GameBanshee Forums

@CM:
There is a huge difference between the Taliban and the Saudis: the Saudis have oil. The Afghans have nothing (literally) we want.

We don't care what the Saudis do to their women as long as we can pay $1.03 a gallon at the pump. Up until 11 September, we didn't care what the Taliban did to their women. To an extent, we still don't care. They live half a world away; they're different from the majority of Americans racially, religiously and culturally. If the Taliban hadn't harboured the guys who were responsible for hijacking four jetliners and killing over 3,000 people on American soil, we still wouldn't care what they were doing to women in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by CM
I will only comment to make some factual corrections.

@ Fable, the taliban are Sunni not Shi'ite.

You are right. I shall defenestrate myself in contrition.

They followed a strict (er) version of what is in Saudi.
In Saudi women can not vote, drive cars, or leave the house with a hijab or without the company of a man. This is for both muslim and non-muslim women. Schools are divided, males on one side, females on the other. Female education exists is so lacking that it is basically non-existant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saudi Arabia has several major newspapers, radio stations and television stations. Television was outlawed under the Taliban. They had a single radio station, and no newspapers. Business can be conducted in Saudi Arabia any day of the week. The Taliban refused permission for business to operate on the Islamic rest day. The Taliban refused banks permission to lend money, because lending monies and charging interest is not considered making a living in a honest fashion. There are many banks in Saudi Arabia. There were no institutions of higher learning under the Taliban, because they believed that the only important institution of instruction was one that taught the Qu'ran, and the appropriate legal texts for the adminstration of Shari'a Law. Saudi Arabia has quite a number of non-religious schools--discrimination against women to one side, it *has* the schools, and that *is* a point of difference between Saudi Arabia and the Taliban.

There is very very very little difference between what the Saudi dictators do and what the Taliban did.

I think the above suggests otherwise. Cultural discrimination is a major problem, but that does not make Saudi Arabia identical to a large group of irresponsible fanatics who worship the idea of a medieval Islamic paradise that never existed.

you know i really dont understand the taliban. they lived in an extremely poor country where life was already very bad for afghan citizens and yet they only sought to make things worse. how can you advance your country when your people act just like sheep?

Other than the Taliban, the Saudies are the most religious.
Pakistan until recently was never that religious(far less than other Muslim nations). In the 70's we had a few crazy fellows, but that was it.
Infact before 70s Pakistan was doing quite well.
If it had kept on track it would have become a second world country sometime soon. But some idiot dictator screwed it up.

BTW i saw some stuff on Iran. Now with new ruler and all, its quite a lot less religious. Women where mini-skirts and all.
I don't think Iran should be Dubya's Axis of Evil.
Their military build-up has been to challenge a far more powerful Iraq. As we all know the two countries hate each other and that Saddam has chemical weapons. The chemical weapons in Iran are too keep Iraq in check.

I seriously doubt that N.Korea poses a threat. Their starving down there. And after seeing US's reaction to Taliban and Al-Qaeda they'll aren't even going to think of anything.

We can say China is evil. 50-100 years from now, it will be a world power. Hopefully not communist.

We can say China is evil. 50-100 years from now, it will be a world power. Hopefully not communist.

China is the main threat, IMO, but of course Dubbyah will never say that, because China is also a major world trading partner. But China has occupied, and continues to occupy, a foreign nation--Tibet--and has been systematically destroying its ancient structures and killing its culture and people for years. Iran doesn't come even come near this, for all its theocratic ayatollahs. Dubbyah is nothing if not consistent: he plays everything for American elections, and has seemingly no interest in the longrange implications of his international actions or remarks, IMO.

Originally posted by fable
We can say China is evil. 50-100 years from now, it will be a world power. Hopefully not communist.

China is the main threat, IMO, but of course Dubbyah will never say that, because China is also a major world trading partner. But China has occupied, and continues to occupy, a foreign nation--Tibet--and has been systematically destroying its ancient structures and killing its culture and people for years. Iran doesn't come even come near this, for all its theocratic ayatollahs. Dubbyah is nothing if not consistent: he plays everything for American elections, and has seemingly no interest in the longrange implications of his international actions or remarks, IMO.

That reminds me of that movie about the last Dai-Lama of Tibet.
Forgot the name. It was great movie.
Watching the Chinese invasion was very upsetting.
I believe it was called Kudun, or somewhere along those lines.
Good movie BTW.

My dad is saying that Dubya will be one of the worst US presidents ever. He is destroying countries smaller than him for purely political reasons, and ignoring other, more dangerous/worst threats (again, for political reasons).

And don't get me started on this whole ENRON mess.

well no matter how bad you think Dubya is, he'll never be near as bad as clinton.

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
My dad is saying that Dubya will be one of the worst US presidents ever. He is destroying countries smaller than him for purely political reasons, and ignoring other, more dangerous/worst threats (again, for political reasons).

And don't get me started on this whole ENRON mess.

Agree with your dad.

