, I don't know, Iceland could turn up a terrorist plot in Wisconsin. The "attack" you are referring to, I believe, is a conventional military assault. If that is the case, then you are correct in saying that our ability to defend a continental base is greater than the ability to defend U.S. interests abroad.

As pertains to terrorism, however: Intelligence on terrorist acts and activities are not bound by borders or nations. They are potentially everywhere. That's why most of our intelligence efforts are directed abroad...so that we may prevent an attack at home.

German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." [Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14, 2001]

Jordanian intelligence, the GID, makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message got through it was passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message: A major attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding."* "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." This case was authenticated by ABC reporter John K. Cooley. [Source: International Herald Tribune (IHT), May 21, 2002]

Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. [Source: MSNBC interview with Putin, Sept. 15, 2001]

The "My God is better than your God" belief is, and has always been, dangerous.

Yes, but the Muslim extremists are able to cause much more death and destruction than ANY other group has been able to. THAT makes them far more of a threat than any other group.

I would say only because of technology available now, would you not? Would not a Hindu Extremist be able to cause just as much death and detruction, and if not, why?

German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." [Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14, 2001]

Jordanian intelligence, the GID, makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message got through it was passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message: A major attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding."* "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." This case was authenticated by ABC reporter John K. Cooley. [Source: International Herald Tribune (IHT), May 21, 2002]

Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. [Source: MSNBC interview with Putin, Sept. 15, 2001]

What's your point?

What's your point?
Re-enforcing intel from abroad, and demonstraiting it's usefulness, not much of a point really.

Re-enforcing intel from abroad, and demonstraiting it's usefulness, not much of a point really.

OH...but I see where you were going, though.

I would say only because of technology available now, would you not? Would not a Hindu Extremist be able to cause just as much death and detruction, and if not, why?

Thats true....but it all comes down to the willingness to use it in the first place. As we have seen...the Muslim extremists are very much willing to use any technology to kill others.

Back to the original post:

If al gore had won... Ah, heck, I don't care.
Not my land, not my president, not my problem.

You could have stopped it though... It's not like you didn't see it coming miles away (as several reports, films and books will testify)

And to be honest, everybody with brains in their heads, that has actually listened to *how* bush speaks, not to *what* he says, knows he's a dribbeling idiot reading his lines from a piece of paper.

I don't hope you get him again this time, but as far as karma goes... You get what you deserve.

I'm a fan of alternate history, so let me give this my best shot (shame on me for going back to target).

If Gore wins on the recount (not impossible, via the U. of Chicago study), I see the following effects:

Heated Rhetoric: still strong, but not quite as virulent as it is currently. The 2000 election caused a lot of harsh "us v. them" sentiment, but that the winning candidate was elected in a state where his party controlled the government, his brother was the governor, and the Supreme Court had the last word exacerbated things mightily. If the SC allows a full recount which Gore wins, some of those factors don't exist. It's still generally petty and nasty though.

Terrorist Attacks: 9/11 still happens. Given the apparent weight the Clinton administration was giving Al Qaeda near its close, it's somewhat possible (10-20%) that part of the attack is stopped. At least most of it happens as it did.

Afghanistan: Invasion of Afghanistan was a given. The U.S. has no choice but to strike militarily at the only static Al Qaeda power base, that of the Taliban. I can't forsee it happening any way other than it did, with the full backing of the world (save those abstenters like China). After 3 years, the new Afghani government is still weak and will need a significant and continuing U.S. presence. Critics decry the lack of a clear exit strategy.

PATRIOT Act: A much less aggressive version of the USA-PATRIOT act is passed in the wake of the attacks, and is allowed to die at the end of one to two years under threat of veto (possibly requiring it).

Iraq: Gore does not attack Iraq. Whether you agree or not, the Iraq war has been a proactive one led by one person based on his opinion of the potential hazards of continuing Hussein's government. Unless there's some damning evidence that the current government has that we've never seen (say, Iraq behind the Anthrax attacks) which is extremely unlikely, the Iraq war would not happen. Probably a continuation of the status quo ante.

Foreign Relations: No way to argue that the U.S.'s general position in the world in the Iraq war is seen as the aggressor, which has hurt opinion of the U.S. worldwide. Without this, post-9/11 sympathies continue for significantly longer before returning to normal levels. Arab sympathies are still mixed, but anti-American rhetoric is far less explosive.

