"George Bush our hero!"
- Thread starter kendall
- Start date
Darkshadow
wandering shadow
Personally, I think GW is a bit...out of it...at the moment. He's not acting the same as he used to.
I of course don't know him personally, but I did used to live in Texas...he passed a bunch of dumb laws (IMO), but nothing like this...
I think GW had a nervous breakdown during 9/11 and hasn't really gotten over it, really. Unless he hired a fanatic to write his speeches...
You ask me, these people should be chanting "George Bush is a whacko" instead.
I of course don't know him personally, but I did used to live in Texas...he passed a bunch of dumb laws (IMO), but nothing like this...
I think GW had a nervous breakdown during 9/11 and hasn't really gotten over it, really. Unless he hired a fanatic to write his speeches...
You ask me, these people should be chanting "George Bush is a whacko" instead.
Hahah, I have seem to have heard it all since the war started.
1. Bush was never elected into office.
2. Iraq doesn't want war.
3. The people of Iraq would take Saddam over anything else.
4. America will be wooped.
5. They are in it for the oil.
6. "They war is only killing Iraq people."
7. The Iraq people don't want the U.S there.
First off, these were all coming from people who live in places like the U.S, Europe, Australia. Places were people wouldn't have a idea what the "Iraq" people want from personal experience. I seen posters make the hugest statements as if they alone can speak for all people and Iraq and what they say it's the coldest form of the truth. When in reality they are just saying their opinion and using the words, they.
My opinion on the whole subject. If I was old enough I would have voted for Bush. When I'm old enough this year I will.(only if he stay good as a leader). I support this war to not only free a nation but to remove a world threat. I understand people died in this war and my heart is heavy for the innocent losses but I am also excited for the people in Iraq who think it's the greatest thing in the world to be free. I don't think Bush was just placed into office just because. I think he is there because he won.
If nothing had happened it would have been a ticking time bomb. Wether it be a civil war in Iraq it's self or weapons of mass destruction. The point, people say the U.S is wrong for doing anything, and they still be wrong for not doing anything depending on the future.
1. Bush was never elected into office.
2. Iraq doesn't want war.
3. The people of Iraq would take Saddam over anything else.
4. America will be wooped.
5. They are in it for the oil.
6. "They war is only killing Iraq people."
7. The Iraq people don't want the U.S there.
First off, these were all coming from people who live in places like the U.S, Europe, Australia. Places were people wouldn't have a idea what the "Iraq" people want from personal experience. I seen posters make the hugest statements as if they alone can speak for all people and Iraq and what they say it's the coldest form of the truth. When in reality they are just saying their opinion and using the words, they.
My opinion on the whole subject. If I was old enough I would have voted for Bush. When I'm old enough this year I will.(only if he stay good as a leader). I support this war to not only free a nation but to remove a world threat. I understand people died in this war and my heart is heavy for the innocent losses but I am also excited for the people in Iraq who think it's the greatest thing in the world to be free. I don't think Bush was just placed into office just because. I think he is there because he won.
If nothing had happened it would have been a ticking time bomb. Wether it be a civil war in Iraq it's self or weapons of mass destruction. The point, people say the U.S is wrong for doing anything, and they still be wrong for not doing anything depending on the future.
The first mistake was to ignore that actually something was being done.
The second mistake was to ignore the outcry of THE WORLD when Bush said they would go to war.
The third mistake was going to war.
The fourth mistake was going to war badly prepared/misinformed.
The fifth? I don't know. But you can find similar stories in history-books. Maybe you'll find something good about how the Germans thought A. Hitler was good for them and how they were led into a disaster. Not only for them, but for the world. And then try to look at 'your' country (the USA) from the outside. Objectiveness seems to be a rare thing in America right now. Maybe Bush can find a small country that has some, name it evil and then surprise the hell out of the country with some bombs and try to get some of that rare good back.
The second mistake was to ignore the outcry of THE WORLD when Bush said they would go to war.
The third mistake was going to war.
The fourth mistake was going to war badly prepared/misinformed.
The fifth? I don't know. But you can find similar stories in history-books. Maybe you'll find something good about how the Germans thought A. Hitler was good for them and how they were led into a disaster. Not only for them, but for the world. And then try to look at 'your' country (the USA) from the outside. Objectiveness seems to be a rare thing in America right now. Maybe Bush can find a small country that has some, name it evil and then surprise the hell out of the country with some bombs and try to get some of that rare good back.
dlloyd
Official Pianist
Originally posted by MDLarson
Yes we did.
No. No we didn't.
I could give you a lecture on the Electoral Collage, how it works, why it was put in place, why it no longer makes sense, and why we should get rid of it.
This position that we are in regarding the year 2000 elections has only happened once before, and caused a similar controversy.
The sad fact is that the majority (I remember seeing figures to the effect of about 52%) of the American people do not bother to vote for our country's future. They make a big fuss about 'freeing' other countries, but then don't bother to take advantage of this freedom in their own nation. Of course, I can't really talk because I am not of legal voting age yet.
