Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
more poll results............
Topic Started: Oct 7 2003, 03:25 PM (349 Views)
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3156836.stm


hopefully, I can get a few words in here before the gagging police pop up again.

Obviously, few people here can believe that someone can be as angry at a world leader as I am at Mr Bush - well fine.

Here is a poll commissioned in the US, asking how the US is seen in the muslim world.

What should concern American citizens (it would sure as hell concern me, if I was you) is the complete reverse in fortunes of your international image - eg: a favourable image of 15% today, down from 61% last year, in the worlds biggest Muslim country Indonesia.

Whilst you may not like how I phrase myself sometimes, how would you rather be informed of the anger you are generating (real or preceived, rightly or wrongly) in much of the rest of the world - by posts like mine, or by terrorist attacks ?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

NZ, I think the problem some people have with you is that you present yourself as so biased as to lack credibility.
| Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
gvok
Oct 7 2003, 03:37 PM
NZ, I think the problem some people have with you is that you present yourself as so biased as to lack credibility.

Oh.............and people like Bill are models of neutrality ????????



I don't particularly care what people think of me - but I do take exception, as always, to DOUBLE STANDARDS.


BTW - speaking of double standards. I just read the "terms" of this board - here are some of the UNACCEPTABLE contents for our posts........

"Abusive, threatening, defamatory, racist, or obscene; excessive profanity, etc........"

One, "Mrbarredbastard" has, until recently, been a very welcome and relatively "unpicked on" poster here. In fact, he was recently given a "warm welcome back" by the creator of this board after being kicked out, yet again, of Ten Forward.

Even his handle contains a profanity - yet he is warmly welcomed. How come he was not asked to remove the profanity in is handle ? after all, it is seen EVERY time he posts. Is that not excessive ?

MBB regularly posted hateful, racist, defamatory and inciteful comments about Arabs and the French people; occasionally too about American citizens, who he saw as supporting the IRA in Northern Ireland - were his posts "locked", was he even warned ?? NO, he was almost encouraged. Many people thought his posts were humourous. WHY ??????????

The only thing that makes me angrier than military misadventures are DOUBLE STANDARDS.

I choose to come here and post, no one force me to. However, I don't see why I should be treated differently to others.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
jschmitty
Lieutenant Junior Grade
nztrekkie
Oct 7 2003, 03:52 PM
gvok
Oct 7 2003, 03:37 PM
NZ, I think the problem some people have with you is that you present yourself as so biased as to lack credibility.

Oh.............and people like Bill are models of neutrality ????????



I don't particularly care what people think of me - but I do take exception, as always, to DOUBLE STANDARDS.


BTW - speaking of double standards. I just read the "terms" of this board - here are some of the UNACCEPTABLE contents for our posts........

"Abusive, threatening, defamatory, racist, or obscene; excessive profanity, etc........"

One, "Mrbarredbastard" has, until recently, been a very welcome and relatively "unpicked on" poster here. In fact, he was recently given a "warm welcome back" by the creator of this board after being kicked out, yet again, of Ten Forward.

Even his handle contains a profanity - yet he is warmly welcomed. How come he was not asked to remove the profanity in is handle ? after all, it is seen EVERY time he posts. Is that not excessive ?

MBB regularly posted hateful, racist, defamatory and inciteful comments about Arabs and the French people; occasionally too about American citizens, who he saw as supporting the IRA in Northern Ireland - were his posts "locked", was he even warned ?? NO, he was almost encouraged. Many people thought his posts were humourous. WHY ??????????

The only thing that makes me angrier than military misadventures are DOUBLE STANDARDS.

I choose to come here and post, no one force me to. However, I don't see why I should be treated differently to others.

Boy, this isn't the nztrekkie that I remember. Come to wordforge man, there are more people that agree with you there (not me) I greatly admire Bush for sticking by his guns. I honestly don't care how muslims view the US right now, it is a religion that I have very little respect for right now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
nztrekkie
Oct 7 2003, 04:52 PM
I don't particularly care what people think of me - but I do take exception, as always, to DOUBLE STANDARDS.


