Page 7 of 9 [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Do you think that George Bush is doing a good job as President of the United States?
Yes, I think he's doing a wonderful job! 6%  6%  [ 8 ]
Yes, I think he's doing a wonderful job! 6%  6%  [ 8 ]
No, I think he's doing a horrible job! 44%  44%  [ 59 ]
No, I think he's doing a horrible job! 44%  44%  [ 59 ]
Total votes : 134

techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,048
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

12 Feb 2005, 5:00 pm

People can say what they want about the validity of Iraq and foreign affairs, just that from what I've seen too many natural dynamics snap into place for me to believe otherwise.

When it comes to the electrions though or any conspiracy threories that people have on things that supposedly happened on our soil - your forgetting some MAJOR liabilities, controls, and things that would make all this completely impossible.

When the votes are counted, it'sa bipartisan effort, just as many Bush haters as Bush lovers were counting em, and if there was so much as an inkling that the election was corrupt by someone who hadn't liked Bush and who wanted to be famous for bringing down a president - the newspapers would have been blaring it from coast to coast with even more air than they gave Abu Ghrav.

Just remember what happened with Dan Rather and the National Guard documents. His authenticity advisors told him, unanimously, that the papers didn't even resemble what they were claimed to be and were an obvious hoax. Howeve, people like Rather hated Bush so much and were chomping at the bit so badly beat one to him that they aired it even with all the warnings.

IMO, in a media and film culture like we have goig on right now, a republican conspiracy is impossible. As a matter of fact any conspiracy is practically impossible when the media at large is digging at someone for dirt like heroin addicts in bad need of a fix. In any sized group of people there's always gonna be someone who will blow the whistle - either for honosty and moral purposes or for selfish delusions of grandeur and desire to be famous. Unless the media is controlled under threat of physical violence by a government or by media contracts like they have in parts of Western Europe (if your rocking the boat "Oops! We forgot to renew your reporting license - so long!") then the truth WILL get out.

As for someone just claiming about 7 or 8 posts up that 3/4 really voted for Kerry, the exit polls were contracted out to a survey group who's results had much more to do with their sampling choices - people can and will bend that if they have an agenda.

Oh, and if you can't fathom how Bush got elected when no one YOU know voted for him, that's the big city playing tricks with your head. I almost thought Kerry would win just because I live in a highly liberal area - only thing is those areas are pretty much the seaboards, major cities, and then you have the whole spread of the heartland and their major cities wondering where there are enough democrats to get 40 or so percent of the vote when they know all of one or two in they're whole personal scope. The problem is, what people see in front of them is a small group, isn't the big picture.

If the big picture offends you because it isn' what you think it should be - you really don't wanna call in conspiracy theories just to make the world conform to your wishes - you aren't doing yourself or your own inteligence any justice. Thinking like that is what causes people to get stuck where they are, keeps them from expanding as individuals, keeps them from moving foreward in life, and over all is the kind of closed mindedness that causes a lot of people to be dead at 30 and buried at 80. You've gotta stay open minded, stay on top of the facts, and not let group think swallow you (Tammy Bruce's lecture at Florida State couldn't have summed this psychological and societal problem up better).



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

12 Feb 2005, 9:56 pm

Well said, techstepgenr8tion (claps)!

I would also like to point out to the Democrats and left wing supporters, that Clinton was called a warmonger, or something similar, too for using troops so often and they feared this was because of his Vietnam draft dodging allegations such as they thought he wanted to prove he could use the military too.

And the last time the U.S. occupied a nation with the purpose of making it a territory was the Phillipines after the Spanish American war and the Phillipinos resisted and we fought them 3x longer than the Spanish and then we kept the nation for almost 50 years. We learned that lesson, so your fears of colonialism are ill founded, after that experience we rebuilt Europe after a stay of only a few years.

On that Iraq chemical article Duncvis mentioned, I saw no mention of the U.S. shipping wmds like chem or bios to Iraq, as someone stated in an earlier post to which I made the counter argument with which you responded to by posting this link. The U.S. did have an axe to grind with Iran after the hostage crisis in the late '70's, it was the cold war, Soviets supported Iran, so the U.S. supported Iraq. I am not going to defend their weak stand against using chems, but it must be viewed in the light in which the situation was cast.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,048
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

12 Feb 2005, 10:20 pm

My beef with Clinton had less to do with Monica and more with cutting our millitary from 18 divisions down to 10, selling top-secret technologies to China, trying to sell China a naval base in California, stuff like that.

If anything the smartest thing Clinton did was all that womanizing - it completely distracted people from much dirtier scandals that actually had some rather serious national security backbone to them. If it wasn't Monica, it was backpage.



thechadmaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,124
Location: On The Road...Somewhere

22 Feb 2005, 9:59 am

The iraq war was never a good choice. Bible thumping nut-jobs like W should take a good look at themselves. Bush is a bible thumper but he had violated one of the most important comandments:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
The iraq war might as well be called killfest 2003, 2004, 2005


_________________
I don't know what the future holds, but I know Who holds the future.


thechadmaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,124
Location: On The Road...Somewhere

22 Feb 2005, 10:02 am

Epimonandas wrote:
neotopian wrote:
When Dubya first became president (I wont say "elected" as I am sure we all remember hanging chads!) The rest of the world was sniggering behind their hand thinking


Most americans have been conned by the Neocons in office into believing that Saddam had some connection to the Sptember 11 attacks.
He didn't.


Sad
oh yes! Its was the Japanese justification for the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Wasn't that "a day that will live in infamy" but when the US does the same its ok.

