-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is George Bush a greater threat to the world than Bin Laden?
- Thread starter retrorich
- Start date
He's learned he can turn out the Religious Right vote to get re-elected, no matter what problems there are with his performance as a president.retrorich said:
We live in interesting times. Faith and belief are more important than fact and reason.
But no, I don't think Bush is worse than bin Laden. I don't think he's even close to being as bad as bin Laden.
robtex
Veteran Member
It is like throwing potassium into water. Not a great mix. The bigger tragedy is that the two scheme on their ends of the playing field against each other and our fueling enough hate to last centuries after they both die and leave this earth. What Sunstone said, "faith and belief are more important than fact and reason." seems very true from vantage point too. Both wield power as a tool and see destruction as a means to an end. I don't see it so much as one more dangerous than the other as I see it instead as one makes the other more dangerous and vice versa.
Runt
Well-Known Member
When someone said that they thought the most important thing to focus on right now is making peace in the Middle East, Bush responded that he was working towards that goal during his term. He doesn't seem to understand that violence does not lead to peace (unless everything is destroyed... I guess if we completely annihilated the Middle East there WOULD be peace there... but not the kind we want ... :/). To use a cliche, violence begets more violence. I think Bush is a very dangerous man. What Bin Laden did to a few thousand American citizens and people of other countries in bombing the Twin Towers, Bush has done to many more of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, and all in the name of "peace".
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think the real threat facing the global community is an unwillingness on the part of U.N. nations to take action when confronted by criminal regimes. WWII, it seems, taught the world little about the folly of appeasement.retrorich said:
Trinitas
Member
So much cynicism...
American power is probably the best thing for the world. After all, could you imagine if, say, China or Russia were the world's only superpower? I think back on history and thank God for the United States of America. If it were not for America, who would have stopped Hitler? Who would have stopped Tojo? Who would have stopped Mussolini or the Soviet Union? The world could have been cast into a thousand years of darkness time and again if the U.S. had not been there to prevent it from happening. When it comes right down to it, no nation in the history of the world has ever had so much power and used it so selflessly. The current situation in Iraq notwithstanding - I think we are still too close to it for us to judge it with the objectivity of a historian. Nevertheless, historically the U.S. has been a force for good in the world, and that would be hard to refute. Americans should be proud of their military heritage. By the way, I'm former military.
American power is probably the best thing for the world. After all, could you imagine if, say, China or Russia were the world's only superpower? I think back on history and thank God for the United States of America. If it were not for America, who would have stopped Hitler? Who would have stopped Tojo? Who would have stopped Mussolini or the Soviet Union? The world could have been cast into a thousand years of darkness time and again if the U.S. had not been there to prevent it from happening. When it comes right down to it, no nation in the history of the world has ever had so much power and used it so selflessly. The current situation in Iraq notwithstanding - I think we are still too close to it for us to judge it with the objectivity of a historian. Nevertheless, historically the U.S. has been a force for good in the world, and that would be hard to refute. Americans should be proud of their military heritage. By the way, I'm former military.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
We agree completely on this issue Trinitas. However, I think this is one of those cases of "what have you done for me lately?". I think Bush has used almost all of the good will that America had built through the last 150 years to eliminate Saddam. Whether we, as Americans, like it or not, the world has a short memory of things past. That does not make them wrong (or right), it is simply the way the world is. It would be folly for us to ignore that, or to think that by virtue of our military, economic, and industrial strength, we can do as we please.
I think that is exactly what the rest of the world fears from us more than anything - that a rogue cowboy will simply continue on his "world tour" of bringing "peace", and that we, as a nation, will continue to support him simply because he is willing to pander to the religious right and play upon their fears to keep himself in power.
If I were anything other than an American, at the very least, I'd be sleeping with one eye open - watching that cowboy with the sixshooter on his hip and a mandate (as he sees it) in his pocket.
TVOR
I think that is exactly what the rest of the world fears from us more than anything - that a rogue cowboy will simply continue on his "world tour" of bringing "peace", and that we, as a nation, will continue to support him simply because he is willing to pander to the religious right and play upon their fears to keep himself in power.
If I were anything other than an American, at the very least, I'd be sleeping with one eye open - watching that cowboy with the sixshooter on his hip and a mandate (as he sees it) in his pocket.
TVOR
Mr Spinkles
Mr
TVOR-- Good points in that first paragraph. What I find troubling is that the elimination of Saddam would not serve to increase, but rather decrease, good will towards America. There are far too few people from Canada, Britain, etc. who praise America's leadership role in getting rid of Saddam (though I know a few). Many Iraqis, Kurds, and Iraqi expatriots, on the other hand, have praised America and President Bush for toppling Saddam.
I've quoted him before, and I'll quote him again as it is poignant:
"Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership."
~ Paul Johnson, British historian
I've quoted him before, and I'll quote him again as it is poignant:
"Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership."
~ Paul Johnson, British historian
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I like your quote, Spinkles.
Your point about the elimination of Saddam is very revealing. It shows that, as Americans, we see the removal of a brutal dictator as an unequivocally good thing. Without question, it has great value. The problem is in how we went about it, and why.
The rest of the world looks at us and says - "That big guy with the large stick just wiped out a bully - but what will keep the big guy with the stick from becoming the next bully?"
The truth of this whole situation is this - America took Saddam out for, at best, questionable reasons. Notice that we did not take out evil dictators in several other countries. We may choose to say "Well - this guy was bad, and he might have attacked us", but the vast majority of the rest of the world heard us say "Well - he was a bad guy, and besides that, he was sitting on oil that we need to feed our insatiable appetite". Whether we agree or not, whether we like it or not, whether we want to recognize it or not, that is what the majority of the world heard us say. Oddly, there are more than a few people here in the US that heard us say the same thing.
That, my friend, is the reality of the world we live in. So, our intent is now irrelevant - the world views our actions more than they value our words.
TVOR
Your point about the elimination of Saddam is very revealing. It shows that, as Americans, we see the removal of a brutal dictator as an unequivocally good thing. Without question, it has great value. The problem is in how we went about it, and why.
The rest of the world looks at us and says - "That big guy with the large stick just wiped out a bully - but what will keep the big guy with the stick from becoming the next bully?"
The truth of this whole situation is this - America took Saddam out for, at best, questionable reasons. Notice that we did not take out evil dictators in several other countries. We may choose to say "Well - this guy was bad, and he might have attacked us", but the vast majority of the rest of the world heard us say "Well - he was a bad guy, and besides that, he was sitting on oil that we need to feed our insatiable appetite". Whether we agree or not, whether we like it or not, whether we want to recognize it or not, that is what the majority of the world heard us say. Oddly, there are more than a few people here in the US that heard us say the same thing.
That, my friend, is the reality of the world we live in. So, our intent is now irrelevant - the world views our actions more than they value our words.
TVOR
Trinitas
Member
Hey Spinkles,Mr_Spinkles said:
How are ya? I love that name!
That's a great quote too. On the same topic, a friend of mine once had a funny yet so true insight into why the Europeans hate America. He said that it was because historically, we have taken all of their rejects, undesireables and "huddled masses" and created a country that is the envy of all others. America's success is a living testimony to the failure of the European systems of the past (totalitarianism, communism, etc).
jewscout
Religious Zionist
Ok you know what i'm getting tired of this appeasment arguement people have been making for the past 2 years. Hear let me give everyone paying attention a breif history lesson on the roots of appeasment.Mr_Spinkles said:
In 1914 the bloodiest most violent war in human history broke out. Before the close of the first year France, Russia, and Germany had lost over a million soliders EACH! The belief leading up to the war was based on the way the last great European war, the Franko-Prussian War, was won. The Prussians, who would become Germany following their victory over France, won because the struck fast and hard and got on the offense first. France was fighting a war of defense believing that they could stop the Prussian Juggernaut. Of course they lost. Following this military leaders from London to Moscow decided that the way to win a war was with a fast mobilization and gaining the first offensive. It was believed the person who struck first would win. So the entire continent was geared up for war by the time the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand occurred. It was like a chain reaction that no one could stop. Russia mobilized, then Austira-Hungary, then Germany, then France. In a matter of a few weeks the continent exploded into war like no one had ever seen before.
Now when the war ended in 1918 everyone saw the destructive power that modern war had unleashed and the nations of the world and all of their people vowed to not let this happen again. Enter Hitler. Hitler wanted to unify all ethnically German people and most of the leaders of the world, and most people (including most Germans) didn't think he'd unleash another bloody war on Europe. Oh we've got great hindsight now and can say, "Oh why didn't they see it coming, all the signs were there blah blah blah." You know what none of the European leaders (as well as FDR and most of America who were all about some appeasement) were Miss Cleo. The mentality of all the world was one of defense again, because trench warfare had proven that the key to victory was a good defense and like the war in 1871 they were basing all their plans on what had happened the last time around. They didn't know what was going to happen. They were basing all of their motives on what had happened in the years leading up to WWI.
Allow me to use a metaphor. The Nazis were like a pack of rabid wolves in a simple village. Saddam was like a rabid Chihuaha in a cage.
Does that mean i think Saddam was a good person or leader, hell no.
But everyone uses the appeasment issue and i think that proves one thing. You can not use an example from history when the situation IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT!:banghead3
By the way the same time Saddam was committing mass genocide Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet our ally in Iraq and Sgt. Rummy said Saddam was one of the good guys!
p.s. what's irritating is Georgy boy has a degree in history!:bonk:
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Jewscout -jewscout said:
Funny thing about that. Just how does one graduate from Yale (even with a C average) and still not be able to formulate a thought, or still mispronounce half the words in the English language?
TVOR
Mr Spinkles
Mr
jewscout-- Now that we've had a history lesson in the roots of appeasement, let's have a history lesson in the effectiveness and consequences of appeasement. Let's review the events leading up to WWII (1933-1939):
Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922. Hitler in 1933. Shortly thereafter, both leaders began building up their army, air force, and naval forces--violating the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI. No decisive action was taken by the League of Nations. Italy then invaded Ethiopia. In 1936 Hitler sent troops into the Demilitarized Zone of the Rhineland. The nations of central Europe responded by offering Hitler concessions (i.e. appeasement). In March of 1938 Hitler annexed Austria. Then he demanded the resource-rich Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia...he threatened war unless his demands were met. A few months later in September of 1938, England and France agreed to the Munich Pact, giving Hitler permission to invade the Sudetenland (appeasement). In March of 1939, Hitler took even more of Czechoslovakia. Italy invaded Albania in April.
Finally, after years of deception, aggression, and defiance of international law, England and France took an assertive stance and promised to defend Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey if attacked. Hitler invaded Poland September 1, 1939, after which France and Germany declared war. Russia did not declare war until Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. The U.S. stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
It doesn't take a Miss Cleo to see that over the course of six years, Hitler proved over and over to be a deceptive, aggressive tyrant bent on building his military strength and using it to conquer his neighbors. Compromise is always preferable to war...however, in those six years other nations did all the "compromising" (i.e. appeasement). Hitler never compromised--he only gave false promises and trivial, diversionary concessions. WWII cost many more lives than WWI, and could have been prevented had free nations stood firm against deceptive tyrants. The League of Nations should have stood firm against Hitler (and Mussolini) in 1933, when was a mere "caged Chihuaha". Appeasement for six years allowed Germany to become like rabid wolves.
Trinitas-- Hi there, glad you like the name, I think yours is cool also But hang on here--I didn't say Europeans hate America per se...but I do agree with your comments. Still let's not forget America isn't perfect either. I don't doubt American abuses of power are also legitimate factors contributing to trans-Atlantic relations problems.
TVOR--
Still, I understand that many people view the war in that light. All I'll say is this: if I were President and I had to choose between doing what is right and what is popular, I'd choose what is right every time.
Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922. Hitler in 1933. Shortly thereafter, both leaders began building up their army, air force, and naval forces--violating the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI. No decisive action was taken by the League of Nations. Italy then invaded Ethiopia. In 1936 Hitler sent troops into the Demilitarized Zone of the Rhineland. The nations of central Europe responded by offering Hitler concessions (i.e. appeasement). In March of 1938 Hitler annexed Austria. Then he demanded the resource-rich Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia...he threatened war unless his demands were met. A few months later in September of 1938, England and France agreed to the Munich Pact, giving Hitler permission to invade the Sudetenland (appeasement). In March of 1939, Hitler took even more of Czechoslovakia. Italy invaded Albania in April.
Finally, after years of deception, aggression, and defiance of international law, England and France took an assertive stance and promised to defend Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey if attacked. Hitler invaded Poland September 1, 1939, after which France and Germany declared war. Russia did not declare war until Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. The U.S. stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
It doesn't take a Miss Cleo to see that over the course of six years, Hitler proved over and over to be a deceptive, aggressive tyrant bent on building his military strength and using it to conquer his neighbors. Compromise is always preferable to war...however, in those six years other nations did all the "compromising" (i.e. appeasement). Hitler never compromised--he only gave false promises and trivial, diversionary concessions. WWII cost many more lives than WWI, and could have been prevented had free nations stood firm against deceptive tyrants. The League of Nations should have stood firm against Hitler (and Mussolini) in 1933, when was a mere "caged Chihuaha". Appeasement for six years allowed Germany to become like rabid wolves.
Trinitas-- Hi there, glad you like the name, I think yours is cool also
But hang on here--I didn't say Europeans hate America per se...but I do agree with your comments. Still let's not forget America isn't perfect either. I don't doubt American abuses of power are also legitimate factors contributing to trans-Atlantic relations problems.TVOR--
The oil argument is completely unfounded--there was never an oil shortage. All countries in the Middle East depend on oil sales for revenue and they are more than willing to sell it to us. Even if for some strange reason we desperately wanted to get oil from Iraq, we could have simply bought it from Saddam for a lot less money than a military offensive costs. The "Bush did it for oil!" mantra is nothing more than frenzied speculation and ignorance of global economics.TVOR said:
Still, I understand that many people view the war in that light. All I'll say is this: if I were President and I had to choose between doing what is right and what is popular, I'd choose what is right every time.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Spinkles -
I did not say that an oil shortage existed. I am saying that by virtue of the invasion and overthrow of Iraq, the cronies of Bush that have, shall we say, "a small interest in the oil game" have benefited greatly. Halliburton being one of those companies (you may not like to admit it, but there is a clear conflict of interest there). Effectively, the money that is being spent to prosecute this war is going to the military industrial complex, and the companies that are rebuilding Iraq (at a real bargain rate, to be sure).
I don't believe that the main (or sole) reason that we invaded Iraq was oil - to be honest, I think it was an ego problem, and an itch to finish the job his father started. But I am not blind, nor am I naive - I fully grasp that certain companies (and industries) are reaping incredible amounts of money from this - check the predictions of stock analysts if you doubt this to be true. To deny this would demonstrate a true ignorance of global economics (your words).
If you were President and chose to do what was right (and not what was popular) you would have to rely on fooling the majority of the electorate to be re-elected (exactly as Bush did). Sadly, even this would not make your actions "right" - only that you would see them in this light.
I, and many others would not hesitate to debate with you that Bush invading Iraq was not "right". The truth of the matter is that if it had not been for the brilliant stroke of Karl Rove whipping up the ignorant, small-minded bigots of the religious right with red herrings such as Gay Marriage, Bush would have been back in Texas right now, milking the chickens (no, that was not a malaprop).
Undoubtedly, one could vote for Bush based on agreeing with his policies and his record (as I believe you did). Those that voted for Bush on this basis are in the minority - the single largest reason that people voted for him was "values".
Sad, truly sad. Elected (mainly) by mindless sheep that demonstrate no capacity for reason or intelligence. I think that is why I like you and Ceridwen so much - you voted for him not because of faith, but in agreement with his policies. I have no problem with us disagreeing, that is why we each get one vote.
TVOR
I did not say that an oil shortage existed. I am saying that by virtue of the invasion and overthrow of Iraq, the cronies of Bush that have, shall we say, "a small interest in the oil game" have benefited greatly. Halliburton being one of those companies (you may not like to admit it, but there is a clear conflict of interest there). Effectively, the money that is being spent to prosecute this war is going to the military industrial complex, and the companies that are rebuilding Iraq (at a real bargain rate, to be sure).
I don't believe that the main (or sole) reason that we invaded Iraq was oil - to be honest, I think it was an ego problem, and an itch to finish the job his father started. But I am not blind, nor am I naive - I fully grasp that certain companies (and industries) are reaping incredible amounts of money from this - check the predictions of stock analysts if you doubt this to be true. To deny this would demonstrate a true ignorance of global economics (your words).
If you were President and chose to do what was right (and not what was popular) you would have to rely on fooling the majority of the electorate to be re-elected (exactly as Bush did). Sadly, even this would not make your actions "right" - only that you would see them in this light.
I, and many others would not hesitate to debate with you that Bush invading Iraq was not "right". The truth of the matter is that if it had not been for the brilliant stroke of Karl Rove whipping up the ignorant, small-minded bigots of the religious right with red herrings such as Gay Marriage, Bush would have been back in Texas right now, milking the chickens (no, that was not a malaprop).
Undoubtedly, one could vote for Bush based on agreeing with his policies and his record (as I believe you did). Those that voted for Bush on this basis are in the minority - the single largest reason that people voted for him was "values".
Sad, truly sad. Elected (mainly) by mindless sheep that demonstrate no capacity for reason or intelligence. I think that is why I like you and Ceridwen so much - you voted for him not because of faith, but in agreement with his policies. I have no problem with us disagreeing, that is why we each get one vote.
TVOR
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Gee, I reckon the countries that were out there fighting WW2 before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor might have just kept at it,given that you didn't see fit to involve yourselves before someone else did it for you.Trinitas said:
I find it incredibly arrogant that you take the stance that the rest of the world would be lost without American military might.
As for using power selflessly, I think the fact that there were human rights abuses going on in Afghanistan for years and Big Brother USA did nothing until the government of the day told George W. Bush 'NO,we will not give you what you want.' shows that selfless is not the motivating force here.
As for the USSR, M.A.D. stopped (just, might I add) anyone doing anything really stupid (and that includes the USA) for quite a while, and then the USSR imploded by virtue of it's own economic mismanagement, which probably had a lot to do with the amount of money spent on weapons stockpiles.
By the way, I am the grandaughter of a Japanese POW, and I am extremely proud of his service.I and my family march with his battalion every ANZAC Day, and I find your attitude disgusting. It belittles the contribution of every other soldier involved in every conflict that the US military has participated in, and spits on the memory of everyone who gave their lives.
As to the topic of this thread, they are both very dangerous men in their own way, however Osama from a terrorism perspective excelled with 9/11, and aside from a few audio tapes we've heard little from him since then. George Bush by going against the UN has gone out and said,'I don't care what the rest of the world thinks, the USA is above the rest of the world.' He may just be the cause of this great empire crashing to the ground in a bloody heap.
Sunstone...welcome to the new Dark Ages.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Arg!!! I just lost an entire post I wrote....oh well..here I go again. :banghead3
TVOR-- What I finished typing after 10 minutes or so I will now just summarize: basically, I am afraid I offended you in my last post when referring to the argument about Iraqi oil. I apologize for my comment, as it was arrogant. I was actually not directing it at you, but I was thinking of some of my friends who do not defend this argument as rationally and eloquently as you do. Still, those comments betray an arrogance which I regret. I can only imagine how offensive it must be to receive a "lecture" on global economics from some 18 year old kid. Once again I apologize.
As for Halliburton...I did some research. Halliburton sells products and services to oil and gas industries. They have offices all over the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, etc.). As far as I can tell, the only thing that prevented the Iraqi oil and gas industry from purchasing products/services from Halliburton were the sanctions. If Bush really didn't care about human rights violations in Iraq, or about the threat posed by Saddam, or about how other countries view his actions, I would have expected him to try to lift the sanctions on Iraq to open up that market to Halliburton. Why spend all that money on a war when Saddam would gladly have his oil industry do business with Halliburton for free? And why risk unpopularity and defeat next election just so a company in which he has friends can make more money? Why not at least wait until after he's re elected? It just doesn't make sense to me.
If I were President, I would not have to fool the electorate to do what is right--fooling people is not right in and of itself and therefore would defeat my purposes. I would have to be a leader--to get up in front of people and present my case. In this respect I believe Bush could have done much better. He did just a good enough job to gain support for the war and to be re elected. If I knew I had no chance of convincing the public, and that pressing the issue would only result in my defeat, I would adopt the position of the majority to preserve my office, as losing it would again defeat my purposes of doing what I feel is "right". Such is the beauty, I think, of a republican democracy.
As for the religious right being crucial to Bush's win...of course I have to concede you're right. Furthermore, I agree with you that the reasons most people voted for Bush are unsettling at best. :help:
lady_lazarus -- I agree with much of what you've said here, and I think you and all grandchildren--of all nationalities--of those who fought in WWII have a right to be proud. :jam: However, I don't think Trinitas' praise of America can automatically be interpreted as criticism of Australia. There's no denying that American involvement was crucial to defeated the Axis powers, and that the occupation of Germany and Japan after the war was relatively benevolent. Now both countries are not only prosperous democracies, but allies with both the U.S. and Australia.
TVOR-- What I finished typing after 10 minutes or so I will now just summarize: basically, I am afraid I offended you in my last post when referring to the argument about Iraqi oil. I apologize for my comment, as it was arrogant. I was actually not directing it at you, but I was thinking of some of my friends who do not defend this argument as rationally and eloquently as you do. Still, those comments betray an arrogance which I regret. I can only imagine how offensive it must be to receive a "lecture" on global economics from some 18 year old kid. Once again I apologize.
As for Halliburton...I did some research. Halliburton sells products and services to oil and gas industries. They have offices all over the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, etc.). As far as I can tell, the only thing that prevented the Iraqi oil and gas industry from purchasing products/services from Halliburton were the sanctions. If Bush really didn't care about human rights violations in Iraq, or about the threat posed by Saddam, or about how other countries view his actions, I would have expected him to try to lift the sanctions on Iraq to open up that market to Halliburton. Why spend all that money on a war when Saddam would gladly have his oil industry do business with Halliburton for free? And why risk unpopularity and defeat next election just so a company in which he has friends can make more money? Why not at least wait until after he's re elected? It just doesn't make sense to me.
If I were President, I would not have to fool the electorate to do what is right--fooling people is not right in and of itself and therefore would defeat my purposes. I would have to be a leader--to get up in front of people and present my case. In this respect I believe Bush could have done much better. He did just a good enough job to gain support for the war and to be re elected. If I knew I had no chance of convincing the public, and that pressing the issue would only result in my defeat, I would adopt the position of the majority to preserve my office, as losing it would again defeat my purposes of doing what I feel is "right". Such is the beauty, I think, of a republican democracy.
As for the religious right being crucial to Bush's win...of course I have to concede you're right. Furthermore, I agree with you that the reasons most people voted for Bush are unsettling at best. :help:
lady_lazarus -- I agree with much of what you've said here, and I think you and all grandchildren--of all nationalities--of those who fought in WWII have a right to be proud. :jam: However, I don't think Trinitas' praise of America can automatically be interpreted as criticism of Australia. There's no denying that American involvement was crucial to defeated the Axis powers, and that the occupation of Germany and Japan after the war was relatively benevolent. Now both countries are not only prosperous democracies, but allies with both the U.S. and Australia.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
I got a little ranty there, I know. I just find the whole (and to all those Americans out there, I don't mean this to offend anyone),'thank God for us, without us the world would be plunged into 1,000 years of darkness,' thing ridiculous. What it implies is that the USA is the only nation out there that cares to stand up for anyone, and if anyone else DOES stand up, well, you know, they're not really up to much.Mr_Spinkles said: