View Full Version : Why Bush?
How could anyone vote for him?
Clue:
The God Factor
Yeah, forgott that God wants Bush to be president... :wink:
Can someone who voted for him please explain why?
I voted for Bush and I am not a God person it seems unreasonable to me that there is a being in space talking to people. I have BS. I am for Abortion and if I want to get hitched to my dog I should be able to who cares what I do as long as I do not hurt anyone. I agree with a way of thinking small Government, low taxes, I like to keep all my rights speech, guns, and killing embryos (sp?). I like the fact that the Bush administration has let the privet sector research and work with stem-cells as well as fund some of this. I guess I am more of a libertarian and the Republican Party is the closest I can get. I base my vote on a number of issues but mainly I vote on basic ideals of a party. Also I am ok with the invasion of Iraq.
russ_watters
Nov8-04, 10:25 AM
ptex, that's not far from my position, though I am a "liberal republican." -- its a lot more complicated than just the "God" factor.
Frankly, it seems to me that there is a lot of rationalization going on (the Philly Inquirer this weekend had a lot [wrong] to say). Most democrats, the party, and the media still haven't a clue (or just plain won't accept) why Kerry lost.
Somehow it's assumed that moral issues must equal faith and God...unless of course you're argueing with an atheist or agnostic that you must believe in god to have morals and then, it's absurd to think that morals are limited to the faithful....*shakes head* I'm just so confused...
Also I am ok with the invasion of Iraq.
This is the part that's not clear to me. If a guy in your neighborhood attacked me, should I kill your dog and use the BBQ in your backyard?
This is the part that's not clear to me. If a guy in your neighborhood attacked me, should I kill your dog and use the BBQ in your backyard?
If your son broke into my neighbor and friends home and raped his wife and daughters, beat or murdered his sons and generally pillaged his house....and I caught him red handed...brought him back to you and told you to keep him locked in the house and get him counseling or I'd beat the **** out of you and you let him out and didn't get him counseling should I beat the **** out of you. I think so...and with a smile on my face. :rolleyes:
I like to keep all my rights speech
Then you voted for the wrong guy.
http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3Far_id%5E3D18712.htm
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/free_speech_denied_protest_pens.html
And talk to Moonbear about the stem-cell issue.
You blew it.
russ_watters
Nov8-04, 12:22 PM
Somehow it's assumed that moral issues must equal faith and God...unless of course you're argueing with an atheist or agnostic that you must believe in god to have morals and then, it's absurd to think that morals are limited to the faithful....*shakes head* I'm just so confused... To illustrate that: I'm a Presbyterian, but I'm not strongly religious (or, rather, my beliefs don't fit well with what any church preaches). But moral leadership/courage is extremely important to me.
It may well be that Bush attacked Iraq simply because he's a gun-toting Texan, but it was still the morally right thing to do (whether that makes it the best thing for the country is another issue...).
I voted for Bush and I am not a God person it seems unreasonable to me that there is a being in space talking to people. I have BS. I am for Abortion and if I want to get hitched to my dog I should be able to who cares what I do as long as I do not hurt anyone. I agree with a way of thinking small Government, low taxes, I like to keep all my rights speech, guns, and killing embryos (sp?). I like the fact that the Bush administration has let the privet sector research and work with stem-cells as well as fund some of this. I guess I am more of a libertarian and the Republican Party is the closest I can get. I base my vote on a number of issues but mainly I vote on basic ideals of a party. Also I am ok with the invasion of Iraq.
I suspect you voted for the wrong guy:
-Bush is against gay marriage
-Bush is against abortion
-Bush is against stem-cell research
If your son broke into my neighbor and friends home and raped his wife and daughters, beat or murdered his sons and generally pillaged his house....and I caught him red handed...brought him back to you and told you to keep him locked in the house and get him counseling or I'd beat the **** out of you and you let him out and didn't get him counseling should I beat the **** out of you. I think so...and with a smile on my face. :rolleyes:
Well, this case is a bit more complicated ... The son seems to deserve the beating more than the dad, though, but he does have a responsibility. But it is the specific case I posted that I am asking about : 3 men, a dog and a BBQ.
My point is that I don't see the rationnal for invading Iraq, there is no evidence for Saddam and Bin Laden beings friends, any more than some Sunny groups and Shiite groups are.
Well, this case is a bit more complicated ... The son seems to deserve the beating more than the dad, though, but he does have a responsibility. But it is the specific case I posted that I am asking about : 3 men, a dog and a BBQ.
My point is that I don't see the rationnal for invading Iraq, there is no evidence for Saddam and Bin Laden beings friends, any more than some Sunny groups and Shiite groups are.