Oh, and nice post fryke!
So do you think then in this case of U.S vs Iraq the U.S would play the bad guy? In your opinion is it more the fact the U.S steep in Iraq that makes the war wrong? Do anyone here think Iraq would have gone away if no one acted? Or is that not even our business? These aren't to be placed as attacks or anything I'm just wanting some opinion sharing.
I know what your saying and I try to look at it form several ends. I also know that opinions are often molded by the media so I haft to be careful about it. Though there could be loads of ways to handle this thing it came down to this point in history were that action was war. No id Bush was trying to take over Iraq to own I would worry I pro-test against this.
I know what your saying and I try to look at it form several ends. I also know that opinions are often molded by the media so I haft to be careful about it. Though there could be loads of ways to handle this thing it came down to this point in history were that action was war. No id Bush was trying to take over Iraq to own I would worry I pro-test against this.
MDLarson
Registered
Looks like you stretched two "mistakes" into 4. And dude, forgive me, but comparing GWBush to Hitler is a stupid comparison. Hitler commited genocide. Bush is liberating from genocide. Hitler was bent on expansion and conquer. Bush has will help setup a government the people want and get out.
And we did not "surprise the hell" out of Iraq's dictatorship; they were given chance after chance after chance...
Open your ears and listen! A great thing has happened! The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for their liberation -- now it is up to us to let them decide their own fate and get out of there.
MDLarson
Registered
Yes, TECHNICALLY, BUSH WON!!! You may say "Bush should not have won," or "Gore won the popular vote," but the fact still stands. Bush won Florida, which held the necessary electoral votes. The electoral college was in place, and therefore Bush technically won. Recount after recount, Bush won. Bush won the presidential race of 2000. He won. He won!!! Gore lost and Bush won.
Don't imply that I don't care about my country. I voted. I voted for Bush and he won, fair and square.
I just want to share something. I have a close friend who lives in Venezuela. Now anytime we talk about the war he tells me how he hopes the next country the U.S fights is Venezuela. Now he knows the danger of war and knows he, his family or freinds could be easily killed but he tells me how some many of them die each time they protest against their president. How things like having the power to you whole home cut off for a whole week is the only way you can try to be heard without being gunned down. It's this type of things, though his own opinion that touch me. I wish if I had the power I could go and get his family to live here and they want to try in the future if and in his quote "are not dead before then." I mean what can I say to him? We can't? It's not justified for us to do anything? It may not be our place but what's going to be done?
To the last question: Yes, I think this is the UN's business and not the United States' business. This should also answer my stance on the other ones. It also explains why I don't even care for the reasoning behind this US-made war. The UN made quite clear that the war was not (yet) an option.
Well, the biggest problem, as mentioned above, I have with Bush and the US government, is that they play a big part in the UN and claim it's a good thing to have it whenever they can make use of it. However: This time they've shown that it basically doesn't count. And one country deciding over peace and war in the world is playing God. The American president even uses language like this was a holy war. There's a word in the Islam for this: Jihad. And it's a thing you hate. (You = Generalising term for the generalising term USA.)
Ugg
Registered
Bush won via the electoral college, not via the popular vote but only through intervention of the Supreme Court. I agree with dlloyd that the electoral college needs to go and that we the people should get rid of it.
Hitler came to power not because he committed genocide against the jews but because, Hitler, an Austrian, told the Germans that he could lead them out of the mess created by the Treaty of Versailles. He told the Germans that he was going to free them from the tyranny of the Brits, French and Americans. He did a remarkable job in building up the German economy and instilling in Germans pride for their country. Then he began to ruthlessly eliminate those who opposed him. He did this much like Saddam, Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Castro, Kim Jung and countless other ruthless dicators.
History speaks loud and clear that he who begins to ruthlessly eliminate those who disagree with him is well on his way to creating a dictatorship. GW's shameless and brutal behaviour in the UN only proves that he is out to destroy anyone who disagrees with him.
For Americans, the Patriot Act could be considered the first step in this direction.
It is all good and well for all of us to speculate on the outcome of this war, but at what point will GW have gone too far? Has anyone begun to think about that? If history is correct, we won't know until it is too late.
Everyone talks about how GW is bringing democracy to Iraq as though it something that can be bought at the local 7-11 and handed out to the people with instructions. Since WWII America has NEVER succeded in bringing democracy to a country run by a former dictator. NEVER!!! We like to think we have but the only thing we have ever succeded in is replacing one dictator with another. If GW succeeds in truly democratizing a Muslim nation consisting of 3 different ethnic groups who hate each other's guts, then I will be the first to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. I say that with all honesty and sincerity.
History is the only thing that will tell us that. I wish him luck.
