View Poll Results: 4 more years for Bush? if he could.
- 267. This poll is closed
Dumb Question- If Bush Could Run Again, Would You Vote For Him?
- 06-14-2007, 12:16 PM
- 06-14-2007, 03:01 PM
- 06-14-2007, 08:56 PM
I don't think that ignoring the will of the majority of the population and just doing whatever you want is a virtue. I call that being a dictator.
06-14-2007, 10:05 PM
06-14-2007, 10:24 PM
06-14-2007, 10:37 PM
06-14-2007, 11:12 PM
I think you have a skewed image of what patriotism is. You also don't seem to like to do your own thinking. Neither will get you anywhere, but to each his own.
Its also funny how you lump "big muscular guys" into some ridiculous stereotype. You must live in tv land. Been to Green Acres lately?
06-14-2007, 11:26 PM
06-15-2007, 12:55 AM
06-15-2007, 01:00 AM
06-15-2007, 01:08 AM
06-15-2007, 01:11 AM
06-15-2007, 01:12 AM
06-15-2007, 03:32 AM
06-15-2007, 08:12 AM
John Kerry and Al Gore were designated losers. They along with Bob Dole existed only to create the illusion that there was a choice!
Al Gore was not endorsed by Bill Clinton, how embarrassing after 8 years of being Clinton's vice president!!! Loser !
John Kerry both George Bush's cousin and Fraternity mate!
WTF out of 300 million people Bush runs against his own cousin !
Kerry let the Bush people make him out to be the "coward" in the campaign even though he was actually in Vietnam, while Bush was.., well nobody is really sure where? something about missing records!
Kerry spent 20 million dollars on anti voter fraud systems, then conceded the election with out even considering the Ohio ballots !! WTF !!!
06-15-2007, 10:52 AM
06-15-2007, 10:59 AM
You can't win with no success condition. WInning means achieving success. We haven't defined what success is so how can we ever achieve it.
Additionally we are NOT in a war. We have not been to war since WWII. Military action, yes, but not war. There IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
Heck, we havent' even defined an opponent in this "war."
And how can you say he was trying to divert attention with cruise missiles when he was launching them at Osama Bin Laden. His intelligence reports made a mistake. The SAME MISTAKE THAT BUSH MADE AT TH START OF THE IRAQ INVASION.
At the start of the Iraq invasion, Bush ordered the bombing of a farm on a river in Iraq. His intel said Saddam was vacationing there. His intel also said tehre was a bunker there. So he had 2 stealth bombers go in and drop bunker busters on the farm.
It turns out that the only people there at the time were a bunch of servants, no one else. Approximately 500 people there, most of them killed in the blast. And what they thought was a bunker turned out to jsut be a winecellar. Nice. To top it off, because of that bombing, it compeltely blew our surprise advantage in the invasion. Plus it gave Saddam extra time to escape. Awesome job.
06-15-2007, 11:52 AM
Empty rhetoric. Typical, "if you don't follow Bush without question, the terrorists win!"Your words support an enemy who kidnaps babies, executes them, then booby traps their little bodies so their grieving parents have their arms blown up when they retrieve their dead baby's body.
The most UNAmerican thing anyone cna ever do is obey without question.
I invoke Godwin's LawThe simple fact is we stopped the next Adolph Hitler *SNIP*
No you only see the underbelly, you don't see the real world, you see the worst side of the world and nothing else.I do have a 15 year military career, a Secret Security Clearance (recently relinquished when I was discharged LAST WEEK--YAHOO!!!), and a lot of real life experience. Those of us who see the world for what it is understand we have to do what we have to do. Or there will be no "Land of the Free".
BTW, it never was "free".
Again, rhetoric. You see things in black and white. Us against them even when you don't even know who the heck "them" is. You'd rather shoot first and ask questionis later. You ignore all the things which actually cause terrorism in the first place. You ignore the conditions which allow increases in recruitment by terrorist groups.Sometimes one must climb down from the Ivory Tower and get their hands dirty. And bloody.
Combatting terrorism through police action worked for 200 years. The use of military blunt force is now proving to not only be ineffective, but to actually contribute to increased enrollment in terrorist groups and increase the number of terrorist which are more likely to target the US specifically. THAT is directly from our very own CIA.
06-15-2007, 12:27 PM
Terrorists are small individual cells and camps. You cannot fight those with a big lumbering conventional army."Police Action" told me all I needed to see to understand your position. And you simply are not qualified, by what you write, to comment on military science. I am.