Well..you see that's what happens when you choose one vague reason in place of the single most legitimate reason, failure to meet his own agreed upon standards for a cease fire...for 10 years.
Well, that may just be the best justification. The UN was apparently working on this, though. Was it doing a good job? I would hope that it did. The US does have its word through it, after all.
Lyuokdea
Nov8-04, 03:36 PM
I voted for Bush and I am not a God person it seems unreasonable to me that there is a being in space talking to people. I have BS. I am for Abortion and if I want to get hitched to my dog I should be able to who cares what I do as long as I do not hurt anyone. I agree with a way of thinking small Government, low taxes, I like to keep all my rights speech, guns, and killing embryos (sp?). I like the fact that the Bush administration has let the privet sector research and work with stem-cells as well as fund some of this. I guess I am more of a libertarian and the Republican Party is the closest I can get. I base my vote on a number of issues but mainly I vote on basic ideals of a party. Also I am ok with the invasion of Iraq.
Ptex, please read my response to this similar ideology in Why I Voted For Bush, http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51438&page=1, I'll post it here just for simplicity, but I hope it helps you find that the republican party is not a party deserving of your vote.
I agree with your policy views, but think you should strongly consider voting for the libertarian party in 2008.
First, the libertarian party doesn't get votes because they can't win, they can't win because nobody thinks they can win, according to my best guess, if everybody voted for the ideology closest to theirs, with no regards to who has the best chance of winning, at least 15% of the country would vote libertarian, while perhaps this is not enough to win an election, it is enough to give the party substantial sway in the goings on of the government as a whole, as Republicans and democrats play the insane election game and try to swing towards Libertarian views in order to pick up votes from what would become a large 3rd party voting block. Furthermore, at least voting for what you believe in, you can have a free conscience that is not bothered by having had voted for the lesser of two evils.
Secondly, I'm sorry to say, but the republican party no longer stands for the ideals you represent. The party has been captured by social conservatives such as Rove, Falwell, and Bush. Think of the major policy measures which the republican party is pushing, very few of them are economic, and besides the tax cuts, which I'll get to in a moment, the few economic issues that were passed, Medicare and the largest federal budget deficit in history, do not reflect your views either. The major republican measures being pushed are instead, gay marriage bans, restrictions on abortion, invasions of non-hostile nations, tougher restrictions on drug policy, further measures to enforce the patriot act, etc. None of which support the libertarian framework either.
The tax cuts passed by the president are another sham of true libertarian policy. It is not that I don't believe that the rich should pay taxes equal to the poor (in terms of percentage), it's the fact that I do and they don't. Currently, republican tax code usually results in the rich paying a tax percentage less than the poorest of the poor, (Teresa Kerry, for instance, only payed 8% of her income to taxes last year) Tax code has become a monster only those with enough money to higher multiple tax lawyers can overcome. However those who have lawyers do not have to pay a dollar in taxes if they don't want. 25000 pages of tax code exist, and most of those are dedicated to write-offs. Envision 25000 pages of tax code, the whole system is that insane. As a staunch believer in flat taxes, the entire code could easily be cut down to 20 or so. (I believe until the first income tax was proposed, in the late 19th century/ early 20th century, tax code hovered under 10 pages total.) In effect Republicans no longer believe in capitalism, it is too threatening to the establishment. In true capitalism the poor can become rich quickly, and the rich can become poor quickly. Thus the republicans have devised the perfect system for keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, designing a tax code with huge percentage taxes for anybody becomming rich, thus preventing anybody from obtaining that level, but also allowing so many writeoffs that those who already have attained the highest levels can stay by using capital to prevent them from paying taxes.
Sadly, the republican party no longer fits either your social or economic beliefs, the democratic party may currently be worse economically now, but the republicans are never far behind in chasing them toward socialist party, just with a pro-rich twist. The libertarian party is now the only standing bastion of freedom, economic or social.
~Lyuokdea
Political Prodigy
Nov8-04, 05:21 PM
ptex, that's not far from my position, though I am a "liberal republican." -- its a lot more complicated than just the "God" factor.
Frankly, it seems to me that there is a lot of rationalization going on (the Philly Inquirer this weekend had a lot [wrong] to say). Most democrats, the party, and the media still haven't a clue (or just plain won't accept) why Kerry lost.
One of the problems in the U.S today is that many people think there is no such thing as a liberal republican or conservative democrat. Everyone automatically assumes a republican is conservative and a democrat a liberal. That's why I am a registered independent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptex
I like to keep all my rights speech
Then you voted for the wrong guy.
http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E...d%5E3D18712.htm
MEDFORD – President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.
