This is not why I joined TPR

A week ago, a thread was started that I find upsetting. It begins with The President of the United States being referred to as running a Regime and ends with him being called an idiot.

Some may feel he is on the wrong course, others may not. I thought TPR was non-political and didn’t tolerate denigrating others.

I am a survivor of the nightmare of the destruction of 20 million square feet of office space and the death of many colleagues. I still jump and get a chill when I hear steel being dropped onto the ground and my heart races when I hear a jet overhead rev its engines. There is a smell of concrete dust that makes me feel ill and elicits visions of rushing billows of grey obscuring everything but the screaming. I and many of my neighbors still can’t find a job in our fields because so many businesses vanished.

I am concerned about world security and feel passionately that the United States is on the right course.

The only president to suffer a lower approval rating was Abraham Lincoln, but history judges him very differently in hindsight. I know many older Americans who still dispise FDR for fighting Europe’s war.

The offending thread is here.

For right or wrong, I voted for President Bush. While I do not agree with all of his policies and even question his intgrity or intelligence, i do feel that what the US is doing is the right thing. I also feel that it is important for members in TPR to be able to express their views. Some I don’t agree with, but I respect the right for them to say it. For me personally, as long as people do not attack the soldiers, who deserve our support regardless of how we feel about the politics, I have no problem with people criticizing our government.

I also feel that you cant sit back and try to defend yourself against terrorism. You must go out and actively destroy it. You have to remember, this is the first major act of foreing terrorism to strike on US soil, and it killed many people, and ruined the lives of many, many more.

While some may argue about the links between terror and Iraq, Saddam was a tyrant, a mass murderer, on the order of Stalin or Hitler. He gassed his own people, killed them for no cause, etc. He deserved to be brought to justice. The handling of the situation could have been much better, but in the end, I believe that the world will be a better place with him out of power.

/steps down off of soapbox and hands it to next person in line and apologizes for any bits of Off Topicness I may have done.

My views exactly. Well said.

A mod is welcome to delete this post if it appears to be causing any trouble…

I had noticed your post in the original thread, then had a work-panic while trying to decide how to respond. Firstly, I didn’t agree at all with you there:

The original post linked to an article and quoted from it. I see no personal insult to Mr Bush. I suppose “The Bush administration” would be a little more neutral than “The Bush regime” but I certainly did not find the phrase inappropriate in the context in which it was used. “Regime” is generally pejorative but often in practice used when an article is critical of the issue under discussion (which that one is.) It is natural to label a presidential form of government with the name of the president, with whom the buck stops and who is normally delighted to take credit when things go well.

Calling Mr Bush a ‘capitalist’ is hardly inaccurate. The associated quote is arguably contentious but does not insult Mr Bush. The post is well within the bounds of lively open conversation which I like to see.

Both the authors responded courteously and rationally to your concern.

After your post in that thread there is an eloquent counterargument, so the thread as a whole is not unbalanced with regard to the original subject (not your immediate concern but also worth mentioning.)

Even the currently-last post ends with a positive remark about America.

I thought TPR was non-political and didn’t tolerate denigrating others.

TPR is non-political in the sense of having no political agenda, but many of our conversations are like those among friends in the pub - most subjects including politics will come up from time to time and quite right too, and we will often disagree with each other.

“Not denigrating others” means mainly not insulting a fellow member, but also not making a purely personal negative remark at all. Of course in the normal course of free speech we express opinions about third parties, including on occasion a political leader, and those opinions should steer clear of libel, but anyone like Mr Bush (or Mrs Thatcher) whose policies are fundamentally contentious is bound to inspire strongly-expressed opinions. Something personal should in my view always be accompanied by a relevant impersonal fact or opinion. In that post there is an assertion about the President’s policies too, so the personal reference does not appear in isolation.

It is entirely true that the the President of the United States should be respected in the same way as the Queen, but when he has his Executive hat on he must be praised or criticised in the same way as the Prime Minister. It is not without reason that most European countries separate the two roles.

