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?
- 06-15-2007, 02:50 PM
Saying "the terrorists" might as well be like saying "the murderers" or "the rapists." They don't identify a group of people by anything other than what crime they have committed. That's not a coherent group.
- 06-15-2007, 02:50 PM
Yeah, the US really "bailed out" Iran by assassinating Mossadeq and paving the way for the Shah to take away civil rights.
They "bailed out" Iraq with the assassination attempts against Qassim and arming Saddam with the military means to kill thousands of people. Or by embargoing them so that over a million people starved to death.
They really "protected" the oil supply by nullifying the previous Iraqi oil deals with Europe and trying to put sole control of the oil in the new puppet government, thus the US.
They bailed out the Palestinians by backing the coup that formed Israel and drove over 80% of the Palestinian civilians out of their homes, then using international pressure to get the UN to overlook this violation of international law. Subsequently they bailed out the Palestinians by veoting numerous ceasefire resolutions that could've saved thousands of Palestinians civilians from being slaughtered.
They bailed out Chili by installing Augusto Pinochet, a ruthless murdering dictator over their elected government.
Come on, man. The way you brag about the US makes it sound like a football game where you're rooting for the home team. Almost every country in power has done some good and done some bad. The US is no different. It's VERY dangerous to have a black-and-white view of the world, because you can make a case that any country is a "good guy" or a "bad guy."
I don't think you even realize that Al Qaeda manages to gain membership by getting people to think the way you do. When the US bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical company in Sudan, their membership skyrocketted. A lot of the "terrorists" are people who perceive the US much the same way as you see them. When powerful countries kill massive numbers of civilians to put the most minor dent in their "enemies," it's called "collateral damage." It's the same thing as 9/11. You need to look at this from the perspective of a Middle Eastern civilian as well.
The world is shades of grey, and you really need to research the atrocities of EVERY country including your own to get the full picture. Yelling "we're the best! Screw anyone who's ungrateful for what we do!" is the kind of attitude that can destroy the world. In fact you can find a nice parrallel with the American Revolution and Britain's attitude at the time.
- 06-15-2007, 02:51 PM
if bush could run again as much as id hate to say it, i would vote for him again because he has to finish what he started in the first place. I mean he seems to think that he has everything under control. but throwing another president out without any experience would basically be like committing suicide.
06-15-2007, 03:03 PM
Attack on character fallacy. Please review international law and the requirements for an actual preemptive war. The invasion of Iraq was blatantly not a preemptive war, but a preventative war, which falls under wars of aggression.
In fact, there's a nice parallel here to Hitler's invasions which birthed the very definition of "wars of aggression." Like the Reichstagg fire, it was claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11, so there was an invasion. In both cases no actual evidence was presented.
06-15-2007, 03:08 PM
I don't care to watch that crap. Have you seen the videos of US soldiers killing and raping Iraqis? They exist as well, and are often shown on the same tapes as the beheadings as propaganda. Or what about US-backed Israelis hunting down Palestinian children as a game? I've read all about the brutality of people from every country, but I don't care to watch vidoes of it.
But this is a red herring.
06-15-2007, 03:14 PM
How cowardly do you consider it to bomb civilian buildings from thousands of miles up, encountering little to no personal danger? Just wondering.
But what does Iraq have to do with these "terrorist training camps" anyway? I've seen more proven cases of the US involved with terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden during the Cold War, than I've seen from Iraq.
You're using a lot of red herrings.
06-15-2007, 03:25 PM
I've studied Hussein as well, including the fact that even its enemies like Israel didn't consider Iraq a threat due to the extremely poor economy.
It's obvious that you haven't studied the US' own actions in the Middle East and even more obvious that you could care less about the innocent civilians who've died as a result.
And it's an actual logical fallacy. Google "attack on character fallacy."
06-15-2007, 03:26 PM
Yes! Precisely! Hit the training camps! Find a camp, wipe it out, leave. Find them hiding out in a basement, go in, wipe them out, leave.
YOU DON'T NEED TO INVADE A COUNTRY TO DO THAT
That's like if there's a group of guys who robbed a bank and killed 30 hostages, and they flee. Then they are holed up somewhere and you get reports they are in some guy's house in Alabama. How do you solve it? You send in a SWAT Team to take them down. You DO NOT mobilize the entire US Army and occupy the entire state of Alabama, putting everyone under martial law.
