President Bush

[g4z33b0]

Originally Posted by DARKSAMUS

Ignorance.

We have killed more then the terrorists. Grow up and learn about politics.

We bombed Iraq to hell to find and kill a man that we once funded and gave chemical weapons. Great job America. Bush lied to the entire nation, he's just another one of the racist, fake Christians.

[Tps222]

I don't think people know enough about the current state of affairs to be allowed to vote in the next election. There needs to be some sort of intelligence test added in order to vote. I don't care if the south doesn't get represented because of this, perhaps their teachers should have learned them more.

In all seriousness, I am in full support of the war and not pulling out. I agree with All That Chaz. I wish we would have waited for UN support before going into war. Now we are kind of shone in a bright light, but it is our duty to mediate the violence in the middle east.

Edmund Burke once said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". If one has the power to do good, but does not, that person is promoting violence, even if unintentionally. Standing idly by as the middle-east tears each other apart is a terrible thing, and it's main reason of support is "It doesn't concern us". "Why should our men die for no reason".

This is why certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Ignorance and bigotry is rampant throughout the nation, and I blame it on schools, parents, and education as a whole. The masses are immensely under-educated when it comes to modern affairs. I bet you could ask 9/10 adults what the difference between and a Sunni and Shiite was and they would not know. Hell, half the ****ing people in this nation can't find Iraq on a map. It's ****ing pitiful and people need to shape the **** up if they want democracy. Democracy should be a privilage, not a right. Hell, half the ****ing people don't even go and vote. They don't understand the extremely fortunate situation they are in, where voting can bring about change. They don't watch the news, pay attention to global affairs, and do you know why? "It doesn't concern them". What.The.****. Ignorance is the true demise of civilization. I once read a quote from a former French Premier, and it's true. Paraphrased, "America is the only nation in history to go from barbarism to degregation without the usual civilisation inbetween".

Now, I do not hate America. America is the greatest country in the world, and I wish more countries would adopt a similar constitution to us. I just don't like the general population. There are some who are intelligent and informed, opinionated and tolerant, open-minded. This is a minority, and luckily they run our government. Before anyone else says anything in this thread, do some ****ing research to make sure you don't sound like an uneducated ignorant jackass who doesn't know what the **** he's talking about and is just spewing misinformation and media bull****.

9/11 and Iraq are not connected people. Killing Bin Laden will not solve anything. Stop ****ing saying "We need to go back to Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden, then everything will be better, what are we doing in Iraq"?. No, it won't be better. Killing Bin Laden will do absolutely nothing to Al Qaeda. Anyone who knows what Al Qaeda is (which is few), and how they operate know that Al Qaeda runs in regional cells, and that they have regional leaders. If anything were to happen to Bin Laden, the next man in line would just move up, and we will have accomplished nothing. (Zarqwiwi (sp) was next in line, but we bombed him).

So in conclusion, to answer the thread. President Bush started his presidency out terribly by not waiting for the UN, but has responsed brilliantly since. He has managed ignore the ignorant public and stay on the course of rightneousness. I agree with him, 40 years from now we will be saying how right he was. He is a smart man.

Aside from the war, I do feel he needed to persue environmental solutions.CO2 emisions, alternate energy, nuclear power for general electric use. Saving wildlife and forests. These were all things that needed attention, and still do.

I'll conclude this post with a smarmy quote from Steven Colbert "President Bush: Great, or greatest"?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Tps222

I don't think people know enough about the current state of affairs to be allowed to vote in the next election. There needs to be some sort of intelligence test added in order to vote. I don't care if the south doesn't get represented because of this, perhaps their teachers should have learned them more.

The Ravens APT and The Test Agency (One of the UK's leading publishers and distributors of psychometric tests) ranked each state in the United States in "IQ And The Wealth of Nations" by which presidential candidate they voted for in the 2000 presidential election. 1-16, 18, 21, and 24 by IQ voted for Kerry. Obviously such tests prove nothing, but still...that the study was done and supports the opposite stance to your point amuses me if nothing else.