I have not checked out the second link yet but as to the first link, it was not president bush that personally did this. It was the moron that was in charge of security personnel. You can hardly blame him (Bush) for their mistake, it was not as if it was directed from him, what he believes in or anyone else invovled in his campaign, it was just his security or "event staff."
Political Prodigy
Nov8-04, 05:25 PM
I voted for Bush and I am not a God person it seems unreasonable to me that there is a being in space talking to people. I have BS. I am for Abortion and if I want to get hitched to my dog I should be able to who cares what I do as long as I do not hurt anyone. I agree with a way of thinking small Government, low taxes, I like to keep all my rights speech, guns, and killing embryos (sp?). I like the fact that the Bush administration has let the privet sector research and work with stem-cells as well as fund some of this. I guess I am more of a libertarian and the Republican Party is the closest I can get. I base my vote on a number of issues but mainly I vote on basic ideals of a party. Also I am ok with the invasion of Iraq.
Ptex I believe Pit is right and I think you are confused about two or three things.
Here is what I feel:
It's okay to make a mistake, as long as you learn from it.
It's stupidity to make the same mistake again if you knew you where wrong the first time.
It's frightening to not even notice the first mistake.
USA is part of the world.
USA affects the world (more than most americans are aware of).
The rest of the world affects USA (more than most americans are aware of).
USA is the only superpower left, and therefore the american people has a huge responsibility.
If you just care about americans I can, if I really try hard, perhaps get an understanding for (but not acceptance) how you could vote for Bush if you just think short-termed.
If you say you care about the human race in general and voted Bush, you must be either fanatic religious, restricted, or telling a lie.
Bush invaded the wrong country for the wrong reasons, and still gets the americans to think he did the correct thing, you gotta give him credit for that! I know another man who managed to fool a hole nation. He had a small mustasche and spasmes in his right arm...but this was long ago, and it's not even fair to compare Bush with him...it's nothing that could happen again...
That the rest of the world prefered Kerry could not have been missed by any american, however restricted. Perhaps this was one of the main reasons for Bush's victory. As usual the patriotic (sorry for swearing) american nation goes the other way...just because...like a child...as it has done so many times. (For example, how come USA hasn't signed the Kyoto protocol? Oh yeah, egoistic (short-termed) reasons it was...)
You now had a chance to say to the world: Ok, we did a misstake, anyone can, but we have currage to stand for it and make a change for the better!...But you didn't...
I feel failed by the american people. I really thought you would for once think before you act, but oh what I was wrong (which in fact makes me stupid due to the first part of this text).
I do not know if you are just egoistic (in a very destructive short-termed-thinking way) or if you are just as restricted as the rumours goes. And in fact I do not know which one of them I feel more frightening...
Just don't get me wrong now. I like USA in many ways, although I really think you are on the wrong track now.
I think it's best to be totally honest about what I think and how I feel. Maybe someone can get me on other thoughts?
russ_watters
Nov8-04, 06:13 PM
One of the problems in the U.S today is that many people think there is no such thing as a liberal republican or conservative democrat. Everyone automatically assumes a republican is conservative and a democrat a liberal. Very, very true - particularly in the parties themselves.
The US does have its word through it, after all.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?
I mean that the US is a member, and the inspection team that was looking for WMD probably (hopefully!) had US representatives. I think it should have been possible for the US to improve the UN inspection, and to help the UN enforce its own rules for Iraq.
Well, who really cares about non-americans...? :wink:
Political Prodigy
Nov13-04, 09:47 AM
Here is what I feel:
It's okay to make a mistake, as long as you learn from it.
It's stupidity to make the same mistake again if you knew you where wrong the first time.
It's frightening to not even notice the first mistake.
USA is part of the world.
USA affects the world (more than most americans are aware of).
The rest of the world affects USA (more than most americans are aware of).
USA is the only superpower left, and therefore the american people has a huge responsibility.
If you just care about americans I can, if I really try hard, perhaps get an understanding for (but not acceptance) how you could vote for Bush if you just think short-termed.
If you say you care about the human race in general and voted Bush, you must be either fanatic religious, restricted, or telling a lie.
Bush invaded the wrong country for the wrong reasons, and still gets the americans to think he did the correct thing, you gotta give him credit for that! I know another man who managed to fool a hole nation. He had a small mustasche and spasmes in his right arm...but this was long ago, and it's not even fair to compare Bush with him...it's nothing that could happen again...
