TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Question for all the Bush apologists out there
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Everyone always hates the US, regardless of the administration. We always have the most industrialized society and therefore cut the most trees, cause the most pollution, have the most cars, are seen as the most materialistic, will have a bigger military, will have more nuclear weapons, will cause more harm to the environment, will be seen as arrogant, will be seen as militarist because of posts around the world, seen as overly patriotic because we love our country, having a horrible society because we have a higher murder rate, evil people because we have a death penalty, seen as bullies because we remove dictators, seen as backers of Israel because we support the only democracy in the region, and never seen as equals in the eyes of europe because we don't have as long a history.

Can't wait till November so there can be something to discuss, probably why the chosen president sucks and why America is despised in the world part II.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Everyone always hates the US, regardless of the administration. We always have the most industrialized society and therefore cut the most trees, cause the most pollution, have the most cars, are seen as the most materialistic, will have a bigger military, will have more nuclear weapons, will cause more harm to the environment, will be seen as arrogant, will be seen as militarist because of posts around the world, seen as overly patriotic because we love our country, having a horrible society because we have a higher murder rate, evil people because we have a death penalty, seen as bullies because we remove dictators, seen as backers of Israel because we support the only democracy in the region, and never seen as equals in the eyes of europe because we don't have as long a history. Can't wait till November so there can be something to discuss, probably why the chosen president sucks and why America is despised in the world part II.

You forgot to mention the catastropihic bombing of many third world nations, the use of chemical weapons (agent orange), and the funding of rogue coups that have murdered millions in developing nations that chose not to adhere to the US's hegemonic structure of obedience. Lets not forget the "mistakes" that your Governement supported (Taliban, binladen, and your good ol friend Saddam hussein)

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Everyone always hates the US, regardless of the administration. We always have the most industrialized society and therefore cut the most trees, cause the most pollution, have the most cars, are seen as the most materialistic, will have a bigger military, will have more nuclear weapons, will cause more harm to the environment, will be seen as arrogant, will be seen as militarist because of posts around the world, seen as overly patriotic because we love our country, having a horrible society because we have a higher murder rate, evil people because we have a death penalty, seen as bullies because we remove dictators, seen as backers of Israel because we support the only democracy in the region, and never seen as equals in the eyes of europe because we don't have as long a history. Can't wait till November so there can be something to discuss, probably why the chosen president sucks and why America is despised in the world part II.

I would like to believe that by now we would have learnt from the past experiences that you mentioned in some of your statements. Instead we venture into the heart of the Middle East, start a war, can't find the weapons and have to make the best of a bad situation and its okay. Have you ever thought that maybe people are just sick and tired of being interferred with by American action. I know that as an American I certainly am. If we are going to play the game of power politics we should at least be prudent in our actions, something currently lacking in innumerable ways under this administration. If we are going to go around the world acting like worldbeaters then I wish us the best of luck because far more enemies will be created than defeated ultimately.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You forgot to mention the catastropihic bombing of many third world nations, the use of chemical weapons (agent orange), and the funding of rogue coups that have murdered millions in developing nations that chose not to adhere to the US's hegemonic structure of obedience. Lets not forget the "mistakes" that your Governement supported (Taliban, binladen, and your good ol friend Saddam hussein)

agent orange was a defoliant you pubescent retard

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo agent orange was a defoliant you pubescent retard

You misinformed kunt.. Agent orange is a CHEMICAL too.. that was used as both a defoliant and WEAPON!

get your yankee head out of your ass and stop sucking bush's cock.