Personally I think Bush is doing the exact correct things. When the country of Japan attacked America, FDR did the same and then came to aid of the Europeans. When the Virtual Country representing extremist Islam attacked the USA, Bush did the same thing and brought the only real European friend we have to the party. I would have expected nothing less from the British. The Taliban Afgans had it coming and so did Sadam. The inocenct people are just lucky they didn’t take Daisy Cutters to the whole damn place.

Violent Islam only understands one thing, power. It should be applied accordingly. As they say “Fook with the bull and you get the horn!” Those bastard denegrate women, and wish to kill every infedel in the world! Well bring it on you Sons of Bitches! Keep escalating and you will receive the wrath of the American people and all who stand for freedom, liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness.

In essence the Iraq situation is now a mop up operation. Gradually these SOB will either be killed or driven back to some other supporting state like Syria, Palestine or Lebanon. I hope he goes after Hamas next, but I expect it will be the other hateful regime in Iran.

Terrorism should be given no quarter. And Bush stands for at least that sentiment. Negoiate a peace? Hell no. You will just end fighing the war anyway, maybe on your own ground. Think about “A peace in out time” and Neville Chamberlain, what did that get the British? Learn from History and be saved from the future.

Just remember, you have the rights to your opinions and I have the rights to mine. You might think Bush is wrong, and that the American people are not behind him, but you are wrong. I watched the big war protests last week on the news and saw about a dozen old hippes there.

ok…i’l admit right now that i don’t think i read the original post just those in this thread and i feel i have to put my 2p (2cents) in.
Although i do not agree with a lot of what g.w.bush has done in the usa i do totally agree with the way against terrorism.
A simple example of what terrorism does…i was speaking to a firnd today, he was asking me if i wanted to go to a feeder concert (would’ve loved to but thats a different story). He then went on to tell me why there were places. " dropped out because they would have to use the london underground and were afraid of being bombed. If the general public feel like this the the respective governments need to do whatever needs to be done to make their own people feel safe. As far as i see it gwb and blair are trying to do this and xudus to them for it.
Onto the subject of denigrating (sp?) a foreign leader i see no problem in someone giving their views as long as they’re in taste. I have no problems with people slagging of blair … i do myself, and every other leader we’ve had since i can remember. You just have to remember that although TPR in not a political forum per sa everybody has their own views on what is right and wrong and are totally right in expressing their views on those feelings…whrthrt or not anybody else agrees with them. I love this place because of that and will never leave no matter what. You have to think about what terrorism is about…the suppression of freedom…and this place is all about freedom.

Whilst it is correct and proper that a forum such as this shouldn’t have a strongly expressed policital viewpoint, as voiced by its owners/admins, this doesn’t mean that its members shouldn’t enter into reasoned debate about - just about anything.

There is a world of difference between slagging off your own political leaders and having a pop at other heads of state. To criticise the head of state of a democratic country always runs the risk of offending all thinking people within that country.

In my view, there were so many many good reasons to effect regime-change in Iraq. This corrupt government, blinded by its own spin, saw fit to raise support for the war through a great lie, not trusting the population to believe or understand the truth. How insulting can a government be towards the people who voted them in?

I’m not so sure that the method chosen for regime change was necessarily the correct one but what I am sure of is that the invasion was made with mininal forethought or planning regarding the post-invasion period. We are paying very dearly for this right now and will do for some time to come.

I admire the strong sense of patriotism displayed by most of our American cousins. Just as I’m sick and tired of the inverse-patriotism displayed by many Brits :mad:

Why can’t we all go back to slagging off the French?

If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, then ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Sponsored by


Free speech is built into the American constitution (as it should be) but of course this means that everyone can say pretty much what they like. As long as the Mod/Admin team aren’t sponsoring this view as a cross-forum/team view (and I don’t think they are) then free speech being used by members is all I can see here.