Yes there are some nations that you don't like because of their certain views, but you can't go calling everybody evil and declare wars against them.
Bush is just going to screw up this country, in world relations and economy.
All the European leaders hate him, Middle East hate him, most of the rest of Asia (eastern, sub-continent) really dislike him.
His answer to everything is war.
He realized that his rating will drop since Bin Laden is still loose, and so now he wants to start another war just so we can be distracted from the Bin Laden issue.

well no matter how bad you think Dubya is, he'll never be near as bad as clinton.

Everybody seems to hate Clinton because of his personal life. Thats his. I don't get why we're so interested in who slept with whom.


Now i do China becoming a world power in 50 years. America is going to decline under Bush.
Well at this rate it will, unless we don't relect Bush and get some decent person.

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield


All the European leaders hate him, Middle East hate him, most of the rest of Asia (eastern, sub-continent) really dislike him.
His answer to everything is war.
He realized that his rating will drop since Bin Laden is still loose, and so now he wants to start another war just so we can be distracted from the Bin Laden issue.

None of your list is entirely true.
It depends where you ask.
Ask in Iraq or Iran- Your absolutely right.
Ask in Jerusalem- Your absolutely wrong.
I believe that whether or not the leaders like him depend entirely on what he is currently doing, it could change weekly.
True he ruined from the start with the missile defence thing- but it still changes often.

I agree this is a war that does not need fighting, but I doubt its a "Wag the Dog" type scenario.

Anyway- your options last November were limited to Bush/ Chaney or Gore/ Libermen, (who alreay started a campaign for president in 2004) do you honestly think Gore would be much better than Bush? (I am just giving you the other position, personaly I wanted Gore to win, and I still would rather him over Bush)

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield
Everybody seems to hate Clinton because of his personal life. Thats his. I don't get why we're so interested in who slept with whom.

i could care less about clinton sleeping with some intern. one of the things i think is stupid is the way he lied about it. this guy who represents the American people is lying under oath and making Americans look stupid. also if any other American had lied under oath they would be in prison. clinton didnt even get kicked out of office. what the hell was up with that?

Fable i hope you don't mind, but i will not comment on your post.
I hold extremely radical views compared to a majority on this board.
My comments after sept 11 caused a huge problem and i don't want to start the whole series of issues once again.
That is why i did not reply to that "Turkey" thread in the past.
Frankly i would like to stay on this forum and read and spam and just relax.
If i post in these political threads i will end up getting banned in all likelyhood.
That i do not want.

That's fine, @CM. I see all discussions here as ongoing ones even after they end, not as attempts to write formal, fixed conclusions among ourselves to any major issues for all the world to know. If we had all the answers, we wouldn't be discussing 'em on a board.

Thanks for understanding.
Oh yeah i have all the answers, but it is against the divine plan so i can't say much!

Originally posted by CM
Thanks for understanding.
Oh yeah i have all the answers, but it is against the divine plan so i can't say much!

I suppose you could always check with @Thorin, first.

Originally posted by Morlock
Anyway- your options last November were limited to Bush/ Chaney or Gore/ Libermen, (who already started a campaign for president in 2004) do you honestly think Gore would be much better than Bush? (I am just giving you the other position, personally I wanted Gore to win, and I still would rather him over Bush)

Gore's policies on the economy would have served this country better in the last year, that's for sure. I don't know about his foreign policies. I must say, if McCain had been a choice instead of Bush, I would have been in a quandary - a frightening situation for a left-leaning individual like me....

Originally posted by Gwalchmai


Gore's policies on the economy would have served this country better in the last year, that's for sure. I don't know about his foreign policies. I must say, if McCain had been a choice instead of Bush, I would have been in a quandary - a frightening situation for a left-leaning individual like me....

Bush and McCain both scared me. They sounded so reasonable and moderate--when speaking to national media; but when speaking before (and being reported in) far right religious media, or corporate gatherings, their positions were so different that I had to immediately distrust whatever I heard. I can still recall McCain and Bush arguing before the faithful that each was more conservative than the other--McCain actually claimed Bush was a "closet moderate!"

Doesn't having a ultra conservative person in such a position of power concern anyone there?, we only have 1 ultra conservative in Australian politics that I'm aware of (Fred Nile) and the thought of him getting any more power than he has (Senator) would send shivers down my spine.

Forum members outside Australia feel free to switch to another channel)
@Mr Snow, (Glad this is in the axis of evil thread ). Brian Haradine (Independant Federal Senator From Tasmania) is at least as far right a religious conservative as Fred Nile, and due to Australia's Senate election system is voted in by a very small number of votes (mainly sheep farmers) every 8 years! Fred Nile is only a Member of the NSW upper house and while that's bad enough, Brian Haradine has had a significant impact on Australia's policy positions on a number of issues because he can hold the balance of power in the Australian Senate. So sorry to make you shiver. - Curdis !

@Curdis: Yes I forgot about him, but even worse would have been (IMO) Beazley, cause from what was in his autobiography, he was raised a very strick religious man(can't rememer what sect at the moment, but something like SDA/Morman [those type, not main stream]) and a union boy (Shudder/shudder/shudder).

Now Johny isn't all that great but he sticks to what he believes in and doesn't (too often) pander to anyone who'll whinge to him.
Which is how I see most american politicians, sucking up excessively to the voters.

Opinions?