ITs just a "defoliant" aaahahahhaahah fuckin idiot

quote:

Agent Orange, Veterans and the New Jersey Mud Dump by Michael Eckstein New Jersey State Council Vietnam Veterans of America [This article reports on cumulative effects of the herbicide Agent Orange and its deadly by-product dioxin on the soldiers, marines and sailors and airmen exposed to it during the Vietnam War and of the environmental disasters that dioxin has wrought upon our society.] In response to The Agent Orange Act of 1991, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) requested the Washington, D.C. based National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine's to conduct an extensive study of herbicide exposure in Vietnam Veterans. On July 27, 1993 the NAS report was released and concluded that there was a positive association between exposure to herbicides and the following illnesses: soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Hodgkin's disease Chloracne and porphyria cutanea tarda (a liver disorder) The NAS also concluded the following Limited/Suggestive Evidence of an Association - respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, trachea) prostate cancer multiple myeloma. Inadequate/Insufficient Evidence was available to Determine Association with - Cancers hepatobiliary nasal/nasopharyngeal bone female reproductive renal testicular or leukemia spontaneous abortion birth defects neonatal/infant deaths and stillbirths low birth weight childhood cancer in offspring abnormal sperm parameters and infertility cognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders motor coordination/dysfunction peripheral nervous system disorders metabolic and digestive disorders immune system disorders circulatory disorders respiratory disorders There was Limited/Suggestive Evidence of No Dioxin Related Disorders on: skin cancer gastrointestinal tumors bladder Cancer brain tumors Just after release of the NAS report, the DVA immediately "service connected" those illness where a positive association to exposure existed (service connected benefits allow veterans to receive compensation for illnesses). In September, 1993 the DVA added Respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, trachea) and Multiple myeloma to its list of benefits that were deemed to be "service connected". The NAS has a continuing obligation for a period of ten years to give reports as to whether additional illnesses can be linked to herbicide exposure. We hope that the NAS will seriously look at the illnesses where there is not yet enough evidence but it is suggested that that those illness are a result of herbicide exposure. We also urge that studies be either continued or started by organizations, physicians and governmental agencies for those suggested illnesses. In New Jersey, dioxin has created a serious problem for the Ports in Newark and Elizabeth. The harbors need to be dredged of sediments so that large ships do not scrape the bottom of the harbor. Should the sediments build up too much, shipping into these ports might be curtailed. Normally, the dredged material is dumped into the ocean six miles off shore at a location called the Mud Dump. However, as of today, most dredging/dumping permits are on hold due to the fact that Dioxin has been found in the harbor's sediments. The quandary is that the harbors need to be dredged but no one knows what to do with the contaminated sediments. Due to the level of contamination, ocean dumping is not allowed. Most political and business representatives are calling for ocean disposal while environmental, fishing and our veterans organization is looking for alternative methods. We agree that port slowdown or even shutdown could be extremely harmful to the economy of the region. The Port area generates thousands of jobs and industrial strength. However, we cannot jeopardize our health and the health of our children by allowing Dioxin contaminated sediments to be dumped into the ocean. The alternatives to ocean dumping include containment islands, "borrow" pits (deep pits dug out of the harbor area where materials can be dumped and covered) or upland disposal. These alternative methods are currently under review by the Federal, State and local authorities. We feel that the best alternative is the borrow pit. One cause of the Port's dioxin contamination is from the old Agent Orange production facility on the Passaic River in Newark, NJ. Contaminated soil from the facility leeched into the river and eventually found its way into the port area. That production facility is now a federal Superfund cleanup site. During a recent tour of the site, I was advised that certain areas within the facility can only be entered if you wore a complete hazardous materials suit covering all parts of your body. Additionally, the contaminated buildings, barrels of herbicides and tons of soil will probably be encased in a concrete mountain. Evidently it cannot be moved off the site. Our real and emotional concerns for the port is that not only is it contaminated with dioxin, but it is the dioxin from Agent Orange that has caused the contamination. Vietnam veterans in New Jersey cannot allow that contamination to be dumped into the ocean. The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently undergoing a "Reassessment of Dioxin". This reassessment was originally called for by the chemical companies and pulp and paper industry to stop the negative exposure dioxin was receiving. The pulp and paper industry, in its paper bleaching process produces dioxin. However, to the chagrin and consternation of these industries, preliminary findings by the EPA are showing that trace amounts of dioxin are much more harmful than previously thought. There is a suggestion by the EPA that not only cancers, but birth defects and immune disorders can be resultant from Dioxin exposure. As I noted earlier, the NAS report also suggests birth defects and immune disorders result from dioxin exposure. At the public hearings conducted by the EPA, these industries, tried to refute many accepted studies that showed the harmful effects that dioxin has on humans and animals. The industry lobby in support of easing restrictions on dioxin is very powerful. It will take strong will by government regulators to stand up to this lobby and allow the truth about dioxin to be told. In 1984, in the Southern District Court in New York, a Class Action Suit (MDL-381) by Vietnam veterans brought against seven chemical companies who produced Agent Orange was settled for the paltry sum of $180 million. The settlement was extremely soft on the chemical companies while severely restrictive on the veterans. In order for a veteran to collect, that veteran must have been 100% disabled. A veteran with cancer caused by exposure to Agent Orange, but who was still able to be employed, would not receive one dime from the Class Action Suit. One veteran I spoke to, who has tracheal cancer and also lost a kidney, could not collect due to the fact that he wanted to stay active and earn a living. I suppose I'm sounding naive when I say that our courts should not be pawns of the chemical company lobby. All attempts to sue the chemical companies in state courts have been thrown out and referred back to the Class Action Suit. The Supreme Court also refused to hear the argument.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Everyone always hates the US, regardless of the administration. We always have the most industrialized society and therefore cut the most trees