BTW - speaking of double standards. I just read the "terms" of this board - here are some of the UNACCEPTABLE contents for our posts........

"Abusive, threatening, defamatory, racist, or obscene; excessive profanity, etc........"

One, "Mrbarredbastard" has, until recently, been a very welcome and relatively "unpicked on" poster here. In fact, he was recently given a "warm welcome back" by the creator of this board after being kicked out, yet again, of Ten Forward.

Even his handle contains a profanity - yet he is warmly welcomed. How come he was not asked to remove the profanity in is handle ? after all, it is seen EVERY time he posts. Is that not excessive ?

MBB regularly posted hateful, racist, defamatory and inciteful comments about Arabs and the French people; occasionally too about American citizens, who he saw as supporting the IRA in Northern Ireland - were his posts "locked", was he even warned ?? NO, he was almost encouraged. Many people thought his posts were humourous. WHY ??????????

The only thing that makes me angrier than military misadventures are DOUBLE STANDARDS.

I choose to come here and post, no one force me to. However, I don't see why I should be treated differently to others.

As usual you are twisting the facts. The reason MrBastard doesn't post on these boards much lately is precisely because he was censured for some comments he made. He was clearly told that he was still welcome here, but that he should watch his language and comments.

We are only telling you the same thing. If you don't like it you can make the same choice he did. You cannot choose, however, to ignore the rules.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
I choose to come here and post, no one force me to. However, I don't see why I should be treated differently to others.


As moderator, I have never treated you different. I have never modified, deleted or even moved your posts. You are free to post your opinions and whatnot on political topics here. You have no reason to rant of double standards being applied to you.

I did briefly post a suggestion about how you refered to the actions of Zionist organizations and Israel as the actions of Jews. I thought that went over the edge toward racist and was incorrect. Still, I did not edit your post. I have, however, spoken privately to those who get angered by your post and reply angrily.

I choose not to debate politics with you anymore as I feel you are just baiting people for a fight, but I will not delete or edit your posts unless in falls under the terms of use that you have posted. So, please, post all you like about how bad a President GW Bush has been for the USA and the rest of the world.

38957 (moderator)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Nz, is there any possibility that in hindsight some people might change their tune? Obviously the poll in question doesn't answer this question. If by some chance things actually get better in both Iraq and Afghanistan (even in just one or the other) do you think that the US will be given any credit for precipitating that improvement? I personally doubt it.


The article you reference cites towards the end our policies in regards to Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I suspect that if the latter alone could be brought under control the Muslim view of the US would improve.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
jschmitty
Oct 7 2003, 04:27 PM

Boy, this isn't the nztrekkie that I remember. Come to wordforge man, there are more people that agree with you there (not me) I greatly admire Bush for sticking by his guns. I honestly don't care how muslims view the US right now, it is a religion that I have very little respect for right now. [/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right - I realise I have more extreme views now than I did when we were on TF. I must say the same thing - you aren't the moderate young man I remember either from TF, pre-invasion either.

We are not the same people we were 6 months ago. And why ?

My theory is that the "for us or against us" choice being given to the world by the incumbent US President is divisive and is forcing people to become more extreme in their views. Once one side becomes a little more extreme, it forces the other side to do likewise, and then add a bit themselves; I think its called escalation.

Your comments about the merits and sensitivities of islam are a worry to me, and I'm not even a Muslim. The comments seem to mirror the tendencies of other bright young educated people in the world, albeit, on a far less extreme level, AND on the opposite side of the fence.

I refer to the 29 year old young woman, an imminent law graduate from the West Bank, who, after all her education in law, decided that the most productive use of her life was to blow herself up.

I don't think anyone on this board - myself included - can really understand why this sort of thing happens. However, it seems to me, we can look for much more of this, from BOTH sides, for many years to come.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
nztrekkie
Oct 7 2003, 04:52 PM
Oh.............and people like Bill are models of nutrality ????????

I choose to come here and post, no one force me to. However, I don't see why I should be treated differently to others.

First Bill is not seen as a model of neutrality - he is seen as exactly what he is conservative.

Others like qubed are seen as what they are liberal.