In all seriousness, I am in full support of the war and not pulling out. I agree with All That Chaz. I wish we would have waited for UN support before going into war. Now we are kind of shone in a bright light, but it is our duty to mediate the violence in the middle east.

It is only your duty to mediate the violence in the middle east to the extent to which you are responsible for its current state of violence (Which, in all honesty, with the support of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel in the American political past, is "quite a lot")

Edmund Burke once said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". If one has the power to do good, but does not, that person is promoting violence, even if unintentionally. Standing idly by as the middle-east tears each other apart is a terrible thing, and it's main reason of support is "It doesn't concern us". "Why should our men die for no reason".

You're saying, however, that the United States has some objective universal knowledge of what "evil" and "good" are in the world. From the standpoint of the thousands of families killed, made homeless and terrorised by US attacks on their country, it is quite the opposite. Even if the existing state of affairs was worse, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

This is why certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Which kinds of certain people? Be specific. You can't make a statement like that without being willing to say some pretty objective things about how and who whould be disallowed.

I bet you could ask 9/10 adults what the difference between and a Sunni and Shiite was and they would not know. Hell, half the ****ing people in this nation can't find Iraq on a map.

A non-trivial number of Americans also coudln't identify a random US state on a map with all the names removed, if it wasn't one of the "obvious" ones like texas, florida, california etc.

Before anyone else says anything in this thread, do some ****ing research to make sure you don't sound like an uneducated ignorant jackass who doesn't know what the **** he's talking about and is just spewing misinformation and media bull****.

No offense, but 36 *s in a post are what makes people sound like an uneducated ignorant jackass. If you tone down the rhetoric and the volatility a little, maybe people will be more inclined to give what you have to say a fair shake.

9/11 and Iraq are not connected people.

Then why was Iraq invaded after an invasion of Afghanistan also failed to yield results? -JUST- the WMD thing? Funny how it wasn't presented that way.

Killing Bin Laden will not solve anything.

There at least, we agree.

Stop ****ing saying "We need to go back to Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden, then everything will be better, what are we doing in Iraq"?. No, it won't be better. Killing Bin Laden will do absolutely nothing to Al Qaeda. Anyone who knows what Al Qaeda is (which is few),

From whence comes your deep intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Al Qaeda?

If anything were to happen to Bin Laden, the next man in line would just move up, and we will have accomplished nothing. (Zarqwiwi (sp) was next in line, but we bombed him).

But by killing Saddam Hussein, once the US leaves, and the country runs its own democratic election, there's no chance of a similar thing happening?

He has managed ignore the ignorant public and stay on the course of rightneousness.

Yeah, nothing says "Perfectly functioning democracy" quite like "He has managed to ignore the public"

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by g4z33b0

We bombed Iraq to hell to find and kill a man that we once funded and gave chemical weapons. Great job America.

Yeah, because Middle Eastern political climates are static.

he's just another one of the racist, fake Christians.

Uh.... what?

EDIT: Oh, for what it's worth, Dick Cheney isn't affiliated with Halliburton in any way.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[bobbycat73]

1) the United Nations will never support us in this war
2) a "war on terror" would be endless, there will always be terrorists
3) we are making life worse in Iraq, creating tension in all of the Middle East
4) the terrorist pilots behind 9/11 were from saudi arabia, but we have too good of relations with them (oil)
5) stephen colbert is satire

[tsugomaru]

You know, when the Iraq war first started, I completely disagreed with it. What if Iraq has WMDs? They wouldn't be able to fire it anyways, if they did, we'd fire ours and if we did that, then the world would fire theirs on us. In short, no one wins, everyone loses, there is no "who loses the least" concept in any of this.

However, as time progressed, as the average uninformed American, I, thought the war was justified because we were getting rid of a ruler that abused his people. Of course, America just doesn't know when to pull out, we already helped them try to reestablish their government, but now, we are controlling it. Iraqis want us out and some even want Suddam back.