Never said you murder innocents, just said that blindly agreeing with the President or administration without question is UNAMERICAN. Even more UnAmerican is demanding others do the same.Please do not make me out to be an evil person who would murder innocents--that is what the terrorists you support do. My morals, ethics and kindess are not in question here on this Board, I hope.
Appeal to Fear fallacyIn the meantime, remember this: these people would walk up to you and cut your throat in an instant. You cannot use reason against unreasonable people. How do you spell "Koombyah"? LOL You can only defend that which is yours, and that which you believe in.
06-15-2007, 12:42 PM
06-15-2007, 01:09 PM
06-15-2007, 01:19 PM
There are numerous similar instances in the lives of Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler. From there experiences in life, to there dictator beliefs, to there slaughter of those without disregard for human life.
Were they carbon copies of one another-- absolutely not, but if you cannot see similarities and you cannot fathom the future that Saddam would have created had he been in power, then you are not looking very keenly my friend.
The even bigger problem today is that there are numerous men in our world today that have the same sort of desires of the Third Reich and much of the world does not seem to care.
06-15-2007, 01:27 PM
There are two types of us in America.
Republicans and Democrats... the boundaries are clear as day.
It is a damn shame that there is no blending of the two... except Joe Lieberman and Dennis Miller.
Even if I were in favor of greater taxation and partial-birth abortion and gay marriage, which I am not, I would still not want to quit the fight in Iraq. The way it's being fought needs help (through better warfare and more education); however leaving would create more problems for my son's son. I want it over before I die.
06-15-2007, 01:32 PM
The US embargo on Iraq killed far more people, especially children, than Saddam ever did. Bush's cabinet, and by that I mean people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, were the ones who supplied Saddam with the power to kill so many people in the first place. Does that make the US leaders like Hitler?
As for Clinton, yes he was brutal as well. I don't support the majority of his black ops, but the idea that he engaged in them as a diversion from his "crimes" is ludicrous. The reasons were mostly imperialistic, same as the majority of politicians' motivations.
The war in Iraq is about controlling the oil and thus maintaining veto power over Europe and Asia. This is extremely obvious. Bush and his cabinet have pardoned terrorists and supported dictatorships. You're living in a pure fantasy if you don't think this is more about power than "freedom."
That being said, yes Clinton and other Democrats have taken part in plenty of atrocities. Bush is unique however in that he doesn't even try to be diplomatic on the surface. His foreign policy is pretty extreme in its brashness.
06-15-2007, 01:34 PM
06-15-2007, 01:35 PM
You don't know anything about me so you can't exactly say what my background is. I can however point to history in my favor.Again, you think yourself qualified to lecture me on military operations. You are not. Your military teachers are the Liberals (politicians and media) who act as if they secretly carry Al Queda membership cards in threir wallets. They have sold us out and weakend us for 50 years now. The day may come...
You haven't been there and done that. You haven't eliminated terrorism. You haven't been a policy maker. You haven't been in a position of government. All you've done is follow orders.You aren't even wise enough to listen to someone who has been there, done that.
Appeal to fear fallacyThank your lucky stars there are adults out there protecting you.
Appeal to emotion fallacyBTW, I'm still waiting for your first word of anger toward those who kidnap and saw the heads off purely innocent people, would beat and imprison women for daring to open the cover of a book, blow up innocents by the hundreds in town squares, etc. Your pals.
Appeal to emotion fallacy.Do a Google seach of "beheading video". Scroll down until you find a hot one, such as the one where the teenage Nepalese was murdered. Watch it. Keep your eyes on the screen, volume nice and loud. Your heart will grow two sizes this day. Your wisdom could use a bump, too.
Getting upset about an event does not increase one's wisdom. Far from it. It is in fact more likely to make you more impulsive and less reasoned or logical.
I forgot to add:
GODWIN'S LAW. STOP WITH THE SILLY INNAPROPRIATE REFERENCES TO HITLER OR NAZIS. IT'S JUST AN APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACY.
06-15-2007, 01:43 PM
A LOT of guys are getting out, going AWOL/UA and just not joining b/c this war is bull$hit. there is NOTHING good that will come in the end of this. this has been a waste of money, time and most importantly U.S lives.
06-15-2007, 01:43 PM
06-15-2007, 01:44 PM
06-15-2007, 01:53 PM
The death toll for the 11-year US embargo on Iraq was over 1.3 million people, mostly children. The US also had a part in quite a few of Saddam's atrocities.
Every country does similar things.
But he didn't kill nearly as many children as the US embargo which Albright stated was "worth it."