Many on this board from varying degrees have the same "views" as you post about and they do not have the same problem with other posters as you do? So we are not ganging up on you, you are not the innocent in this one. Unlike the others on this board that hold the same views as you post, they do not have the same feel of hate in every post they make like you do. They are trying to speak their points in intelligent ways and with a some manners. They do not trying to make others look bad just to make people look bad. They do not relish the opportunity to berate others. It is my opinion (and I am sure others) that the only reason you post is to speak bad about others and to make your self sound good. You are a hate full person and you get exactly what you disserve.

You are not treated different because of you critical views many on this board hold them to and are treated just fine.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
"nztrekkie
Posted on Oct 7 2003, 05:41 PM "
My theory is that the "for us or against us" choice being given to the world by the incumbent US President is divisive and is forcing people to become more extreme in their views. Once one side becomes a little more extreme, it forces the other side to do likewise, and then add a bit themselves; I think its called escalation.


In 1993, Islamic terrorists made their first attempt to bomb the Twin Towers with a van full of explosives (in part because they objected to US presence in Saudi Arabia from the first Gulf War). Long before the US opted to use military force to hunt down terrorists in Afghanistan or regime change in Iraq. We have made considerable serious efforts to foster a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians to no avail. We were again attacked in 2001, this time with some considerable success on the part of the aggressors.

This country has decided it is not sitting on the side lines anymore. For that people in other countries are going to lower their opinion of the US? As I said above, perhaps they will raise their opinion when all is said and done. Then again, they might just shrug it off and find a new way to find fault with the US not doing what they think it should do.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Oct 7 2003, 03:25 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3156836.stm


hopefully, I can get a few words in here before the gagging police pop up again.

Obviously, few people here can believe that someone can be as angry at a world leader as I am at Mr Bush - well fine.

Here is a poll commissioned in the US, asking how the US is seen in the muslim world.

What should concern American citizens (it would sure as hell concern me, if I was you) is the complete reverse in fortunes of your international image - eg: a favourable image of 15% today, down from 61% last year, in the worlds biggest Muslim country Indonesia.

Whilst you may not like how I phrase myself sometimes, how would you rather be informed of the anger you are generating (real or preceived, rightly or wrongly) in much of the rest of the world - by posts like mine, or by terrorist attacks ?

Consider the source, both of the poll and the thread originator.

You and your buddies in the rest of the Moslem world can continue to live in the past, NZ. 9/11 changed EVERYTHING, and it is about damned time something was done about it.

Your polls are meaningless, you are stuck on September 10th, 2001, and you look more like a an angry little man with every post.

P.S. That's PRESIDENT Bush to the likes of you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Swidden
Oct 7 2003, 08:59 PM

In 1993, Islamic terrorists made their first attempt to bomb the Twin Towers with a van full of explosives (in part because they objected to US presence in Saudi Arabia from the first Gulf War). Long before the US opted to use military force to hunt down terrorists in Afghanistan or regime change in Iraq. We have made considerable serious efforts to foster a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians to no avail. We were again attacked in 2001, this time with some considerable success on the part of the aggressors.

This country has decided it is not sitting on the side lines anymore. For that people in other countries are going to lower their opinion of the US? As I said above, perhaps they will raise their opinion when all is said and done. Then again, they might just shrug it off and find a new way to find fault with the US not doing what they think it should do.

I see where you're coming from and I do welcome your ongoing reasonableness.

However, I must say, I don't think it could be said that the US has ever "sat on the sidelines" - I read the other day that there have been 72 US incursions into foreign countries, both overt and covert, since the end of WW2.

To be honest, I don't know if this includes UN type incursions, but even if it did, it does seems rather a large number to me. I'll try to pin down what each entails.

yes, that is the maddening thing about your current President - he has been quite vocal in his support of the Palestinian cause, (scolding Israel for settlement and fence building, and stating that the Palestians must have a homeland) yet even he has gotten no where. In fact, for all his supposed support for the palestians, Israel is still building more illegal settlements and continuing to build "the wall".
What does that tell us ?

Worse still, I see the world becoming one giant "middle east" - Israel has gotten nowhere after fighting militants for 50 years - it has just lost thousands of its own people and they live with a seige mentality. I don't want any part of that, but feel it is being very slowly forced onto me because of the way your govt does business.

It might have been you who said "what will people like me say if things get better in Iraq ?"

God !!!!! I'll fly over and clean Mr Bush's shoes for the rest of his life if he can pull off what he seems to be trying to do - he will go down as one of the most brilliant leaders of modern times, if he can achieve even limited success in his War on Terror. No one wants him or America to succeed more than ME.

BUT (and it is a BIG one) - I simply can't see how he can achieve his goals of winning a war on terror. There is no plan, no goals, no timetable, no nothing.

Which isn't so bad if he is simply trying to say balance a budget and fails.......no one is really going to be too upset if he fails at balancng a budget.

But, every day that he fails to win the war on terror, is another day where more people join the fight against it; and more people are killed.

Look at what has happened in Iraq so far - there was NO LINK with, or member of al-quiada in Iraq before the invasion - NOW THERE IS.

When you declare war, you unite people against you, who would not normally have been allies. Does Mr Bush or anyone else really think he can defeat all the extremists in the world coming from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Russia, China...........hell, after 15 years of the most lethal chemical and military weapons in Vietnam, after dropping more bombs in Vietnam than were dropped in theWHOLE of WW2, the US could still not defeat a country of farming peasants. (with powerful freinds admittedly, but peasants none the less). And that's not knocking peasants BTW.

Even if he could win a war on terror, what would be the prize - ashes in our mouths ?

" only a fool fights in a burning house " KANG - from TOS, "Day of the Dove."


Mr Bush has asked the rest of the world for help as he knows he needs it; he has only yesterday reorganised, again, his Iraq stratedgy, as clearly, the old one wasn't working.

What is the rest of the plan ? How is he ever going to win any war on terror in the whole world, when he is far from even stabilising Afghanistan, yet alone Iraq. He'll be still fighting in both countires even at the end of 2008, if he makes it that far.

I have said it before.......we have all said everything that can be said about this; now we just have to sit back and watch what happens. Somehow, i get the feeling no matter what happens, there won't be any winners.

PS : the US troops are all out of Saudi Arabia now aren't they ? perhaps if they were moved sooner, 9/11 may have been avoided (?)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
"nztrekkie
Posted on Oct 7 2003, 07:42 PM "
BUT (and it is a BIG one) - I simply can't see how he can achieve his goals of winning a war on terror. There is no plan, no goals, no timetable, no nothing.


For one thing, the rest of us in the real world (apart from the insular world of politicians) have got to absolutely remember: The "War on Terror" will not likely (never say never) ever be won hands down. The best we can hope for is that terrorists and terrorism will be marginalized to a point that politicians will be comfortable enough to declare a victory.

PS- I believe that there is still a US military presence in Saudi Arabia, we just did not use it for staging the current invasion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Swidden
Oct 7 2003, 09:57 PM

For one thing, the rest of us in the real world (apart from the insular world of politicians) have got to absolutely remember: The "War on Terror" will not likely (never say never) ever be won hands down. The best we can hope for is that terrorists and terrorism will be marginalized to a point that politicians will be comfortable enough to declare a victory.


I guess my real question is - at what cost will this "marginalised" status be achieved ?

What if there is another 9/11, even worse than before - what would the US response be ?

Invade some more places ?

and what will that do - what if 9/11's became common becuase the terrorists simply kept moving around the whole world ?

hell - there aren't enough troops to go round for a relatively small country like Iraq - how are you going to manage the other countries ?

then what ?

would the US consider Nuclear weapons ?

and what would that achieve ?

The stakes are very, VERY high in this game, and I for One, would feel a hell of alot better if George Snr, or Mr Powell, or even Bill Clinton actually, was in the Whitehouse playing for "my" side.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
nztrekkie
Oct 7 2003, 11:14 PM
The stakes are very, VERY high in this game, and I for One, would feel a hell of alot better if George Snr, or Mr Powell, or even Bill Clinton actually, was in the Whitehouse playing for "my" side.

To bad that is not your choice - Why not get your countries leaders to change things, rather then complaining about the leaders of other countries?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus