The Bash Bush Thread

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, "you're a hippie pacifist."

Because he's not the brightest, and he's been trying to outlaw stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage. He also doesn't seem to like non-christians very much :<

Some quotes

- wonderful grade-A geography there

- turned out he wasn't right about that one C:

- Oh noes, the internets D:

- nuff said

- running a nation on his beliefs?




ah well, that should suffice for now C:

How have the American people been "conned"? There's very little popular support for this war. The average Joe hasn't invaded anything at all. I, for example, am going about my normal business while politicians and my country's troops are concerning themselves with something so heavily spun, lied about, and politicized that I have no hope of ever understanding all the potential reasons and ramifications of those military actions. Short of staging a bloody revolution, there's not much we can do to stop the war, other than talking about it. Those who speak of pulling out immediately, at this point, are failing to grasp the fragile nature of the situation.

As for the troops themselves, if the surveys are correct, most of them are in it for the paycheck and benefits, not out of idealism or some sense of loyalty to the president.

Yeah. Not to pick on you... but that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about in my first post in this thread.

How many times have you made an error or a slip of the tongue (and how many more would you make, if you spent several hours a day talking in front of large audiences)? If we collated all your mistakes and printed them in a list, how would you appear? Pretty dumb. Would it actually make you a moron? Of course not.

I'm saying that the media spin put on what Bush, and even generations of presidents and governments have said, has made Americans in general believe that war is the answer and the only answer. You said that short of revolution, there is nothing you can do about the Iraq situation, well, everyone could vote at the next election, make sure that you get the government you want and make sure they have a policy to pull out. Staying there is not helping the Iraqis, they need to be self sufficient and they need self-governance. You say that most people are saying no to the war; why then did the republicans get elected in 04, a year after war was declared? If you don't like Bush's policies, and what his government stands for, make sure everyone pisses him of and votes in someone who can change it for you. Remember, the people ultimately control the ballot box, and they can gain control of the media too.

1) Because the difference between Republican and Democrat is much wider and more complex than the simple matter of "War or No War."

2) Because the electoral system does not ensure that the candidate with the most support will win.

If we pull out, they'll end up in a civil war, plus have to face angry anti-democratic terrorist neighbors. Then we'll get hit with the bill because we launched an illegal war in the first place. Rather we pull out or not we're screwed one way or the other now.

I think if the issue we went to war for was Weapons of Mass Destruction and trying to end primitive theocracies, we should have really gone to Iran, maybe still should.

I don't think we need to go to war with Iran, we're already over-stretched. ***IF*** we had the economic resources available to go into another war (which we don't), I think we'd be better off to be ready for war with mexico and the other latin american nations telling their people to enter the US illegally, if it came to it (which it probably would, unfortunately).
Likely we'd have to go nation by nation but after it's settled we could help rebuild those nations with new governments and possibly discuss with their leaders methods of helping their nations prosper on their own accord, as this would be good for both the US and the latin nations.

The thing about pulling out or not isn't stopping the terrorist threat; it's too late for that. Matter of fact, the terrorist issue started long before Al-Quaeda and the first WTC bombing, and even before the first gulf war. Terrorism will always be there, but by retaliating whenever they strike with armies and declaring war does not work. It is futile, because you are in a no-win situation. Say, for eg America goes in to protect the Kurds and Kuwaitis and has a war against Iraq, whom they supported when the Iranians took those hostages in 1979. Then terrorists decide to attack American ships (the Cole) and other American targets in retaliation. Then America decides to retaliate against the terrorists, then the terrorists decide to attack the WTC and the Pentagon in 01, and the Americans send troops to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, which they don't do. Then they decide to invade Iraq again for supposed WMDs, which means the terrorists retaliate again. And those terrorists decide to go after Britain and Australia because they allied with the US. See my point? there is no valid reason to fight a war, especially against a target that is hard to find, and against one that will take whatever steps it can to get whatever it wants. What's that quote.. 'The best form of attack is defense?' To me, the best defense is not to attack in the first place.

On the electoral thing, what system does? But at least if everyone voted instead of 3/4 of the population, you might get a better result. We have compulsory voting here; we don't always get the one we want, but at least we know that the vote was truly representative of the population. I've never been able to work out why America doesn't have it either.

george bush is ultimatly probably gonna try to make a north american union like what they got going on over there in europe. hes also building a super highway that will strech from mexico, into the united states and all the way to canada. uhh can you say ghey?

i wouldn't mind canada because they're a great society and culture.


but mexico is just trash. at least all of the mexicans that come over to cali...gives me the impression that mexican culture is homophobic, machismo, breeding, messy, slob culture. we have enough of that with all the white trash crackers and black ghetto gangstas...we don't need another culture's ghettos coming in and messing things up even more.


the north american union should just be canada and USA and have canada in charage of it as far as leadership.

Huh? Too bad it already exists. I lived next to it in Guatemala and I lived next to it in the USA as well.

Though there seems to be some disagreement about where it actually lays.

Bush doesn't have the time for anything, 1.5 years and that's it. Maybe he has time to scratch his arse. But that's all.

Hillary Clinton (who, mark my word for it, will be our next president) and her cabinet will likely work towards that highway, the North American union, this isn't a good thing though because the goal of international, continental unions is to do away with national borders, which would mean larger government.
As for voting, I believe it was Chosen one who brought it up, the majority of citizens did not vote for Bush. The election was a steal. It's who wallstreet wants in power, not who we want in power.

There is only one thing stopping Hilary; the fact that she is a woman. The American system is an old boy's club, and the glass ceiling they have created will stop her from gaining the top job. Condy has two strikes against her, she is black as well, and the history on black candidates isn't good (remember Jessie Jackson?). When you actually look at the amount of elected women who have run countries there are probably about 10 in all (Maggie Thatcher, Helen Clark, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir (sp), Megawatti Sukanaputru (sp) are just some), and they are from countries that are a little more able to accept a woman PM or president. We could have one here, but none have put up as good a challenge yet. Unless the situation changes radically in the next 18 months, Hilary is just going to be another 'bridesmaid'.