Osama: With more troops available and probably a better foreign relations situation, the U.S. can be more aggressive about the hunt. Somewhat better results in directly attempting to capture Al Qaeda leadership, with a small (20-25%) chance that bin Laden himself is captured or killed.

Kyoto: Pushed by the President, Gore makes concessions on other bills to attempt to get ratification of the Kyoto treaty, but fails.

Economy: As in the real world, the already slumping economy undergoes a large hit as a result of the terror attacks. The less volatile foreign situation helps stabilize the economy slightly faster however. This is seen as the weak point in Gore's presidency.

Outlook for 2004: The economic recovery can't shake the memory of a bad couple years under the Gore presidency, and (especially if bin Laden is not captured) a continuing course of military action pushes the electorate slightly to the right. The race will probably be tight, but McCain stands a good chance of winning if he can get the nomination by pulling the party away from the social conservatives.

Anyway, just my two cents.

"MAY I JUMP IN ON THE RELIGION FOR A MOMENT?

My belief is that any religion, virtually, is at some point in its history responsible for death and destruction, control and condemnation.

A TRUE muslim or a TRUE christian would be an exception. All beliefs are distored to the point of violence, but the original form of those beliefs are typically inherently good and peaceful. "

Exactly my point. I'm surprised no one has brought up the "civilization" of the Americas. Oh wait, that wasn't Christianity spread by the sword as much as by the smallpox.

As far as the original argument goes, the world would not be a utopia if Gore were elected. Speculation is great and all, but 9/11 would've happened - bin Laden wasn't/isn't stupid (except for the part where he messed with Texas), he probably would've found a way.

The point of continuing debate, voting, and all that, even while knowing "utopia" is nowhere is that it's worth it to get BETTER, even if we can't be PERFECT.

And I don't know about you, but fundamentalist Christians can scare the living daylights out of me - saying all the world's problems are due to those damn atheists.

Back to the original post:

If al gore had won... Ah, heck, I don't care.
Not my land, not my president, not my problem.

You could have stopped it though... It's not like you didn't see it coming miles away (as several reports, films and books will testify)

And to be honest, everybody with brains in their heads, that has actually listened to *how* bush speaks, not to *what* he says, knows he's a dribbeling idiot reading his lines from a piece of paper.

I don't hope you get him again this time, but as far as karma goes... You get what you deserve.


How someone speaks does not necessarily indicate their level of intelligence. All Socrates did was ask questions!

Please, God, let them know that I am not comparing Bush to Socrates.

Note: I, too, am sometimes dismayed by the apparent level of intelligence of Bush as portrayed by all the Bushisms...but he did graduate with an MBA from Harvard. You can't buy that, nor can you be stupid and earn it.

"MAY I JUMP IN ON THE RELIGION FOR A MOMENT?

My belief is that any religion, virtually, is at some point in its history responsible for death and destruction, control and condemnation.

A TRUE muslim or a TRUE christian would be an exception. All beliefs are distored to the point of violence, but the original form of those beliefs are typically inherently good and peaceful. "

Exactly my point. I'm surprised no one has brought up the "civilization" of the Americas. Oh wait, that wasn't Christianity spread by the sword as much as by the smallpox.

As far as the original argument goes, the world would not be a utopia if Gore were elected. Speculation is great and all, but 9/11 would've happened - bin Laden wasn't/isn't stupid (except for the part where he messed with Texas), he probably would've found a way.

The point of continuing debate, voting, and all that, even while knowing "utopia" is nowhere is that it's worth it to get BETTER, even if we can't be PERFECT.

And I don't know about you, but fundamentalist Christians can scare the living daylights out of me - saying all the world's problems are due to those damn atheists.

What the Europeans did in the Americas was not for religion, it was for gold, silver and land.

How someone speaks does not necessarily indicate their level of intelligence. All Socrates did was ask questions!

Please, God, let them know that I am not comparing Bush to Socrates.

Note: I, too, am sometimes dismayed by the apparent level of intelligence of Bush as portrayed by all the Bushisms...but he did graduate with an MBA from Harvard. You can't buy that, nor can you be stupid and earn it.