MDLarson
Registered
You know, for all the claims that Bush is an idiot and doesn't know anything, I'm amazed at how much credit some give him in the area of cunning and deceit and the desire to rule the world... For a U.S. president to actually become a dictator would be very hard to do, especially for an idiot like Bush, right? Bah...
it's a simple concept, and one that people in the u.s. have clung to from the very beginning.
the u.s. relies on the rule of law domestically, there are many cases where courts have thrown out cases against absolute criminals because the evidence wasn't gathered in a laweful manner, or the law enforcement didn't proceed accordingly.
in order for the united states to succeed in democratizing the world, the rule of law must be a cornerstone of such an endevor. agreed? principles must be laid out that have to be abided by.
war in iraq can be justified by the fact that iraq is now rid of a government that did some very bad things to the people there. war in iraq can also be unjustified by the fact that the u.s. and britain attacked and invaded a country without provocation, which violates international law. regardless of your stance on this war, if you want to argue a side, you will have to extend that stance to the future of foreign policy.
if you think democratization of nations is a good way to rid the world of evil, then be willing to invade every country on the planet that is not a democracy. let me say that again. EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET! it's not fair to pick certain countries and invade them just cause they pose an usubstantiated threat. (wmd are not a unique threat, if this was true, the u.n. should invade the united states unless they disarm) if you think disarming countries is a good idea, then you must disarm everyone. EVERYONE! again, just so we are all clear.
the united states is not in the business of freeing oppressed people. the united states is not in the business of ridding the world of the threat of wmds. the united states is not in the business of securing peace across the world.
if the united states really wanted these things, they would see them through. but ultimately, our policy is generated from a function of who is the leader at a given time, how our economy is based, and a million other factors, but it is not moral or altruistic or ethical. it is certainly not consistant.
i think that the united states has done great things. i think that most people in iraq are truly greatful that the old iraqi government will be gone. i hope that iraq will be better off (i think they will be).
i hope the united states remains true to the ideals of democracy.
the u.s. relies on the rule of law domestically, there are many cases where courts have thrown out cases against absolute criminals because the evidence wasn't gathered in a laweful manner, or the law enforcement didn't proceed accordingly.
in order for the united states to succeed in democratizing the world, the rule of law must be a cornerstone of such an endevor. agreed? principles must be laid out that have to be abided by.
war in iraq can be justified by the fact that iraq is now rid of a government that did some very bad things to the people there. war in iraq can also be unjustified by the fact that the u.s. and britain attacked and invaded a country without provocation, which violates international law. regardless of your stance on this war, if you want to argue a side, you will have to extend that stance to the future of foreign policy.
if you think democratization of nations is a good way to rid the world of evil, then be willing to invade every country on the planet that is not a democracy. let me say that again. EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET! it's not fair to pick certain countries and invade them just cause they pose an usubstantiated threat. (wmd are not a unique threat, if this was true, the u.n. should invade the united states unless they disarm) if you think disarming countries is a good idea, then you must disarm everyone. EVERYONE! again, just so we are all clear.
the united states is not in the business of freeing oppressed people. the united states is not in the business of ridding the world of the threat of wmds. the united states is not in the business of securing peace across the world.
if the united states really wanted these things, they would see them through. but ultimately, our policy is generated from a function of who is the leader at a given time, how our economy is based, and a million other factors, but it is not moral or altruistic or ethical. it is certainly not consistant.
i think that the united states has done great things. i think that most people in iraq are truly greatful that the old iraqi government will be gone. i hope that iraq will be better off (i think they will be).
i hope the united states remains true to the ideals of democracy.
toast
Gone !
1. Well, he's President now, so you should assume, by retroactive constitutional principles, that he was elected.
Anyway, who cares about 300 Florida votes in a country where abstention has reached such pathetic limits ? In a country where homeless people are so numerous ?
2. Complete your statement: Iraq doesn't want war with the US. Nobody wants.
3. American propaganda. 'Those people love dictatorship, for sure !' type of affirmation.
4. ?
5. Who wouldn't have been ?
6. I agree.
7. I agree. Recent Bagdad anarchy and looting + Saddam nostalgia already rising meansare bad omens for the US diplomacy.
Okay. I've been all over the web. It seems I have missed something important: Where is Saddam? Is he caught/dead/vanished?
I have found zillions of pages about a) "Should the UN now decide measures against the US/UK?", b) "Who is going to rebuild Iraq?" and c) "Bagdad taken..." - but I haven't found one line about Saddam.
I have found zillions of pages about a) "Should the UN now decide measures against the US/UK?", b) "Who is going to rebuild Iraq?" and c) "Bagdad taken..." - but I haven't found one line about Saddam.
dlloyd
Official Pianist
Oooooops! I meant theoretically, not technically. Wrong word
I didn't mean to imply that you did not vote, I was just mentioning the appalling level of abstention in our country.
Fryke: Outside of the Iraqi 'government' and maybe the US high command, I don't think anyone knows.
The US dropped two big 4,000+ pound bombs on a rather lavish neighborhood where Saddam and his sons were supposed to be attending a meeting sometime this week though. There is some speculation that he might have been killed, but also whether he would have permitted both of his 'powerful' sons to gather in the same place as he did.
Anyhow, it doesn't really matter anymore, does it? As long as he hasn't escaped or anything.
