The Energon Pub

Posted: **Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:33 pm**

Bush compares Revolutionary, terror wars

OK, can we officially delcare this guy legally insane? Am I really the only one disgusted by this?

Posted: **Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:44 pm**

Heh, It's a long shot, but I can see what he's saying. I wouldn't have made the comparison, but there you go. The difference is that many have the belief that it's about oil and nothing else so the point is rather useless to try and defend.

Posted: **Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:29 pm**

It's hardly an unusual political move to try to rally support for an unpopular war by comparing it with an historical war most listeners would support, although in this case the comparison is only one which holds for Bush's arch-conservative base. If you believe that by definition every war America has fought must be to defend freedom, the comparison makes sense. Otherwise, it's bullocks.

Ironically, if you side with the argument that the freedoms fought for in the War for Independence primarily serviced the interests of an elite minority, then the war in Iraq does indeed resemble it in that regard. Yet even if the vote and many other rights only extended to white and wealthy men after independence, that war did not actively harm the security of other Americans or of people abroad, and its consequences led, slowly, to increasing universality of the rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence. Of course, Bush is still trying to convince us that his War of Terror increases security and spreads freedom, so again, for him this all makes sense. I would advocate a thread title both more neutral and more descriptive, despite my own agreement with the present one.

Posted: **Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:28 pm**

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:25 am**

I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:59 am**

High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

This isn't even worth commenting on. :roll:

But then this whole topic is crap to begin with so let the US bashing begin I guess. I leave you to your pitiful hate filled lives.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:25 am**

Loki120 wrote:
High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

This isn't even worth commenting on.

But then this whole topic is crap to begin with so let the US bashing begin I guess. I leave you to your pitiful hate filled lives.

PF forum rules wrote:1) Respect other's opinions
2) No flaming members based on their opinions.
3) Do not force your opinions on others

Yes everyone has opinions and they value them BUT opinions vary and not everyone will always see eye to eye.

Let's keep things civil and not make personal attacks (or try not to take things too personal).

Post away and have fun!

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:32 am**

[quote= High Command]I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.[/quote]

Let's keep things civil and not make personal attacks

Question, do you actually read the rules before you browbeat others with them? Or do you just like being hypocritical? What you didn't think anyone would actually take offense to such a statment or are you just oblivious?

The topic is nothing more than a bash Bush/US thread which doesn't even belong in the philosopher's forum because it wasn't even introduced as a means of debate (the original tital was Bush's latest example of dumbassery or something along those lines). It barely belongs in the General discussion forum. I certainly doesn't belong as even an intelligent conversation piece.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:33 am**

Darth Bombshell wrote:Bush compares Revolutionary, terror wars

OK, can we officially delcare this guy legally insane? Am I really the only one disgusted by this?

Sounds to me he's more likening himself to Washington than the Gulf conflicts to the US civil war.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:36 am**

Loki120 wrote:
High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.

Let's keep things civil and not make personal attacks

Question, do you actually read the rules before you browbeat others with them? Or do you just like being hypocritical? What you didn't think anyone would actually take offense to such a statment or are you just oblivious?

I think you have a serious irony deficiency as my post was written with tongue firmly in cheek.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:45 pm**

I already regret making this topic in the first place. Please don't make me have to contact a mod to lock it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:57 pm**

Darth Bombshell wrote:I already regret making this topic in the first place. Please don't make me have to contact a mod to lock it.

Meh. Seeking to crucify Bush in the first sentence set the tone here. He's not the best by far, but the comparison he's drawing is just a standard politician move.

Posted: **Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:13 am**

I can understand what the guy is trying to do. Is it any different than Osama calling this war Jihad?

Posted: **Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:23 am**

High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

The Revolutionary War had weapons of mass destruction? As well as Patriots that terrorized the rest of the world? That's news to me.

It's interesting that people often try to use socio-economics to explain the fighting in the world. Sometimes I wonder - if a poor person becomes rich, will their political views change? High Command makes it seem like rich people are a menance to society and should be removed so the socialist and communist class can rule peacefully.

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:00 pm**

Here's how I see it.

