News Bush sucks as President

  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
I think there are some serious issues here, many that could be addressed publicly that would have people in an uproar, unlike the mega amounts of "hyperbole" (this is my word for the day:wink: ) that just seems to be putting people asleep.
Iraq has a large supply of talent and experienced architects and engineers. They appear to be absolutely, incredulous at the bill that is being put forth for the various repairs of bridges and buildings.
It is also a HUGE disgrace that they are not being utilized to a greater extent for the re-building of Iraq. For that, not only Bush but the entire admin attached to the rebuilding of Iraq, "Suck".
I wonder how we can agree on this, and not on so many other things...
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
FZ- An international consensus is not the same thing as an united nations consensus. 2 or more countries reaching a consensus = international consensus. We certainly did reach an international consensus.
This sounds like the sort of 'lie' we are talking about. You know, similar to Clinton's twisted parsing in regards to his 'sexual relations'? Do you honestly mean to tell me that 'international consensus' means 'two countries'? And do you think that definition, though possibly technically accurate, would actually hold up in practice? Checking dictionary.com, we see that 'consensus' means:

1)An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2)General agreement or accord
3)Agreement; accord; consent
4)agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief

Obviously, there was no consensus here. I don't think you were lying, so don't start screaming at me. I do think that bush's speechwriters chose their words very carefully, in order to give the impression of one thing, while technically meaning another, in order to intentionally mislead the American public.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
or belief

Obviously, there was no consensus here. I don't think you were lying, so don't start screaming at me. I do think that bush's speechwriters chose their words very carefully, in order to give the impression of one thing, while technically meaning another, in order to intentionally mislead the American public.
I think that the use of "no international consensus" is just as misleading.(personally, I think Bush made a mistake to bring it before the U.N., I think he should have followed the same path as Clinton in that matter, as far as reaching his goal effectively.) Not having the support of the security counsel does not mean there was no international consensus. The use of the term from either end of the spectrum is loaded to suggest more then it should. Maybe it's better to skip the use of the well baited rhetorical terms, period.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
I wonder how we can agree on this, and not on so many other things...
We'd probably come to a consensus on quite a few other areas if you skipped the bellicose language. I'm very serious with this coment.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
We'd probably come to a consensus on quite a few other areas if you skipped the bellicose language. I'm very serious with this coment.
What can I say, I'm a fireplug?

You say Bush made a mistake going to the U.N....why? Because the U.N. wouldn't support his war for no reason? The fact that he is going to teh U.N. for help now is proof enough that he should have waited for them before the war. One of the things Bush's dad got right was putting together real support before the war. Also, some sort of plan for teh occupation should have been in place before the war, instead of this pollyanna attitude that democracy would happen right after the huge happy parade the Iraqis were supposed to have for 3 straight weeks after America invaded.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. (This is true, but authorisation no longer exists now with the admission that it was supposedly "programs" we were looking at, not actual weapons.)
Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. (This, refering to France's statement, is a blatant misrepresentation of their statement, which added the qualifier "at this time", and called for additional time for the inspectors)
As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.
Bush in March
 

kat

12
0
FZ- I think there are some problems with what your putting forth as lies. I don't really have time to dig up the data to support that until perhaps this weekend. I think that David Kay's report may dispute some of your suggested lies. Have you read it in full?
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
What can I say, I'm a fireplug?

You say Bush made a mistake going to the U.N....why? Because the U.N. wouldn't support his war for no reason?
No, because there was Succesful prescedent not to follow that route.
The fact that he is going to teh U.N. for help now is proof enough that he should have waited for them before the war.
This is not the route that Clinton followed during his tenure, on several occasions not just in regard to Iraq. He also found support within the U.N., after the action.
One of the things Bush's dad got right was putting together real support before the war.
Except that he did not, and probably could not get enough support to gather U.N. support to go in and remove saddam saving the tens of thousands men, women and children slaughtered by Saddam while we were right there. I think Bush 1, should have, and could have gone in and prevented the slaughter.
Also, some sort of plan for teh occupation should have been in place before the war, instead of this pollyanna attitude that democracy would happen right after the huge happy parade the Iraqis were supposed to have for 3 straight weeks after America invaded.
There was a plan, and I don't think that there was an assumption that democracy would magically appear. I am quite sure that I remember quite well hearing that we should expect to be there a long time and that it would not happen over night. I do agree with you that their plan was not sufficient and that there should have been much better planning and preperation including a more comphrensive set of contingency plans.
 
Last edited:
Z

Zero

Hmmm...1) Bringing up Clinton again? What is that, a fetish? 2) There was a call for UN inspectors to finish their job...Bush could have waited.
 
George Bush

Bush says the same things over and over again, day in, day out . . .

VOTE GREEN!!!

WE NEED A CHANGE IN POLITICAL SYSTEM!
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...1) Bringing up Clinton again? What is that, a fetish? 2) There was a call for UN inspectors to finish their job...Bush could have waited.
No, you asked me why I thought...and I am explaining the precedents that I based my belief upon...and that I based my belief on them...because they were successful......I'm showing you that precedent shows that going to the United Nations....because of earlier precedence..is not neccesarily a good standard for your proof.
 
258
0
I think a President is only as good as his advisors , look at Nixon and Kissiger and the Cambodian policy for God's sake. What was that but one persons psyche controlling bloody events perpetrated on villagers without even a lwn mower let alone anti-aircraft weapons.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
No, you asked me why I thought...and I am explaining the precedents that I based my belief upon...and that I based my belief on them...because they were successful......I'm showing you that precedent shows that going to the United Nations....because of earlier precedence..is not neccesarily a good standard for your proof.
What I find interesting is that the approach I suggest is the same sort of successful approach that worked for the Shrub's father. Bush I deserves credit for putting together a real international coalition. Bush II is a schmuck for trying to go it alone, and then asking for the UN to bail him out after the fact.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top