You'd be surprised how much being the son of the president helps.
And I know damn well enough people with degrees that are about as daft as a block of concrete with brain damage.
Intelligence != wisdom.
Socrates was intelligent and wise.
Bush could be intelligent (innocent of that until proven otherwise), but I bet you he sure aint wise.

It's impossible to know for sure, I guess.

For all we know, he uses his form of speech as a way of identifying himself with the average american.

Looks like it's working.

It's impossible to know for sure, I guess.

For all we know, he uses his form of speech as a way of identifying himself with the average american.

Looks like it's working.

Actually, he has dyslexia. It is a common handicap. Now, if you want to pick on someone with a handicap, go right ahead. ;)

Actually, he has dyslexia. It is a common handicap. Now, if you want to pick on someone with a handicap, go right ahead. ;)

If you don't mind, I will.
Maybe not on him, but I pity the country that picks a handicapped leader.

(djee, gosh, I can't read this report very well... Must be nothin'... Whats it say again? About them mulsisms? and then this guy, omasa bin dalen? never heard of'm, prolly a small fish)

(well, there's that, and the enormous vacation time he took... Does he get to blame dyslexia for that as well?)

Actually, he has dyslexia. It is a common handicap. Now, if you want to pick on someone with a handicap, go right ahead. ;)

Touche...

'Dys' means 'difficulty' and 'lexia 'means 'words'. Dyslexia is a disorder that affects millions of people all over the world. It is one type of specific learning disability that affects a person's ability to read...not speak.

If you don't mind, I will.
Maybe not on him, but I pity the country that picks a handicapped leader.

(djee, gosh, I can't read this report very well... Must be nothin'... Whats it say again? About them mulsisms? and then this guy, omasa bin dalen? never heard of'm, prolly a small fish)

(well, there's that, and the enormous vacation time he took... Does he get to blame dyslexia for that as well?)

This is just sad...but at least we don't have to worry about you being elected...

Many world leaders have been handicapped. Even so far as to be in a wheelchair.

Touche...

'Dys' means 'difficulty' and 'lexia 'means 'words'. Dyslexia is a disorder that affects millions of people all over the world. It is one type of specific learning disability that affects a person's ability to read...not speak.

From dictionary.com.....

Main Entry: dys·lex·ia
Pronunciation: dis-'lek-sE-&
Function: noun
: a disturbance of the ability to read; broadly : disturbance of the ability to use language

If you don't mind, I will.
Maybe not on him, but I pity the country that picks a handicapped leader.

(djee, gosh, I can't read this report very well... Must be nothin'... Whats it say again? About them mulsisms? and then this guy, omasa bin dalen? never heard of'm, prolly a small fish)

(well, there's that, and the enormous vacation time he took... Does he get to blame dyslexia for that as well?)

Wow....some people never cease to amaze.

Vacation time...a misnomer. Every president works on his "vacation." His staff is there. Much of his cabinet is there. There is much work done, it is not as if he can distance himself from the office. it goes with him everywhere.

"MAY I JUMP IN ON THE RELIGION FOR A MOMENT?

My belief is that any religion, virtually, is at some point in its history responsible for death and destruction, control and condemnation.

A TRUE muslim or a TRUE christian would be an exception. All beliefs are distored to the point of violence, but the original form of those beliefs are typically inherently good and peaceful. "

Exactly my point. I'm surprised no one has brought up the "civilization" of the Americas. Oh wait, that wasn't Christianity spread by the sword as much as by the smallpox.

As far as the original argument goes, the world would not be a utopia if Gore were elected. Speculation is great and all, but 9/11 would've happened - bin Laden wasn't/isn't stupid (except for the part where he messed with Texas), he probably would've found a way.

The point of continuing debate, voting, and all that, even while knowing "utopia" is nowhere is that it's worth it to get BETTER, even if we can't be PERFECT.

And I don't know about you, but fundamentalist Christians can scare the living daylights out of me - saying all the world's problems are due to those damn atheists.

To jump in the religion thing myself, I have only one thing to say, and several things to add/extract from it:
He who does not want to believe something, will find ways to explain it in a matter that it doesn't exist.

Ergo, if your mind is not free, then how can you accept things that require your mind to be free?