~Tsugomaru

[bobbycat73]

Okay, okay, okay. So the main reason we're in Iraq is to make life better for the Iraqis? We're just creating more tension there, and we're making it worse. Plus, does that mean we should invade other countries that are in worse conditions than us? What about Black Hawk Down in Somalia? History repeats itself.

[tsugomaru]

Well, that was probably one of our side goals, but now, I believe we're purely there for the oil. We don't really care what's going on in Iraq anymore as long as we get the oil and keep the business men happy.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

America can't possibly be there for the oil. As of -last year- around this time, so much money had been spent in the military actions there that if they then engaged in full, destructive abuse of the oil system, trying to eke out as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time, they would still need -years and years- to even -start- to recoup the costs of this action.

It might have started with that goal in mind, but they've dumped such a disgusting amount of money into it that they can no longer even pretend that "the oil" is going to make it all better.

[smartdude1212]

The United States wants the oil because they are the largest consumer in the world.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, that area has the largest deposits of oil in the world.

It just so happens that the United States had a verifiable enough reason to attack Iraq, and once they fixed their reason of being there and made sure that Iraq had a stable government in place, the United States should have pulled out.

However, if they have control over Iraq then they have access to all those oil deposits and don't have to pay a lot of money to them.

So, I believe the main reason that the United States is still in Iraq is for the oil.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I just wanted to reply to what tsugomaru said "...we were getting rid of a ruler that abused his people." How in the world does a bad ruler (which might I say wasn't even threatening America directly) need an entire war fought on its behalf? I mean honestly Suddam Hussein was different from Hitler (aside from the fact that Suddam learned a bit from Hitler about torcher). We could have most definatly approached this better, but it didn't happen because we were so consumed with fear in 9/11 that we would do just about anything to stop terrorists. Now its up to a solution that will come out of this mess hopefully.

[tsugomaru]

Nono, Devonin is quite right, he's put things in new light for me. =\

Master_of_the_faster, I still haven't quite figured out why we are in Iraq in the first place. However, I think we can all agree that we screwed things up in Iraq to the point where a ruling Suddam would've been better.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

I'll also point out, just to put another nail in the "It's for the oil" coffin, that the US actually gets most of its oil from Canada, followed by Mexico, followed by Nigeria.

Iraq is down in 7th, after Angola and before Algeria.


And now, on the more socio-political front: The whole "Well Saddam is a bad guy" argument.

1/ Unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam was elected. Even if the election was potentially fraudulent, the Taliban as an organisation was based outside Afghanistan and took over. They were foreigners who took control. Saddam was not a foreigner, and so even if he -was- elected through shady means, the Americans can't cry "Freeing the victims" in the same way they did for Afghanistan.

2/ What rule where obliges all world leaders to be kind, benevolent friendly people, such that anyone who isn't should somehow be -forcibly- removed from office? I don't remember the UN saying "Oh...and you can't be a jackass"

3/ What right does a country have to say to another one "OH...we think your leader is a bad guy, we'll just invade, kill him, replace him with someone we think is a good guy, and you can thank us later"? Even -if- a majority of people in the country are happy for the service, you set a -very- dangerous precedent of "It's okay to depose you because we don't like your style"

I grant you, he was not a good person, he did many very objectionable things, but I know -I- wasn't party to electing Team America, World Police.

I guess that is my main problem with President Bush. For god sakes man, you invaded because the leader was unfriendly to America, and you wanted to replace him with someone who would give the Great Satan a more square deal, and you were pissed off that he repayed your arming and training his country by using those resources against you.

Fair enough...just -say so-

I'm going to disagree with the military action in Iraq regardless, but at least if you stop trying to pretend there is some genuine humane peace-loving reason guiding you, and just admit what you're doing, I can at least respect you while I protest.

[xWnLx Crisco]

What about Fidel Castro?

He was elected in Cuba and America has had many conflicts over there but I don't see people crying about that.

Or North Korea's Kim Jong-il that showed off nuclear weapons to the world but later gave an apology to America.