that is somewhat true, there's always people who will hate america just because it is the biggest, but there's something that is different now compared to how it used to be. There's a major differenceof people's general idea of america, the number of i-hate-america/they-only-do-stupid-things people have raise extreamly much the latest years.

quote:

cause the most pollution

that is per capita too, so the criticism actually make sense.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T...car_dio_per_cap

quote:

have the most cars, are seen as the most materialistic, will have a bigger military, will have more nuclear weapons

I don't think anyone has any problems with that, as long as you don't misuse it.

quote:

will cause more harm to the environment

if you were actually trying to deal with the problems as the EU i think very few would whine.

quote:

will be seen as arrogant

that is indeed hard to deal with, the biggest is always the most arrogant. the people from stockholm are the most arrogant in sweden, the germans are the most arrogant in europe etc. That is something you have to live with... sorry

quote:

evil people because we have a death penalty

like you see the arabs cause they cut each other hands off if they brake the law?

really death penalty is kinda old, but yeah that's a totally different discussion...

quote:

seen as bullies because we remove dictators

who you first put in power, support the ones that's best for your intests atm....

quote:

seen as backers of Israel because we support the only democracy in the region

you cannot deny that you support israel pretty much whatever happens?

quote:

and never seen as equals in the eyes of europe because we don't have as long a history.

never heard anyone think like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You forgot to mention the catastropihic bombing of many third world nations, the use of chemical weapons (agent orange), and the funding of rogue coups that have murdered millions in developing nations that chose not to adhere to the US's hegemonic structure of obedience. Lets not forget the "mistakes" that your Governement supported (Taliban, binladen, and your good ol friend Saddam hussein)

I didn't mention any harm caused to any third world nation because even if death did occur I believe the world including the US has tried to do as much good as you can with money, food, supplies, and medical aid.

You can't know who you support will come back to haunt you. Who knows maybe in 100 years Canada will have a war with us. Do we then say we should have never been friends with Canada because they had a war with us 100 years later? There are reasons for backing people, Saddam because we were against Iran, Bin Laden because we were against the soviets. Sure they were the wrong people to ally with but its easy to say that knowing what we know now 30 years later.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I would like to believe that by now we would have learnt from the past experiences that you mentioned in some of your statements. Instead we venture into the heart of the Middle East, start a war, can't find the weapons and have to make the best of a bad situation and its okay. Have you ever thought that maybe people are just sick and tired of being interferred with by American action. I know that as an American I certainly am. If we are going to play the game of power politics we should at least be prudent in our actions, something currently lacking in innumerable ways under this administration. If we are going to go around the world acting like worldbeaters then I wish us the best of luck because far more enemies will be created than defeated ultimately.

Hey, I'd like to be out of the Middle East and other countries as much as you. In fact if it was up to me we wouldn't have our military forces anywhere in the world other than a couple strategic locations perhaps in a few islands in the ocean. We would save a lot of money and people could live without the US at all. However I also believe if we do not interfere we should not interfere at all and that means with aid as well. I would just like to know that if our forces leave and stay close at home that Korea won't fall apart, that terrorists won't run more rampant because of no policing, that arms and technologies wouldn't get into the wrong hands, and that the world would have to know that with no US quick reaction forces in the world they would have to refrain from ever asking for our help. So when something like Kuwait happens and there are no forces in SA or in the Indian ocean and Japan as were last time, then too bad. We would also refrain from taking the most prominent role militarily in any UN missions and they should be divided evenly so as the US isn't having the biggest to risk. We will let the middle east and Europe handle the situation as it is on their doorstep, not ours.

My point wasn't to go into depth about the US in the world but more that Kerry I don't believe will fix a lot of the problems of why the US is hated as they have been around for decades. He will still have to finish Iraq and we will still have troops all around the world. Unless he pulls all of our troops from the world we will still be seen as an interfering influence and a bully no matter who is in charge. Even before the Gulf War II many in the middle east disliked us even though with a coalition we went in to liberate Kuwait.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You misinformed kunt.. Agent orange is a CHEMICAL too.. that was used as both a defoliant and WEAPON!

right i'm sure thats what you ment

reach you little backpedaler, REACH!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo right i'm sure thats what you ment reach you little backpedaler, REACH!

It was more of a weapon than a defoliant... too bad you cant stand the fact that you were proven wrong.

well then genius it was the least effective chemical weapon in history because it takes about 20 years to kill the enemy















dumbass

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well then genius it was the least effective chemical weapon in history because it takes about 20 years to kill the enemy dumbass

Its not only about killing the enemy you flapping labia... it ruined the farming infrastructure and food prodcution of thousands of people... just so that there was path for your terrorist nation to walk through....makes me sick how you cant see the implications of these actions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan For someone like myself who studies International Relations and Foreign Policy it really leaves me puzzled when people truly believe that America is not viewed in a very negative light because of the events surrounding Iraq especially. I would love to know how many of these individuals that think America's standing in the world has not been affected have travelled elsewhere or even pays attention to or cares about other media outlets in other nations.

Apparently they don't teach you very well in your school. Fostering an us vs. them mentality won't get you to reason.

Although I am sure you can find people who think every thought you'd like them too, the majority of the pro-Bush faction do not deny that the USA's relationship has detriorated around the world. They do however point out a few arguments on the topic:
1) It doesn't matter
2) It's not the first time (hence 1)
3) It's not soley the fault of Bush or Iraq

Your open mind seems to have closed. You seemed much more bright previously, I question what your most reccent influence comes from, but it does not seem like it is your own thoughts on the subject matter. I'm not insulting or anything here, just a bit worried for you. You've been retorting to many low-ball attacks and techniques instead of debating on merit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Apparently they don't teach you very well in your school. Fostering an us vs. them mentality won't get you to reason. Although I am sure you can find people who think every thought you'd like them too, the majority of the pro-Bush faction do not deny that the USA's relationship has detriorated around the world. They do however point out a few arguments on the topic: 1) It doesn't matter 2) It's not the first time (hence 1) 3) It's not soley the fault of Bush or Iraq Your open mind seems to have closed. You seemed much more bright previously, I question what your most reccent influence comes from, but it does not seem like it is your own thoughts on the subject matter. I'm not insulting or anything here, just a bit worried for you. You've been retorting to many low-ball attacks and techniques instead of debating on merit.