Ergo, it doesn't really matter what you do to terrorists, they will interpret everything either as a victory or as a temporary setback.

PS: what I found extremely odd was the wording Bush used to describe his attacks against terrorism... "Shock and awe", right?
Now, what was the main sentiment of everyone worldwide post 9/11? Shock... And awe.

Who were the terrorists again? I forgot.

From dictionary.com.....

Main Entry: dys·lex·ia
Pronunciation: dis-'lek-sE-&
Function: noun
: a disturbance of the ability to read; broadly : disturbance of the ability to use language

From the International Dyslexia Asscociation:


What is dyslexia?
"Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological processing abilities. These difficulties in single word decoding are often unexpected in relation to age and other cognitive and academic abilities; they are not the result of generalized developmental disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifest by variable difficulty with different forms of language, often including, in addition to problems reading, a conspicuous problem with acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling."

To jump in the religion thing myself, I have only one thing to say, and several things to add/extract from it:
He who does not want to believe something, will find ways to explain it in a matter that it doesn't exist.

Ergo, if your mind is not free, then how can you accept things that require your mind to be free?

Ergo, it doesn't really matter what you do to terrorists, they will interpret everything either as a victory or as a temporary setback.

PS: what I found extremely odd was the wording Bush used to describe his attacks against terrorism... "Shock and awe", right?
Now, what was the main sentiment of everyone worldwide post 9/11? Shock... And awe.

Who were the terrorists again? I forgot.

Ergo, what's your point?

but at least we don't have to worry about you being elected...


True. Which is why I don't really bother, I'm just argueing for the sake of argueing... Offering you another perspective.

I don't require you to agree with me, nor to have you think that I'm right, or even offer valid points.

However, everything I say here is an opinion. Learn from it, discard it, argue it, but nothing else.

Maybe, given time and good arguments, I will change my opinion. I expect the same from all of you.

From the International Dyslexia Asscociation:


What is dyslexia?
"Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological processing abilities. These difficulties in single word decoding are often unexpected in relation to age and other cognitive and academic abilities; they are not the result of generalized developmental disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifest by variable difficulty with different forms of language, often including, in addition to problems reading, a conspicuous problem with acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling."

Well, there you are. The Bushisms are funny, but they come not from a lack of intelligence or education.

True. Which is why I don't really bother, I'm just argueing for the sake of argueing... Offering you another perspective.

I don't require you to agree with me, nor to have you think that I'm right, or even offer valid points.

However, everything I say here is an opinion. Learn from it, discard it, argue it, but nothing else.

Maybe, given time and good arguments, I will change my opinion. I expect the same from all of you.

Agreed. I actually enjoy admitting if I'm wrong. It means I have learned.

Ergo, what's your point?

My point is, that every religion has fundamentalists, which are possible terrorists... And fundamentalists, per definition, do NOT have a free mind.

Thats why its not easy to stop terrorism, you just cant argue with the guys. They're right, you're wrong, that's that.

Plus, people who *know* they are right often go to greater lengths to *prove* they are right. Even when everyone else *knows* that they're wrong.

From the International Dyslexia Asscociation:


What is dyslexia?
"Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological processing abilities. These difficulties in single word decoding are often unexpected in relation to age and other cognitive and academic abilities; they are not the result of generalized developmental disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifest by variable difficulty with different forms of language, often including, in addition to problems reading , a conspicuous problem with acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling."

Bold mine. I'm sure you're aware of the amount of papers a president should go through during his period? I'm just saying that although I'm not biased to handicapped people an sich, it's like employing a stuttering person as CEO of your company. He might be good, smart, all you want, but he just won't cut it.

My point is, that every religion has fundamentalists, which are possible terrorists... And fundamentalists, per definition, do NOT have a free mind.

Thats why its not easy to stop terrorism, you just cant argue with the guys. They're right, you're wrong, that's that.

Plus, people who *know* they are right often go to greater lengths to *prove* they are right. Even when everyone else *knows* that they're wrong.

I agree.

Bold mine. I'm sure you're aware of the amount of papers a president should go through during his period? I'm just saying that although I'm not biased to handicapped people an sich, it's like employing a stuttering person as CEO of your company. He might be good, smart, all you want, but he just won't cut it.