Reagan's regime commited what amounts to genocide in Latin America. If you look at the sheer amount of US embargos stopping ceasefires, it looks very much like the Palestinians and people of Gaza among other places have been subject to genocide.
You can find examples of this among virtually any industrialized country.
So are the Bushes. See Orlando Bosch and Luis Posado Carrilles.
Do you mean nukes or things like chemical warfare? He obviously did NOT have nukes. Not that it would be any less of an act of aggression if he DID have nukes. Several countries have nukes, but preventative war is still a blatant violation of international law. It's considered against international law to invade a country just because it doesn't like you and has weapons.
Although if you believe that Iraq had nukes, I wonder why they didn't actually use them during the invasion.
I'm aware that the Ba'athist party looked up to Hitler, but I've never heard of Hitler being Saddam's #1 hero. In fact, from what I've read Saddam got his blueprint for running a country from the Godfather movies.
Now you sound like Ann Coulter. The US is allied with Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the Middle East. They WERE allied with Saddam until the Kuwait incident threatened oil control. Look at the long list of genocide and torture that the US, Britain, Israel, etc. have racked up.
If your point is that Saddam was a bad man, I agree. However, I feel much the same way about virtually ALL world leaders. If you think his track record of bloodshed is outstanding compared to the rest of the world, you need to do some research.
By the way, a war of aggression such as Iraq IS a liberal move in the traditional sense. Neocons are not real conservatives as the word was used for most of history. I'm not saying Democrats are much better though.
06-15-2007, 02:05 PM
It's good to see intelligent discussion, just try not to make things personal. We all have somewhat different opinions. We can all learn something from eachother if we let go of our egos and beliefs.
I see a lot of finger pointing between the left and right. But honestly, who gives a crap about parties, we need to take a step back and see the whole picture. Most Americans vote for a party just because their father taught them that it was the party of choice when they were young.
We are human, and thus, not at all perfect. We are ALL flawed by greed, corruption, hatred...etc Instead of being angry at the situation, and eachother, I think we all need to just concentrate on the future. What can we do? And what SHOULD we be doing right now? I think we can all agree war is not going to fix **** over night. We have to find a common ground to deal with terrorism. We are pissing off the rest of the world with our actions, whether they be right or wrong.
06-15-2007, 02:10 PM
Bush is allied with Saudi Arabia
Bush is protecting the Cuban terrorist Luis Posado Carrilles
Bush Sr. presidentially pardoned the Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch
Bush basically left Aghanistan in the hands of the warlords whose presence led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place
As for the "liberal media," it's funny how quickly they unite when someone attacks American foreign policy as a whole. For instance, Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez.
Chavez's "devil" comment was presented as a literal claim, and taken out of context as if to imply that he wants to attack America. This is despite the fact that his entire speech was a a rant against militarism and imperialism.
Ward Churchill was demonized as supporting 9/11 by taking snippets of his essay out of context, when his actual point was in comparing 9/11 to the many similar atrocities the US has commited on Middle Eastern civilians. He was condemning atrocities in general but it's been presented by the "liberal media" as him supporting 9/11.
And why didn't the "liberal media" cover NSDP 51?
The truth is that Democrats and Republicans are both committed to concentrating power and don't mind killing innocent civilians to do so. They like to present the other side as well-meaning but inept, but when someone questions the nobility of their intentions both sides of the media become united pretty quickly. The issues like gay marriage and abortion are distractions from the real problems in the world.
Having a party loyalty is entirely undemocratic. It's a way of narrowing debate and information that the public recieves to a comfortable level.
06-15-2007, 02:28 PM
The rest of the world is pissed off mainly because the US has set a new precedent for defying international law and because they're hording veto power. That's the real issue IMO. Places like China could conveivably become new superpowers, and the US is fighting it by trying to horde control of the oil that they depend on. Terrorism is a much smaller threat in the minds of the people in power. The big issue is the threat of the US having rivals in power.
The way terrorism is brought up now is different than it was during the days of Carlos the Jackal or Pablo Escobar. Back then there were clearly defined targets. Now it's addressed as an abstract concept, similar to the "War on Drugs." You really can't win a war on terrorism. Terrorism has always been around and always will be around. In fact, we engage in it. IMO the very idea of a war on terrorism, like the war on drugs, is a talking point to allow for endless war for whatever purpose.
YouTube - Bush-Truly not concerned about bin Laden
06-15-2007, 02:39 PM
We don't want superpowers, such as Iran or North Korea.
We welcome superpowers, such as UK, most of Europe and Russia.
