bush in 30 secs

General Forums Off-topic Chat
61

He could be just a puppet, but how many times have someone use the term evil to justify evil ? Sure, the dictator in Iraq is more evil, but let us not forget that we contributed to this because of this very notion, America turn there back on the kerds and aided Iraq for fear that the kerds will over take Iraq, we settle for the lessor of two evils, the contribing to the lessor evil had only made it more evil. So why should repeat the same misstake with our own ?

Just because majority agree with it, does mean it makes it right, you sale almost anything to the majority, in this case it was fear, hatred and prejudice that came from 9/11. Remember that America was raise on the belief of not treating on others, a pratice that had led to a strong and trusting country, why should we change such a pratice of pushing others so they will push back ? And lets not forget that a large majority of people are stupid, look at Jay Walking and imagine if they were able to vote ? Even if a majority is smart doesn’t mean there actions are. It’s by comman sence and wisdom that we need to take in.

62

Al - you’re sentence structure seems to have improved from the last time I responded to your posts, so I’ll respond now, but only briefly.

The US was founded on the notion of Don’t Tread on Me. Not Don’t Tread on Others. As far as I’m concerned, the Islamofacists started the real violence. We are the ones pushing back. Ask the folks in France who live in the neighborhoods bordering the North African immigrant communities where they’re doing their own little Sharia thing if they think it’s the just the West who needs to try to understand these folks better. Al, the guys with the AK-47’s and shoe bombs want us either dead or living in huts and praying to Mecca whenever they prescribe it. George W. Bush wants you and I alive, and living the good life at that. I’ll throw my lot in with him.

And when you start talking about the majority of people in the US (and yes, they are educated, just not to your liking) being easily mislead, etc., you’re just letting you anarchist/wacky leftist condescion show. You should pull your skirt down a bit if you want to be taken more seriously in respectable circles.

63

The thing with the war in Iraq though is that it was not a threat to the US. They didn’t like us, we didn’t like them, but there was no terrorist threat from Iraq. There was no Al-Quaida link as stated by the Bush administration. No nuclear program. No WMD’s. Only the stuff he admitted to having.

I agree with the war, I agree that Saddam was evil and needed to be taken out of power, but I don’t agree with the way Bush lied and exploited 9/11 to justify the war. It was his personal vendetta and nothing more, because Saddam put a price on his dad. I really don’t believe that he cared much about anything else. Anybody read the articles of late about how he was planning this from the beginning of his term? If that was the case, why all of the bullshit terrorist justifications that turned out to be known lies?

Maybe that was tbe point that Al was intending, with hopefully better grammar.

64

edit: screw it

65

harcky, the term of “Don’t tread on Me” is the same as “Don’t tread on them” You are justifing attacking another nation that don’t tread on us in the first place but put the blame on a nation that are defending themself from being tread on ? That makes no sence, that’s like something a gold digging whore would say. And even if it was already a war, it still wasn’t justify regardless what the UN said or the weapons of mass destruction. America should of waited for a smoking gun and yes that’s the internation law regardless what the outcome may be. It’s even stupid to charge a Dictator of defending there country, what two face kind of idiot would do such a thing, George that’s who %|

66

Aren’t anti abortionest show bombers as well %|

67

The guys with the AK-47’s and the shoe bombs, want you dead… Not me…

That should make you start thinking, that maybe “you” also have a degree of “guilt” in that story, even if we accept that you didn’t start it…

Ohhh yes you will… :stuck_out_tongue:

I guess I can live with it.

Ohhhh no you can’t… :stuck_out_tongue:

68

Al - there is no such thing as “International Law”. Please point me to a resource that shows otherwise. The nations of the world have always done and probably always will do what is in their own best interest.

Who are the big international accusers of the US for not being a good “team player” right now? France. Germany. Interesting how they are currently blatantly flaunting their own international agreements vis a vis the decifict provisions of the EU compact. The “US breaks international law” meme has been drummed up by these same folks who see their own world power and effectiveness dwindling. It’s all they have to attack with.

After WWII, a whole lot of people in a whole lot of countries somehow forgot that power indeed flows solely from the barrel of a gun. They have wished and hoped and tried to pretend otherwise, and in the process, removed their own ability to even defend their own borders against invaders. Foolishness. And now they have nothing left but the ability to whine. Waaaaaaaa. Dey not playing fair! Dey have all da good stuff! Waaaaaa!

