WHY WE Support BUSH

E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
Oversoul: Yup - it was in reference to the Patriot Act (they're your folks Civil Rights, afterall - not mine). But I'll let them pick-up the book and derive the context for themselves.

And, well, it is just a plain good read.


FREEDOM: Here's an interesting fact:

When Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980s (I assume this is the instance you're referring to?) and bombarded Iran troop movements with biological weaponry, do you know who gave him the arms and production capabilities?

The United States, under George W. Bush Sr.'s administration.

They also supplied him with the necessary funding and military equipment to ensure his victory over Iran when it come down to conventional warfare. Back then, Saddam certainly wasn't a bad guy in eyes of the United States (Iran was the bad guy. That's right - the entirety of it!) - he was even handed key to the city of Detroit!

Do I think he was a bad guy? You'd better stake your Grandma's homemade cookies on it. Do I think that George W. Bush Jr. attacked Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy, or because he was scared of all the toys his father supplied the dictator with? No chance at all.

Were the events and tragedies that unfolded from 2001 to present day planned or pre-meditated in any way (by the U.S. government), in my opinion? No. Were they a sudden opportunity for companies that the Bushes and present United States administration have vested interest in (Carlyle Group and Haliburton are the two largest examples) to make a lot of money which they then chose to exploit, in my opinion? Yes.


These certainly are not lies. They're very well documented facts (which is a lot more than what can be said for many of the Bush administration's accusations and conclusions). Do you have information that refutes what was just stated? If you do, by all means, share it. I can wait to see the look in my History professor's eyes when I tell him what he's been reciting is total bull****.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Bobby and c-i: Despite Bobby's points, are they in fact relevant to to whether Bush should have invaded Iraq? Especially 1-3 and probably 4-5. So Hussein thumbed his nose at the US, BIG WHOOP. What, the US can't get off its high horse and can't stand a country not "obeying them"?

Here's a fact: North Korea definitely has WMDs, there's no disputing that. Yet you don't see Bush rattling his saber at them. Why? I'll let you figure that out. But if Bush is not applying his so-called policy evenly towards everyone, then his reasons for actually invading Iraq are different from what he says (and apparently, that you've swallowed).

Oh, and let's keep the gay discussion in the SF thread; let's not spread it out in multiple threads. Thanks.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
I've read 1984, probably while you were still in diapers Exhaulted.
Regarding the Patriot Act.....exactly how has it effected your life? Can you give me one example? No, not theoretically. I mean REAL effect. What can you not do post-Patriot that you were doing pre-Patriot?

Spiderman,
Yes, I do believe that those reasons are reason enough to invade Iraq and dispose of Saddam Hussein. Simply put, if you are going to levy sanctions against someone, you must be prepared to follow through on them.
If you've got children of your own, you probably already know that you can't keep saying "stop, don't do that" and actually hope to accomplish anything discipline wise with that child. Eventually, they come to realize that you're not going to do anything about it other than talk.

As for North Korea, there are many reasons that we aren't "rattling our saber" at them. Perhaps the best reason is that our troops are already committed to Afghanistan and Iraq. To move troops to N. Korea as well would stretch us very thin with little room for re-enforcements should they be needed. Most likely, they would because nobody expects N. Korea to be the pushover that Iraq was. Yet another good reason may be that Bush knows there were intelligence failures in Iraq, and nobody denies that. Before you take on something as serious and deadly as N. Korea, you'll want to be absolutely sure we aren't experiencing those failures again.

Exhaulted,

I'll tell you one thing that I'll never swallow, and that's ANYTHING Michael Moore has to say. All this crap from Farenheit 9/11 about this war being concocted for personal financial gain.......that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Moore is a propagandist who twists facts, adds conjecture, and tosses in some flat out lies to sell movies to college kids. He admitted that the entire movie was based on his personal feelings and points of view. Yet, he still had the gall to call it a "documentary".

While you are looking at interesting facts......take a look at Clinton's administration and what kind of contracts Halliburton had through them. Naturally, there is very little mention of this fact in the media, but Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton fairly often himself. They performed well, and by performing well, one would assume that they earned future opportunities with the government for more contracts. I don't get where people seem to think that just because you used to have ties to a company, you shouldn't consider them for contracts just because you reach high political office. If Cheney felt that Halliburton was the company best suited to handle logistics in Iraq based on his former ties as well as their performances in contracts with the Clinton administration, was he supposed to ignore that and go for the second best company??? Strange way of thinking there.

As for the interesting fact about supplying Iraq with weapons to fight Iran........where did you get this fact? I remember Russia providing the weapons for Iraq to defeat Iran, and the U.S. providing loans for farming. It was discovered that Iraq was not using the farm loans for farming, but instead to purchase even more weapons from Russia, and we cut off the loans. Perhaps you can point me to a link that might refresh my memory if I'm wrong here.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Simply put, if you are going to levy sanctions against someone, you must be prepared to follow through on them.
Ah, but those were UN sanctions, not the US. If the UN didn't want to go through with it, that's their problem, not the US.

And the US isn't even coming close to treating N. Korea like they did Iraq. Your reasons might be valid, but I seriously doubt those are the real reasons, seeing how Bush was oh-so-eager to jump from Afghanistan to Iraq with nary a concern before.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Yes, they were U.N. sanctions. But, if a man who has been proven to be supporting terrorists, harboring terrorists, and allowing terrorists to be trained within his borders is found to be in violation of those sanctions, then it is in the best interest of the U.S. to put him down. All of that aside, all the man had to do was what he said he would do. Show the proof that he did, in fact, destroy those 1200 weapons missing from the final report, and war would have been averted. The overall war is on terrorism, and when it was found that he was supporting terrorism, his continued violations of the resolutions was all the excuse necessary to extinguish him.