And if terroism is abstract, should we do nothing when an embassy or train is bombed or an attack takes place on our soil? Shall we not persue justice whereever that may take us. We expect any country who agrees with us to comply and help. Is that too much to ask?
Terrostists and rogue nations have zero regard for any law. So, do you insist that we do not do what is neccesary?
06-15-2007, 03:09 PM
No we don't. That's the real reason why France is against the war. They had an oil deal with Saddam that the US declared null and void.
The US would not want any part of Europe gaining power to rival the US. What they want are governments they essentially have puppet control over like the UK and Israel.
It's too much to ask when your own country commits much greater acts upon the rest of the world and you're invading a country that didn't attack you. Although the rest of the world doesn't really care about that, except for the Middle Eastern civilians who've died from US intervention for the past 50 years. The rest of the world cares about the US hording power.
How do you define "terrorists" and "rogue nations?" Do you want to compare the atrocities of the US and its allies to whatever "rogue nations" you could come up with? The truth is that no country has any regard for law. The US is pretty high up there when it comes to defying international law.
I believe in fighting terrorism, yes. That also includes the US' own terrorism against the Middle East, which has a much longer and bloodier history. I'm against imperialism and dictatorships, including BOTH the ones the US has attacked and the ones it's supported and taken part in.
Iraq, however, did not attack the US. The US attacked Iraq. Iraq was not behind 9/11. The US however was behind the embargo that killed over a million Iraqi civilians and did take part in several of Saddam's atrocities. The real issue is not "rogue nations", "terrorism," or "freedom." Those are merely code-words for "countries we like" and "countries we don't like." The real issue is distribution of world power.
If you don't believe me, please read up on the US' history with Saddam in the 80's, or their relationship with Saudi Arabia right now. Look at how often the US has vetoed UN resolutions, even when over 100 other nations signed them. The United States, like all other major world powers, likes throwing its power around.
You're living in an idealistic world if you really think the US and its allies don't dabble in the same kinds of atrocities as its enemies.
06-15-2007, 03:17 PM
It seems pretty simple to me, but I am sure others will disagree...
As for the beheadings,
In the end where does that get them? What does it do besides sending the message that they are totally nuts and have lost all touch with reality. It's the definition of insanity; repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
The only thing that comes to my mind when watching any of the beheadings is how cowardly and pointless it is.
06-15-2007, 03:26 PM
06-15-2007, 03:32 PM
1. Waging a blatant war of aggression as defned by international law
2. Evading prisoner of war procedures by shipping people to internment camps in Cuba, indefinitely held with no trial
3. Seizing a hospital in Falujah and kicking out the patients, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions
4. Demanding a cut-off of supplies to Afghani civilians that, by some estimates could've starved millions. I don't believe it was ever reported how that turned out, but luckily millions didn't starve. Regardless, cutting off supplies needed to feed millions of civilians could be considered a crime against humanity
That's just recently of course.
I think "terrorist nations" is a misnomer. All countries support or punish terrorism depending on how convenient it is, including the US. The US has allied with terrorists including Osama Bin Laden, the US mafia (in an attempt to assassinate Castro), Los Pepes, etc. on several occasions.
I believe that international law should apply to all countries equally and that we shouldn't ignored our own atrocities. There should be an attempt to pressure the leaders of all countries to abide by international law. The first step to that is getting people in every country to acknowledge their own leaders' crimes.
In general I'm against imperialism, international mass murder, etc. and I think it's inevitable that there will be new superpowers. IMO the US is trying to prevent this instead of preparing for it, and that's one of the biggest factors behind the deaths of millions of people.
06-15-2007, 03:37 PM
No, what I said is that the US leaders speak of terrorism as an abstract concept. See the Youtube I linked. Bush went on about how he doesn't spend much time thinking about Osama Bin Laden, claiming that "terrorism is bigger than one person." It was pretty obvious that he didn't give a **** about Osama and wanted to move on to talking about Iraq.
Here's a pretty good article on the people whose views have dominated US international politics for quite awhile:
Although IMO Clinton pretty much followed their doctrines as well, although he sounded more diplomatic in speeches.
06-15-2007, 03:39 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By sonofsatan666 in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 1Last Post: 11-08-2006, 01:56 AM
- By BigVrunga in forum General ChatReplies: 41Last Post: 08-23-2006, 10:04 AM
- By ripped22 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 04-18-2006, 06:20 PM
- By CROWLER in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 46Last Post: 12-16-2005, 06:30 PM
- By WAHCHING in forum Weight LossReplies: 5Last Post: 09-21-2005, 04:05 PM