In response:

The first president of the United States, George Washington, was dyslexic. So was Albert Einstein. Dyslexia, which comes from the Greek meaning “difficulty with words,” is a language-based learning disability. It affects the ability of a person — even one with above-average intelligence — to read, write and spell. Dyslexics also may have problems putting things in order, following instructions, and differentiating between left and right.
Thought to be genetic and hereditary, some forms of dyslexia can also be caused when hearing problems at an early age affect a person’s language comprehension skills. Doctors still don’t know for sure what causes dyslexia, but they say there is a correlation between left-handedness and the learning disability in many families. It is estimated that one in 10 children is dyslexic. And more males are affected than females.

Dyslexic children can usually succeed at the same levels as others once they are diagnosed and start receiving extra support and attention at home and school. Children suspected of suffering from dyslexia undergo a series of reading, spelling, drawing, math and intelligence tests, as well as visual tests, laterality tests, visual scanning tests, sequencing and other tests to examine which brain functions are interfering with their acquisition of normal school learning.

Dyslexia also affects adults, but those who receive attention early in life often learn how to compensate for the disability by adulthood.

Dyslexic adults, however, tend to continue to have difficulty with language skills throughout their lives. But a dyslexia diagnosis is no barrier to success.

Some famous dyslexics include children’s book writer Hans Christian Anderson, U.S. Army General George Patton, Italian artist, painter and inventor Leonardo Da Vinci, telephone inventor Alexander Graham Bell and actors Whoopi Goldberg, Henri Winkler and Tom Cruise. — By Ephrat Livni, ABCNEWS.com - Sep. 12, 2002

Bold mine. I'm sure you're aware of the amount of papers a president should go through during his period? I'm just saying that although I'm not biased to handicapped people an sich, it's like employing a stuttering person as CEO of your company. He might be good, smart, all you want, but he just won't cut it.

That is the STUPIDEST thing I have read in a long time, and if you have followed Chess Squares and his rants then you KNOW what stupid is!!

In response:

The first president of the United States, George Washington, was dyslexic. So was Albert Einstein. Dyslexia, which comes from the Greek meaning “difficulty with words,” is a language-based learning disability. It affects the ability of a person — even one with above-average intelligence — to read, write and spell. Dyslexics also may have problems putting things in order, following instructions, and differentiating between left and right.
Thought to be genetic and hereditary, some forms of dyslexia can also be caused when hearing problems at an early age affect a person’s language comprehension skills. Doctors still don’t know for sure what causes dyslexia, but they say there is a correlation between left-handedness and the learning disability in many families. It is estimated that one in 10 children is dyslexic. And more males are affected than females.

Dyslexic children can usually succeed at the same levels as others once they are diagnosed and start receiving extra support and attention at home and school. Children suspected of suffering from dyslexia undergo a series of reading, spelling, drawing, math and intelligence tests, as well as visual tests, laterality tests, visual scanning tests, sequencing and other tests to examine which brain functions are interfering with their acquisition of normal school learning.

Dyslexia also affects adults, but those who receive attention early in life often learn how to compensate for the disability by adulthood.

Dyslexic adults, however, tend to continue to have difficulty with language skills throughout their lives. But a dyslexia diagnosis is no barrier to success.

Some famous dyslexics include children’s book writer Hans Christian Anderson, U.S. Army General George Patton, Italian artist, painter and inventor Leonardo Da Vinci, telephone inventor Alexander Graham Bell and actors Whoopi Goldberg, Henri Winkler and Tom Cruise. — By Ephrat Livni, ABCNEWS.com - Sep. 12, 2002

Still, Hans Christian Anderson had *time* to write books, Patton needed to understand maps more than reports, Da Vinci drew more than he read, Bell invented a telephone because he didn't read (just kidding, but you get my point), and actors have time to learn their script, or have money to get someone to teach it to them.

What I mean with all this is: A president can get a report one day, and have to act on it the next *hour*. If it takes you longer (speculative, agreed, we don't know how bad good ole george has it), you might either 1) Not read it at all, with all consequences (ignored reports => 9/11 happens without so much of a hassle if they didn't ignore them), or 2) take too long to read the reports, so that you act too late upon them, with almost the same consequences as 1).