That the rest of the world prefered Kerry could not have been missed by any american, however restricted. Perhaps this was one of the main reasons for Bush's victory. As usual the patriotic (sorry for swearing) american nation goes the other way...just because...like a child...as it has done so many times. (For example, how come USA hasn't signed the Kyoto protocol? Oh yeah, egoistic (short-termed) reasons it was...)
You now had a chance to say to the world: Ok, we did a misstake, anyone can, but we have currage to stand for it and make a change for the better!...But you didn't...
I feel failed by the american people. I really thought you would for once think before you act, but oh what I was wrong (which in fact makes me stupid due to the first part of this text).
I do not know if you are just egoistic (in a very destructive short-termed-thinking way) or if you are just as restricted as the rumours goes. And in fact I do not know which one of them I feel more frightening...
Just don't get me wrong now. I like USA in many ways, although I really think you are on the wrong track now.
I think it's best to be totally honest about what I think and how I feel. Maybe someone can get me on other thoughts?
I think that the U.S.A knows fully well how much of an impact we have on the rest of the world. But we have to consider our own safety and well being. Sure the rest of the world wanted Kerry in office. Including the terrorist groups still running around out in the middle east. What does that say?
revelator
Nov13-04, 10:09 AM
I think that the U.S.A knows fully well how much of an impact we have on the rest of the world. But we have to consider our own safety and well being. Sure the rest of the world wanted Kerry in office. Including the terrorist groups still running around out in the middle east. What does that say?
What terrorist groups have endorsed Kerry? I was not aware of this.
On another note, if the terrorists had endorsed Bush would that have made Americans less likely to vote for him? I didn't know the opinions of terrorists held so much sway over the American voter. It's too bad the opinions of your allies don't have that much influence.
russ_watters
Nov13-04, 11:33 AM
What terrorist groups have endorsed Kerry? I was not aware of this. You know it isn't like that. The feeling is that the terrorists are more afraid of Bush than Kerry. That's a big part of the reason Bush won. On another note, if the terrorists had endorsed Bush would that have made Americans less likely to vote for him? I didn't know the opinions of terrorists held so much sway over the American voter. It's too bad the opinions of your allies don't have that much influence. See above. Americans do very much care about the opinions of terrorists on that matter. And as "The Guardian"'s Ohio letter writing campaign debacle shows, we care in exactly the same way about the opinions of other countries: we'll do the opposite of what you want because we don't like being told what to do.
To illustrate that: I'm a Presbyterian, but I'm not strongly religious (or, rather, my beliefs don't fit well with what any church preaches). But moral leadership/courage is extremely important to me.
It may well be that Bush attacked Iraq simply because he's a gun-toting Texan, but it was still the morally right thing to do (whether that makes it the best thing for the country is another issue...).
Moral leadership(are you talking about Bush and his administration?), :rofl:
Morally right thing to do( Hello? anybody home? we talking about war and mass killing here Pal! )
PS. you start to sound more Rumsfeldian with each day passing by.
Americans do very much care about the opinions of terrorists on that matter.
Speak for yourself, russ. This American didn't give a rats a$$ about their opinions. I voted for Kerry because I thought he was intelligent and diplomatic enough to get us out of Bush's (Crusade) mess. (I didn't think he was the Democrats best choice, but he was the one that was chosen.) The opinions of our allies matter much more to me than the opinions (and governmental decisions :biggrin:) of thugs.
we'll do the opposite of what you want because we don't like being told what to do.
**Now there's good, sound, deductive reasoning** :rolleyes:
Am I the only one who got a kick out of hearing "Americans do very much care about the opinions of terrorists on that matter"?
Does anyone else get that one?
didn't Iran say they wanted bush?
I suspect you voted for the wrong guy:
-Bush is against gay marriage
-Bush is against abortion
-Bush is against stem-cell research
But those are non issues as far as I am concerned
-Bush as far as I know said gay people getting married should be left up to the individual states.
-Abortion is legal I think
-He has provided some funding for stem-sell research although this subject is complex and I should not really talk on this with out knowing more.
Basically what I am trying to say or respond to is God or the Easter Bunny has nothing to do with how I voted. Issues come and go like the ones above.
:biggrin:
And I am not some old person or the CEO of some big Co. I am in my late 20's with a wife a child, and a job in IT.
Political Prodigy
Nov13-04, 02:53 PM
You know it isn't like that. The feeling is that the terrorists are more afraid of Bush than Kerry. That's a big part of the reason Bush won.
Thank you for clearing that up Russ, you are completely right. Terrorists did not want Bush to win the election because they know he is more likely to end their reign.
