Should President Bush by impeached?

[habilis]

The USA and the erstwhile USSR were in an arms race, they were burning money like mad, and the USA simply had more money than the USSR, so the uSSR went backrupt, the system blew and we know the rest. That is not a personal achievement of the late Ronald Reagan.

[brief digression]
Maybe not 100% his achievement, but certainly around 85%. Cat, you can't tell me that if a liberal were in power for those 8 years, the USSR would have come to the same end. Reagan made it his mission to defeat them and then spent them out of existance. there's no way a liberal would have spent so vigorously on defense. It was his personal crusade, a war – in his view – of good against evil. Capitalism against communism. Communism crumbled because the system is critically faulted at its philosophical core. He is hugely responsible for it. The wall came down and the darkness lifted.
[/brief digression]

You guys are talking a lot about missing Bin Laden, taking our eye off the real target, changing reasons for being there, etc. But the war on terror encompasses all those that support, harbor, or defend terrorists in any way. I'm sure you all remember when Saddam was shilling out $25,000 American dollars(this value would translate roughly to paying an American $500,000) for anyone brave enough to run a successful suicide bombing mission in Israel.

Saddam was one of the biggest, most brutal terrorists that ever lived.

He had his chance to surrender peacefully. The bribed and coerced UN was Saddams puppet.

The collateral deaths are on his hands and history will prove this.

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I'm sure you all remember when Saddam was shilling out $25,000 American dollars(this value would translate roughly to paying an American $500,000) for anyone brave enough to run a successful suicide bombing mission in Israel.

Hehe... that reminds me of the scene in "Biloxi Blues" where they're all sitting around at night comparing their best "what would you do if you knew you were going to die in a week," and that one guy says, "I'd pork 7 rich women and get them all to give me $1,000,000 each -- that way, at the end of the week, I'd have $7,000,000! I'd be rich!"

To which one replied, "Yeah, but it's your LAST WEEK alive, dumbass, you'd be rich but DEAD!"

 

[fryke]

Dead people can do good with their money. This just as a side note. ;-) [For those who don't get this one: You can die and still leave money to your family or to some other cause. And I guess suicide killers _want_ the money for just that: A good cause in their eyes, for example their family.]

habilis also said: "But the war on terror encompasses all those that support, harbor, or defend terrorists in any way." - Which could make matters _very_ difficult. For example, there are still some terrorists in the USA. They're using loopholes to even _get_ there today. Now with the USA harbouring terrorists... You see out here (outside of the USA) people feel that with G.W. Bush as president, the USA can turn every which way they want under the flag of the war on terror. When journalists asked children in Switzerland last year what they were most afraid of, it was the USA attacking Switzerland. While this might at first seem a fear without reason, I _do_ understand why they answered the question like that...

 

[Cat]

I'm sure you all remember when Saddam was shilling out $25,000 American dollars(this value would translate roughly to paying an American $500,000) for anyone brave enough to run a successful suicide bombing mission in Israel.

I'm sure you all remember when the USA were shilling out millions to Osama bin Laden to run successful terrorist attacks against the USSR in Afghanistan.

I'm sure you all remember that the USA is shilling out billions to Israel to buy state-of-the-art weaponry to conduct (terrorist IMO) attacks against Palestinian refugee camps.

By this reasoning the USA are no better. Saddam and the USA both payed others to do their dirty work. By this reasoning the ~3000 deaths from 9-11 were just "collateral damage". Bin Laden didn't want to hit "the free democratic West", he wanted to hit the American military/economic empire. What does Bush want? To bring war and destruction just like his opponents or to bring peace and democracy? I've seen to much of the former to believe in the latter.

 

[habilis]

I'm sure you all remember when the USA were shilling out millions to Osama bin Laden to run successful terrorist attacks against the USSR in Afghanistan.

Well, c'mon now lets not make it sound like we were shilling out cash for terror attacks against civillian targets. Play nice. We shilled out cash for stinger missiles to blow those infernal Soviet attack helicopters out of the sky. They were our enemy, that was during the Cold War and we didn't want the reds attaining an ME staging zone - they could have possibly ended up controlling 50% of the worlds oil reserves. We evened up the playing field a little. The Soviets were losing those expensive helicopters and a lot of personnel. They were already having cash problems at home so they cut and ran.

...the ~3000 deaths from 9-11 were just "collateral damage". Bin Laden didn't want to hit "the free democratic West", he wanted to hit the American military/economic empire.

Cat, your rhetoric doesn't stand the reality test here; bin Lauden could have destroyed those buildings just the same in the middle of the night when no civillians were around. He could have announced the battle plan 10 minutes in to the mission so the innocents could have gotten out. He could have struck all the same targets on a Sunday when no one would have been in those towers. He would have accomplished the same level of economic devastation. By the way I'm glad to hear a left winger finally admit that there was a huge economic impact left by the devastation of 9/11, thus proving the inextricable link between terrorism and economy - this, and the tech bubble burst that began 6 months before Bush took office is what caused all the job loss and econmic recession of the last 4 years, NOT the Bush administration. Anyway, the point is, bin Lauden knew exactly when to hit us - when the most civillians would be in the towers.