There’s an old saying (which I’ll probably misquote) that “whether I agree or disagree with what you’re saying, I’ll fight for your right to say it” which about sums it up for me.

Not wishing to turn this thread into a war/no war debate for the Brit members, but this really is false. The Kenyans, Spanish, Indonesians AND MANY OTHERS didn’t invade Iraq/Afghanistan (whether at George Bush’s bidding or not) but have still suffered terrible atrocities. Terrorism is not about legitimate attacks on targets, it is about spreading indiscriminate terror. The IRA in Northern Ireland killed many childeren, nuns, shopkeepers … legitimate military targets? I think not. There is no agreed definition of terrorism which I think points out what a difficult subject this is - another old saying “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”.

The so called “War On Terror” or more frequently “Bush’s War On Terror” makes many uncomfortable, and I believe personally the reason for this is that they do not understand that the war is ongoing, pervasive and real. This is not a stand-up fight but a process of undermining goverments and political systems to achieve the terrorists’ aims - and public opinion is one of their most potent weapons. Look at Vietnam for a good example - US public opinion played a large part in the outcome of the conflict.

You cannot reason with a terrorist, they will not listen. These people do not follow the teachings of their various religions, or the same limits/checks/balances that any normal society does. They wish merely to spread indiscriminate (sorry to keep repeating it but it is the key) fear and uncertainty, and publicise their “cause” through high-profile atrocities.

Faced with a large scale threat like this a new approach has to be taken and the US has provided a strong lead in this respect. We (the Brits) have in a very small way contributed, I personally believe were right to, but I can understand why others don’t.

Whether this way of dealing with terror will turn out to be “right” (since when did right and wrong figure in the millions of shades of grey which comprise world politics?) history alone can tell us. But I don’t believe that sitting back and doing nothing is an appropriate response, and I have no respect for the nations which expect support and protection from their allies and neighbours but will not contribute to the same.

Off soapbox, all the above IMHO obviously, usual garbled crap from me but I hope the meaning came through :slight_smile:

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again…

Whatever the topic we will agree to disagree. Everyone has an opinion and the right to voice it, if you stop that right then what do we become… a dictatorship.

Juss another thing, I fail to see the point in the argument. The statement/review was made was not about war or declaring it nor was it about terroism, it was about the state of the land and how it looked.

I may be mistaken and I’m sorry if I missed the point but may be we should not try to read too much into what has been written.

No offence meant to anybody…

“All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Whether Bush and Blair are world statesmen or jingoistic fools, at least they are doing something. Better that, than wringing their hands and gently asking if the nasty man with the rpg wouldn’t mind putting it down and going home pretty please.

The problem is that one that is whinning is the one that made the remark about others… If one takes time to read the posts in full they will see that it was a news release and stated over and over and over that one did not hold that opinion till the one whinning started to complain… I stand firm!
Oh and you mention the Twin Towers… Remember I am in Oklahoma were the Muerl Building bombing was I was a 600 ft away when it happened and lost friends… Oh yea that was by a solidier… That does not mean we commit war on all veterns does it…
My daughter was in Iraq…
So quit whinning Richard and toughing up and read before you point fingers as you did… not us… it was just a FYI from a Canandian reporter…
I am done… I shall not return to this subject

to Which to be a valid point you would have to prove that their option would have done none thing. in the case President Bush you can’t. For President Bush’s predecessor the record shows not only did steps about the threat, but even warned his successor that this will be a major problem in the near future, despite party lines. And record ahows the both times President Bush ran for presidential office shows that his opposition where not for doing nothing.

So as doing nothing was not going to happen, so you have to judge them on what is done.

and it looks more like President Bush has put more show than substance into doing something. In a way that’s worse than doing nothing, because it merely lets the problem get worse, while making people believe it’s getting better.

Now I can not do the same comparison with Prime Minister Blair as I do not have enough info on that.

hmmm, Bush not done enough? :confused: drove the Bin La La bunch out of Afganistan, and effectively broke that effort up, deposed the dictator Sadam, Put the Hamas’s of the world on noticed and now is standing fast against the Iranian’s.

Yes it would have been nice to have Iraq been rapid and complete, yes it would have been nice to capture and put on trial BinLaden. Real life is never nice.

No he did not Drive them out of Afghanistan’s, he “almost drove them out Afghanistan” instead on focusing and finishing the job. he turn to Iraq, which even Karl Rove admit has nothing to do with 9/11. So not only do Osama bin Laden get away, the Taliban is currently making a come back there.

he disposed of a Dictator that even the US’s own chief weapon inspector says was complain with US demands, the only hindrances was small and to be expected from any Sovereign nation to save face to the fact they are a sovereign nation. a dictator that Bush’s Administration didn’t even whisper about humanitarian concerns until the WMD lies where exposed of time and again.
a disposition that was so poorly planned that we are barely preventing a Civil war that will make the Break up of Yugoslavia look like a walk in the park.

Putting the Hamas on notice huh? the how come under his watch North Korea went from suspected nuclear power, to a Confirmed Nuclear power?
and standing firm against Irainains? [other than they called Persians] you are aware the Iran, a country we have no direct diplomatic contact. offered what ever help it can supply in the wake of 9/11.

President Bush who Foreign Policy even is pulling Canada, to the point they are going “wait a moment here”, this is a Country that with out the corners strong of a out national defence, Norad, does not work without.

What an even better example of President’s Bush putting a show of action rather actual action, we can look to a domestic situation, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. who’s Physical devastation for far less server that that cause the the much larger Floods of '93. with the '93 Floods FEMA when into action Immediately, and smoothly. yet too Two Weeks to respond to Katrina’s aftermath. [While you cant Blame anyone of the Hurricane it self, you can hold people accountable for what happens afterwards] This is Primarily attributed two two factors the “Restructuring for efficiency” Bush Ordered and OKed, and the fact most of the National Guard equipment normally used in such a situation was in Iraq. but I haven’t even got to the even that’s the beauty. Remember that Photo-op of Push Working the Aid station? Leaving aside that aid station was only setup hours before President Bush arrived, which can be dismissed as stranded “Things don’t get done until there a political advantage”, But it was caught on camera them dismantling the aid station immeadtly after President Bush left.

We didn’t stop working on Afghanistan. We are still there. And unless you wanted us to commit utter genecide, we couldn’t very well start killing everyone in the country suspected of being Taliban. The Taliban “comeback” is not a major offensive by a powerful group. They are through whether they know it or not. What you aren’t mentioning is that we gave the Afghanis their country back and hope for freedom and the chance to have better lives. Even if we weren’t still there, the Taliban would be trying something.

As far as “letting Osama get away”, I suppose you could have done a better job? We didn’t want him to get away, and we haven’t stopped looking for him.

The humanitarian concerns were brought to light during Bush Sr.'s presidency. We are at fault only in that Clinton should have finished the job instead of sitting on his hands.

North Korea didn’t develop nuclear weapons overnight you know. It takes decades for that. You can’t fault Bush for North Korea announcing to the world that they are a nuclear power while he happens to be in the White House. Would you have us attack them too? As for Iran, they are a completely different govenment since the radical came into power (can’t remember his name). A night and day difference. However, they are threatening the world with violence and it’s right that we stand against them. You’ll notice everyone else is too.

my apologies, I was in the middle of copying the thread in order to split it to a new discussion and I lost connection. The result has ended up with four of the posts from the original thread being removed and for some reason the thread has not copied either :amstupid:

Hands up, my fault - I’m rubbish.

The intention was to allow Richard to keep his point made in here and the discussion to continue in the cantina.


No worries DT :slight_smile:

As far as “letting Osama get away”, I suppose you could have done a better job? We didn’t want him to get away, and we haven’t stopped looking for him.

well, i would not have rounded up his family and escorted them safely out of my country. rounded them up and thrown away the key, maybe!