The point of going into the Middle East was the threat from an uncontrollable area. Unlike Cuba or North Korea with one leader and a huge army, the Terroist groups in the middle east are scattered and hidden in cities. It was known that Saddam had a link with the al-Qaeda and President Bush felt that he wanted to act from that knowledge instead of it coming into America. It was a huge risk that he took and the results from both sides were not what I like to call positive but in my opinion having us (American Military) set up a government and help a democracy build in Iraq instead of having a terroist group invade America or any other country was a damn good decision. I can say now that if a terroist group attacked another country that same country would be joining arms next to the American Troops.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by xWnLx Crisco

What about Fidel Castro?

He was elected in Cuba and America has had many conflicts over there but I don't see people crying about that.

That would be because Fidel Castro never came up in the discussion. Bay of Pigs was a total fiasco, and the US had no business having anything to do with it. It was just one more proxy battle between the US and the USSR during the cold war.

It was known that Saddam had a link with the al-Qaeda and President Bush felt that he wanted to act from that knowledge instead of it coming into America.

Considering that the american government never successfully proved this link to the satisfaction of the UN, I'd appreciate some evidence of said link please?

having us (American Military) set up a government and help a democracy build in Iraq instead of having a terroist group invade America

You know, somehow I think there are more options than just those two. Further, I don't think that overthrowing the Iraqi government is in any way shape or form going to -stop- terrorists from attacking America, unless by 'stop' you mean 'encourage'

[xWnLx Crisco]

Originally Posted by devonin

That would be because Fidel Castro never came up in the discussion. Bay of Pigs was a total fiasco, and the US had no business having anything to do with it. It was just one more proxy battle between the US and the USSR during the cold war.

Its still an issue to this day just like the Middle East has been. Haven't you ever heard of the 1000 year war? I am sure you have so it should be no surprise to you that a country is trying to help stop the madness.

Originally Posted by devonin

Considering that the american government never successfully proved this link to the satisfaction of the UN, I'd appreciate some evidence of said link please?

Kind of how there was no proof of WMDs when they "searched" for them but back in the late 90s there was proof of them? Iraq was told to get rid of the WMDs in early 2001 a second and final warning and late 2002 guess what happened, they let the UN inspectors to go there and found nothing. Oh wow thats shocking, if you can tell me now that there is no way you could hide a WMD in 2 years than you are not intelligent. For proof of the connection between the too it is between Iraqi and Iran governments. It has never been proved to be official evidence but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been or still be true. I know it must sound like a weak arguement but the possibility at this point is enough to be looked under.

Originally Posted by devonin

You know, somehow I think there are more options than just those two. Further, I don't think that overthrowing the Iraqi government is in any way shape or form going to -stop- terrorists from attacking America, unless by 'stop' you mean 'encourage'

Options? What options, that was the plan from the get go when invaded iraq. The riddance of the WMDs and with Iraq and its politically correct government would help keep it that way. There was never a "true" government there to over throw, we went in there to establish one but as you can see its not as easy as it was said on national tv. Heres were being a country that has no threat on a daily basis vs a country that is filled with crime, mass murdering, threats from nuclear weapons get you, we will always have a group that hates america. Always and theres nothing I can do about it. Some of the "missions" from the al-Qaeda is to get rid of non muslim countries and guess what we are the biggest.

[purebloodtexan]

Here's what I saw from the whole Middle-Eastern situation.

Devonin, you are an intelligent being and often point out things that we need to make clear (Not insulting you), so just say something if I am indeed unclear.

9/11: A crapload of fear swept across my body when I got to daycare and our counselor told us that America was under attack. I was supporting the attempt to find Osama, and often made political comics due to my "comic-fetish" from grades 4-7 (They were completely unintelligent, however, but definitely had the message that I wanted Osama gone).

Now, I'm seeing very little progress in our hunt for Bin Laden. On rare occasions, I've heard "He might be....." or "The whitehouse thinks that....." but nothing on actual progress. It also seems to me like we're doing very little to catch the man that, atleast according to the government and media, caused the whole Middle Eastern warzone in the first place.

