Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

What do you think of Bush's Second Term In Office

Do you believe that Bush's Second Term In Office Is a Failure?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      13


Recommended Posts

as i said before, do you think the communist party of china with its one child policy and restrictions on everything you can do would be better?

 

The one child policy is very important in an effort to continue to keep the general population from starving. We should consider it here in the U.S.

 

The other restrictions are a bit much; however, many of those restrictions under the Chinese government are in place here in the U.S. from our own government.

 

Have you tried to organize a rally or protest recently? The paperwork is maddening, and the permits are very difficult to acquire. Also, have you noticed how most of Bush's press appearances are very well manicured? How individual protesters are removed from sight? Aren't we supposed to have the right to organized protest? Aren't we obligated to question our leaders under a democracy? Forget China, we are a breath away from a police state in this country.

 

and there were and still are WMDs, they were transported out of the country by way of jets and trucks, former generals who knew sadam closely and who supervised these operations have confirmed this.

 

Oddly, this information, which I do believe is generally true, is coming from the same source as the original WMD accusation, so I'm loathe to believe it fully without question, much like the wiretapping information (that the wiretapping is only on international calls involving a person or country of suspected terrorism). Did you notice our Attorney General imply that this probably isn't the limit to this unregulated wiretapping?

 

the domestic spying is done for your own well being and to catch the guilty. for my part, i have nothing to hide, and unless your a criminal, neither should you.

 

Written like a true officer of the SS.

 

This argument is specious. I don't need the government over my shoulder even if I'm honest. Big Brother should not be watching in the U.S.; our constitution's checks and balances provisions are set-up to prevent this.

 

Bush has ingeniously circumvented our constitution in several ways. He's quite crafty.

 

If you truely believe the government should be in everyone's business, you could not consider yourself a true conservative. The conservative ideology seeks small government with as little intrusion into business and the individual lives of the public as possible.

 

On a side note, the term Libertarian is an oxymoron because Libertarians are the ultimate conservatives, zero intrusion from government.

 

lastly, how many interns has bush slept with? also, how many times has he lied in court? (unlike someone else i could mention).

 

Adultery and sleeping with interns isn't illegal, so I don't care. Clinton lied under oath about having sex, whoo hoo! Yes, illegal; he was impeached. Our current President has lied and deceived the American public in a hundred different ways that have been swept under the carpet by his empowered Republican party.

 

One example of Bush circumventing the constitution and obscuring the truth is how he presents the federal budget to congress, which requires detailed listings of appropriations and must have congressional approval. He leaves from this budget the spending for our two wars because non-budgeted appropriation bills do not require detailed listings and must be approved as a whole, line items can not be deleted. Bush's budget looks reasonable, almost conservative, until we add in the war spending.

 

Bush is the single most powerful President since FDR. Frightening.

 

if clinton was doing all these things you would be singing his praises you

 

No. Circumventing the constitution is wrong no matter who does it.

 

stinking liberals.

 

If you'd called those of us who think Bush is a failure traitors or treasonous, you'd be more in line with Bush. He'd probably send you a medal.

 

you people need to do some research before posting comments that only make fools out of you.

 

Right back at you. :P

Researching the issues still does not necessarily put Bush in a positive light. There are reasons to support Bush, none of which you stated in your argument. If you'd do some research maybe you could understand both sides of the issues, and you wouldn't sound like one of the fools you mention.

 

You make the assumption that someone who disagrees with you does so because he has not educated himself on the issues; this assumption is wrong. Very smart, educated, and informed people disagree about the Bush Presidency. Calling them names doesn't make you or anyone else look smarter. It makes you look like you haven't done your homework.

 

For the record, politically and fiscally, I'm moderately conservative (less government and government spending is better, power to the state and local governments, government should avoid making laws about personal moral decisions (religion)...yadda, yadda, yadda); much more so than Bush.