06-15-2007, 03:30 PM
Well said, but I think Dr. John was implying that Iraq was some kind of haven for terrorist training camps, overflowing with them to the point where they had to be invaded. I haven't seen any evidence of this.
06-15-2007, 03:42 PM
It's one thing to be a liberal. That's fine.
Rufio, you are so far left I just laugh. Your perception of America is UnAmerican. You can leave if you hate it so much...Moveon.WTFE. But, wait I forgot, there is nowhere better to live on this planet because of who we are and what we do. Keep up your anti-american rants, it doesn't bother me, just makes you look like a U.S. hater.
I also think your were sweet to put a response in your thread of a quote that I never stated.
High on morals and ethics I guess.Originally Posted by D_town
Do you think terrorist nations should have seats on the Human Rights Commission?
06-15-2007, 04:43 PM
He doesn't hate America. He hates the Administrations that have been imperialistic. America is NOT its government. America is the Constitution and what it represents. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, and most of the other founding fathers all said that in order for the USA to be a successful democracy the people MUST question their government CONSTANTLY.
They all believed that the true American Patriot is one who ridicules his government for every action it does.
The American spirit is power to the people, not follow the government like a bunch of sheep.
In fact Iraq was just the opposite. Any terrorist camps in Iraq were run by people trying to overthrow Hussein. Saddam Hussein was Osama Bin Laden's NUMBER 2 TARGET. He was the only nation in the Middle East that was secular.Well said, but I think Dr. John was implying that Iraq was some kind of haven for terrorist training camps, overflowing with them to the point where they had to be invaded. I haven't seen any evidence of this.
06-15-2007, 04:56 PM
06-15-2007, 05:00 PM
A Patriot is 'someone who ridicules the government for everything it does.'
I don't believe I share your value or definition of the word.
I thought it was someone who LOVES their country. I love my country and I am far from a BAH BAH sheep my friend. I criticize the things that I do not agree with and trust me, there is plenty.
There is much more to my country than it's founding father's.
However my overall patriotism and nationalism overpowers any other emotion.
And when everything stated by a person is Anti-American, it becomes assumed to me that the person is the opposite patriotic.
06-15-2007, 05:04 PM
06-15-2007, 05:20 PM
06-15-2007, 06:15 PM
Fast and Loose with the facts
#2 "Any terrorist camps in Iraq were run by people trying to overthrow Hussein." This is factually incorrect. It has been proven that Saddam's elite forces trained thousands of terrorists in camps around Iraq. Yes, this is state sponsored terrorism.
#3 What is your source for claiming Saddam was #2 on Bin laden's list? Bin Laden's followers did not agree with a secular Iraq (it's a stretch to call it that), however they did continue to use it as a safe haven and were provided logistics support by Saddam's forces. I am not aware of any evidence that suggest's Bin Laden made any effort to put a hit on Saddam.
06-15-2007, 06:21 PM
06-15-2007, 07:38 PM
Define "left" and "liberal." Being equally critical of your own government as you are of others is far left? Does that apply to Americans only or to other countries? If someone in Iran protests what their government does, are they liberal hippie pussies?
The real issue is that you don't want to address the fact that the world is not divided into heroes and villains. All major world leaders INCLUDING those in the US have taken part in many atrocities and killed thousands or millions of civilians.
It's disgusting when both Democrats and Republicans do it. For the record, I'm both "liberal" and "conservative" in the traditional sense. I take a liberal stand on civil rights, while I take the traditional conservative approach to foreign policy (note that the Neocons' foreign policy is the exact OPPOSITE of true conservative policy).
I don't support either party. In fact, Democrats have committed some of the greatest atrocities in the world this past century.
That's funny, given that the actions I listed are facts that America officially recognizes that it did, but pretty much ignores. So my perception of America is the perception of many of America's own records.
Grow the **** up. The US is a great place to live, yes. That doesn't change the fact that the US has installed dictators, supported terrorism, and killed millions of innocent civilians in the past.
Do you think I pulled the US embargo that killed over a million civilians out of my ass? Or the US installing Augusto Pinochet? Or helping to assassinate Mohammed Mossadeq? Or the various vetos of ceasefires?