The revolution was to fight against a stranglehold rule upon the the people. So......the US is becomming the stranglehold.
I mean in the revolutionary times, the British were imposing unfair taxation and all that smeg on their people in the colonies.....now the US, the country is imposing policy that restricts our freedoms in the name of security :roll:

Yet I feel less safe than before.

And I find spreading democracy to a place where the people don't want it rudundent. They want a theocracy. Meaning that they want church and state being the same, making the women wear veils and robes and treating them like second class people, stonning people who challenege the system, blowing up themselves in the name of Ahla, fighting the Jews, etc. They want that. I mean if the people wanted freedom and deomcracy, they would have revolted themselves.

My opinion, let them live how they want, and if they wanna change it, let them do it, pull our boys and girls from that death trap of a country, and let middle eastern people fight among each other and let the best findamentalist win. :-P

Posted: **Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:14 pm**

Emperor Primacron the 1st wrote:Here's how I see it.

The revolution was to fight against a stranglehold rule upon the the people. So......the US is becomming the stranglehold.
I mean in the revolutionary times, the British were imposing unfair taxation and all that smeg on their people in the colonies.....now the US, the country is imposing policy that restricts our freedoms in the name of security Yet I feel less safe than before.

And I find spreading democracy to a place where the people don't want it rudundent. They want a theocracy. Meaning that they want church and state being the same, making the women wear veils and robes and treating them like second class people, stonning people who challenege the system, blowing up themselves in the name of Ahla, fighting the Jews, etc. They want that. I mean if the people wanted freedom and deomcracy, they would have revolted themselves.

My opinion, let them live how they want, and if they wanna change it, let them do it, pull our boys and girls from that death trap of a country, and let middle eastern people fight among each other and let the best findamentalist win.

You're right the British are guilty of taxation without representation. Imposing harsh tariffs and limiting work to certain days classes and peoples. Had it not been for the help of other countries like France, and let's not forget the native Indians, America would not be what it is today.
Let's see, the Kurds in the north of the country, who had been subject to genocide by an extremely oppressive government(Saddam) desired the help of any nation to help them live peacefully in the country they consider home.
A no fly zone was imposed by the U.S. limiting the use of Saddam's own air forces, laughable as it was. That had been in effect for YEARS. Still defiant to work with the U.N. Iraqi officials played the world for fools, much as that Iran
and the DPRK do today. Now we are fearful, as you stated you feel less safe today, that those countries have weapons that can be used against us. If left alone, pulled out completely
what is to stop the Taliban and the Bathists from returning to power to suppress the good peoples of the respective countries, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is a mess but accordding to our Constitution we have every right to attempt to help a people create a Democracy. Just because a countries laws are based on theology does not limit them on the type of government they are able to establish.
Moving our troops away from the possible hotspots in that region would only bolster the enemies of the state and make the U.S. look weak. I don't know how anyone in favor of the war or not could have so much disdain for their country to do that.
The comparison to the Revolutionary war is to liken our attempts to help a certain peoples overcome an oppression. We are not oppressing those nations, we are trying to rebuild it. But when you factor in the car bombings and mass executions, that military troops are not responsible for, that puts a hindrence on the forward movement.
Imagine if our FD PD in New York City were subject to those extremes while they were trying to rescue those thousnands of peoples on 9-11. Would the outcome have been better or worse?

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:28 am**

Didn't Micheal Moore and Cindy Shehan call the Jihadest the equivalent to American Minutemen?

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:07 am**

Air Commander Starscream wrote:Didn't Micheal Moore and Cindy Shehan call the Jihadest the equivalent to American Minutemen?

Yet another reason for the two of them to be executed as traitors.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:13 pm**

Stormrider wrote:
High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

The Revolutionary War had weapons of mass destruction? As well as Patriots that terrorized the rest of the world? That's news to me.