Actually what I don't agree on is the current events that have transpired in Iraq that has gone against the grain of everything that we were led to believe. You can question my intelligence and put forth facetious statements about my mind being closed and somehow it is not my own thoughts, ironically however I fail to understand your logic in the us vs them statement. I am commenting on what has occured since the Iraq events, unless one is completely blinded by the allegiance to the Bush administration how can we not question what really occured in the Iraq arena. I cannot be fostering an us vs them mentality when in fact my argument is one that America should be working closer with our allies to tackle the issues that we face, especially terrorism. Logic dictates that the more nations on our side leaves less arena for the terrorists to maneuver. How does operating on the premise of a Coalition of the Willing benefit our interests in the long term. The us vs them mentality isn't mine but the current administration

My words are fully mine and moreover I don't have a liberal, leftist professor brainwashing me if that is your assertion, which I find to be just a tad bit insulting. I have argued for the Bush administration in the past when I felt they were undertaking the right actions based on what we were being told, what we were told was infact grossly incorrect and I refuse to be a sucker about it especially when it comes to such a serious issue as War.

As for these statements
1) It doesn't matter
2) It's not the first time (hence 1)
3) It's not soley the fault of Bush or Iraq

You have pretty much given a summation of the Bush administration, its attitudes and the way it conducts its affairs. I know where my vote is going in November and it definitely will not be going to conservatives who have outlined their own agendas which is leading America down a dangerous path. Why is the concept of respecting other nations so hard to grasp I was always a moderate individual, trusted the government and what they were saying before the United Nations leading up to Iraq, disgust at the ultimate outcome has left me more than bitter and with a lot of questions indeed. That is not mere brainwashing Yoepus.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Actually what I don't agree on is the current events that have transpired in Iraq that has gone against the grain of everything that we were led to believe. You can question my intelligence and put forth facetious statements about my mind being closed and somehow it is not my own thoughts, ironically however I fail to understand your logic in the us vs them statement. I am commenting on what has occured since the Iraq events, unless one is completely blinded by the allegiance to the Bush administration how can we not question what really occured in the Iraq arena. My words are fully mine and moreover I don't have a liberal, leftist professor brainwashing me if that is your assertion, which I find to be just a tad bit insulting. I have argued for the Bush administration in the past when I felt they were undertaking the right actions based on what we were being told, what we were told was infact grossly incorrect and I refuse to be a sucker about it especially when it comes to such a serious issue as War. As for these statements 1) It doesn't matter 2) It's not the first time (hence 1) 3) It's not soley the fault of Bush or Iraq You have pretty much given a summation of the Bush administration, its attitudes and the way it conducts its affairs. I know where my vote is going in November and it definitely will not be going to conservatives who have outlined their own agendas which is leading America down a dangerous path. Why is the concept of respecting other nations so hard to grasp I was always a moderate individual, trusted the government and what they were saying before the United Nations leading up to Iraq, disgust at the ultimate outcome has left me more than bitter and with a lot of questions indeed. That is not mere brainwashing Yoepus.

I thought the last straw was when Bush declined to speak at the NAACP convention because he "insulted" blacks, not the current events in iraq.

quote:

it definitely will not be going to conservatives who have outlined their own agendas which is leading America down a dangerous path

I respect your opinion

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec I thought the last straw was when Bush declined to speak at the NAACP convention because he "insulted" blacks, not the current events in iraq. I respect your opinion

Speedracer do me a favor and refrain from the mentioning of blacks or the issue of race, I remember distinctly that you made a post the other day telling me the samething about race. Maybe you should heed your own words. If you read my post on that topic you will see that it went beyond Bush "insulting blacks" If you think that I am somehow under the impression that Bush is a racist, then amazingly why has that never been a part of my sentiments expressed here, and have I had a lot of opportunities to say so in my numerous posts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Speedracer do me a favor and refrain from the mentioning of blacks or the issue of race, I remember distinctly that you made a post the other day telling me the samething about race. Maybe you should heed your own words. If you read my post on that topic you will see that it went beyond Bush "insulting blacks" If you think that I am somehow under the impression that Bush is a racist, then amazingly why has that never been a part of my sentiments expressed here, and have I had a lot of opportunities to say so in my numerous posts.

No. Dont take it the wrong way. I just remember you were quite upset about that issue when a thread on that was brought up;A bit more upset than the current situation in Iraq.

Plus how would i know how you feel about Bush; this is a political board.
Whether you thought Bush is racist or not...I really dont care.

Well I have no inclination to believe that Bush is racist under any circumstance, as for my level of anger Iraq is the main pulpit for that indeed. If you review my posts you will see that the majority allude to my position on Iraq pre-War vis a vis post-War.

I stay away from the issue of race in dealing with others in all areas possible because it tends to be a negative subject more often than not and race is not what I'm about. As you can see I think its moreover that I tend to be pretty opinionated on a subject.

Im pretty upset right now.
I just saw the latest poll.
Appears Kerry got a nice bounce in the polls due to the DNC

49-42% now

Can anyone dig up the biggest lead GORE had on BUSH in 2000?

no worries mate. it's called a bounce for a reason

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

NYCTrancefan,

sorry if you misunderstood my statements they were directed at this part of your argument only:

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan [b]it really leaves me puzzled when people truly believe that America is not viewed in a very negative light because of the events surrounding Iraq especially. I would love to know how many of these individuals that think America's standing in the world has not been affected have travelled elsewhere or even pays attention to or cares about other media outlets in other nations.[b]

Remeber my point 3) - many will point out that the USA has been deeply hated much before Sept 11th which did in fact give it a temporary 'bounce' in its popularity.

My statements directed to you were my own opinion, believe me if I was trying to insult you, you would know. I just known that previously you would divert from ad-hominem and emotional attack for the most part. Seeing you call 'Bush' a shurb in every instance is neither humorous nor affords you with any deep insight into your argumentation.

It's as if I were to call Kerry "Coward" instead of his name in every discussion I would have regarding the man and his policies. Regardless of my agreement with Kerry or not, I know that he, like most every other politician at the end of the day will try and do what they believe is right for America. Just because I don't like the man as a politician, doesn't mean I have to hate him.

Its those little things that have led me to speculate whether you are indeed simply disagree with Bush and the policy regarding Iraq, or indeed hate and despise the man <-- a feature worthy of extremism.

quote:

The us vs them mentality isn't mine but the current administration

Touche`

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Can anyone dig up the biggest lead GORE had on BUSH in 2000?

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...poll/index.html

this time 4 years ago, bush was looking pretty strong... i think the greatest margin gore had was on election day

(keep in mind that clinton's approval rating was still in the high 50s vs. bush's rating of forty-something)

we may see a regime change unless the economy wins the lottery and cheaney dies and the wmds are found and bin laden is found and bush stops spending all his time in texas and iraq stablizes and california sinks into the ocean and...

This election isn't even about liberal versus conservative, or Republican verses Democrat, versus Green, versus libertarian, etc. I believe we need to look at this election through a completely different paradigm altogether at this point.

This election is much more significant than those simplistic ideological or partisan divides, and indeed is perhaps the most significant US election for the United States and the world since 1860.

It's about whether or not we choose to trample on the Bill of Rights or choose to respect our fundamental civil liberties while simultaneously confronting the terror threat.

It�s about whether or not one wants Big Brother looking over their shoulder at the library, the bookstore, or through their private medical records without a warrant.

It's about whether or not we deny millions of Americans � not �gay people,� but Americans - their right to due process in the federal courts as the House of Representatives voted to do the other day.

It's about whether or not our government hires private contractors to torture, rape, and sodomize children, or whether we repudiate that practice and return to the rule of law concerning torture.


It's about whether or not we "lose" another one billion taxpayer dollars down the memory hole to the robber barons.


It�s about whether or not we believe a child�s life is worth $700, or believe that life to be priceless and irreplaceable.

I hear Mr. Bush often talk about �values,� and based on his record I wonder to myself what exactly he does value...

A Republican, a Democrat, a liberal, a conservative, who does not value the fundamental human dignities and rights of man, nor the constitution he or she swore to uphold, DOES NOT SHARE MY VALUES.

Such an individual can only serve to devalue us all as a people.

EEEE EEEAAAA EEEEEAAAA EEEEEK

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for all the Bush apologists out there

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus NYCTrancefan, sorry if you misunderstood my statements they were directed at this part of your argument only: Remeber my point 3) - many will point out that the USA has been deeply hated much before Sept 11th which did in fact give it a temporary 'bounce' in its popularity. My statements directed to you were my own opinion, believe me if I was trying to insult you, you would know. I just known that previously you would divert from ad-hominem and emotional attack for the most part. Seeing you call 'Bush' a shurb in every instance is neither humorous nor affords you with any deep insight into your argumentation. It's as if I were to call Kerry "Coward" instead of his name in every discussion I would have regarding the man and his policies. Regardless of my agreement with Kerry or not, I know that he, like most every other politician at the end of the day will try and do what they believe is right for America. Just because I don't like the man as a politician, doesn't mean I have to hate him. Its those little things that have led me to speculate whether you are indeed simply disagree with Bush and the policy regarding Iraq, or indeed hate and despise the man <-- a feature worthy of extremism.

I see that you keep making this reference to the fact that America was hated before 9/11 does that make our current path of action any more right today. The reason that I am emotional about my position is that many Iraqis have been killed along with our own soldiers and the reason for this war still flies right by me.

Where are the Weapons, where is the security, where is the stability, where is the decrease in terror and violence in Iraq, as I write this five more people were killed in another suicide bombing, top of the morning news indeed. Something went seriously wrong in Iraq and I hold the Bush administration fully accountable for that. Not one of their promises about Iraq has panned out. The current administration demonstrated to me a lack of understanding about the Middle East in their pursuit of war.

I defended this administration leading up to Iraq because they were making some pretty serious claims about Iraq's capabilities, what happened. I am left with only one conclusion that the Bush administration had a clear agenda for Iraq, which was to invade at any and all cost. They are being taught a valuable lesson however for their deplorable actions. If weapons were found in Iraq their case in my book would have been proven, it has not, hence my position. America cannot change every government not to our liking, our behaviour in Latin America should have made that pretty clear, but some never learn from history indeed. Based on what do you feel Iraq is still justified and I can gurantee you that I could rebutt each and every one of the reasons.

If it was an Al Gore administration doing the samething in Iraq that the Bush administration is doing I would have been just as angered by it. It starts with trust and ends with deception as far as I am concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ This election isn't even about liberal versus conservative, or Republican verses Democrat, versus Green, versus libertarian, etc. I believe we need to look at this election through a completely different paradigm altogether at this point. This election is much more significant than those simplistic ideological or partisan divides, and indeed is perhaps the most significant US election for the United States and the world since 1860. It's about whether or not we choose to trample on the Bill of Rights or choose to respect our fundamental civil liberties while simultaneously confronting the terror threat. It�s about whether or not one wants Big Brother looking over their shoulder at the library, the bookstore, or through their private medical records without a warrant. It's about whether or not we deny millions of Americans � not �gay people,� but Americans - their right to due process in the federal courts as the House of Representatives voted to do the other day. It's about whether or not our government hires private contractors to torture, rape, and sodomize children, or whether we repudiate that practice and return to the rule of law concerning torture. It's about whether or not we "lose" another one billion taxpayer dollars down the memory hole to the robber barons. It�s about whether or not we believe a child�s life is worth $700, or believe that life to be priceless and irreplaceable. I hear Mr. Bush often talk about �values,� and based on his record I wonder to myself what exactly he does value... A Republican, a Democrat, a liberal, a conservative, who does not value the fundamental human dignities and rights of man, nor the constitution he or she swore to uphold, DOES NOT SHARE MY VALUES. Such an individual can only serve to devalue us all as a people.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I am amazed that there are still defenders of this administration, what is there left to defend any longer and still save face.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.