You sound like a German who refuses to acknowledge the Holocaust. "Our country is the greatest on Earth! It is anti-German that you would level these charges on our great country!"
Seriously, you sound like a Party member from 1984 ...
06-15-2007, 07:39 PM
Allright wise guy...
An american is a citizen of America. Those I most closely relate with are the grouping of North Americans and even more closely, the legal citizens of the United States of America. Most citizens of the United States are born in the country, many of which legally have family heritage in the USA. Others acquire citizenship legally through a bureaucrtic process of paperwork and testing.
06-15-2007, 07:45 PM
Let me guess:
You can accept the criticism that some US politicians may have made mistakes with good intentions in the past, but you find it "un-American" to propose that American politicians will knowingly commit evil deeds, right?
But at the same time, you don't have to suspend any disbelief to imagine foreign leaders being evil. In your view, being American inherently makes a leader more noble.
Including your care for innocent civilians it seems ...
How is what I'm stating anti-American? That's stupid as hell. I have stated more than once in this thread that you can find similar atrocities for virtually all countries.
The difference is that I actually research military actions of every country to come to my own conclusion, and I look at things strategically. I don't blindly buy into US leaders claiming that they're invading a nation which has no means by which to oppress us for the purpose of "freedom." I look at all countries -- including the US, but also every other nation on Earth -- with the same critical lense.
BTW, the way you throw the word "un-American" around makes you sound like Joseph McCarthy.
06-15-2007, 08:05 PM
Curiously, do you have a source for this? It's not actually grounds for preemptive war considering that pretty much every country has allied with and/or trained terrorists before, but I'd like to see this regardless.
I haven't seen the source for this one either, although I've heard from a few places that part of the reason Osama turned against the US is that they refused to let him wage a holy war on Saddam during the Gulf War.
Here's the results of a search:
Here's a page on it as well, although it's from antiwar.com:
According to them, the NBC page was editted numerous times after the original post. Now it doesn't work at all, so I dunno.
"As Harper's magazine mentioned in 2002, a number of videotapes made by Al Qaeda were found; one contained a documentary in which bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a 'bad Muslim'.""
Here's something else. It's from CNN which like any other new source takes comments out of context, but it's something to keep in mind:
The Iraqi president repeatedly has denied any connection between his government and bin Laden's terrorist network. "If we had a relationship with al Qaeda and if we believed in this relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it," Saddam said in a recent interview on British television. "The answer is no. We do not have any relationship with al Qaeda."
Bin Laden recently declared solidarity with the Iraqi people, but he lashed out at Saddam's government. In the latest audiotaped message purported to be recorded by the al Qaeda leader, bin Laden denounced Saddam's socialist Baath party as "infidels."
06-15-2007, 08:15 PM
In that case, how can it be "un-American" to recognize the atrocities of various world leaders? Do I retroactively become not born in America because I don't blindly believe in the nobility of politicians?
I thought that caring for the lives of civilians, regardless of nationality, was a good character trait ...
06-15-2007, 08:57 PM
The following sources will show you that Saddam's Elite Forces Trained Terrorists in camps around Iraq.
Source #1 from Wall Street Journal
Source #2 from WorldNetDaily
Source #3 from FreeRepublic
Regarding your sources that support the claim that Saddam was #2 on Bin Laden's list...nadda. There was nothing substantive or verifiable to lend credence to that claim. You are safer claiming that Bin Laden and his fellow Islamic radicals did not support the Ba'ath Party.
06-16-2007, 11:43 AM
06-16-2007, 11:48 AM
Well at least 2008 is not too far away
06-16-2007, 12:07 PM
You say this is not a liberal or conservative issue, and I somewhat agree. However, when one party votes for war to end these terrorism camps, atrocities (ethnic cleaning of kurds), rape rooms, and torture houses...and then goes back on their word for political expediency, it becomes an issue. The hypocrites on the left are rabid if we 'do nothing' about human rights abuses in Sudan and Iraq...and then turn around and call us war mongers when we actually take action and free a country from a murdering dictator. They are intellectually dishonest.