No but the revolutionary war created a country that (now) has WMDs, which is what I said.
As for Americans terrorizing the rest of the world, that's one interpretation of what American foreign policy is and has been at least since the second world war. The Cold war was based on making the other side to afraid to attack and America won that war, making America officially the scariest country in the world.
To me the cold war is all about terrorism in that the superpowers main weapon was the fear they put into their enemies. Modern terrorist groups work by creating a (relitively) minor incident (explosion, suicide attack, beheading of prisoner), which terrorises the larger population. Apart from the technology used, the scale of destruction and the death count, is America's bombing of Afghanistan a few years ago, very different to the indescriminate killings carried out by a suicide bomber?
How about Guantanamo Bay, basically a modern concentration camp. Do you not see how that's a threatening message to the ememies of America in exactly the same way as a terrorist cell in Iraq posting internet videos of a foreign worker they've kidnapped.

It's interesting that people often try to use socio-economics to explain the fighting in the world. Sometimes I wonder - if a poor person becomes rich, will their political views change? High Command makes it seem like rich people are a menance to society and should be removed so the socialist and communist class can rule peacefully.

You've got me all wrong I don't really mind rich people. It's Americans who I think are a menace to society and should be removed so that the rest of the world can live peacefully.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:59 pm**

High Command wrote:You've got me all wrong I don't really mind rich people. It's Americans who I think are a menace to society and should be removed so that the rest of the world can live peacefully.

Boo.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:39 pm**

High Command wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

The Revolutionary War had weapons of mass destruction? As well as Patriots that terrorized the rest of the world? That's news to me.

No but the revolutionary war created a country that (now) has WMDs, which is what I said.
As for Americans terrorizing the rest of the world, that's one interpretation of what American foreign policy is and has been at least since the second world war. The Cold war was based on making the other side to afraid to attack and America won that war, making America officially the scariest country in the world.
To me the cold war is all about terrorism in that the superpowers main weapon was the fear they put into their enemies. Modern terrorist groups work by creating a (relitively) minor incident (explosion, suicide attack, beheading of prisoner), which terrorises the larger population. Apart from the technology used, the scale of destruction and the death count, is America's bombing of Afghanistan a few years ago, very different to the indescriminate killings carried out by a suicide bomber?
How about Guantanamo Bay, basically a modern concentration camp. Do you not see how that's a threatening message to the ememies of America in exactly the same way as a terrorist cell in Iraq posting internet videos of a foreign worker they've kidnapped.

It's interesting that people often try to use socio-economics to explain the fighting in the world. Sometimes I wonder - if a poor person becomes rich, will their political views change? High Command makes it seem like rich people are a menance to society and should be removed so the socialist and communist class can rule peacefully.

You've got me all wrong I don't really mind rich people. It's Americans who I think are a menace to society and should be removed so that the rest of the world can live peacefully.

Suicide bombers prey on the weak and unwitting masses of a population. The U.S.government issued statements and decrees that allowed The Afghanistan people time to evacuate the regions to be bombed. The Taliban that had seized power through fear forced citizens to stay in the houses increasing the death tolls and the 'fear' that America was out to get them.
Those poor people didn't stand a chance. They would die by the sword of the Taliban or the bombs of America.
The Cold War has officially ended.
Your comment of eradicating Americans so the rest of the world can live peacefully is abhorrent. You sound like a terrorist and I am fearful of people like you. You just stated that you want the extermination of a peoples which puts you on the same level as Hitler, Pol Pot or any other genocidal manic. A nation of people should not pay for the crimes of an administration through the decimation of the populous. It's an offensive comment and any red blooded American should take offense.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:14 pm**

Ironhidensh wrote:
Air Commander Starscream wrote:Didn't Micheal Moore and Cindy Shehan call the Jihadest the equivalent to American Minutemen?

Yet another reason for the two of them to be executed as traitors.

Glad you are not in power, or else half of us here would get death by firing squad :roll:

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:18 pm**

The cold war was just to see which country had the biggest penis, pretty much :-P

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:50 am**

DISCHARGE wrote:
High Command wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
High Command wrote:I think it's a fair to compare the war of terror to the American revolution. Both wars killed a lot of people, didn't really benefit anyone except a few rich Americans and created a dangerous nation of heavilly armed maniacs who terrorise the rest of the world with their weapons of mass destruction.
Oh no, wait a minute, Iraq didn't have any WMDs did they? That'll be where the comparisson breaks down.