That is the STUPIDEST thing I have read in a long time, and if you have followed Chess Squares and his rants then you KNOW what stupid is!!

Care to explain *why* it is stupid? Just calling it stupid is not my idea of an arguement, friend.

Still, Hans Christian Anderson had *time* to write books, Patton needed to understand maps more than reports, Da Vinci drew more than he read, Bell invented a telephone because he didn't read (just kidding, but you get my point), and actors have time to learn their script, or have money to get someone to teach it to them.

What I mean with all this is: A president can get a report one day, and have to act on it the next *hour*. If it takes you longer (speculative, agreed, we don't know how bad good ole george has it), you might either 1) Not read it at all, with all consequences (ignored reports => 9/11 happens without so much of a hassle if they didn't ignore them), or 2) take too long to read the reports, so that you act too late upon them, with almost the same consequences as 1).

He has overcome all problems with reading. However, pathological language (spoken) habits remain for a lifetime. Do you really think he can't read, or something? Come on...

He reads just as fast as anyone else. Most dyslexics do.

He has overcome all problems with reading. However, pathological language (spoken) habits remain for a lifetime. Do you really think he can't read, or something? Come on...

He reads just as fast as anyone else. Most dyslexics do.

Sorry, don't really know the guy in person. Neither do I know much dyslexics.

Untill I do either, though, I'm going to stick with what I already thought, if you don't mind. Unless you can give me a newspaper article on bush's dyslexia problems, and how severe they are?

Care to explain *why* it is stupid? Just calling it stupid is not my idea of an arguement, friend.

You state that someone with dyslexia cannot be successful. Dyslexia is not something that prevents anyone from being successful. I know several CEO's of various companies who stutter, who have physical handicaps and yes, one who is dyslexic. Yet for all their handicaps, these men are extremely successful and lead awesome lives. Maybe you should get out and meet more people before you make such broad statements.

He has overcome all problems with reading. However, pathological language (spoken) habits remain for a lifetime. Do you really think he can't read, or something? Come on...

He reads just as fast as anyone else. Most dyslexics do.
He doesn't read the news paper he admits it. You draw your conclusions...

You state that someone with dyslexia cannot be successful. Dyslexia is not something that prevents anyone from being successful. I know several CEO's of various companies who stutter, who have physical handicaps and yes, one who is dyslexic. Yet for all their handicaps, these men are extremely successful and lead awesome lives. Maybe you should get out and meet more people before you make such broad statements.

Good point. I retract my statement saying that they can't be successfull.

Still stands: they have a whole lot more going against them than a (pardon my lack of a better word) 'normal' person.

All the better for them if they make it.

Bush made it. And, in my opinion, broke it again.

He doesn't read the news paper he admits it. You draw your conclusions...

Wow....so that means he cannot read? ;) Not many people do read the newspapers anymore.

Sorry, don't really know the guy in person. Neither do I know much dyslexics.

Untill I do either, though, I'm going to stick with what I already thought, if you don't mind. Unless you can give me a newspaper article on bush's dyslexia problems, and how severe they are?

First, I wouldn't believe any newspaper article regarding Bush's dyslexia.

Second, you are entitled to your opinion. I do feel that it is inaccurate, and that makes me sad, but I digress...

Bottom Line: You don't become earn a Yale diploma, a Harvard MBA, and the Presidency of the United States if you can't read quickly. I don't care who your father is, or how much money you have. It simply can't be done.

Bush often sounds slow, or unintelligent...but it just doesn't make sense that he could get where he is without basic fundamental abilities (reading, writing, etc.).

Still, if a newspaper is what you need, I shall endeavor to find it for you.

First, I wouldn't believe any newspaper article regarding Bush's dyslexia.

Second, you are entitled to your opinion. I do feel that it is inaccurate, and that makes me sad, but I digress...

Bottom Line: You don't become earn a Yale diploma, a Harvard MBA, and the Presidency of the United States if you can't read quickly. I don't care who your father is, or how much money you have. It simply can't be done.

Bush often sounds slow, or unintelligent...but it just doesn't make sense that he could get where he is without basic fundamental abilities (reading, writing, etc.).