Halabja poison gas attack (several hundred to 5000 dead when Saddam's planes dropped Mustard & nerve agent on the city) - Wikipedia
Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mass Graves in Iraq (estimate 300,000 dead) - BBC News
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Babies found in Iraqi mass grave
06-16-2007, 12:19 PM
I dont think this is an issue of right v. left. I am an old George Washington federalist which makes me a bit isolationist, which is tough in these times. However, there are many on the right who are war mongers, and at the same time there are many on the left who are as you describe them.
My issue with Dr. John was that Saddam was not Hitler, was not close to being Hitler. That is partially due to the different times we are living in. The attrocities of Saddam are terrible, no doubt about it, but they pale in comparison to WW2. However, at the end of this all, will people be talking about the attrocities of George W. Bush?
06-16-2007, 12:37 PM
Actually I think history will treat GW Bush quite favorably. The current political atmosphere is rampant with idealogues that spew venom based on emotion and are void of logic or reason. These folks are infectious with their 'hate-Bush-at-all-costs' mentality. Cooler heads will prevail, the middle-east will be given a true chance to prosper, and America will be seen as a country that used it's strength and spirit to help the world, as we have done countless times.
06-16-2007, 01:18 PM
06-16-2007, 01:50 PM
06-16-2007, 01:57 PM
Well actually all 3 of your sources report the same source ... One Stephen Hayes.
Hayes' credibility is somewhat questionable:
The Hayes memo is important—but bogus. - By Daniel Benjamin - Slate Magazine
Here's an excerpt:
Hayes contends that Feith's document demonstrates that the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq "involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda—perhaps even for Mohamed Atta." Yet in any serious intelligence review, much of the material presented would quickly be discarded. For example, one report claims Bin Laden visited Baghdad to meet with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1998, but this is extremely unlikely to be true given how many intelligence services were tracking both individuals' movements. Countless intelligence and press accounts of Bin Laden's travels have appeared over the years while the man himself remained only where he was safe: Afghanistan. Hence, another report that has him traveling to Qatar in 1996 is almost as unlikely.
Here's the original source attacking Hayes:
Media Matters - Stephen Hayes: Conservatives' favorite authority on "The Connection"
And here's one of the most interesting links from that original source:
DefenseLink News Release: DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections
There are several links of reputable authors disputing Hayes' claims. At the least I'd say that Hayes' work is dubious.
I never said that he was #2 on Bin Laden's list. However, Bin Laden did indentify him as an "infidel," which pretty much takes any credibility away from the supposed Saddam/Osama connection, which I've seen no evidence for whatsoever.
06-16-2007, 02:07 PM
You can say the same thing for most politicians including Bush. If you've studied PNAC, their approach to international politics is pretty much based on the belief that America should run the world. That's what Bush and Reagan's regimes were based on.
Which world leaders aren't willing to kill mass amounts of innocent people to further their power?
The difference between Saddam and Hitler is that Hitler gained control of one of the most powerful governments in the world, while Saddam was in control of a country with one of the poorest economies in the region. Saddam didn't have the means to oppress us.
You could also compare the current Saudi regime to Hitler in many respects, yet we're allied with them.
06-16-2007, 02:09 PM
06-16-2007, 02:10 PM
06-16-2007, 02:17 PM
Actually, there is some evidence that Saddam believed that the US gave him the go-ahead to invade Kuwait:
Whatever Happened to April Glaspie?
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
At a Washington press conference called the next day (July 26, 1990), US State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:
"Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?"
To which Tutweiler responded
"I'm entirely unaware of any such protest."
On July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the
"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
I've seen some Middle East experts claim that the US essentially was telling him that he could rectify borders and raise oil prices in Kuwait, but being the crazy loon that he is he interpretted it as a go-ahead that they'd support the ivasion.
What's your point? All you seem to be saying is "Saddam Hussein was evil" over and over and over again. We know. That's not news. It still doesn't change the legality of the invasion based on international law or the fact that the US didn't care about Saddam's brutality and in fact supported it until he threatened control of the oil reserves. Most world leaders are very brutal and willing to commit mass murder for power.
06-16-2007, 02:22 PM
It is a fact in that it's not an opinion, but the majority of evidence points to it being an incorrect fact. And it's not what I'm saying, but what several different sources are saying compared to what Stephen Hayes is saying.