Speak for yourself, russ. This American didn't give a rats a$$ about their opinions. I voted for Kerry because I thought he was intelligent and diplomatic enough to get us out of Bush's (Crusade) mess. (I didn't think he was the Democrats best choice, but he was the one that was chosen.) The opinions of our allies matter much more to me than the opinions (and governmental decisions ) of thugs.
Intelligent and displomatic enough to get us out of Bush's "mess?" Only problem there is that terrorists are NOT diplomatic. They could care less about diplomacy. And they do not negotiate, unless of course they have a hostage. Then we are expected to negotiate with them and give them whatever they want. It was not Bush's mess, they brought it on themselves at 8:45 A.M on September 11th, 2001.
I think that the U.S.A knows fully well how much of an impact we have on the rest of the world.
Maybe US knows they have a big impact, but I don't think most americans realise in which way their actions affect the rest of the world.
But one thing is clear. Most americans do not realise how much the world affects them.
But we have to consider our own safety and well being.
This is something I have hard to accept. Why do you think the safety of americans are more important than, say , safety of french or israelians?
What makes you think it's more important for american people to have a good life than others? Just because Jack Jackson was born in Dallas, does that make him more important than Anders Andersson in Stockholm? We are all humans just happening to be born on different sides of some lines drawn on a paper.
Why not consider the safety of all humans instead of just americans?
And anyway, if it's safety for just americans you are aiming for, I still think it was a huge mistake voting for Bush!
Sure the rest of the world wanted Kerry in office. Including the terrorist groups still running around out in the middle east. What does that say?
I'm not so sure the terrorist groups prefered Kerry. Bush is often considered as satan himself in their home areas, which gives them sort of "validity" to act.
However, I'm sure they wouldn't stop terrorising just because Kerry had been elected. But with Kerry we (and by "we" I mean all of us on the planet) would have been more efficient in fighting terrorism.
I DO!!! :wink: :biggrin:
Thanks! :smile:
The feeling is that the terrorists are more afraid of Bush than Kerry. That's a big part of the reason Bush won.
Yes, I agree.
However that feeling is completely false.
we'll do the opposite of what you want because we don't like being told what to do.
Indeed, and this is really frightening. A child playing with nukes.
Terrorists did not want Bush to win the election because they know he is more likely to end their reign.
Allow me to smile. (Or should I cry?)
I agree with Russ that this is one of the reasons Bush won the election. He managed to convince (half of) the american people that the terrorists were afraid of him. However this is a rediculus thought. Do you really think terrorists are "afraid" of Bush?
The problem with Bush is the way he seems to look at terrorism:
"Just kill all "terrorists" and the problem is solved... Either you're with us or agains us...Axis of evil... It's all black or white."
The truth is: All is gray.
Intelligent and displomatic enough to get us out of Bush's "mess?" Only problem there is that terrorists are NOT diplomatic.
The problem is that Bush's actions make the hate against USA grow!
Of course you can not use diplomacy to get rid of the extremes. However doing what US is doing in Iraq, without having international support, will just increase terrorism.
You guys invaded the wrong country! Haven't you realized that yet?
There were no weapons of mass destruction. (And you called Hans Blix a fool...)
It was not Bush's mess, they brought it on themselves at 8:45 A.M on September 11th, 2001.
Who are "they"?
According to Bush the answer seems to be Iraq...hmm
I think you need to ask youself: What is the reason behind all hate against USA?
I'd like to regurgitate the fact that before the early 90s, USA was basicly free of terrorism, can you guess what happened in te early 90s?
*gasp* (no, don't think it! It's impossible, USA couldn't have been the ones that started it! Never! FREEEEEEEEEDDOOOMM!)
I'd like to regurgitate the fact that before the early 90s, USA was basicly free of terrorism, can you guess what happened in te early 90s?
Well, barf it up, Smurf! :rofl: I give. What is it that happened??
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 01:54 PM
Maybe US knows they have a big impact, but I don't think most americans realise in which way their actions affect the rest of the world.
But one thing is clear. Most americans do not realise how much the world affects them.
This is something I have hard to accept. Why do you think the safety of americans are more important than, say , safety of french or israelians?
What makes you think it's more important for american people to have a good life than others? Just because Jack Jackson was born in Dallas, does that make him more important than Anders Andersson in Stockholm? We are all humans just happening to be born on different sides of some lines drawn on a paper.
Why not consider the safety of all humans instead of just americans?
And anyway, if it's safety for just americans you are aiming for, I still think it was a huge mistake voting for Bush!
I'm not so sure the terrorist groups prefered Kerry. Bush is often considered as satan himself in their home areas, which gives them sort of "validity" to act.
However, I'm sure they wouldn't stop terrorising just because Kerry had been elected. But with Kerry we (and by "we" I mean all of us on the planet) would have been more efficient in fighting terrorism.
Of course they would not have stopped terrorising... they just would have gotten away with it easier.
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 01:57 PM
Allow me to smile. (Or should I cry?)
I agree with Russ that this is one of the reasons Bush won the election. He managed to convince (half of) the american people that the terrorists were afraid of him. However this is a rediculus thought. Do you really think terrorists are "afraid" of Bush?
The problem with Bush is the way he seems to look at terrorism:
"Just kill all "terrorists" and the problem is solved... Either you're with us or agains us...Axis of evil... It's all black or white."
The truth is: All is gray.
The problem is that Bush's actions make the hate against USA grow!
Of course you can not use diplomacy to get rid of the extremes. However doing what US is doing in Iraq, without having international support, will just increase terrorism.
You guys invaded the wrong country! Haven't you realized that yet?
There were no weapons of mass destruction. (And you called Hans Blix a fool...)
Who are "they"?
According to Bush the answer seems to be Iraq...hmm
I think you need to ask youself: What is the reason behind all hate against USA?
It was over half of the American people :wink: but anyway...
"They" are the terrorists. And if you are implying Bush is the reason behind all the hate in the USA I hope you are joking. Yeah you are right...there were no weapons of mass destruction. When we finally got there. It is been shown on satellite imaging that there was a lot of movement before the U.S went in from Iraq to Syria, which means either we go into Syria which I VERY strongly oppose and would get every country that does not completely hate the US to hate us or we wait until whatever weapons that were moved are used against us in yet another terrorist attack or used against another country, which i obviously also oppose. Sometimes there just is no easy answer. If the weapons are not used against the US but another country, I am willing to bet my life savings that the country that was attacked and all of its allies would expect or demand that the US to go in and fight.
selfAdjoint
Nov14-04, 02:55 PM
It was over half of the American people
No, it was over half of the actual voters (a little over). That was actually a minority of the American people.
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 03:03 PM
The voters speak for the American people and if a large amount of people did not vote it is their choice.
"They" are the terrorists.
I understood you ment "terrorists" by "they".
What I asked for was: Who are the terrorists?
And if you are implying Bush is the reason behind all the hate in the USA I hope you are joking.
And if you think I am implying Bush is the reason behind all the hate in the USA I hope you are joking. :wink:
Yeah you are right...there were no weapons of mass destruction. When we finally got there. It is been shown on satellite imaging that there was a lot of movement before the U.S went in from Iraq to Syria
So you still believe Iraq had WMD just before you moved in?
It is been shown om satellite imaging...?
Have you seen them?
Last time I saw US trying to "prove" something with satelite pictures was when they showed a picture of a house with a truck outside, and tried to convince UN this was a factory creating WMD. :confused: :rofl:
Probably one of the worst attempt to lie ever.
Have you ever considered that lots of people ran away from Iraq to Syria to escape the war?
Sometimes there just is no easy answer.
I agree, but would like to say it even stronger: Most times there is no easy answer.
If the weapons are not used against the US but another country, I am willing to bet my life savings that the country that was attacked and all of its allies would expect or demand that the US to go in and fight.
Don't think you get the point.
The european nations are more than willing to fight terrorism, as we for example are doing in Afghanistan, together with US.
The point is: If Sweden was attacked by, say Germany, I would never expect US to help us invading Norway (who has a lot of oil).
By the way you havn't answered yet why it's more important that Jack Jackson has a better life than Anders Andersson...
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 05:12 PM
I understood you ment "terrorists" by "they".
What I asked for was: Who are the terrorists?
And if you think I am implying Bush is the reason behind all the hate in the USA I hope you are joking. :wink:
So you still believe Iraq had WMD just before you moved in?
It is been shown om satellite imaging...?
Have you seen them?
Last time I saw US trying to "prove" something with satelite pictures was when they showed a picture of a house with a truck outside, and tried to convince UN this was a factory creating WMD. :confused: :rofl:
Probably one of the worst attempt to lie ever.
Have you ever considered that lots of people ran away from Iraq to Syria to escape the war?
I agree, but would like to say it even stronger: Most times there is no easy answer.
Don't think you get the point.
The european nations are more than willing to fight terrorism, as we for example are doing in Afghanistan, together with US.
The point is: If Sweden was attacked by, say Germany, I would never expect US to help us invading Norway (who has a lot of oil).
By the way you havn't answered yet why it's more important that Jack Jackson has a better life than Anders Andersson...
Sorry I misunderstood you.
And if you think I am implying Bush is the reason behind all the hate in the USA I hope you are joking. :wink:
Haha, once again I'm sorry the way you worded it seemed to imply that you thought Bush was (or at least part) of the cause of the hatred towards the USA.
I think it is entirely possible that Iraq had WMDs. While none were found, several missles WERE found that were stronger and had a greater distance capability than the UN had said they were allowed to have.
European nations obviously are not as willing to fight terrorism as the USA, with the exceptiong of Great Britain most other European countries criticize our efforts, especially Spain and France.
European nations obviously are not as willing to fight terrorism as the USA, with the exceptiong of Great Britain most other European countries criticize our efforts, especially Spain and France.
Why is it obvious? Because we don't invade innocent nations? We are in afghanistan, which we know was harbouring terrorists. Once again, If Spain launched an unprovoked terrorist attack against the US, by all means invade them, probably with international aid. But you would not be supported in invading France as well.
the way you worded it seemed to imply that you thought Bush was (or at least part) of the cause of the hatred towards the USA.
Yes, Bush (or med specific his politics) is part of the cause of the hatred.
However, the hate against america was there long before Bush. But what Bush is doing is to make anti-american (and anti-west in general) thoughts grow rapidly. For every "terrorist" he is killing, many more are created.
I think it is entirely possible that Iraq had WMDs.
Is it OK to invade a country because of what you "think"?
To me the Iraq war looks like the witch-hunt in the middle-ages. If you search real hard, you will always find what you want to find...
European nations obviously are not as willing to fight terrorism as the USA, with the exceptiong of Great Britain most other European countries criticize our efforts, especially Spain and France.
You have to understand that every country wants to get rid of terrorists. It's the method we don't agree upon. As I have said, invading Norway because Germany attacked us is not the best way.
By the way you havn't answered yet why it's more important that Jack Jackson has a better life than Anders Andersson...
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 06:04 PM
Is it OK to invade a country because of what you "think"?
To me the Iraq war looks like the witch-hunt in the middle-ages. If you search real hard, you will always find what you want to find...
When I said "I thinK" I truly meant just me. At the time President Bush "knew" because of our intelligence that there were WMD's in Iraq and he acted upon the intelligence he was given.
When I said "I thinK" I truly meant just me. At the time President Bush "knew" because of our intelligence that there were WMD's in Iraq and he acted upon the intelligence he was given.
So you still believe in this? :bugeye: Now I'm getting scared...
By the way you havn't answered yet why it's more important that Jack Jackson has a better life than Anders Andersson...
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 06:44 PM
No no no you misunderstand. I think it is possible that at one time there may have been WMD's in Iraq and they were moved out of the country. I am saying that at the time we invaded Iraq that President Bush "knew" (thought he knew that is) there were WMD's in Iraq and he got his information from our intelligence network.
There were at one point WMD in iraq. They were destroyed after the Gulf War with Bush Sn.
If they had been moved into another country, we would be hearing about which country that is, As dumb as American leaders are, their intelligence agencies are very capable.
Don't fool yourself by thinking that Bush even cared if there really were WMD in Iraq, he wasn't going to use them on anyone anyways, therefor (even if there were WMD in Iraq) there must have been another (additional) reason to invade Iraq, such as one of the many theories been thrown around the net.
Political Prodigy
Nov14-04, 07:12 PM
There were at one point WMD in iraq. They were destroyed after the Gulf War with Bush Sn.
If they had been moved into another country, we would be hearing about which country that is,
How could you be 100% sure all were destroyed? Since it was his father in office and at the time there were WMD's that's all the more reason for Bush to believe that Iraq still had them.
It is believed they were moved to Syria as I said on this thread and as the media has reported previously.
As dumb as American leaders are, their intelligence agencies are very capable.
Don't fool yourself by thinking that Bush even cared if there really were WMD in Iraq, he wasn't going to use them on anyone anyways, therefor (even if there were WMD in Iraq) there must have been another (additional) reason to invade Iraq, such as one of the many theories been thrown around the net.
Dumb American leaders? Canada is the one with the socialist economy, and having socialist run medical care alone causes unemployment for several reasons, one of which is caused by doctors moving to the US because of the poor wages the Canadian government gives them because the only money they get is basically off taxes. Also medical technology is down in Canada especially compared to the USA and yes pharmaceuticals are cheaper in canada but also less advanced and lacking the newest medicines.
And you are not qualified to say if Saddam was going to use them on anyone. Mind giving an example of a theory?
There were at one point WMD in iraq. They were destroyed after the Gulf War with Bush Sn. Oh..okay...show me the proof! You know kinda like show me the money! but instead..we knew they were there...he had an obligation to document destruction and knew that he would have to provide it..and yet.....
So, I say..show me the proof! otherwise use words like....may have or I suspect or we believe..but not definitive statements such as "they were" :yuck:
If they had been moved into another country, we would be hearing about which country that is, As dumb as American leaders are, their intelligence agencies are very capable. I think the consensus is through syria and onward to Bekka valley....but unless we invade syria and lebanon..without a long drawn out announcement aforehand I don't think we'll prove it any time in the near future.
Liane Hansen: You told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that you do believe some weapons materials may have been moved to Syria. What can you tell us about that? David Kay: I think that’s a compressed view of what I said. What I’ve said is there’s ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war. I mean, there’s satellite photography, there are reports on the ground, of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don’t know what was moved.
David Kay, interviewed by Liane Hansen in “Iraq Arms Inspector Casts Doubt on WMD Claims: Kay’s Stance Differs with White House View of Situation in Iraq” (National Public Radio, Weekend Edition Sunday, January 25 2004)
We have seen reports, but what I can tell you, that I believe we know, is a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We’ve got a lot of data that support that, including people discussing it. But whether, in fact, in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials I cannot say.
-Testimony of Iraqi Survey Group Chairman, Charles Duelfer, to the Sen Armed Service Committee; Oct 6, 2004 re: ISG Final Report
Don't fool yourself by thinking that Bush even cared if there really were WMD in Iraq, he wasn't going to use them on anyone anyways, can I borrow your crystal ball sometime? I'd really like to take a look at the futures...market... :biggrin:
therefor (even if there were WMD in Iraq) there must have been another (additional) reason to invade Iraq, such as one of the many theories been thrown around the net. There are a lot of "theories" thrown around the net..including Ickes invasion of the lizards BUT you don't need to look for "theories been thrown" around the ever so dependable net..where only the facts and always the facts are found.. The DoD has stated that they had a list of reasons to invade of which WMD was the most persuasive, thus selected as the one to argue with the greatest strength.
No no no you misunderstand. I think it is possible that at one time there may have been WMD's in Iraq and they were moved out of the country. I am saying that at the time we invaded Iraq that President Bush "knew" (thought he knew that is) there were WMD's in Iraq and he got his information from our intelligence network.
Yes, I perfectly got you. My question is: Do you still believe in that Bush "knew" (thought he knew) there were WMD there at the time you moved in?
By the way you havn't answered yet why it's more important that Jack Jackson has a better life than Anders Andersson...
vanesch
Nov15-04, 04:15 AM
which means either we go into Syria which I VERY strongly oppose and would get every country that does not completely hate the US to hate us
Ah, you're beginning to understand the mistake of the Iraq invasion:
What you get out of it (Saddam gone) wasn't worth the price to pay:
- the end of international consensus concerning military interventions, everybody can now invade everybody else. Back to muscle power.
- a strongly increased hathred in the ME for all things US (and hence the West), and with it a fading hope of being able to solve the real problems over there.
- the life balance: we'll see.
- democracy: we'll see.
- and the fact that the main declared objective was AGAIN not attained:
* first time in Afghanistan (you didn't get OBL, did you ?)
* second time you didn't find those WMD. So or they didn't exist, or they are now in the free field. In both cases it is a terrible mistake.
Now, are those at the commands then really so dumb as not to have foreseen this (while almost any citizen in the world expected this), or are there other, hidden reasons to have done so ?
Political Prodigy
Nov15-04, 10:06 PM
Yes, I perfectly got you. My question is: Do you still believe in that Bush "knew" (thought he knew) there were WMD there at the time you moved in?
Yes, I believe he did "know" there were WMD at the time. Lying is close to political suicide...look what happened to Bill Clinton.
Yes, I believe he did "know" there were WMD at the time. Lying is close to political suicide...look what happened to Bill Clinton.
And I think it's scearing that something similar hasn't happened to Bush yet. I mean what is worse? Invading a country for the wrong reasons, or lying about your personal sex life?
Can you figure out if there could be any other reasons for Bush to invade Iraq...?
By the way you havn't answered yet why it's more important that Jack Jackson has a better life than Anders Andersson...
vanesch
Nov16-04, 06:45 AM
Can you figure out if there could be any other reasons for Bush to invade Iraq...?
He doesn't want us to know about the blow job he got from Saddam ?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.