 

The liberal vs. conservative bashing doesn't really make sense under this administration because Bush is NOT conservative (except religiously); he's Republican. Bush will do anything to keep his party in power, including sacrificing his own ideology.

 

-Rob

That is very well said and I agree with you totaly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one child policy is very important in an effort to continue to keep the general population from starving. We should consider it here in the U.S.

 

does that mean you support forced abortions and sterilzations that occcur on a daily basis over there? i am almost tempted to think you have no moral standards at all.

 

 

and there were and still are WMDs, they were transported out of the country by way of jets and trucks, former generals who knew sadam closely and who supervised these operations have confirmed this.

 

Oddly, this information, which I do believe is generally true, is coming from the same source as the original WMD accusation

 

no, its coming from an iraqi general who described the process in detail on conservative talk radio shows

 

and to all of you who say "Bush lied so that we could go to war with Iraq"

Bush DID NOT LIE! when he decided to go to war he acted on the inteligence that had been provided to him at the time, he did not know it

was faulty. instead of saying bush lied, go blame the CIA and all the other intelligence agencies for making some big mistakes.

 

it is obvious to me you people rely too much on the liberal media for your research and your overall knowledge of what is going on out there, start listening to conservative talk radio. maybe then you will realize that the liberal media has no interest in reporting the truth, all they want to do is twist it to serve their liberal purposes and to make people talk and have opinions like YOU. unfortunately, its working. oh, and don't forget 9/11.

 

well, thats all i can do for now, its obvious all of you have been so screwed up by the liberal media that i can't do much at all to help you, like i said, brace yourselves and listen to conservative talk radio.

 

don't worry, i won't drive you poor people crazy with the truth any longer, i have discovered its a waste of my time to post here, and have a life to live, so you all can breath a sigh of relief now that the beacon of truth has left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one child policy is very important in an effort to continue to keep the general population from starving. We should consider it here in the U.S.

 

does that mean you support forced abortions and sterilzations that occcur on a daily basis over there? i am almost tempted to think you have no moral standards at all.

 

What's a moral?

Get it? I made a funny...:)

 

and there were and still are WMDs, they were transported out of the country by way of jets and trucks, former generals who knew sadam closely and who supervised these operations have confirmed this.

 

Oddly, this information, which I do believe is generally true, is coming from the same source as the original WMD accusation

 

no, its coming from an iraqi general who described the process in detail on conservative talk radio shows

 

You killed your validity when you named the source: "Conservative talk radio" The news is not supposed to have an agenda, liberal or conservative. Of course it does, which is why it is beneficial to consume news broadly from many sources.

 

and to all of you who say "Bush lied so that we could go to war with Iraq"

 

Bush has lied, not necessarily related to this issue. Generally I agree with you here. Acting on bad information does not constitute a lie.

 

it is obvious to me you people rely too much on the liberal media for your research and your overall knowledge of what is going on out there, start listening to conservative talk radio. maybe then you will realize that the liberal media has no interest in reporting the truth, all they want to do is twist it to serve their liberal purposes and to make people talk and have opinions like YOU. unfortunately, its working.

 

I do read conservatively slanted news and traditional news and liberal news. It's why I have a well rounded view of Bush and his administration.

 

Can you say the same?

 

oh, and don't forget 9/11.

 

Another specious argument. Disagreeing with Bush and the war in Iraq does not mean people have forgotten about 9/11 and does not mean that people hate our soldiers.

 

well, thats all i can do for now, its obvious all of you have been so screwed up by the liberal media that i can't do much at all to help you, like i said, brace yourselves and listen to conservative talk radio.

 

As you accuse us (the general "us") of being indoctrinated by the liberal media, you've provided grand examples that the same has happened to you in the opposite direction. Get multiple points of view. It might help you mellow a little and hate a little less.

 

don't worry, i won't drive you poor people crazy with the truth any longer, i have discovered its a waste of my time to post here, and have a life to live, so you all can breath a sigh of relief now that the beacon of truth has left.