The Revolutionary War had weapons of mass destruction? As well as Patriots that terrorized the rest of the world? That's news to me.

No but the revolutionary war created a country that (now) has WMDs, which is what I said.
As for Americans terrorizing the rest of the world, that's one interpretation of what American foreign policy is and has been at least since the second world war. The Cold war was based on making the other side to afraid to attack and America won that war, making America officially the scariest country in the world.
To me the cold war is all about terrorism in that the superpowers main weapon was the fear they put into their enemies. Modern terrorist groups work by creating a (relitively) minor incident (explosion, suicide attack, beheading of prisoner), which terrorises the larger population. Apart from the technology used, the scale of destruction and the death count, is America's bombing of Afghanistan a few years ago, very different to the indescriminate killings carried out by a suicide bomber?
How about Guantanamo Bay, basically a modern concentration camp. Do you not see how that's a threatening message to the ememies of America in exactly the same way as a terrorist cell in Iraq posting internet videos of a foreign worker they've kidnapped.

It's interesting that people often try to use socio-economics to explain the fighting in the world. Sometimes I wonder - if a poor person becomes rich, will their political views change? High Command makes it seem like rich people are a menance to society and should be removed so the socialist and communist class can rule peacefully.

You've got me all wrong I don't really mind rich people. It's Americans who I think are a menace to society and should be removed so that the rest of the world can live peacefully.

Suicide bombers prey on the weak and unwitting masses of a population. The U.S.government issued statements and decrees that allowed The Afghanistan people time to evacuate the regions to be bombed.

Nice. So only their homes and worldly possessions got destroyed. Oh and anyone who was too scared/weak/infirm to leave.

The Taliban that had seized power through fear forced citizens to stay in the houses increasing the death tolls and the 'fear' that America was out to get them.

And lets not forget who helped teach the Afghan people about how to use terror as a weapon against superpowers, when in the late 80s the US was assisting them against the soviets.

Those poor people didn't stand a chance. They would die by the sword of the Taliban or the bombs of America.

Agreed that the Taliban needed to be removed. The way it was carried out wasn't the best I would say, since the Taliban is still there attacking NATO forces, while the majority of military resources went to Iraq.

The Cold War has officially ended.

My comment that America won the cold war already covered that. I'm just saying that the tactics employed in the cold war are still used today.

Your comment of eradicating Americans so the rest of the world can live peacefully is abhorrent. You sound like a terrorist and I am fearful of people like you. You just stated that you want the extermination of a peoples which puts you on the same level as Hitler, Pol Pot or any other genocidal manic. A nation of people should not pay for the crimes of an administration through the decimation of the populous. It's an offensive comment and any red blooded American should take offense.

The difference is that I was joking (notice the cheeky little smilie in my post).
Besides I'm sure the world would be a much happier and more peaceful place without the United States, for instance if it was still British, just like it should be.
Nobody needs to kill or eradicate the Americans. Simply dismantleing the United States as a country and making the people British subjects again would do a whole world of good.

(Oh look another smilie!)

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:09 am**

1) The Earthy possessions can be replaced not the lives. That's war. The British know that all too well.

2) Would it have been better to let the commies/Ruskies take Afghanistan? They couldn't satisfy the needs of the huge land mass already in their control. Why push it onto another country and bring them down even further? I would also say that the afghans probably learned more terrorist activity from the IRA than from the U.S.

3) Agreed 100%. The problems should have been fixed and finished in Afghanistan before ever moving to Iraq, but Mr. Blair concurred with Bush and went with him and invaded Iraq.

4)Those tactics have been in use the world over before and after the cold war.

5) I would sooner die than subject myself to being ruled by a country who finds "Are You Being Served?" Television greatness.
:SICK:

The Energon Pub

Bush Compares War on Terror To American Revolution: Dumbest Move Ever?

Bush Compares War on Terror To American Revolution: Dumbest Move Ever?

Re: Bush Compares War on Terror To American Revolution: Dumbest Move Ever?