Look, I'm not happy that we're at war. I'm not happy that nearly 1,000 soldiers have died in one way or another in Iraq. Nor am I happy that the media seems to be doing some sort of countdown to 1,000 (how sick is that?). But, I'm happy that the threat of Saddam Hussein is gone. If given half the chance, 1,000 soldiers would pale in comparison to what he would have done.

I'm just not willing to buy all the conspiracy theories. They make sense as long as you look at it from the theorist's point of view and accept their speculations on people's motivations as fact. You can get the same type of speculation and theoretical possibility from UFO websites and the like.

The difference between Afghanistan to Iraq compared to Iraq to N. Korea is huge. I think you know it is, too. For one, the major combat in Afghanistan was over, and there was no real insurgency to speak of after it was. Therefore, troop movement to Iraq could be done without major risk to the remaining forces left to do mop up in Afghanistan.
Going from Iraq, where insurgency is still a major problem from neighboring countries who don't want to contend with a free Iraq, to N. Korea would be extremely foolhardy. Not only do you leave the troops in Iraq to contend with an unknown amount of enemies, you are moving a force to N. Korea who has a REAL army with real capabilities that is already battle weary from two wars. You would run the risk of losing the ground gained in Iraq, as well as not having the best of chances in N. Korea.

Not to mention that diplomacy has just begun to be tried with the N. Koreans. If it's possible to disarm them with words and negotiations, I'm sure we'd all prefer that. Hussein got 12 years to disarm. I'm not sure anyone is willing to allow that much time for N. Korea, but you'd have to agree that moving there militarily at this time would not be wise unless they forced the issue somehow.
 
E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
I've read 1984, probably while you were still in diapers Exhaulted.
Regarding the Patriot Act.....exactly how has it effected your life? Can you give me one example? No, not theoretically. I mean REAL effect. What can you not do post-Patriot that you were doing pre-Patriot?
Really? Perhaps you'd care to give me a synopsis of the book, without running off to Google? What are your favorite passages?

Like I said, they're your civil liberties - not mine. The Patriot Act will never have an influence on my personal freedoms, because I'm a citizen of Canada.

I'll tell you one thing that I'll never swallow, and that's ANYTHING Michael Moore has to say. All this crap from Farenheit 9/11 about this war being concocted for personal financial gain.......that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Moore is a propagandist who twists facts, adds conjecture, and tosses in some flat out lies to sell movies to college kids. He admitted that the entire movie was based on his personal feelings and points of view. Yet, he still had the gall to call it a "documentary".
Woah. Who mentioned Michael Moore? Or Farenheit 9/11, for that matter?

Not me.

As far as him 'twisting fact' and being nothing more than a 'propagandist', do you have any evidence to back-up those allegations? Moore quotes sources and documentation VERY well, and always has something to back-up anything he states as fact. There are things he states in any of his documentaries as being strictly his own opinion - but that's part of what documentaries are about.

Never have a heard him admit that the film was biased. Would you mind providing the source where you heard him quote this?

While you are looking at interesting facts......take a look at Clinton's administration and what kind of contracts Halliburton had through them. Naturally, there is very little mention of this fact in the media, but Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton fairly often himself. They performed well, and by performing well, one would assume that they earned future opportunities with the government for more contracts. I don't get where people seem to think that just because you used to have ties to a company, you shouldn't consider them for contracts just because you reach high political office. If Cheney felt that Halliburton was the company best suited to handle logistics in Iraq based on his former ties as well as their performances in contracts with the Clinton administration, was he supposed to ignore that and go for the second best company??? Strange way of thinking there.
When did I say I thought Clinton was a good guy? When did I mention Clinton at all, for that matter?

Could you define 'fairly often'? How about providing actual sources to back your claim? What instances did Clinton give Halliburton no-bid contracts on?

Cheney immediately handing Halliburton all of the contracts for Iraq has one little discrepancy: he's the friggin' chairman of the company. That was an absolutely blatant Conflict of Interests exploitation.

As for the interesting fact about supplying Iraq with weapons to fight Iran........where did you get this fact? I remember Russia providing the weapons for Iraq to defeat Iran, and the U.S. providing loans for farming. It was discovered that Iraq was not using the farm loans for farming, but instead to purchase even more weapons from Russia, and we cut off the loans. Perhaps you can point me to a link that might refresh my memory if I'm wrong here.

...You're joking, right? Your claim is that the U.S. did not back Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s? Check the news archives of the BBC and CBC. While your at it, pick-up a copy of the 1994 U.S. Senate report detailing the biological agents that were shipped to Iraq by way of the U.S. between 1985 and 1990 (you can probably find a copy on Google, or ask your local Senator. These reports are free, as well as open to the public). If you can find copies of them, read the L.A. Weekly issues from mid-2003 and on, as well the August 2004 editions of the The New York Times for further details on U.S. support to Iraq.

As far as the Bush administration's 'Pre-Emptive Strike' strategy is concerned, in my opinion, it's appaling. By this same logic, I should be able to open fire on passing drivers because, hey - they might run me over! Or go over and murder all of my nextdoor neighbors because, hey - they might be plotting to do the very same to me and my own family! And why should I take those risks!? Statistics would be on my side, even if I used ones for the United States (You have roughly a 1 in 100,000 chance of being killed by terrorists, post 9/11. Your odds of being hit by and killed by an automobile or dying in an automobile accident are 1 in 6,500. your odds of being a homocide victim are 1 in 14,000). My own statistics are a little different, since I have Zero chance of dying as a result of terrorism (though, admittedly, I've also got a lower chance of being killed in a car accident or as a result of a homocide).

The U.S. may as well be pre-emptively striking at every other nation nation in the world because, who knows - there might be a coup staged in the middle of the night, and then they might unload a few payloads of napalm over U.S. soil!
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Bobby:
But, if a man who has been proven to be supporting terrorists, harboring terrorists, and allowing terrorists to be trained within his borders is found to be in violation of those sanctions, then it is in the best interest of the U.S. to put him down.
I don't think there is evidence of him directly supporting, harboring, or allowing terrorists to be trained within his borders. He had contact with Al-Quada who asked for permission and help, but he refused.

And that criteria sure fits a lot more countries than just Iraq. What are we doing about them?

Show the proof that he did, in fact, destroy those 1200 weapons missing from the final report, and war would have been averted.
And if the numbers were wrong to begin with? What if the original count was inflated? What if the inspectors were counting any ol' thing that might be considered part of a WMD? What if?

North Korea is different militarily, but again, the same rules should still be applied if Bush is serious about a "war on terrorism" and not just a vendetta against Iraq. And I don't see that happening. Heck, the US could pull out of Iraq right now (leaving the question of responsibility for cleaning up aside) and focus on N. Korea.

Not to mention that diplomacy has just begun to be tried with the N. Koreans
We've been at diplomacy with N. Korea for nearly as long, at least since the early 90's, right around the end of the Gulf War.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Exaulted,
First thing's first. I didn't realize you were a citizen of Canada, but by the tone of your posts, I'm not at all surprised. Although I'm not exactly sure how you believe that gives you a zero chance of probability in the possibility of terrorist attack. By that logic, you are telling me that you know the mind of terrorists and where they plan to strike. Personally, I don't know their mind, what makes it work, or how they choose their targets. For all I know, they may think the maple leaf is a symbol of hatred toward Allah. For the sake of your nation, I hope you are right though.

I haven't done a book report in 10 years, and I'm not starting again now. Especially since it would be so easy for you to claim I googled it, reworded it, and tried to pass it off as my own. I was required to read 1984 in 9th grade, just as every other student in my school district was. I can absolutely tell you that the Patriot Act is a far cry from Big Brother watching you and cameras on you at every turn making sure you aren't plotting a plan to gain freedom from it.

Being as you have no stake in the fight here, I'll give you this reply and one other, then I'm done with you. The opinion of foreigners on how I feel about my country, it's leaders, and our way of life in general doesn't matter to me one bit. No offense, but it just doesn't, and I won't argue it with them.

The Patriot Act made the jobs of the law enforcement easier basically. It makes it harder for not only terrorists, but all criminals to hide what they do. Just one good example is the change in the amount of money you can move through financial institutions and wire transfers at one time. Pre-Patriot, you could move $9,999 and get away with it. Post-Patriot, you must sign a form and present identification for $5000, and. Few people realize that banking institutions also make a report for $2,500 and over without your knowledge. As a person who makes large transfers on a regular basis, I'm not inconvenienced by this. The form and I.D. take all of 30 seconds, and my transfers are legal and easily explainable, so I don't mind if someone takes a look at them occasionally.

You don't have to specifically mention Michael Moore for anyone with any common sense to see you all but quoting his rhetoric. Moore makes a lot of money peddling his garbage to college kids and conspiracy theorists, and I'm proud to say I've never given the man a dime of my money, nor will I ever. You want examples of Michael Moore's lies, twists, and propaganda.....no problem. Let me point you here, http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm and just ease down about mid-way of the page. There you will find a point by point destruction of his "documentary". You may not want to believe that Moore is a money-hungry, biased, liar. That's fine. Here's a good example of his lying to create controversy:
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore
Friends,
I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.
Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
What did Jeb Bush have to say??
"What tax break?" Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded. "We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney," Bush said. "I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state."

And, according to Disney, who owns Mirmax.........
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Moore tried to lead people to believe that it was a sudden thing that his movie would not be distributed by Miramax, when in fact, he'd known it for over a year. This is the very sort of thing he accuses the Bush administration of doing, isn't it? Releasing facts at opportunistic times to create panic and turmoil.....i.e. the raising and lowering of terror alert levels. Hypocritical to say the least. You want to see where Moore admits that not only Farenheit, but all of his movies are biased and subjective.....no problem. You either haven't looked, or you don't want to look for this, but here ya go: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000344.html and if you don't want one with a bias against Moore himself, just go to any search engine and type in "Moore admits documentaries are op-ed pieces" and you'll get TONS of the same quote as well as others. Enough about that jerk. If you want to know the truth, it's out there. If you choose to ignore it and believe what this man says as gospel, that's your choice.

You want specific information on how Halliburton came to hold the contracts they hold in Iraq, no problem. Head here http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030918.shtml and you will see that they actually won a contract through the bidding process that made them the most logical choice when it came time to issue a no-bid contract. If you don't like that source, just do a search for LOGCAP Halliburton and you'll see why they were the most logical choice. And, by the way, Dick Cheney is NOT the chairman of Halliburton. He has no affiliation with the company and hasn't since accepting the nomination for Vice President. You should really do your homework here. When you resign your position.....you are no longer the holder of that position. That's how that works.

I'll give you the points for the Iraq-Iran war. As I said before, the hotly contested topic of the day to the best of my memory was the farm loans being used to buy arms from Russia, and stopping the issuance of those farm loans on that basis. The fact remains, no matter where Hussein got what he had, he agreed to dispose of it properly and keep detailed record of said disposals. When asked to produce the record of disposal as a rebuttal to the intelligence of MI-6, Russian Intelligence Agency, and the CIA's accounts of what he had left, he couldn't/wouldn't. Why anyone wants to make anyone other than Hussein himself accountable for his own failures in properly following the guidelines he begged to be set, I'll never understand. The CIA admitted that their intelligence was wrong, or at the very best inaccurate, but nobody wants to blame Hussein for not keeping to the rules. Strange how that works unless you're pulling for a certain President to look bad at all costs, no matter how inaccurate a light you have to portray them in.

And, finally, your analogies compared to pre-emptive strike of perceived enemies abroad is ridiculous. There is no doubt about the goal of terrorists. Their goal is to kill anyone that they perceive to be an infidel. There is no "might" there. That is their goal, and they advertise it every day. If you can honestly equate someone who "might run you over" but has shown no intent to do so, to someone who has actually said that they will kill you if they get the chance, even if it costs them their own life in the process, you need to re-examine your outlook on life. An attack on American soil is something this country cannot stand for. If they are allowed to live and breed their ideals, it will happen again unless they are hunted down and stopped where they live. What you perceive as pre-emptive, many perceive as retaliation. The problem with retaliation is that terrorists have spread all over the world like a virus, and you can't allow borders to be an issue when it comes to eradicating the virus. Like it or not, America will do what it must to defend itself and we will act in our own collective self interest to do so.

But, like you said, you live in a country that has zero chance of terrorist attack. Again, I hope you're right. However, if you believe that if for some reason Al Sadr or some other crazy cleric were to issue an opinion to the followers of this Jihad that Canadians were part of the infidel menace, they wouldn't attack Canada, you're just as crazy as they are. I just wonder, how will you feel if it happens in your country?

Alas, to stretch a long post out even further, I must drop this one final thing in. I feel like any person who feels the need to criticize another for their handling of a situation should be prepared to offer up an alternative course of action. So, tell me, oh wise and exaulted leader of the partial college education and little or no real world experience beyond what you can get out of a book........given all the same information that Bush was given by the various intelligence agencies both at home and abroad, knowing the kind of person Saddam Hussein is, and Saddam's own failure to account for 1200 weapons he was proven to have had but couldn't show what he'd done with........what would you have done? Give the U.N. an 18th chance to force him to comply? If not that, then what?
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Spiderman........
Are you sure you haven't seen any evidence that Saddam supported terrorism by harboring, training, and lending support financially to terrorists???? You DO have a television, access to a newspaper, search engine, some way of finding NEWS don't you??
I'm sorry if I seem a little on the condescending side, but even John Kerry doesn't deny these simple facts:
1. Saddam Hussein did offer a $25,000 reward to the surviving family of any suicide bomber who successfully carried out a mission against the infidels. That would be us and Israel for the most part.
2. Saddam Hussein did allow Al Qaida to establish training camps all over Iraq. I've seen counts as high as 2,500 camps found.
3. Saddam Hussein did allow the cleric Al Sadr to come to Baghdad after he recieved an injury in Afghanistan while fighting on behalf of Bin Laden. That's harboring a fugitive if I've ever heard it.

Links for you to learn from:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html?oneclick=true
This link is one of the first camps found, and it was IN BAGHDAD itself. Check it out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

All of this information and TONS more is available if you just look for it. You aren't refusing to help Al Qaida members by allowing them to come to your country, the capital city nonetheless, for medical treatment.

As to what we are doing about other countries who also participate in terrorist supportive activities.....honestly, we are setting an example, I think. If you support terrorism, you risk getting your ass kicked by the most powerful force in the world. India believed it. They released locations of terrorist training camps in India less than two weeks after September 11th. I'm not sure whether you would prefer we just go back into our shell and hide like we did pre-9/11, or if you prefer we go ahead and thin our forces out and attack everyone known to be hiding terrorists. Either one of those would be the wrong thing to do, though. The time for sitting back and hoping it won't happen again passed after the first WTC bombing in '93......or maybe after the bombing of the USS Cole........or maybe after the bombing of the US Embassy in Africa.........or maybe we should just wait one more time to see if they are through?

The weapons count was not inflated. Nobody has disputed the count, so there is no "what if". The count was stipulated and certified by the inspectors, the U.N., and the Iraqi government. It's not a question of whether he had those 1200 weapons, but what he did with them.

I'm not sure where you're going with North Korea. You know that we can't pull out of Iraq and leave it as it is now and move on to another country with the military might of North Korea just that quick. The Taliban was a weakly armed band of rebels in Afghanistan. The so-called army of Iraq was a joke. North Korea is not a joke. "We" have been in diplomatic negotians with the N. Koreans, yes. Bush has not been there the whole time. The war on terrorism hasn't been ongoing the whole time. The world has changed, and the tactics are changing with it.

I don't get this attitude I see from so many people. They either want the U.S. to sit back and hope we don't get attacked again, or they want instant results worldwide. Neither scenario is feasible. We already tried sitting back, and it cost us big. You can't beat everyone at once, either. Take steps to stabilize the middle-east by freeing Iraq and Afghanistan, then move on from there.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Are you sure you haven't seen any evidence that Saddam supported terrorism by harboring, training, and lending support financially to terrorists???? You DO have a television, access to a newspaper, search engine, some way of finding NEWS don't you??
Of course. The question is, who is the source of your news and what agenda do they have?

1. Saddam Hussein did offer a $25,000 reward to the surviving family of any suicide bomber who successfully carried out a mission against the infidels. That would be us and Israel for the most part.
Let's not confuse this. He offered the reward to Palestinian suicide bombers, not Al-Quaeda members. Big difference. Infidels - Israelis, and that's it.

I haven't seen anything about your 2 and 3, and the foxnews source is already suspicious since it's pretty well known that it follows a conservative bent.

The time for sitting back and hoping it won't happen again passed after the first WTC bombing in '93......or maybe after the bombing of the USS Cole........or maybe after the bombing of the US Embassy in Africa.........
We may not have invaded a country, but we did do things. We bombed several Sudanese factories that were harboring Al-Quaeda, if not bin Laden. We had bin Laden in our sights several times (at least, as close as you can get without standing next to him and not having a lot of Arab intelligence agents).

I'm not sure where you're going with North Korea. You know that we can't pull out of Iraq and leave it as it is now and move on to another country with the military might of North Korea just that quick. The Taliban was a weakly armed band of rebels in Afghanistan. The so-called army of Iraq was a joke. North Korea is not a joke. "We" have been in diplomatic negotians with the N. Koreans, yes. Bush has not been there the whole time. The war on terrorism hasn't been ongoing the whole time. The world has changed, and the tactics are changing with it.
Um, frankly, we CAN pull out of Iraq. Exactly what's the problem? The biggest beef they have with us right now is that we're occupying their country and reconstruction is not going well due to several reasons. We get out, that takes care of one reason. I doubt the Hussein-faction of Islam (non-Shiite, can't remember what it is right now) is jumping back in power - the Shiites and Kurds won't allow it. Let them sort it out and have the US come back when things are settled down and they actually want us there.

The point I'm trying to make with N. Korea is that Bush is not uniformly applying his policies of "war on terrorism" to everyone. Of course he's going to pick on the "weak countries", which kinda shows his character anyway. But if he's not uniformly applying his rules when other countries have much more evidence for going to war than Iraq ever did, then the US did not go to war for the reasons he stated, but for his own personal agenda. And that is what makes him suspect and not the hero you'd like him to be.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
The source for the $25K rewards is everywhere actually. Do a simple search for it, and you'll see that not only Fox, but every news media source ran that story or a similar one. The same goes for the other two points I made. Those are well known facts that ran on every news station in the country, but quickly got swept under the rug by the Abu Grahib scandal.

Regardless of what terrorist group the payments went to, the fact remains: He was supporting terrorism against one of our greatest allies. Did you also happen to miss the part where he announced a $15K bonus above and beyond the $25K already promised for those who killed Americans in the suicide bombings?

Yes, we had chances to get Bin Laden. Nobody disputes that either. What is often disputed is that Clinton was the one who had those chances and rather than do anything to upset his political base, he chose to leave it alone. Bush didn't get those chances, so we'll never know what he would have done had he had them. Clinton's bombings in the Sudan were on aspirin factories. That's hardly an effective strategy for fighting back at the terrorists.

Yes, we CAN leave Iraq. Nobody seems to agree with you that it would be the thing to do, but hey, we CAN do it. Of course, all the fighting would be for nothing because the insurgents would simply asassinate every leader elected there and put another dictator in power.....but hey, who cares, right? It's not like we've ever pulled out of a war before finishing the job and watched a million people die because we weren't there anymore to protect them (*cough* Vietnam *cough*)...........

You pick on the weaker countries first because that's where the bulk of your enemy will hide BECAUSE that country is weak. If I'm on the run from the police, and I need a place to hide, I'll take the 80 year old grandmother's house over the 25 year old's house any day of the week. Grandma will be less of a threat to me, and won't be able to force me to leave. See how that works now?

Believe what you want, but there has never been an army strong enough to fight the whole world at once. Hitler thought he had it, but when they were strung out thin enough, they got their asses kicked. The U.S. has the most powerful fighting force in history, but it's still not enough to invade every country in the middle east plus North Korea. The end result would leave our own country defenseless because we'd have no military here at home.

By the way, I never said Bush is a hero. Bush is a politician, and I'll NEVER hold a politician in such regard as that. What I do know is that I see the same guys day in and day out popping off two lines of thought:
1. Bush is an incoherent idiot that can't string together a sentence without a cue card.
2. Bush contrived an elaborate scheme to go to war with Iraq in order to fatten the bottom line of a couple of his Texas oil buddies.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways people. If he's such an idiot, how does he contrive this elaborate scheme and hide all the damning evidence that would put him before an impeachment hearing faster than greased lightning?

We're all allowed to have opinions, but for people to tell me that a man who simply did what his advisors, Congress, the Senate, and the U.S. Supreme Court told him was the proper course of action, should be criticized for doing so is ridiculous.

That being said, I pose the same question to you that I posed to Exaulted:
What would you do, post 9/11, to combat terrorism? What would you have done when everyone who is supposed to give you the advice, evidence, and intelligence that decides whether you go to war or not......what would you have done when those people told you that war was the only option if the man wouldn't voluntarily leave the country, that his own accounting for weapons shows him to have 1200 weapons left that should have been destroyed long ago, and that he's harboring terrorists and their leaders in his country........what would you have done?
 
I

Ivotekerry

Guest
I'm not saying that Bush is a bad guy he means well. Yes he is cocky. Bush has just made some bad mistakes. First of all the economy. Clinton has 3 years of Surplus yes the economy slipped a little when Bush first took office you can expect that after 3 surplus years. But republicans want to say that Bush inheritated a recession I don't think so just like every party as soon as one party leaves the other party changes policies big mistake.

Now on war yes the house senators what ever wanted to go to war with Iraq The whole bunch mislead us. Why Iraq people keep saying that we are fighting terrorist? We are not at war soldiers are walking around town getting murdered. Have we forgot Al-Queda Bin laden. I'm for getting rid of Saddam I'm glad he was caught Bin Laden should have been first he is the biggest threat. They say we are safe with Bush because we are fighting terror in Iraq but the terrorist is in Aftganistan. Another mistake.

Why do everybody think that every Democrat are wussies.(Reagan did'nt want to fight he wanted peace people don't call him a wussy) I know Kerry could run the country better he is smarter. People are already saying Kerry can't handle terrorist just because he is a democrat. Cheney made comment yesterday that make me sick to my stomach. People say Kerry flipflops because he don't make a decision and stick to it he calls it comes to him that means there is thought put into it. When it comes to my family friends getting deployed over seas I want thought put into it not cocky arse attitude. I feel that this war is more personal to Bush than people are willing to admit. I know Bush is passionate about his country he is just not that smart we don't need just a down to earth christian as president we need someone who can run the country. And not base his reelection on his war on terror. We need help in the US and we are helping Iraq and forgetting about the US. We have gained some of the jobs back but look at the jobs he lost. Mistake.

I want Bin laden caught I'm tired of seeing on CNN 5 or 6 soldiers getting killed a day a week whatever just walking streets. I'm passionate for my country I love people. I know alot of you will disagree with me but this is how it is open your eyes:eek:

God Bless:)
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Please enlighten me on a few of the things you've said.

1. Kerry is smarter than Bush..........how so? They went to the same school. You don't graduate Yale without having a few active brain cells. Kerry is a better speaker than Bush, that's for sure. That's what happens when you take a man from the South and hand him speeches that say what he wants to say, but not the way he wants to say it.

2. The whole bunch mislead us........that includes Kerry doesn't it? Looking at the vote to go to war, I am seeing a "yes" by his name. Kerry also has stated that he would have gone to war with Iraq given the same intelligence Bush was given. He did soften that statement later (after the news media jumped all over it) by saying he'd have done everything differently though. Although he hasn't said just HOW he'd have done anything differently.

3. Who told you we'd forgotten about Bin Laden? Where are you getting that information? If it's a high enough source at the Pentagon, perhaps you should send the message on to the troops over in Afghanistan who are still actively participating in the search. I'm sure they'd appreciate someone letting them know they can come home now.

4. People don't say Kerry flip-flops for no reason, friend. He does, and it's not exactly like you have to be an MIT graduate to see it. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, just the thing about SUV's is a great example. Either you own them, or you don't, but you don't tell one group that you do, then two days later tell another that you don't. That's not a thought process working itself out and changing position.........that's a lack of thought process leading to a flat lie in an attempt to gain favor with two special interest groups that was caught by the media.

5. Do you know what a recession is? Bush did, in fact, inherit a recession brought on by NAFTA. Once NAFTA went into full effect, factories all over the country shut down and moved out of the country. Locally, I watched a Lee jeans plant move to Mexico and take 140 jobs out of a town of less than 1000 people. I know Zenith pulled some garbage of sending some plants to Mexico to build T.V.s and ship them back across to the U.S. Then, once they were here, a handful of American workers put the one part that the Mexican workers left out of it on.......the plug-in. Hence, it's still made in America because it doesn't work without the plug-in. Very cute.

6. Can you honestly tell me that you don't believe any of the job losses can be attributed to the attack on September 11th? You can tell me this, yet most every economist in the country says otherwise.

You know what the best thing about Kerry/Edwards is? The fact that neither one of them feels that the other is qualified to be President. What's that? You say, where on Earth did I come up with that? I come up with that from.......John Kerry and John Edwards. Look at what they said about each other in the primaries. Kerry said that Edwards was not qualified to be president and that he would need on-the-job training. Edwards said that Kerry was not the type of man to lead this nation during the times we find ourselves in. Boy, who better to criticize this duo than themselves.

And, by the way, for all you supporters of Kerry's big tax plan to cut back on the "rich" (otherwise known as re-distribution of wealth to people who didn't earn it), let me clue you in on something.
I own a small business. Last year, my gross income was $347K and some change. Being as John Kerry thinks I'm "rich" because I grossed over $200K, he belives I didn't pay my fair share. After taxes, overhead, wages paid (remember, whatever you get taken out for taxes, your employer matches it), and health insurance benefits, I cleared a grand total of $103K. Let me save you the math.......that's $244K less than my gross. So, I ask you, just what is my FAIR SHARE?
:mad:

Oh, yeah, and if Kerry wants to blame out-sourcing for the job loss, I'd agree with him that it's a contributing factor. If he wants me to believe that he's going to be able to stop it......that's another story. Check out what his own wife's company thinks of out-sourcing http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096992/posts

If he can't get his own wife to bring the jobs home, how exactly am I to believe that he can do it with people he doesn't even know?

I'll tell you one thing that scares me about John Kerry more than anything. The man claims to have this great and wonderous plan to win the peace in Iraq, bring our estranged allies back to our side, and promote harmony throughout the universe, blah, blah, blah. This "plan" has yet to be released to anyone, of course, so we can't exactly criticize it. However, what I can criticize is that if you have such a great plan that's sure to work, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU KEEPING IT A SECRET? Is he seriously keeping this "plan" a secret under the guise that he doesn't want the Bush administration to take credit for implementing it? And this guy cares about the soldiers who are fighting and dieing at a rate of about 1 a day (not 5 or 6)? If it's so great, dear God, share it and help expedite the mission over there. That's your duty as a Senator, as a combat veteran of a foreign war, and most of all as an American.

Simple answer.......there is no damn plan. He's banking on the same thing half of all hopeful office holders bank on. You dislike the current guy so much that if I promise to do everything different, even without being specific, you'll vote for me.

I see your comments as not so much Pro-Kerry, but Anti-Bush. The only reason you gave for voting for Kerry in your original post is that he's "smarter" than Bush. Thus far, every Kerry voter I've encountered when asked the question "Why Kerry?", they immediately launch into the "Because Bush........etc, etc". I'm patiently waiting on someone that can answer "Why Kerry?" without even mentioning Bush. Tell me what you like about his policies, not what you hate about Bush's. Even better.......tell me what he has done as a Senator?

You know what the REALLY funny part about Bin Laden is? It was issued on the democratic talking points memo a few days prior to the RNC to remind folks that Osama hasn't been caught yet. A few months ago, there was a crazy conspiracy theory that caught some attention in the media to the effect that the Bush administration already A. knew where Osama was, or B. already had him captured and planned to reveal it just prior to the election as a political bombshell to win us over in the 11th hour.

Now.......just picture it....October 25th or so, the current cries of the democratic gripe machine are answered, and some pimple-faced, hap-hazard looking soldier emerges from the mouth of a cave with Osama Bin Laden hog-tied on the back of a camel. What do you think the message will be? Not "hooray, that's just what we asked for!" More like, "yep, that's just what we said would happen. Knew it all along. Just another conspiracy by the Bush gang." Jeez, talk about a lose-lose situation.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Bobby_103
The source for the $25K rewards is everywhere actually. Do a simple search for it, and you'll see that not only Fox, but every news media source ran that story or a similar one. The same goes for the other two points I made. Those are well known facts that ran on every news station in the country, but quickly got swept under the rug by the Abu Grahib scandal.

Regardless of what terrorist group the payments went to, the fact remains: He was supporting terrorism against one of our greatest allies. Did you also happen to miss the part where he announced a $15K bonus above and beyond the $25K already promised for those who killed Americans in the suicide bombings?
I'm not disputing that there were rewards offered, what I'm disputing is that Hussein only offered rewards for American deaths AFTER the Iraqi invasion. Your original statement seems to say he was supporting American deaths before then.

Yes, we CAN leave Iraq. Nobody seems to agree with you that it would be the thing to do, but hey, we CAN do it. Of course, all the fighting would be for nothing because the insurgents would simply asassinate every leader elected there and put another dictator in power.....but hey, who cares, right? It's not like we've ever pulled out of a war before finishing the job and watched a million people die because we weren't there anymore to protect them (*cough* Vietnam *cough*)...........
That's just guessing. They might assassinate leaders, they might get their act together and because they don't have the US to focus their anger on, elect their own leaders and start rebuilding. Either way, the US is out of it.

No one agrees because of fundamental other differences, such as the notion of finishing what we started (which I can see).

You pick on the weaker countries first because that's where the bulk of your enemy will hide BECAUSE that country is weak. If I'm on the run from the police, and I need a place to hide, I'll take the 80 year old grandmother's house over the 25 year old's house any day of the week. Grandma will be less of a threat to me, and won't be able to force me to leave. See how that works now?
No, the bulk of your enemies hide where they either think the country is against the US/will support them or the country is too disarrayed to not bother with them. None of that necessarily suggests that a country is "weak". They could be hiding in Russia which has its own problems. They could be hiding in N. Korea because they're aligned against the US.

And if you're running from the police, it really doesn't matter where you hide, since you've most likely have a weapon and can use it to intimidate whoever, not matter what the age.

Believe what you want, but there has never been an army strong enough to fight the whole world at once. Hitler thought he had it, but when they were strung out thin enough, they got their asses kicked. The U.S. has the most powerful fighting force in history, but it's still not enough to invade every country in the middle east plus North Korea. The end result would leave our own country defenseless because we'd have no military here at home.
I'm not arguing that. Which is why I said the US should be pulling out of Iraq and going after the next terrorist haven or threat. After all, the US had no qualms about finishing up in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq (which doesn't have the greatest amount of insurgency problems as Iraq (unless that's being kept in the back pages) but isn't all roses either).

By the way, I never said Bush is a hero. Bush is a politician, and I'll NEVER hold a politician in such regard as that. What I do know is that I see the same guys day in and day out popping off two lines of thought:
1. Bush is an incoherent idiot that can't string together a sentence without a cue card.
2. Bush contrived an elaborate scheme to go to war with Iraq in order to fatten the bottom line of a couple of his Texas oil buddies.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways people. If he's such an idiot, how does he contrive this elaborate scheme and hide all the damning evidence that would put him before an impeachment hearing faster than greased lightning?
Pretty simple way to put the opposing views on Bush and maybe YOU hear it. But there's tons of gray in the middle and Bush could be smart, but went to war for his own personal reasons (not necessarily oil). That's just another option.

We're all allowed to have opinions, but for people to tell me that a man who simply did what his advisors, Congress, the Senate, and the U.S. Supreme Court told him was the proper course of action, should be criticized for doing so is ridiculous.
So he is a puppet? :) I know he isn't, but I'm pretty sure he already had his mind made up and heard nothing major to sway him otherwise.

That being said, I pose the same question to you that I posed to Exaulted:
What would you do, post 9/11, to combat terrorism? What would you have done when everyone who is supposed to give you the advice, evidence, and intelligence that decides whether you go to war or not......what would you have done when those people told you that war was the only option if the man wouldn't voluntarily leave the country, that his own accounting for weapons shows him to have 1200 weapons left that should have been destroyed long ago, and that he's harboring terrorists and their leaders in his country........what would you have done?
Your question is misleading in that he surrounded himself with people who, with perhaps the exception of Powell, are pretty much his yes men or hold the same views he does. Of course he's going to go to war when his people are telling him there's no big reason not to and that he's already made up his mind (mostly) and made plans for it way ahead of time.

With that said, frankly, I still wouldn't have gone to war. Big whoop if the guy refuses to leave (what, is Bush going to leave because Putin demands it?) The inspectors should have been allowed to have full rein in the Iraq to make sure 1200 were missing and as I remember, they weren't allowed. I still don't know about your terrorist assertion - I need to know more from multiple sources with multiple views that confirm that.

But basically, that's not enough to go to war, plain and simple.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
I can see where you're coming from, I think. You're just saying that there are possibly other reasons behind Bush's thinking. I'll agree with you there, although I again point out that the Senate, Congress, 1/2 of the members present at the U.N. Security Council vote to authorize force, as well as the United States Supreme Court also agreed with his reasons.

You can get information about the terrorist training camps anywhere on the net. There are tons of stories, and the Fox story I gave you just happened to be the first one that popped up from the MSN home page. Every media outlet carried that story if I recall correctly.

No, Hussein didn't add the bonus after the invasion. That bonus was added long before then. He didn't have time to add anything after the invasion because he was busy running and hiding.

As to your assertion that the U.S. had no qualms about finishing up and leaving Afghanistan....you should also put in a call to the troops there. I'm sure they'd be glad to know it's time to come home. Last I checked, we still have a substantial force in Afghanistan completing the mop-up and continuing the search for Bin Laden.

And by the way, the question isn't misleading. It's very straightforward actually. Bush put the evidence before the Senate and Congress and gave them the intelligence he'd gotten from the Russians, MI-6 in Great Britian, and from the CIA, and asked for a vote. Asking for a vote isn't going to your "yes men" for affirmation of your views.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
No, Hussein didn't add the bonus after the invasion. That bonus was added long before then. He didn't have time to add anything after the invasion because he was busy running and hiding.
We're going to have to differ here, because I remember otherwise. Only when the US invaded Iraq was there a reward/bounty put out for American soldier deaths and that was the first time he mentioned American deaths.

As to your assertion that the U.S. had no qualms about finishing up and leaving Afghanistan....you should also put in a call to the troops there. I'm sure they'd be glad to know it's time to come home. Last I checked, we still have a substantial force in Afghanistan completing the mop-up and continuing the search for Bin Laden.
Sorry, that came out wrong when I missed an important "not". My statement should have said "After all, the US had no qualms about NOT finishing up in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq".

And by the way, the question isn't misleading. It's very straightforward actually. Bush put the evidence before the Senate and Congress and gave them the intelligence he'd gotten from the Russians, MI-6 in Great Britian, and from the CIA, and asked for a vote. Asking for a vote isn't going to your "yes men" for affirmation of your views.
Exactly how was the vote aligned and what was the exact number of yes and no's? And did he ask for a declaration of war or just one of the resolutions that let him deploy military forces without declaring war (which I can't recall right now what it's called)?
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
The bonus was instituted in March of 2002, and seeing as we didn't invade Iraq until 2003.......well, we can disagree then.

I believe you are referring to a police action when you speak of deploying military without actually attacking. The vote was a resolution to ATTACK Iraq, not police it, if Saddam Hussein would not give up his WMD and abandon all programs to create WMD immediately. Hussein was given two chances by the resolution to meet this demand and avert war.
1. Provide the full documentation of the missing 1200 weapons that was missing from the original arms report he sent to the UN.

2. Give up the location of those weapons if, in fact, they had not been destroyed.

The vote passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 269-133

The vote passed the Senate by a margin of 77-23 and that was with 29 democrats voting for it, while only 21 voted against it.



Just my own personal opinion of how this thing went down here, but here goes:
I believe those 1200 weapons exist today, and possibly even more. I could only speculate as to where they are, and at the risk of looking completely foolish in the event they are found one day, I'll keep that speculation to myself. My reasoning behind this is simple:
Hussein couldn't provide records of disarmament of those weapons because they weren't disarmed. He either hid them somewhere for safe keeping to increase his own military might, or he sold/gave them to other countries in the region. He may have even sold/gave some to terrorist organizations so that they could use them in the right place and time.
I reach these conclusions based on the following:
1. I would never believe Hussein wouldn't stash a few back if he thought he could get away with it. He kicked the inspectors out of Iraq several times, and in doing so, he tested the mettle and resolve of the UN. Once he saw that they weren't going to seriously enforce the resolutions against him, perhaps he got bold and decided to hide a few here and there. Kind of like embezzling.
2. He can't produce the records of destruction/disarmament, which leads you to believe it never happened.
3. He can't tell you what happened to the weapons because it wouldn't exactly endear him to the world to know he gave Syria a few dozen ICBMs with mustard gas warheads for Christmas in '99.

A good case can be made by either side as to whether we should have or shouldn't have went to war. However, we now have the benefit of hindsight. Looking at it from a historical point of view, putting myself in the position of President with all that he was handed as evidence and seeing the U.N. for the virtually impotent group it is in matters such as this.....on that day I'd have likely done the same thing.

Perhaps the most enraging thing to me about what I see today from the democratic candidates is the line about "every life we lose is precious......" when they speak about the soldiers dieing at a rate of about 1 a day in Iraq. This line from the party that supports abortion as a method of birth control because it's a woman's right to choose. Can you say "hypocritical propaganda"?
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Okay, I'm not sure who all is trying to turn every thread into abortion thread, because I haven't been keeping track of it, but please stop. If you want to start an abortion thread, I see no problem with such a thing, but I think that most of us would appreciate not having to see the subject change on EVERY thread in this forum...
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Actually, it wasn't intended to change the subject. It was intended to show the hypocritical nature of the claim that every life is prescious by a certain political party.
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Bobby_103
Actually, it wasn't intended to change the subject. It was intended to show the hypocritical nature of the claim that every life is prescious by a certain political party.
But doesn't that go the other way too - Anti-abortion but Pro-war = hypocracy as well, doesn't it?

Just an outside observation...:eek:
 
Top