Also, anti-abortionists are not shoe bombers. There have been a few nasty right-wingers who have perpetrated terrible (though relatively minor) violence against abortion providers. They are criminals. And unlike the Islamists who enjoy great popular support in the Islamic and Arabic community, even the vast majority of right-wing conservatives in the US abhor the violent anti-abortion acts and both publicly and privately denounce them. We’re talking orders of magnitude of difference here.

But you’re right about one thing, Al - Iraq did nothing to us. But our new policy, and one which I personally agree with, is that we will not wait for someone to hit us first anymore. Think of it this way: we hit back first. I really can’t believe that all of you guys would rather have the Hussein regime in place right now. Because that’s the alternative. Toddlers in prison, man. People being raped and decapitated in front of their families. Maybe you can defend that. I can’t.

And are you worried that we’ll do it somewhere else, too? Probably not. We won’t need to. Look at what’s happening over there. All of these thugocracies are realizing that they have to shape up, stop bankrolling terrorists, and start giving their people some basic human rights. They don’t like it, but they’re doing it, because we have big guns, and we’ve shown that we’ll use them.

When we invade a liberal democracy, then I’ll start going to your Indymedia meetings. And I’ll buy you a case of beer or something.

Timonides:

If you’re not a radical, fundamentalist follower of Islam, they want you dead or converted. They just haven’t gotten around to your country yet. (“First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew…”) And, if a mentally unstable son-of-a-bitch with a gun doesn’t like me, I don’t really consider myself at fault. I just grab kevlar and a shotgun. These people are violent religious fundamentalists who do not value any human life, not even their own or the lives of their children. They certainly don’t give two turds about your life or mine. My only “crime” against them is that I do not believe as they do. I’ve got something for them in my closet at home if they care to try to force me.

69

I agree with what you’re saying harky, I just hope you realize that even though Bush got the world rid of an evil, he isn’t doing it proper. He’s doing it by lying and misleading the public with information he knows will sway people who wouldn’t agree with him otherwise. Making them think that they are in danger when they aren’t so that he can do what he wants. Iraq was NO danger to us, the only way that guy would mess with us was when we messed with him. Pre-emptive strikes would be better implemented against North Korea, but NK didn’t put a hit on Bush’s dad.

International law isn’t a single “constitution” it is a complicated web of treaties and conventions that we have signed with intention to comply in the past. The Geneva Convention largely defines war crimes, the anti-ballistic missles treaty is the one that DID keep nuclear weapons at bay until Bush decided to repeal it, etc. There are lots of them, I don’t know of a place on the web that defines international law but I’m sure you can find it if you look.

70

You’re right. Iraq was not an immediate danger to us. Bush did not say it was. He said that we can not afford to let hostile, crazy regimes become an imminent threat. I agree. You don’t. As for NK, they most likely already had nukes. It called for different tactics. You don’t go storming in when one mistake could mean that Tokyo bites it in a big, glowing cloud.

You’re also right (IMHO) about the first part regarding international law. It’s a series of treaties, etc. The countries that signed these did so because it was in their best interest. Countries remove themselves from treaties when their best interest is no longer involved. Other nations do this all the time. A treaty is essentially a formal declaration of mutual interest. Nothing more. As for Geneva, well, it only applies when you’re fighting other assignatories of the Convention. The nation of Iraq acceeded to the Conventions in 1956, but as the Ba’ath party gained power by coup in 1968 and never declared their new governments compliance, it can be argued that they were not members. Meaning we could have done anything we wanted with no “legal” international recourse. Of course, we didn’t. We went completely out of our way to avoid civilian deaths. How much extra $ and extra American lives were spent to protect civilian and even conscripted combatants? And you say we went about it ignominiously? Bah.

When I was talking about “international law”, though, I was referring to Al’s concept of international law, which would mean something fuzzy like we’re all supposed to play nice together and recognize some strange and mystic right for everyone to stand on equal footing. Al was showing his Transnationalist cards and I decided that I would put the fork in one of his basic assumptions.

Al - care to lecture me on your mythical “international law?”

71

Please people, read my first consctructive post, it out lines clearly the reason for this war.

Secondly, I want you all to read up on the anitwar groups in the span when hitler took power, to when he attacked poland and subsuquently took the rest of europe.

He was appeased for years by the antiwar types like you guys. He was not given restrictions, and when he was he ignored them.

It all could have been stopped, and the estimated 50 million death total (wikipedia) that came from WWII, could have been down to less than probably 5000, with a simple war like the one with Iraq.

Oh how quickly we forget. Atleast some of us learn something from history.

72

Only Hitler was in power of a country with the densest population of intellectuals of any country in the world, nevermind the recourses at their disposal. They were at the top of the world technologically. Iraq was tetering above the bottom. Hitler didn’t try to prevent his people from learning by restricting what was taught in Universities, excluding that they were the superior race.

Bush’s claim of a pre-emptive strike is probably more valid than I insinuated, but the lies still aren’t. He clearly said they had Al-Quaida connections, WMD’s, and a nuclear program, which they clearly did not. I don’t agree with using lies to justify an otherwise valid war, you know those were the main arguing points against going to war, “They don’t have WMD’s,” etc… You can’t argue with crumbling a violent dictatorship, you can argue with lying about what the dictator is doing to justify bringing your country to war with them.

Why was he lying? Not just because he hated Saddam for personal reasons, but many of the huge contracts went to his supporters without bids that would take place in past wars. Hmm.

73

Is it a lie if you really think that what you’re saying is the case? Just because you turn out to be wrong (I don’t think that’s story’s finished, though), doesn’t mean you were lying. It means you were wrong. Man, everyone, from the Dems, to UN, to, well pretty much EVERYONE, thought that the Ba’athists had chemical, bio and were working on nuclear. Hell, they did have them. That’s not in dispute. The question, is, what did they do with them? How long ago did they ditch them, where did they go, and why didn’t they pony up with the info?

The Bush administration indeed emphasized the WMD angle when trying to get the Europeans and Russians to come along, but that was because they’d proven that they didn’t give a fat fart about any of the other very good reasons to remove the Ba’athists from Iraq.

And I’ve seen plenty of evidence that there were al Quaeda connections. If you want links, I can provide them. If you already have seen all the evidence and disagree, then we’re just going to have to disagree.

As for the “starting a war for business” aspect. Puh-lease. If they were doing the hard sell on WMD, you assume it was because he wanted to give payoffs to his buddies.

Alternatively, look at who Bush’s closest advisors have been throughout, and read some of their essays and papers from before this administration even began. They talked about the situation in the Middle East, it’s effect on the US, and attempted to sort out the root causes of the trouble. Conclusion: ME dictatorships in league with radical Islamists.

So is it more likely that Bush is a sociopath who thinks nothing of sending 100,000 troops into fire so his already extraordinarily rich friends can make an extra buck; or that after 9/11, the very people who had studied the region in depth and already come up with a plan for trying to fix it found themselves looking very credible in the eyes of the Bush administration. Remember, before 9/11, Colin Powell was all that and Don Rumsfeld was almost on his way out the door.

Consider this: if your eventual goal is to remove all of the thugocracies in the region, do you say so up front, giving them a chance to band together and put up a real fight? Or do you make it look like you’re just going after this one really bad apple, because, you know, he’s got the WMD. The rest of you guys can hang tight - wink wink. If that’s your strategy, wouldn’t it be self-defeating to say it up front?

If some reporter had asked US Commanders a week before the D-Day invasion whether a major amphibious assault on the beaches of France was underway, shouldn’t they not only lie their sweet asses off, but try to shift the focus to something else as well? They would be lax in their duties not to.

Fortunately in this case, no one had to lie. They just had to keep their enemies focused on the hundred yard dash and not let them know they were really in a marathon.

Damn it, I’m long-winded. I’ll try real hard to keep it shorter next time.

74

I would be interested in seeing the Al-Qaida connections, because Osama publicly called Saddam all sorts of bad names and denounced him in the name of Islam.

As for there being WMD’s, we’ve been there for how long now and haven’t found them? The inspectors were there and didn’t find them. Since we’ve found Saddam it seems like we’d walk into some abandoned warehouse with a little uranium or something to support the claims of a nuclear program.

We know there were chemical weapons, especially since he mass-murdered with them (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/january/0112_danish_wmd.shtml), but then there’s a lot of discrediting information about other stuff (http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm).

I know these are biased, but the hard facts are there and I’ll try to find better links when I have time.

75

Oh, no, Iraq, Korea, North Korea, 9/11 and Hitler never attack anyone, it was just a premtive strick %| You have any ideal how unlogical and stupid that is ? It defines all comman logic. We might as well have another World War, we can call it the premtive war, mind as well attack eachother while we at it.

It doesn’t matter how evil a country is, it doesn’t justify an attack, there’s a price for war and we should be prepare to except it. I really feel for the familys that had to send there love ones to this pointless war, maybe we can have Harky go and tell the bad news.

The Internation law is the comman law, if you don’t know the comman law, then look it up, it’s in the bible and don’t forget to turn the other cheek %|

76

Al, I wish there were an easy way to give you the gift of appearing literate, but I guess I can only make an easy suggestion… hooked on phonics.

International law isn’t based on the bible either, do you know that there are other religions? There’s even one or two that are more popular than Christianity!

Before you respond to this, gather your thoughts, take a deep breath, and use a dictionary. If you don’t know how to use a dictionary at least type in another program with a spell checker.

77

Yeah, yeah, yeah, bad spelling, like I care, the comman law have nothing to do with religion, I’m just telling you it can be found in the bible.

78

Actually it’s your grammer too. It sounds like Engrish isn’t your primary language.

79

shbazjinken I’ll try to find some good links (major news outlets, if you’ll have them) regarding al Quaeda/Ba’athist cooperation. And remember, what these people say to the Western media is often quite different than what they do when the cameras are off. Islam allows, nay, encourages, jihadis to lie to the dhimmi (non-muslims, i.e., you and me) in order to advance the spread of the muslim world. So just because bin Laden says he’ll never work with Saddam doesn’t make it so. I’m not willing to take the guy at his word, him being a sociopathic mass-murderer and all.

Dear Al - this is a war. One that the forces of Western liberal democracy did not start. The forces of triablism and religious fanaticism started it. The forces that believe that you and I and everyone else should submit to Allah (remember, islam means “submission”). A couple of my friends in federal law enforcement have told me that many people in their field refer to the current conflict as World War IV.

And yes, if it were my job, I would be honored to inform the grieving families of the sacrifice that their husbands, sons, brothers, sisters, mothers, etc. had made, by their own choice. It would not be a pleasant job, but unpleasantness does not equal unrighteousness. Have you ever seen knee replacement surgery? I have. It’s extraordinarily gruesome, and quite painful afterward for the patient. Does that make it wrong? Of course not.

As for “international law is the common law”, well… you wish. I know your political bent, and I know that you folks really wish there was such a thing as international law. You wish in your one hand and crap in the other, then squeeze both. Splat! The facts of history and of the present day say that in fact you are really extraordinarily wrong about the premise of international law. Once again, show me your “international law” in effect. Anywhere. You show me, and I’ll show you what a dreamy joke it it. As I said before, all that exists are alliances of mutual interest between nations, which could dissolve at any time.

And as for who attacks who first: Are you incapable of moral distinctions? Do you think all attacks, all uses of force are unjustified, regardless of the context? If you think so, say it up front so everyone can see what a nut you are. If not, then under what circumstances is the use of force justified? Let’s take the worst example: Hitler. His attacks on Europe were not a preemptive strike. They were expansionist in nature. No one denies this because it is so obvious that only a complete imbecile couldn’t see it. Ditto Iraq’s incursion into Kuwait. Must. Breath. Deeply.

Though there may have been some minor missteps, in the overall frame of history, the US response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the subsequent invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing pressures against the corrupt, despotic regimes of the Middle East are highly moral acts. The fact that you can’t see it tells me - I don’t know what it tells me, but I sure wouldn’t want to sit beside you on the bus.

80

So you think it was wrong to stop Hitler?

I really like when people who have not the slightest idea about the bible ironically quote it. Turning the cheek stands in a specific context. To make it simple: You shall turn your cheek when you are attacked/humiliated personally. You shall not violently defend your pride. Of course any christian must defend his family, his people, his country. The bible never excludes violence here.