The US always claims to act in the best interests of the world, deciding who to attack who to support and who to ignore.
All the rest of the world wants is for all these interventions to have some kind of consistancy beyond whats good for you lot.

Internation law allows military action only in self defence or under the sanction of a UN security Council Resolution.
The Iraq War was neither.

And it shames me that bLIAR went along with it.


Umm... Hello! How can you compare Iraq to Pearl, we gave Saddam 11 years of prior notice to change his policies. Yes, thats it, Japan actually planned to attack Pearl in 1930 when they were still attacking China, riiiight....hehe. You are right about the election its a good thing the republicans did not allow the Democrats to STEAL the election.

I already explained many of the REAL reasons for attacking Iraq in earlier posts if you bother to read them, which you must not have since you keep using the same argument with no modifications.

We did not decide who to attack, Saddam did that for us. Hello. He lost a war after ATTACKING a neighbor, and FAILED to live up to the PEACE TERMS. Not another Neville Chamberlain is Bush.



REALITY CHECK! No weapons have been found Saddam did as we said and disarmed
SADDAM SHOULD GO FREE!! !

CLINTON RULES BUSH SUCKS


_________________
I don't know what the future holds, but I know Who holds the future.


Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

22 Feb 2005, 11:54 am

So just because he managed to hide most of them in the 8 months before an attack wa actually made and refused to actually comply with the peace (thus rendering the first war pointless and the deaths of our soldiers in that one since we let Saddam get away with violations stipulated against in the treaty). Even if he had no weapons, he violated the treaty by not letting the inspectors inspect and so CONFIRM compliance. This is the behavior of a bully, to tease, fight, annoy, and lie, and you see nothing wrong with that? That is why Neville Chamberlain could not contain Hitler, he let him walk all over any compromises they made. So Hitler, got bolder and stepped on more agreements. Thus he was encouraged. You should not make it easy for a bully, cause then they will never quit and only get worse. Lessons of history must be heeded. No more Hitlers. Even Clinton made an assault or two on Saddam, and Saddam still would not comply, so his tactic of light indirect assaults worked wonders, Not.



car_crash
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 185
Location: lincoln,uk

22 Feb 2005, 5:32 pm

the us didnt try and contain saddam. they helped put him into power and supported him for 30 years.

was the u.s allowing saddam to put down the shia uprising containing or supporting him do you think?

he was good for the stability of the region and the stability of the oil supply as far as they were concerned. human rights and democracy have nothing to do with it except in the sense that the last thing washington wants is democratic control of oil supply. everyone knows that the the chief executive of exxon has not just a privilege but a right to take all of iraqs oil profits.



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

22 Feb 2005, 8:35 pm

car_crash wrote:
was the u.s allowing saddam to put down the shia uprising containing or supporting him do you think?
. everyone knows that the the chief executive of exxon has not just a privilege but a right to take all of iraqs oil profits.


It was an error Bush, Sr. forgot to give peace directives thinking the war would last longer.

That exxon thing is funny. I heard that joke before.



car_crash
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 185
Location: lincoln,uk

23 Feb 2005, 8:43 pm

no error. stormin norman let saddam fly his planes into the no fly zone especially to butcher the uprising.

and the exxon thing isnt a joke its reality



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

23 Feb 2005, 9:53 pm

incorrect, get facts straight



cornince
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 103
Location: Cordova, TN

23 Feb 2005, 10:30 pm

I was under the impression that in late 2002, early 2003, Saddam cooperated with the inspectors. Can you name an incident or a report from the inspectors themselves that said Saddam didn't cooperate at that time?

Epimonandas wrote:
So just because he managed to hide most of them in the 8 months before an attack wa actually made and refused to actually comply with the peace (thus rendering the first war pointless and the deaths of our soldiers in that one since we let Saddam get away with violations stipulated against in the treaty). Even if he had no weapons, he violated the treaty by not letting the inspectors inspect and so CONFIRM compliance. This is the behavior of a bully, to tease, fight, annoy, and lie, and you see nothing wrong with that? That is why Neville Chamberlain could not contain Hitler, he let him walk all over any compromises they made. So Hitler, got bolder and stepped on more agreements. Thus he was encouraged. You should not make it easy for a bully, cause then they will never quit and only get worse. Lessons of history must be heeded. No more Hitlers. Even Clinton made an assault or two on Saddam, and Saddam still would not comply, so his tactic of light indirect assaults worked wonders, Not.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,048
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

24 Feb 2005, 12:02 am

car_crash wrote:
no error. stormin norman let saddam fly his planes into the no fly zone especially to butcher the uprising.

and the exxon thing isnt a joke its reality


Was there a no-fly-zone at that time? I think that was about the time where we'd chased Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, they ran back into Iraq, and then we had to bow to the UN and not go into Iraq because, unlike this war, we built the kind of coalition that eveyone would approve of.

If we were respecting the wishes of the UN, just on a logical hunch, it would have taken a few months before there was even such a thing as the no-fly zones. The 33rd and 36th parallel no-fly zones were a *product* of the war, not something that existed before or during the gulf war.



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

24 Feb 2005, 7:52 pm

How about the months leading upto the war and even a little before that? Not a specific incident, but the delays and uncooperative nature of the Iraqis was what got the ball rolling. He did allow inspectors, but not free access like he was supposed to cornice.

That exxon thing must be a joke or someone is playing one on you car crash.



car_crash
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 185
Location: lincoln,uk

24 Feb 2005, 8:30 pm

"The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

25 Feb 2005, 12:48 am

theres at least two problems with this: one its Bush, Sr., who at the time I did not care for, and two, you're quoting the left one sided Washington Post, which much worse to the left back then.