Bin Lauden wanted to kill American People because they hate us for being a religion that is not Muslim. This hatemongering viewpoint is taking grip in the oppressed Muslim world at an alarming rate - that is why Bush removed Saddam and the Taliban - to reduce oppression is to reduce global terrorism - are we connecting the dots yet? To deny this is insane.

It's not entirely your fault; The dominating force of liberal mainstream media has acted as a left-wing brainwashing machine at conspiatorial levels(take the forged Bush memo for example - it was a conspiracy in the most classic sense). This mainstream press and media, swinging for the last 40 years, is coming to an end with the advent of alternative media outlets such as news blogs, internet news services, Fox News, and talk radio - which is primarily reality based(conservative). The word of reality is getting out.

When Bush said "War" on Terror, he damn well meant it, and the last time I checked, war wasn't nice and tidy, wasn't fun, didn't make people feel great, and things don't always go according to plan, but it's the dirty job that someone brave has to do so the world can be better for our children - and that's the real truth that Dan Rather won't tell you.

It's very simple - if you really care about the world, and the future, and lasting world Peace and prosperity, you'll vote for Bush on Nov. 2.

However, some of you, understandingly, want to put your head in the sand and hide from reality. This is the grave danger of the Kerry mindset; the mindset that 9/11 was just a managable nuisance.

So if you want to send a message to the terrorists that as soon as the going gets a little tough, you cut and run and give up, in effect handing terrorism a total vitory and emboldening terrorists to do another 9/11 again and again, you go vote for Kerry. Ask yourself the hard question of what president the terrorists want in office.

The red pill is hard to swallow but you know what's really out there...

 

[fryke]

So you really think you've eaten the truth pill?

 

[Tetano]

bin Lauden could have destroyed those buildings just the same in the middle of the night when no civillians were around. He could have announced the battle plan 10 minutes in to the mission so the innocents could have gotten out. He could have struck all the same targets on a Sunday when no one would have been in those towers.

either Bush could phone home the family (father, mother and their 4 sons) just before bombing their house at falluja to hit al Zarqawi... how many innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Somalia has been killed by U.S. bombs having done no error except being in the wrong place at the wrong time? do you think they're so different from the ~3000 ppl of the Twin Towers?

 

[Cat]

Anyway, the point is, bin Lauden knew exactly when to hit us - when the most civillians would be in the towers.

That is not true. The towers were not completely full, or else the victims would have been rather in the 10.000 range. 90% of all the people below impact came out/ The goal was to hit the american economy and american imperialism. If he wanted to kill as much people as possible he could have caused far more damage by getting the plane between the skyscrapers and on the ground. Imagine an crashlanding on a major shopping district street packed with people: casualties could have gone up in the tens of thousands.

Bin Lauden wanted to kill American People because they hate us for being a religion that is not Muslim. This hatemongering viewpoint is taking grip in the oppressed Muslim world at an alarming rate - that is why Bush removed Saddam and the Taliban - to reduce oppression is to reduce global terrorism - are we connecting the dots yet? To deny this is insane.

I don't think so. Bin Ladens "hatred" surely is connected with religious themes, but it is not a true Jihad. He does not want to invade the USA and either convert or kill the unbelieving masses, he simply wants the US out of the Middle East, specifically out of Arabia where the holy cities of the Islam are. Imagine if Iran had a military base in the Vatican or something like that. You'd probably want them out too. Moreover, he like the rest of the world condemns the american attitude towards Israeli expansionism. This too has very little to do with religion. Israel is illegally occupying territory it has conquered in a war. This is prohibited by the UN and the UN have ordered Israel to retreat within its borders prior to the war. Israel has been defying the UN security council for at least as long as Saddam.
Saddam himself was a secular military dictator. I will explani the word "secular" for those who have never heard of the concept: secular means lay, non-religious, separation of church and state, etc. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but not a fundamentalist Muslim. He opposed Muslim fundamentalism, he fought it as a rival to his power, he declined to do business with Osama, he fought against Iran with the helpp of the USA. By removing Saddam the US vastly improved the possibility of a Iran/Taliban-like government taking power in Iraq. The religious fundamentalists are no longer oppressed by Saddam and now they have become a probem for the US. Moreover the us very tactfully bombed some major religious sites which has everyone up in arms against them (literally) and no wonder. Imagine the Palestinians blowing up the Wall of Tears or Iran bombing the Holy See ("... but we just hit the cupola a little bit! How come they are all angry about that?").

Ask yourself the hard question of what president the terrorists want in office.

The same as do I: not a president who invades countries around the world on false pretexts and for mainly economical reasons.