Originally Posted By Mr X Lest we forget...the events of September 11, 2001 could have easily been used as a green light for America to take over the world. No joke. If Bush wanted to, he could have leveled the entire middle east within seconds, innocent and guilty alike, and the planet could have done nothing to stop him. Following THAT, he could have systematically taken over the world. If Nazi Germany, with nukes, had been in that situation...would they not have used it to their advantage? Or, name your "evil power" of choice. Fact is, while I dislike Bush and his distain for intellegent policy, the fact is he had all the power (and righteous indignation), given to him by the terrorists. He could have done LOTS of things in the following hours and days, if he were truly like Hitler. And Hitler planned to take over the world, and keep it for a thousand years. He broke promises, destroyed alliances, and did all kinds of "bad" stuff. Bush could have done what Hitler only dreamed of, and the world would have cowered in subordination. The fact that America (I'm still not a fan of President Bush...) DIDN'T do that, makes me proud to be an American. We are still a shining beacon of peace, warts and all. (yes, Iraq is a "wart", though I prefer not to sound so insulting...a BIG MISTAKE would be more like it. but still, at this point, a mistake we are TRYING to fix at least!).
Originally Posted By friendofdd Interesting topic, Mr X. I just speent the last hour listening to a professor named Zinn explain how America is the moral equilevsnt to the taliban and President Bush is the moral equilevant to Hussein. I agree with you and am dismayed to realize the professor was sincere in his viewpoint.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 Sorry X but that sounds like crazy talk. Bush could not have taken over the world. And this stuff about using nukes I just don't get. Other nations have nikes too. Who are they? Is it India, Pakistan, China, Isreal, France, Britain, Russia. There are too many players now. This isn't the board game //Risk// where one can start mowing over nation after nation with huge numbers of armies. ///SHALL WE PLAY A GAME/// Nor is this ///War Games/// with Mathew Broderick trying to stop ///Joshua///.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ///Other nations have nikes too./// I guess other nations have Pumas and Addidas too.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> He could have done LOTS of things in the following hours and days << He "could" have apprehended or eliminated bin laden, but to date he hasn't. And I wouldn't hold my breath. Instead, he invaded a nation that had no involvement, and tried to pretend justify it as a valid response to 9/11. And that seems okay with some people.
Originally Posted By alexbook George W. Bush isn't an evil man. He just plays one on TV. Seriously, though, I get where Mr X is coming from. I'm not sure I buy his whole "taking over the world" scenario, but it does seem that the U.S. leaders usually *try* to do the right thing, even if they often fail. Sidebar on nukes: The only other nation with enough nukes and missiles to really hurt the U.S. is Russia, and there are serious questions about how many of their missiles would actually take off if the button were pushed. They haven't kept up basic maintenance since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Ummmm, Alex, the UK and Israel have enough to do major damage too. Only enough to destroy the world 10 times, compared to the US's 300. But you get my point. I am proud to be American. But why do people want to impeach someone because he cheats on his wife, but they re-elect a criminal (fraud, financial, illegal wars). I lost faith in 2000, and I started to totally lose faith in 2004. Thankfully the 2006 elections helped restore it a little.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>but they re-elect a criminal (fraud, financial, illegal wars<<< Apparently enough of the electorate disagreed with your assessment. Actually the party votes are pretty well locked in and the unaffiliated swing votes make the decisions.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Unaffiliated swinger. Hmmm. Hey, I really like the sound of that. It's much better than the old 'confused moderate' label.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper America is not defined by her leaders. America is defined by her people. To that end, America will always be a beacon of freedom.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Thankfully the 2006 elections helped restore it a little.>> I think the days of the one party taking control of both the House and Senate ended in November. It's going to be two years and like the Mafia, if we don't like it, we'll wack em.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "America is not defined by her leaders. America is defined by her people. To that end, America will always be a beacon of freedom." Ah, but that leader is the figurehead and representative of it's people. We kid ourselves that people remember Rosie the Riviter, but of it's time, more people remember FDR, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, JFK, Lincoln etc.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The leader is remembered...but the nation is not defined by the sole person. We remember Nixon...but we remember more the fact that this great nation got beyond that tumultuos period. The nation was not defined as liars and cheat because our leader was.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Well, since the people of America vote in their leaders, they are defined by them...at least partially. You can't deny that. And if they KEEP them in office, they definitely are.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I think I agree with that, Mele, but it has been basically a 50-50 split in the electorate for several elections now.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, my point was more along the lines of something like this... The twin towers fall. Bush KEEPS America's airlines grounded for a while. Declares martial law. Reinstates the draft. It could have worked (probably would have been the most successful draft since WWII, with all the patriotism in the air). ASAP, go in a destroy Afganistan. Leave a note for the UN, but no "permission" or "deliberation". I mean destroy too. Ruin. Drop a couple of nukes for shock and awe. The world would have done nothing to stop us. Except the middle east, who would bitch and moan and probably do foolish things in response. Whoever did, we destroy them too. And so on. Of course, we'd have "allies" at first, but as things progressed we'd have such military momentum that we could basically do whatever we wanted. Point I was trying to make was, that sort of thing HAS been tried in the past. And Hitler damn near succeeded! The fact that we didn't tells me that America is not the militaristic opportunists that people try to make her out to be. Even with a warmongering moron in charge.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Some people say that instead of going into Afghanistan and then Iraq, we should have nuked Iran.