It's also interesting that "many" of the terrorists claimed to be among the "8,000" in Iraq are members of GSPC, which has an estimated membership between a few hundred up to possibly 3,000 and operates first and foremost in Algeria. They must've shipped over half their membership over to Iraq in order to make up any significant portion of that supposed 8,000 people.
06-16-2007, 02:23 PM
06-16-2007, 02:36 PM
The problem is that Bush's cabinet are the ones who supplied Saddam in the first place and tolerated these murders for over a decade until Saddam got too big for his britches regarding control of Middle Eastern oil. The other problem is that the US government has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
Beyond that, they're still closely allied with countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia which have a huge number of human rights violations and mass murder. In fact, the US government vetoed the ceasefire on Gaza a few years back.
Saddam being gone is great, but the fact of the matter is that US actions have killed more Iraqis than he ever did, and looking at the history of US-Iraqi relations makes the reasoning for the war VERY dubious. If Bush and co. really cared about the Iraqi people so much, they wouldn't have supplied Saddam for so many years while turning a blind eye to his atrocities.
Originally Posted by Dr. John
Aside from the El Salvador incident and setting the precedent for religion inserted into politics, I'm curious what your argument is.
I'd say the worst recent regime is Reagan. There's Iran-Contra, REX 84, attempting to ban porn, his "war on drugs," virtual genocide in Latin America resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths, mismanaging the economy which is what caused the famous tax raise during Bush Sr.'s reign, etc.
Going a bit further back, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy had a lot of blood on their hands.
06-16-2007, 03:58 PM
So because they're Jews they can do whatever they want? And if you want to talk terrorism, the very formation of Israel was essentially a terrorist act, as were the ever-increasing settlements that drove so many thousands of Palestinian civilians out of their homes.
Israel's government, and specifically the Mossad are easily as much terrorist entities as the Palestinian organizations fighting against them. And at the end of the day, it's the Palestinians who've had their land stolen almost like the Native Americans and who've had far more casualties.
YOU grow up. Your thought process is seriously scary. It seems very Orwellian in nature. When it comes to your "America is #1" rhetoric, it seems like you're able to hold two blatantly contradictory notions as both being true.
If people like Rumsfeld and Cheny supported Saddam and armed him for years, knowing he was killing these people and helping him do just that, then how do you figure that these murders were their motive for turning on him? It makes no sense. In fact, shouldn't they be considered ACCOMPLICES to Saddam's atrocities?
What a great counter argument. You completely ignore the deeds of Reagan which are historical facts and reiterate his mythical status among Neocons. This is another "attack on character" fallacy.
In case you're not up to date with the virtual genocide that was ordered in Latin America during the 80's:
Thanks, Ronnie, For The Debacle In Latin America (Articles) Jacob Wheeler
To deny that this happened is to disrespect the memory of tens of thousands of people who were slaughtered.
And are you denying Reagan's misdeeds regarding Iran-Contra? You're SERIOUSLY delusional if so.
Remember Ronnie saying "I told you that I was innocent, and in my heart I still believe that to be true. The evidence, however, says otherwise" ...?
Back in 1996, Madeline Albright did not even deny that over a half million CHILDREN in Iraq had already died due to the US embargo:
"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
The final estimates I've seen from some sources have been higher than 1.5 milllion, but to be conservative let's assume it's around 1.3 million as reported here:
Death Toll from Embargo over 1.3 Million: Iraq
No. I am pointing out that Reagan and Bush have death tolls easily on par with or even surpassing Saddam's. Hitler is in a whole nother league. Aside from his higher death tolls, he was one of the few politicians who genuinely believed in his own hype. Saddam was more of a traditional politician compared to Hitler in that, although the Ba'athists were allied with the Nazis during WW2, Saddam is a more secular ruler who's in it for the power. Hitler was so wrapped up in his ideology that he made military decisions based on it.
06-16-2007, 04:25 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By sonofsatan666 in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 1Last Post: 11-08-2006, 12:56 AM
- By BigVrunga in forum General ChatReplies: 41Last Post: 08-23-2006, 09:04 AM
- By ripped22 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 04-18-2006, 05:20 PM
- By CROWLER in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 46Last Post: 12-16-2005, 05:30 PM
- By WAHCHING in forum Weight LossReplies: 5Last Post: 09-21-2005, 03:05 PM