# Can Any one trust the Bush administration

1. Dec 31, 2004

### gravedigger

So the primary cause of the U.S. army invading Iraq was to liberate it from the unjust and tyrannical rule of Saddam which it did [when it was not asked or invited] so as to establish peace the second part of the coin which had the blind eye of every peace lover is that after the destruction they had created, the president "promised" to build a better iraq which i guess is a "dream" unfulfilled and it can't be fulfilled till people break their silence ,as the bigger enemy they are facing apart the U.S army is there SILENCE, The daily cost of the war on terrorism costs the bush adminstration something around $228 million\day whereas MR.Dubyaman promised an amount of about$18mllion for re-construction of which a single dime is yet to make a move from the u.s treasury ,i guess we need to evacuate the land before it's allover

2. Dec 31, 2004

### sid_galt

I think the primary cause was weapons of mass destruction.

Peace and a better Iraq dream can't be fulfilled unless the Iraqi militants get out of the way.

What can one do? Bush ain't intelligent.

3. Dec 31, 2004

### BobG

No, you can't.

Face it. If this guy's daddy hadn't been president, he'd be nowhere. He spent most of his life as a loser and his 'rebirth' had more to do with others realizing the political potential of his name than any change in him.

The 2000 election had to be the sorriest in history. I don't think there's ever been a presidential election where both major candidates had accomplished so little in their careers.

And in 2004, we were faced with a situation where it's tough to unseat the incumbent, especially in war time.

As a result, we're faced with four more years of his supporters trying to find excuses for why his good policies just don't work and his critics trying to find ulterior motives for policies that they don't believe would work in the first place. Four more years of trying to dress up failures in prettier clothes - like giving Freedom Medals to your most embarrassing failures. Competence counts and there has to be a minimum bar of competency a candidate should meet before you vote for him, regardless of ideology.

4. Dec 31, 2004

### Dayle Record

This is a link to an article that discusses some aspects of current politics. Realize that there hasn't been an honest election in this decade, and there won't be another, unless something is done.

http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

5. Dec 31, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

I stopped after the first one, which isn't true:
Those companies make the voting machines. The votes are counted by the various counties' election boards. The companies see the vote tallies the same way you and I do: on TV.

Weak, weak conspiracy theory.

6. Dec 31, 2004

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
And as a reminder, one of the serious issues in the design of a voting system is to prevent one from being able to sell their vote. Obviously, the #1 enabler for such an industry is a way for a citizen to prove to someone else how they voted.

7. Dec 31, 2004

### Smurf

The downside of course being that if person X can prove it, that means that anyone else can find out who he voted for too.

8. Jan 1, 2005

### gravedigger

Re:

Some one here told me that the cause for war on iraq was weapons of mass destruction ,iam of the opinion that every man who has a good control over his senses cannot deny the fact that if iraq DID have any WMD'S it would'nt have lost the war on "terrorism" and ,secondly,if that utter symbol of ULTIMATE STUPIDITY was to mean something else than a one-sided partial organization supporting the U.S of it's hideous activities it could easily have send the U.N. "peace keeping force" and by the way i had forgot to mention the fact that it had already ruled out the existence of any so called weapons of mass destruction if it is possesed by some one it is the U.S .That's it for the war on "TERRORISM" :grumpy: , MILITANTS?? Did some one say? if there are any militants or insurgents they are the "U.S" military,these militants never attacked the "U.S" soldiers in the first place they are trying to prevent their sovergnity ,i guess the AMERICANS are in a state OF COMA COZ OF THEIR military supremacy !I need not say who is the "GLOBAL TERRORIST" Saddam or any one else

9. Jan 1, 2005

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Paragraph... difficult to parse... head hurting...

The cause of war was not that Iraq has WMD -- it was that Saddam's chronic refusal to fully cooperate with WMD inspectors, coupled with suspicious behavior that could be explained by secret WMD programs. :tongue2: Given time, the former would likely have been enough by itself.

10. Jan 2, 2005

### gravedigger

There was NO WMD'S in iraq or in any other place for that matter, except for one very place which is full of WMD's that is the PRESIDENTS HEAD itself get rid of it and there shall be enough PEACE to live with in the world ,I hope there shall be some soul alive who appreciates GOOD THOUGHTS to do more than what AMERICANS promise to do for the world,but NEVER budge .The primaries of it are the re-construction of iraq ,which i believe is the main point to discuss.. apart from the iraqui people going to vote in the SUPERVISION of american gunmen, HOW FAIR WILL THE ELECTIONS BE!! good lord !!

Last edited: Jan 2, 2005
11. Jan 2, 2005

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Pretty fair, I think -- the government has too much to lose, politically, to do it any other way.

Would you prefer the elections to be done with the various militant organizations in control? How fair do you think that would be?

12. Jan 3, 2005

### gravedigger

Re:

One thing i would really like to press upon is that the ALLIED forces [w.r.to. world war 2] is really getting appreciably intelligent .That's because after the first war the "league of nations" failed after which the allied forces atleast had there heads together and CREATED such an organization which would allow them to PROVIDE them official knowledge about the strategy and strategic locations ,so that they can know where, how,and when to hit so that with least damage to themselves how they can have maximum benefit ,we had seen the example of it and there are more of it to be seen in the near future . hail to the mockery of peace symbol,coz if it really did meant anything it could have send the U.N.peace keeping force to prevent the war on innocent people.

13. Jan 6, 2005

### Dayle Record

14. Jan 6, 2005

### Smurf

What exactly DOES the government have to lose? I can't think of anywhere where they would have any serious disadvantages, except to encourage more insurgents, but I think they're going to rise anyway.

15. Jan 8, 2005

### jammieg

I always trust government completely...to lie, cheat, and steal about anything they can until proven wrong.

16. Jan 8, 2005

### Smurf

and often even after they've been proven wrong.