Iraq War, which I used to (unintelligently) support; I don't mean to sound biased when I say "excuse."

Excuse #1: I basically heard "WMD's, Saddam is threatening."

As far as we know, we attacked before the UN went in to do the inspection. That was a bad move, IMO. Had we known that there were no weapons in there before we attacked, my support for the war might've dithered then and there.

Excuse #2: No WMD's, Saddam is still threatening.

OK, I'm seeing the Iraq troops surrendering, we're getting through the ME, etc. Still no Saddam, deaths are piling up, and the loyal militia that Saddam still has is causing trouble; no more support for this war. I'm disliking Bush now.

Excuse #3: We've killed Saddam, but now must clean up the mess we've made.

Well, the last thing we needed was more fighting, but we've got it now. Insurgeons aren't only attacking us, but are turning on themselves. It's horrible. Deaths in the thousands, we're in the middle of a holy war in which I think we should've stayed out of; seing KIA's on the news are typical news to me now. This had made me think "What if this happened, what if that happened?" A particular question was this: Although Saddam was indeed a ruthless leader, but he kept the fighting sides as separate as he could. I was thinking that if he had a next-in-line, and we kept an eye on him, what you might call a "state of peace" would stay. Problem was, all his next-in-line's are either dead or in hiding. We might've reversed this in what atleast sounds like a simple way: Had we waited for the UN inspection before we dropped the bomb, we could've tried to find a better solution to get a next-in-line to take Saddam's place on the throne. May not sound simple, but it atleast SEEMS like a good idea; feel free to criticize me if it sounds wrong.

So now, we're cleaning up a mess we made, and I can't see us pulling out until we restore peace. I hope it ends well.


Another question I have is the comparisons and contrasts between the situation we were in when we tried to clean up the African genocides and the ME. I've seen Black Hawk Down; I've read about the Somalian Revolution; I've learned about the war in Darfur, and many other horrible things in Africa. I'm in no form or fashion saying that we're being wusses, but I'm rather pissed about our government saying that Africa is too dangerous, due to us suffering heavy losses. However, the ME is probably almost as dangerous as Africa, and we're suffering many more losses right now.

I find our dive into Africa similar to our dive into the ME: We went into an unstable country, we're suffering losses, and we're watching, debating, and making jokes on the sideline.

However, IMO, the African genocide is looking much worse than what's going on in the ME. So I'm asking this: Why aren't we in there? I mean, the people of Iraq were still somewhat stable before we pulled in. There is, however, millions of deaths and counting in Africa. I think we're much better off in Africa than in the ME.

[jewpinthethird]

I stopped paying attention after the whole Mission Accomplished deal. Seriously. Mission Accomplished.

[purebloodtexan]

I'm doing some research on the Islamic faith. I'll go ahead and "highlight" things and state my beliefs on them.

They do not They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Islamic tradition holds that Judaism and Christianity distortedthe messages of these prophets over time either in interpretation, in text, or both.

When comparing religions such as Christianity and Budhism, you can't get much of a connection between them, or see how one proves that the other is supposedly wrong. When you're comparing Islam to Christianity, however, not only are Muslims extremely devout to their religion, but part of their religion is the belief that our faiths are wrong. This might be a good reason why a good portion of the Middle East hates us.

The schism developed in the late 7th century following disagreements over the religious and political leadership of the Muslim Sunni and Shi'a.

Now I see why there are two branches, and it might be part of the reason they're fighting right now.

Originally Posted by Part of what occurs during Judgement Day

Those who Those who distorted or ignored the Qur'an or converted to another religion are engulfed in hellfire

Another way to stay more devout to your faith. Also, I recently heard a report that a woman fell in love with a man of another faith. She didn't seem to change faiths, but she got stoned for it. So I guess this belief fuels the Muslims to believe that those of different faiths (Who atleast try to intervene with their beliefs or people) deserve to die.

[JangBoGo]

President Bush may be the smartest president in the US history... and I am not kidding...