 

I'm sad. You don't drive me crazy. I find you quite entertaining, even funny, at least in this thread.

 

(Hopefully, this one thread doesn't drive you from the forums entirely. As a Macintosh resource this forum is pretty good and pretty friendly. These hot political topics boil some blood, and if they do this to you, just avoid them. Stick with the tech topics, which is 95% of this forum.)

 

All in good spirit,

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this made me giggle:

That is very well said and I agree with you totaly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failure? No. A little disastrous? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting that quicksilver relied on the old 'watch out for the commies' argument here....didn't we finish with that when the cold war ended? It may have escaped quicksilver's notice, but China is *rapidly* becoming an industrialised capitalist economy, and one that looks to be a much bigger empire than Britain or the US ever was. Just a thought.

 

And here's another one. Regardless of the reason, THOUSANDS of people have died in Iraq (and the killing continues). You need a much better reason than the ones that Bush and Blair gave to send people to die in a strange land. It makes me sick to my stomach that people are dying and I'm not sure I know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush's maths skills... :wink:

 

What, do you think the Chinese Communist party could do better?, (since no one is worse than Bush).

Yes, mainly because they'd have a much harder time hoodwinking congress. You think congress would allow the chinese communists to spy on everyone? Why do they not hold the bush accountable for it?

 

does that mean you support forced abortions and sterilzations that occcur on a daily basis over there? i am almost tempted to think you have no moral standards at all.

 

Overpopulation is a serious issue in china and so demands serious action, short of murdering anyone which they aren't. Look at how poorly india is dealing with the similar situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here's another one. Regardless of the reason, THOUSANDS of people have died in Iraq (and the killing continues).

That's war sweetheart.

You need a much better reason than the ones that Bush and Blair gave to send people to die in a strange land. It makes me sick to my stomach that people are dying and I'm not sure I know why.

Regardless of the reason, there hasn't been any more terrorist attacks. So why are you complaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overpopulation is a serious issue in china and so demands serious action, short of murdering anyone which they aren't. Look at how poorly india is dealing with the similar situation.

 

abortion IS murdering someone! just because the baby isn't born yet doesn't mean its not a human being!

 

i agree with iBasden's post completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's another one. Regardless of the reason, THOUSANDS of people have died in Iraq (and the killing continues).

That's war sweetheart.

 

Will you be so cavalier when you turn 18 and possibly face a draft? How about when someone close to you dies in this war? Will you wonder if the reasons for this war are worth the sacrifice?

 

I wonder about these things fairly often. Are we really fighting for freedom? If so, whose freedom? Are we really fighting for our security? If so, aren't there better ways?

 

You are right. People die in war and sometimes it's both necessary and worth it, but the attitude you project is evidence of your age and inexperience.

 

abortion IS murdering someone! just because the baby isn't born yet doesn't mean its not a human being!

 

i agree with iBasden's post completely.

 

Ohhhhh! The whole abortion issue has been debated to death. No one changes anyone's mind. Let's let that issue slip into the abyss here.

 

As for agreeing with iBasden in this thread, do you agree with his tone as well as his logic: callousness and the idea that the lack of local terrorist attacks justifies anything the government does? If you really agree with him completely, I hope you're as young and naive as he is.

 

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree simply with what he has put forth in text, i have no desire for a battle on politics. i think you need to give people a break rob. i won't be posting in this thread again, because like i said, i have no desire to be involved in a political battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you be so cavalier when you turn 18 and possibly face a draft? How about when someone close to you dies in this war? Will you wonder if the reasons for this war are worth the sacrifice?

Actually, I am going to join the army after highschool and plan on joining the special forces shortly thereafter.

You are right. People die in war and sometimes it's both necessary and worth it, but the attitude you project is evidence of your age and inexperience.

You're age by no means is any indication of you being smarter than me. Now, I'm not saying you aren't, but please don't use my age as a reason that you are right.

 

i agree with iBasden's post completely.

 

As for agreeing with iBasden in this thread, do you agree with his tone as well as his logic: callousness and the idea that the lack of local terrorist attacks justifies anything the government does? If you really agree with him completely, I hope you're as young and naive as he is.

-Rob

Again, cut the age shit, okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I am going to join the army after highschool and plan on joining the special forces shortly thereafter.

I applaud you on your goals. The military can be an honorable profession, but please don't think that everything our government does is honorable or justified.

 

Please keep in mind that I don't take issue with the military or the fact that people die in war. I take issue with those who treat it with an "oh well, no big deal" (aka: cavalier) attitude, which you did put forth in your comment.

 

Of course what you implied in your writing and what you really think, might not agree.

 

You are right. People die in war and sometimes it's both necessary and worth it, but the attitude you project is evidence of your age and inexperience.

You're age by no means is any indication of you being smarter than me. Now, I'm not saying you aren't, but please don't use my age as a reason that you are right.

 

I commented on your attitude and your inexperience, not your intelligence. I have students, and you might be like this, who are frighteningly smart, much smarter than I was at their age; however, because of their lack of life experience (age), they don't have an adult understanding of the world. And, because of this innocence (a nicer word than naivety), they have a tendency to see things in absolutes, black and white; they often come across as cavalier regarding important issues; and many times (like many adults) they don't understand the big picture surrounding important issues.

 

Age matters greatly in how people perceive the world. Like most, when I was 18 I thought I was smart and worldly. When I was 25, I thought, "Wow, I didn't know jack when I was 18." When I was 30, I thought, "Wow, I didn't know jack when I was 25." When my wife was pregnant I thought I knew what to expect about raising kids. My son is now two, and I think, "Wow, I don't know jack about raising kids. --- I'm sure this cycle will continue throughout my life.

 

As for agreeing with iBasden in this thread, do you agree with his tone as well as his logic: callousness and the idea that the lack of local terrorist attacks justifies anything the government does? If you really agree with him completely, I hope you're as young and naive as he is.

Again, cut the age shit, okay?

Again, age matters.

You seem extremely bright, but you have a tendency to unquestionably pick a side of an argument. My experience has taught me that this is either a sign of youth, a sign of ignorance (being uninformed about an issue), or a sign of stupidity. I certainly don't think you are stupid, I don't know if you're uninformed, but I know you are young.

 

In your other post you implied that because we have had no local terrorist attacks, the government is fully justified in whatever it has done. What if our government took away your right to view the internet because terrorists use the internet and enacting this regulation would prevent terrorism? Would you agree that the government is right in doing this? What if they did this, we saw no terrorist attacks, and they claimed, "Hey, preventing people from using the internet was the right thing to do because there have been no attacks." Would you agree that eliminating the internet was the right thing to do? What about free speech? What about your right to have a gun? What about your right to due process? What about your right to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment? Which rights can we sacrifice in the name of security?

 

Do the ends always justify the means?

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of the reason, there hasn't been any more terrorist attacks. So why are you complaining?

What kind of stupid statement is that, because it doesn't happen in america it doesn't count? What about the London transportation system attacks? Spain? What about the blowing up of night bars and embassy's in indonesia? There has been an increase in terrorist attacks which is probably due to the iraq war inciting more violence. The Iraq war has been harmful to the war on terror, and the reason for the war probably relates to economic reasons, aka gaining control of a large oil field to help america survive peak oil. And it seems that Bush is more worried about peak oil than terrorism. I hope he's smart enough to have actually thought, hey we need more oil and it's worth risking an increase in terrorism get it. Which is probably wise of him considering the damage that peak oil could do to america, still the solution he's come up with is little more than murder and theft.

 

 

abortion IS murdering someone! just because the baby isn't born yet doesn't mean its not a human being!  

 

A small clump of growing cells does not make a human beings. But lets not focus on this topic too much, it's large enough topic for it's own thread.

 

 

Actually, I am going to join the army after highschool and plan on joining the special forces shortly thereafter.  

 

Well good on you, it's very important we stablise iraq, bush has turned this into a front of the war in terror when before iraq wasn't relevent to the war on terror. If we don't stablise the country it becomes a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. We have to stay there to fix up Bush's mistakes.

And if you're in the military you should hopefully start to become more critical of poor decisions of the government that put you in harms way for no good reason. Much of the anti-war movement is due to sympathy with the troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well good on you, it's very important we stablise iraq, bush has turned this into a front of the war in terror when before iraq wasn't relevent to the war on terror. If we don't stablise the country it becomes a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. We have to stay there to fix up Bush's mistakes.

And if you're in the military you should hopefully start to become more critical of poor decisions of the government that put you in harms way for no good reason. Much of the anti-war movement is due to sympathy with the troops.

This is one of the most stupid comments I have heard in this thread so far.

Let us first focus on this part:

If we don't stablise the country it becomes a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. We have to stay there to fix up Bush's mistakes.

First of all, it was already a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. I don't think you truly realize what could have and probably would have happened if we didn't take measures against the terrorists. Let's go back to world war II when Japan bombed pearl harbor. We did not have a substantial number of planes or aircraft cariers anywhere near japan. As you may remember from the movie Pear Harbor, FDR commanded that they send the small group of bombers to let Japan know you don't mess with the United States. Even though the bombers may have been very small and not caused much damage, they were by NO means insignificant. They did not end the war at all, but they did let Japan know what the fuck was up. You CANNOT let terrorists or enemy countries bully you. It will make you weak and you will be picked on by more countries and more terrorists. Though the war in Iraq has not stopped terrorism, it has only put a small dent in it, it HAS let terrorists know that you DO NOT mess with America. We are going to kick your ass if you mess with our country. It would have been extremely unwise to let this go by without taking extreme measures, such as going to war. The war in iraq is very similar to those few bombers who went to Japan. This is only the beginning against a war on terrorism. It is a necessary and good start to the fight, though.

 

INTERMISION

 

And if you're in the military you should hopefully start to become more critical of poor decisions of the government that put you in harms way for no good reason.
And no doubt I will be. Most of what I have said above is also relevant here. It was a great and necessary reason.

 

Much of the anti-war movement is due to sympathy with the troops.
Actually, much of the anti-war movent is because of dumb asses like you. If you don't believe in what you are fighting for, don't fucking join the army! The troops in Iraq and around the world fighting against terrorism believe in what they are fighting for (for the most part) and don't want anyone's sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good on you, it's very important we stablise iraq, bush has turned this into a front of the war in terror when before iraq wasn't relevent to the war on terror. If we don't stablise the country it becomes a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. We have to stay there to fix up Bush's mistakes.

And if you're in the military you should hopefully start to become more critical of poor decisions of the government that put you in harms way for no good reason. Much of the anti-war movement is due to sympathy with the troops.

This is one of the most stupid comments I have heard in this thread so far.

Let us first focus on this part:

If we don't stablise the country it becomes a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. We have to stay there to fix up Bush's mistakes.

First of all, it was already a great place for terrorists to set up bases and training camps. I don't think you truly realize what could have and probably would have happened if we didn't take measures against the terrorists. Let's go back to world war II when Japan bombed pearl harbor. We did not have a substantial number of planes or aircraft cariers anywhere near japan. As you may remember from the movie Pear Harbor, FDR commanded that they send the small group of bombers to let Japan know you don't mess with the United States. Even though the bombers may have been very small and not caused much damage, they were by NO means insignificant. They did not end the war at all, but they did let Japan know what the fuck was up. You CANNOT let terrorists or enemy countries bully you. It will make you weak and you will be picked on by more countries and more terrorists. Though the war in Iraq has not stopped terrorism, it has only put a small dent in it, it HAS let terrorists know that you DO NOT mess with America. We are going to kick your ass if you mess with our country. It would have been extremely unwise to let this go by without taking extreme measures, such as going to war. The war in iraq is very similar to those few bombers who went to Japan. This is only the beginning against a war on terrorism. It is a necessary and good start to the fight, though.

 

INTERMISION

 

And if you're in the military you should hopefully start to become more critical of poor decisions of the government that put you in harms way for no good reason.
And no doubt I will be. Most of what I have said above is also relevant here. It was a great and necessary reason.

 

Much of the anti-war movement is due to sympathy with the troops.
Actually, much of the anti-war movent is because of dumb asses like you. If you don't believe in what you are fighting for, don't fucking join the army! The troops in Iraq and around the world fighting against terrorism believe in what they are fighting for (for the most part) and don't want anyone's sympathy.

 

i couldn't have put it better. iBasden really knows what he is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was probably a stupid thing to say in present company.

 

I have to ask...Why do you say "present company"? Do "other company" not ever question your opinions? Can they simply read your mind? Are we too anti-Bush? Are we liberal? or Do we simply expect you to state your opinions accurately and with justification? :)

 

I was merely responding to bebe's statement that you need a much better excuse for going to war than Bush gave. Though a great excuse wasn't given,

Actually, I think we had a great reason to invade Iraq; it just happened to be supported with inaccurate data. Whoops!

 

I can still justify invading Iraq under the pretext of ridding the world of a dangerous dictator. If we had known what Hitler was planning would we have stood by and let it happen?

 

However, I have a pretty big problem with the follow through. The American people were never given a realistic cost and timetable for this war. If we'd known that we would be battling insurgents, preventing a civil war, and remaining in Iraq for years to come, would Bush still have had the support of the public? I doubt it.

 

We are paying a serious cost for the poor planning of the occupation of Iraq: paying in lives, in money, in poor world image, in an over-extention of our military... It can be argued that we don't have the necessary resources to deal with other world problems (Iran, N. Korea) because of our situation in Iraq.

 

If we look at this through history's eye, we can see that the allies spent years planning the rebuilding of Germany during WWII. How much time was given to planning the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq?

 

we have not been attacked so we have obviously done what we were trying to do. Preventing terrorism was our main goal in going to war.

 

A couple things here:

#1. We did not invade Iraq to prevent terrorism. That's the war in Afghanistan. You are confusing wars. We invaded Iraq to route a dangerous dictator and prevent the spread of WMDs, and possibly to secure more oil. Other than moral support, there is no evidence showing that Iraq supported terrorists prior to our invasion.

 

#2. Please read Morn's post above. It has been argued by many that the war in Iraq has caused and spurred more terrorism than it has prevented. Certainly more people hate the U.S. now than they did 5 years ago.

 

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i couldn't have put it better. iBasden really knows what he is talking about.

Did someone clone iBasden?

Are you really iBasden incognito?

Are you his brother?

 

I didn't think you were going to post in this thread anymore as you didn't want to be drawn into a political discussion despite the fact that this thread very clearly has a political title.

 

Also, when people post unsupported, inflammatory opinions, they don't deserve a break. It's a political topic, a hot topic, a blood boiling topic: People will disagree with you, either learn from it, respond intelligently, or back away slowly; but don't ask for a break.

 

:)

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple things here:

#1. We did not invade Iraq to prevent terrorism. That's the war in Afghanistan. You are confusing wars. We invaded Iraq to route a dangerous dictator and prevent the spread of WMDs, and possibly to secure more oil. Other than moral support, there is no evidence showing that Iraq supported terrorists prior to our invasion.

 

 

 

-Rob

Forgive my mistake, but what I said can still apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i couldn't have put it better. iBasden really knows what he is talking about.

Did someone clone iBasden?

Are you really iBasden incognito?

Are you his brother?

 

I didn't think you were going to post in this thread anymore as you didn't want to be drawn into a political discussion despite the fact that this thread very clearly has a political title.

 

Also, when people post unsupported, inflammatory opinions, they don't deserve a break. It's a political topic, a hot topic, a blood boiling topic: People will disagree with you, either learn from it, respond intelligently, or back away slowly; but don't ask for a break.

 

:)

-Rob

I agree with you Rob. Politics is very important to some people. I get very angry with people's political views all the time. This is a mature organized argument over politics and everything you say will be scrutinized. If you can't take the heat, get out of the politics thread! lol

 

#2. Please read Morn's post above. It has been argued by many that the war in Iraq has caused and spurred more terrorism than it has prevented. Certainly more people hate the U.S. now than they did 5 years ago.

 

-Rob

That is an impossible thing to say. I realize that I am guilty of saying the opposite, but this is just impossible to say. It seems more likely to me that more attacks would have happened had we not retalliated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of the anti-war movement is due to sympathy with the troops.
Actually, much of the anti-war movent is because of dumb asses like you. If you don't believe in what you are fighting for, don't fucking join the army! The troops in Iraq and around the world fighting against terrorism believe in what they are fighting for (for the most part) and don't want anyone's sympathy.

 

Hey, hey, slow down. Back off on the name-calling. Calling names weakens your arguments.

 

Issue #1: Although this President swears that he will not call for a draft, this war will last for at least one, probably two or three, more presidents. We might see a day where people don't have a choice but to join the army.

 

Issue #2: Soldiers don't have to agree with the war they fight, but they do have to follow orders.

 

Issue #3: A large number of American soldiers, mostly retired officers, have come out against the way we are handling the situation in Iraq, not necessarily the war itself. Many Americans feel that our soldiers' lives are being put at unnecessary risk because of the handling of the occupation. Many Americans feel that we should have at least a long term plan to bring our soldiers home. This doesn't mean that we feel sorry for anyone or hate any soldiers: It means we value their lives, and if we are going to risk those lives it needs to be well planned and worth the risk.

 

Issue #4: WE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ TO PREVENT TERRORISM! Preventing terrorism was never mentioned by the President or its administration until it was clear that WMD's would not be found, and they needed another reason for the invasion.

 

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Issue #4: WE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ TO PREVENT TERRORISM! Preventing terrorism was never mentioned by the President or its administration until it was clear that WMD's would not be found, and they needed another reason for the invasion.  

 

-Rob

Well, to me that can be considered a reason. I don't see why you won't accept it as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is an impossible thing to say. I realize  that I am guilty of saying the opposite, but this is just impossible to say. It seems more likely to me that more attacks would have happened had we not retalliated.

 

I know it was only on the news for about two days, but we did retaliate for 9/11. We invaded and are still in Afghanistan. Our government had clear evidence of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, the Afghanistan government openly supported these camps, and it was/is the home of BinLaden.

 

One SMALL reason Afghanistan is not in the news these days is because we are there for clear, relatively unchallenged reasons. Are we currently doing the right things there? Well, that's certainly debatable.

 

-Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, to me that can be considered a reason. I don't see why you won't accept it as one.

 

I don't accept it as a reason because it is spin. The government needed a new reason to invade Iraq because the old one was being criticized. They CREATED this one about terrorists in Iraq despite there being no evidence to support it.

 

Why did they use this reason? Fear. Americans are ready to believe just about anything involving terrorism in the Middle East. Support of terrorism is not usually concrete and documented, so no "smoking gun" was needed. Also, with 9/11 still fresh in the minds of most Americans it was easy for the government and the media to create an unconscious link between 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq.

 

-Rob

 

BTW, most conservatives would call this liberal brainwashing. Because some of these things have been stated by the general media, I've been indoctrinated by the liberal media. I don't think so, buy hey, maybe I'm wrong. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×