|
| Thread: George W. Bush: The right man, at the right time for the tough job! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
alanaxh_elleil
Tavern Dweller
|
posted October 08, 2006 04:27 PM |
|
|
Would the war on terror get any better if we left Iraq?
What do you think would have happend if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
I think the message that would be sent to the terrorists if we left Iraq would be "Party! We scared the U.S. off and now we can do whatever we want! To terror and beyond! Hooray!". Not good exactly a good message. It's like giving a hall pass to a student who just wants to run out of the school and deal drugs.
____________
Beware: the government is trying to turn us into domesticated clones. Resist and be wyrd.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 18, 2007 03:55 PM |
|
|
Wide Awake, a great song by Audioslave, describes George Bush and "how much of an ***hole he is", according to their bass player.
But it talks about his response to hurricane Katrina and other things:
Quote:
"Wide Awake"
You can a look a hurricane right in the eye.
1200 people dead or left to die.
Follow the leaders, were it an eye for an eye we'd all be blind.
Deaf or murdered, and this I'm sure in this uncertain time.
So come pull the sheet over my eyes
So I can sleep tonight
Despite what I've seen today.
I found you guilty of a crime, of sleeping at a time
When you should have been wide awake.
Down on the road the world is floating by.
The poor and undefended left behind.
While you're somewhere trading lives for oil,
As if the whole world were blind, hey.
So come pull the sheet over my eyes
So I can sleep tonight
Despite what I've seen today.
I found you guilty of a crime of sleeping at a time
When you should have been wide awake.
Come pull the sheet over my eyes
So I can sleep tonight
Despite what I've seen today
I found you guilty of a crime of sleeping at a time
When you should have been wide awake
Wide awake! Wide awake! Wide awake! Wide awake!
But I think that George Bush is a war criminal who will looked back upon with horror.
Disobeyed the UN, in violition of International Law, to invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people doing what he thought was right.
But then, John Howard is just as bad for blindly following him.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Fortress_fan
Disgraceful
|
|
posted February 18, 2007 11:07 AM |
|
|
Good things with Bush:
* He has a Moralist attitude towards Abortion (murder) and Gay marriage.
* He made the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan possible.
* He has greatly weakened Al-Qaeda.
* He is a very charismatic leader.
Bad things:
* He is a supporter of Death penalty; witch will result in many innocent people’s deaths.
* He does not want to give the American people free Healthcare
That is, he is a petty good president.
____________
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted February 18, 2007 11:31 AM |
|
|
uh.. .
Quote:
* He is a very charismatic leader.
say wha????
and I counter:
* he tries to turn a secular nation into Theocracy
* he has invaded at least two sovereign countries
* his IQ is by far the lowest of all American presidents
* he violated international law time and time again
* he has turned almost everyone against the USA
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted March 01, 2007 06:56 PM |
|
|
None of this matters because his destructive ass will be out and replaced with some real leadership soon enough... I hope to never see a repeat of this presidency.. (Holds hands over mouth and tries to keep from vomiting on those that support this joke of man.)
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Fortress_fan
Disgraceful
|
|
posted March 01, 2007 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
None of this matters because his destructive ass will be out and replaced with some real leadership soon enough... I hope to never see a repeat of this presidency.. (Holds hands over mouth and tries to keep from vomiting on those that support this joke of man.)
How dear you to say that? If it wasn't because of him, the Kurds would still be threaded as annimals, the Fundamentalists would have ruled Afghanistan and the victims of 9/11 wouldn't have got their rightfull revange. He is a HERO!
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 01, 2007 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the Kurds would still be threaded as annimals
Yeah, now both Kurds and Shiits are treated as animals.
Quote:
the Fundamentalists would have ruled Afghanistan
In 1999. the NATO, backed up by the USA, commited the operation "Angel of Mercy" (!) with the supposed reason to bring Slobodan Milosevic's government down in Yugoslavia. Nato bombings killed way more innocent by-standers than Milosevic's followers, including a train full of people while it was passing across a bridge and some close friends of my father who worked at the television building. I am fully aware of the American sense of "liberation", as I sensed it in full meaning. It was pretty similar, worse actually, with Afghanistan. So please go tell your "world police" stories to someone else.
Quote:
the victims of 9/11 wouldn't have got their rightfull revange
I am impressed by your ignorance... It wasn't the Iraqis who took the WTC down, it was Bin Laden who's still on the loose, showing you the finger. Iraq had nothing to do with it (alleged WMD didn't even exist. However USA has quite vast quantities of it and no one objects that). I think even 2 year olds know that war was about oil. And I frankly don't see how killing innocents can be seen as rightful revenge, except by pitiful excuses for human beings such as Bush.
I don't even know why do I keep trying to explain stuff to those like you... 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted March 10, 2007 04:58 AM |
|
|
Muerte doesn't seem to have posted for a while (I only just discovered this thread) but I get the distinct feeling that he's trying out for a job at Fox as a news shouter. His posts contain some of the most stunning examples of (il)logic I think I've ever seen, not to mention the persistent denial that he was insulting anybody...  All the argumentative tactics of a good Fox journo... ignores points that goes against him and mixes a very slight modicum of truth with a long list of personal abuses and verbal sleight of hand.
My favourite was the case where somebody asked what Iraq had to do with the september 11 attacks, and his response was (paraphrasing) 'Well given there were Al'Qaida cells in the US, isn't it also very likely that they were in Iraq?' ... Maybe so, but then it's also very likely that Al'Qaida has members in almost any country you'd care to name, so why don't you come and invade us here in Australia as well?! Or invade yourself? This is a fairly clear cut example of a spurious argumentative technique where you advance in defence of an earlier claim a (true) statement which is superficially related to the original point, but in fact plainly not. For someone who likes to abuse 'liberals' writ large (read pot smoking, unemployed, loose morals hippies who'd like to eat your babies) as incapable of common sense and logic, this seems like a rather dissapointing show to be honest.
Consis, you mentioned that the soldiers in the Abu-Ghraib had been dealt with appropriately. What do you think then of the officially sanctioned use of information obtained 'under duress' (aka via torture) from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?? Or the fact that many of those prisoners have been detained without charge for five years?
____________
linkTouched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 10, 2007 06:05 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 06:14, 10 Mar 2007.
|
Pomo,
I have done a good deal of research concerning this issue. I am also a graduate of counter-interrogation schooling in the airforce. And my uncle was a P.O.W. in the Korean War. I have read two books published discussing his capture, time in imprisonment, and release. Oh and I should mention that he was reduced from a lifelong sentence in prison when he got home, after his mother (my grandmother) successfully gathered a nationwide petition. President Eisenhower granted him a five year sentence at Luvenworth which he served from 1954-1959. During the petitioning process my father's family was given a sheriff's security team to keep the local town members at bay. Many people considered my father's family as traitors because of what was going on with my uncle.
Officially sanctioned use of information obtained under duress is a good characterization of the question you are posing. You have chosen some very clear and specifically accurate terms.
I believe that governments who use such measures are too reliant on the significance and nature of what any one person can offer. That is an antiquated form of warfare. The information age has caused people to think that any single person could have "vital" information that could turn the tide of a war. I believe this to be extremely flawed. It places too much emphasis on the individual during wartime. It is true that the war being waged should determine the methods being used to wage it. However in regard to Gitmo I believe this to be wholly incorrect strategy. I believe the reason they have come to place such importance on individual knowledge is because the government wants to win the support of the American people with a timely and hasty victory in one half-baked easily imagined scenario in which the capture of a single man (Osama Bin Laden) could somehow elevate the President to heroe status in the peoples' eyes. I feel this is wrong. Even if he did capture Bin Laden it would not erase the lie he told to wage war in Iraq. I think he believes it might. If he wants Bin Laden he needs to never give up, presidency or no presidency, in the way that President Carter never gave up. Detaining prisoners without charge for five years is merely a reflection and continuation of the emphasis placed on the information one person 'could' or 'might' have. In fact I am inclined to associate it to playing the lottery. And I would characterize the people who subscribe to such a philosophy as lottery players. They actually believe that one person is that important in wartime. They actually believe that they could hit the jackpot and win big if only they found the right individual with the winning-information.
I believe times have changed. I believe that no country has the right to go to war based on intelligence information. We are in a world now that has completely no need for organized standing armies enmass. Nuclear weapons have changed everything. And now biological weapons are changing it even more. The infamous imaginary "nanotech age" that you hear science fiction writers talk about is not here yet. And that is only because there really and truly are not as many computers out there as some might think. We are still heavily reliant on fossil fuel combustion antiquated technology. Heresay still spreads as fast as it always has. People are still people. Poverty, hunger, illnesses, geographic catastrophy, insecurity, injustice, and in some cases pure evil still exists and is thriving.
Just as in times of old . . . we do still have a great need for the common man to rise above his belittled origin and take the reigns of his childrens' future. We are still in need of heroes in all their shapes, sizes, and fantastic forms. Stories are still being told. People are not ceasing to amaze each other. It is true that we are no longer eeking out a meager existence, but with the days in store some of us will still need the exemplary deeds of those few unknown persons of whom have not yet been discovered. And as always . . . at such times we will once again be reminded of the human spirit. It is wondrous, gifted, amazing, compassionate, loving, courageous, enduring, and sewn into the very fabric of our being by God.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 10, 2007 11:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It is true that we are no longer eeking out a meager existence
That depends.
Quote:
at such times we will once again be reminded of the human spirit. It is wondrous, gifted, amazing, compassionate, loving, courageous, enduring, and sewn into the very fabric of our being by God.
Indeed.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 10, 2007 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if you lost someone or know someone who lost a friend/relative in the attack on WTC, don't you think that retribution would be justified? At least the leaders of Al-qaida should get a fair trial. Or should they go unpunished. If Afghanistan is liberated on the way, thats only good, right?
fortress fan, i have done my research, and have found something really interesting.
every time afghanistan has been invaded, the invasion has always failed, thanks too a) the mountianous terrain and b) the taliban being the best mountian fighter in the world, and all the rest of us being useless in their.
india tried to invade (failed)
the british empire tried to invade (failed)
the french empire tried to invade (failed)
the USSR tried to invade (failed)
all of them were armed with more advanced weaponry, better discpline and better vechiles, like the americans and the british they have draged into this. but all of them have failed with a high death toll on the invading countries.
sure, the Taliban should go on trial for what they have done, but i'm sure everyone who was in the WTC would have said the violence was not the answer and wouldn't have wanted retribution. if anything, a death to someone close to you makes you see how fragile life is, and how is must be treasured.
thats how my cousin reacted when he got out of afghanistan after seeing his fried being killed by a stray shell (it was fired by an american mortar). he has now become a huge pacifist, campaigning against both iraq and afghanistan. he has joined the red cross as well, as he was a medic. to me, that is the most honourable and admirable thing to do with a friend or relative dies in combat or from a terrorist attack. don't point the finger, and start blaming, but try and make the world a better place for all human beings.
Quote:
That Bush lied to his people is justified because he liberated the people of Iraq from Saddam.
i agree, saddam was a bad ruler. but the country was stable, and less people were dying.
remember, FF, that the middle eastern countries decended from the persians. after the greek-persian war (greeks being a democracy and they were invading (surprise surprise) and the persians were a monarchy) the two countries went their seperate ways, greek went to democracy, persians had one ruler until he died.
the rest of europe, followed by america and the majority of the world adopted democracy, the middle eastern countries keeped to a monarchy or a dictatorship. that made those countries stable, as more people recognised this, and more of their laws are written around this. more importantly, is that this system is less corrupt than democracy, as you have one ruler who is expected to do the right thing, whilst you have in america people who get paid to help get elected and then do what they were paid for.
if any country should be attacked in the name of democracy, it should be saudi arabia. a monarchy for 500years, still with death camps for political prisoners. stoning and hanging are public executions, women and non-property owners aren't allowed the vote, and the jails are humiliating, all of those are against human rights and democracy. but the reason why it hasn't been invaded is because A) the saudi king are pals with goerge "dudya" bush, like his father, B) Saudi arabia want the oil in iraq as much as the americans, and supply alot of the drills and C) saudi arabia's military is one of the best in the world, where they spend $1.3 billion anaually on military. also they have "Da bomb!"
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted March 10, 2007 11:54 PM |
|
|
Yeah. Like Margaret Thatcher.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted March 11, 2007 02:17 PM |
|
Edited by Pomo at 14:20, 11 Mar 2007.
|
Consis, thanks for your reply - you've obviously put a great deal of thought into the matter and I can see also that you have some substantial personal experience with similar situations through your uncle and studies. I can claim no such experience.
However, I think we've misunderstood one another somewhat. What I was seeking was your opinion regarding the ethical and moral aspects of the practices carried out at Guantanamo Bay (Some of which bear a rather striking resemblance to what happened at Abu Ghraib), rather than the relative value of information obtained thereby. I agree with you btw about the lack of any strategic value, basically because I don't really think that information obtained via torture is particularly reliable in any event; Under such circumstances how can anybody reliably differentiate between real information and 'information' supplied in line with the torturers expectations of what he/she will find to avoid further torture... my personal opinion is that the president NEEDS to obtain convictions from Guantanamo to parade to the public - regardless of the truth in any particular case.
So what I wanted to ask you about was your opinion on A) torture and B) detention without charge/trial, in an ethical sense.
I'm sure you can already guess my opinion from what I've posted, but I'll outline it in brief anyway. In short I don't think that morally repugnant practices like these have any value or any aim beyond a political one. I also don't think that their official sanctioning by the US defence department makes them any more palatable than when they are carried out without orders. You can't achieve a goal (such as democracy, 'freedom' - whatever that means, human rights, etc.) by blatantly violating it in the process.
Not prejudging your opinion, just interested to hear what you think.
____________
linkTouched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted March 11, 2007 03:50 PM |
|
|
Pomo,
Quote:
Consis, thanks for your reply - you've obviously put a great deal of thought into the matter and I can see also that you have some substantial personal experience with similar situations through your uncle and studies. I can claim no such experience.
The important thing to remember is that you don't need to claim any such experience for your opinion to be valid. It is a matter of human morality. When the Nazis executed the holocaust many described it as being the "worst failure of humanity" in history. It seemed to strengthen the Geneva conventions.
Quote:
I was seeking was your opinion regarding the ethical and moral aspects of the practices carried out at Guantanamo Bay (Some of which bear a rather striking resemblance to what happened at Abu Ghraib)
I agree, but you might try to understand the running(current commonly used) philosophy by U.S. interrogators.
Quote:
I agree with you btw about the lack of any strategic value, basically because I don't really think that information obtained via torture is particularly reliable in any event.
Exactly a very good point. And remind yourself that many share your opinion. People of no specific background or education have come to the same conclusion by their own natural instinctive reasoning process.
Quote:
Under such circumstances how can anybody reliably differentiate between real information and 'information' supplied in line with the torturers expectations of what he/she will find to avoid further torture.
Again you are not simply speaking your opinion but also reflecting that of many other people too. But most people don't have the kind of power a government wields.
Quote:
The president NEEDS to obtain convictions from Guantanamo to parade to the public - regardless of the truth in any particular case.
This is actually written into our laws. It is our law to do as you are stating. But President Bush is ignoring this law. President Carter has already spoken out against this blatant overt act of impunity to our own system of laws. Many have also done so from senators, to house representatives, to community leaders. Every time the President is confronted by this, his response is "We haven't had another attack since I've been president". That is his justification for almost everything.
Quote:
So what I wanted to ask you about was your opinion on A) torture and B) detention without charge/trial, in an ethical sense.
A) torture
->Torture concerns all humanity. Every child who is raised by his/her mother and taught to play nice with other children. Not simply American or European or any such race or nationality can exclude you from being involved. When a torture is sanctioned by a government and the people do not rise up against it then they too are partly to blame by the other peoples and nations of the world. The question then becomes: what will happen if we overthrow our government for exercising torture on those who took an oath to kill our people?
B) Detention without charge/trial
->It is a violation of our (U.S.A.) law. Some radical extremists such as Louis Farrakan have demanded the president be impeached for it.
Quote:
I don't think that morally repugnant practices like these have any value or any aim beyond a political one. I also don't think that their official sanctioning by the US defence department makes them any more palatable than when they are carried out without orders. You can't achieve a goal (such as democracy, 'freedom' - whatever that means, human rights, etc.) by blatantly violating it in the process.
This is a good opinion. From here what is the next step? Inspire and Organize your country's people and do your best to apply appropriate counter force to this matter.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted March 11, 2007 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by Pomo at 18:33, 11 Mar 2007.
|
Thanks Consis, I think we agree on just about everything 
Unfortunately, my government is so half-***ed that they won't do jack about it.
____________
linkTouched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted March 11, 2007 08:59 PM |
|
|
Well . . .
We agree and yet neither of us is willing to start a solid rebellion in outcry to oppose this clear violation of the law. The very things we profess to believe in suddenly don't seem so solid anymore. I don't feel good about that at all. I am too comfortable at home. I am too afraid of losing my family in the process of being proactive. I am also inextricably aware that no perfect system of government exists. I often wonder if this rule violation is in response to an imperfect system of government. Changes do occur but more often come about slowly. I have never seen a quick change of system without violent consequences. Violence is abhorrent.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted March 12, 2007 12:54 AM |
|
|
Well, that's the thing I think - rebellion in the violent sense isn't really a feasible option for you or me - nor would it really achieve anything. The Iraq war is a prime example of something with a worthwhile goal (at least the goal that Bush/Blair/Howard would have us believe is at stake - not that I really believe this obviously) that is violated in the process of trying to achieve it. The Iraqis are no more 'free' or safe now than they were under Saddam - probably less so.
So you shouldn't feel bad that you're not willing to give up life as you know it to change things - enjoying yourself, being with your family, whatever is meaningful to you and allows you to live a good life is the goal - politics simply makes it much harder for some people to achieve it. Sacrificing your own happiness for someone else's is senseless - you haven't made the world a better place. I think you (the general you, not you specifically) should try to make the world a better place by working on the world near to you, while allowing for as much political activism as is feasible/you are comfortable with.
____________
linkTouched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 15, 2007 05:52 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 17:53, 15 Mar 2007.
|
Bush has a lot on his plate.. Americas plate really...
Yet still I say I am not as smart as other people think they are.
All I know is a lot of the bashers say we did it for oil.. We spent trillions on war for cheaper oil.. That destroys many peoples credibility. It would be cheaper to buy the oil. hello?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted March 16, 2007 02:38 AM |
|
|
The difference is it's the public's money that is being spent to go to war and private interests (not meaning the general public here either) that benefit - which makes the whole thing even more disgusting. Nobody thinks that Americans as in every person there 'did it' - because most of you didn't really have a say anyway. Bush and company, not the American people, did it.
And yes, it was for the oil. 
____________
linkTouched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
HodgePodge
Adventuring Hero
Bard Extraordinairé
|
posted March 16, 2007 05:34 AM |
|
|
Yuck!
Quote:
I can't praise George W. Bush enough!
Assuming a leadership role in an office left absolutely barren of credibility and in a moral and ethical shambles personified by William J. Clinton; BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!
Allow me to puke! 
Do you really have to ruin everyone's day by bringing up Bungler Bush?
Quote:
All I know is a lot of the bashers say we did it for oil.. We spent trillions on war for cheaper oil.. That destroys many peoples credibility. It would be cheaper to buy the oil. hello?
You are forgetting that both Bush & Cheney are big oil men. They have big stakes in oil companies making big profits. To hell with everyone else, they don't give a damn about the lives of American men & women, put in harm's way in Iraq … just so their oil interests are protected! What's a few thousand American lives and several hundred thousand Iraqi citizens' lives? It is about oil … Bush even admited it himself in one of his many idiotic slips of the tongue.
Personally, I'd rather have Clinton getting a "tongue slipping" than having Bush send our soldiers to Iraq; only to protect Halliburton & other oil interests over there.
____________
|
| |
|
|