Still, if a newspaper is what you need, I shall endeavor to find it for you.
So are you saying money and Father's prestige can't help one pass and get a degree?
I'm not in your world I guess, where are you?

First, I wouldn't believe any newspaper article regarding Bush's dyslexia.

Second, you are entitled to your opinion. I do feel that it is inaccurate, and that makes me sad, but I digress...

Bottom Line: You don't become earn a Yale diploma, a Harvard MBA, and the Presidency of the United States if you can't read quickly. I don't care who your father is, or how much money you have. It simply can't be done.

Bush often sounds slow, or unintelligent...but it just doesn't make sense that he could get where he is without basic fundamental abilities (reading, writing, etc.).

Still, if a newspaper is what you need, I shall endeavor to find it for you.

A lot makes no sense.
Quote sherlock holmes: "Scrap the things that are impossible, and the outcome, however unlikely, must be the truth".

And in the range of impossibilities, I don't rank GWB being unable to read decently not exactly at the top of my list.

This is the man that allowed the Bin Laden family planes outside the USA in the week after 9/11. This is the man that waged a war for reasons that can't seem to be found. This is the man that ignored several reports, or at least, didn't act upon them, so 9/11 was allowed to happen unharmed.

Those things boggle my mind as is. Him not being able to read? Small fish in a barrel of sharks.

So are you saying money and Father's prestige can't help one pass and get a degree?
I'm not in your world I guess, where are you?

Over here, we have people get "honorary degrees".
(Under much protest of the real intellectuals,) People who didn't study anything and who just got in the spotlight of the university/ies, who they think is "worthy", receives a degree. They just pick a field, and hand it over. Hurrah, they're an academic now.

Few years ago one of the royal family got one. I can tell you, the most sense he ever made was when he said "I like puppies" (25 year old man).

It's probably not as bad over there, but don't underestimate daddy.

Over here, we have people get "honorary degrees".
(Under much protest of the real intellectuals,) People who didn't study anything and who just got in the spotlight of the university/ies, who they think is "worthy", receives a degree. They just pick a field, and hand it over. Hurrah, they're an academic now.

Few years ago one of the royal family got one. I can tell you, the most sense he ever made was when he said "I like puppies" (25 year old man).

It's probably not as bad over there, but don't underestimate daddy.
Hey, I like Puppies too!
Its possible Bush had depression and so he couldn't read the article, "Osama determined to attack the United States". But then again he didn't apologize so that counts against him.

So are you saying money and Father's prestige can't help one pass and get a degree?
I'm not in your world I guess, where are you?

Money and prestige get you IN. Grades get you out.

Money may grease the wheels to an extent, but institutions like Yale and Harvard would NOT risk the PR hell of explaining why they sell degrees.

Money and prestige get you IN. Grades get you out.

Money may grease the wheels to an extent, but institutions like Yale and Harvard would NOT risk the PR hell of explaining why they sell degrees.

You're assuming 1) someone found out, 2) they'd actually bother explaining and 3) they don't have a standard excuse for that sort of thing

I can see 1 of them possibly happening, perhaps 2, but all of them is getting more unlikely every day.

(PS: I said already, I don't know how the clockwork ticks over there, but over here, money buys everything, including your professor's wife's dirty panties from last time you .... her)

Either way, more pressing matters require my attention, before my own nation falls into shambles ;-)

Its been nice discussing with you.

Thats all fine and well.....but look at the history of Islam...it is the ONLY religion that has been spread by the sword. The Arabs forced the Egyptians to accept Islam AND the Arabic language. The same is true of the people of Jordan, the Hasimites (sp) and the Syrians. The ONLY two middle eastern Muslim countries that resisted the Arabic language are Iran and Turkey. Islam is a religion that has many factions, some of which are very violent. The same is true of every religion, but the Muslim fanatics see death as a reward and that spurns them on.

While I most vehemently disapprove of what some radical so-called Muslims are doing, supposedly in the name of Islam, I must refer you back to the Christian church for others who have tried to spread religion by the sword -- after all, what were English knights doing in Jerusalem???

It's not the only religion that has tried to spread violently.

Gents and ladies of this very interesting thread, please remember that your points are much more strongly made without insulting one another. Trading insults is not acceptable behavior on this site.

Thanks.