|
Bush knows everything (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Falcon-X
But even a republican should admit that Bush simply sucks, dont make me believe there's no better republican candidate than him! :whip: |
There is:
Sadly, he lost in the '00 primaries thanks to certain fundamentalist elements which have rendered a previously reputable party now quite the opposite. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
How is he a good president?for bobming the out of Iraq and Afghanistan?:whip: or is he a good president because he makes Americans fill ashame of being one when they travel? or is he a good president because he is a good liar?Is he really somebody you want to represent your nation?a in idiot?
perhaps those are the reasons why you think he is good.:rolleyes:
If he gets re-elected that day will be a VERY sad day around the world :( |
To answer your questions, you ignorant wanker, here it goes:
| quote: | | How is he a good president?for bobming the out of Iraq and Afghanistan?: |
Both attacks were authorized with unprecedented precision, and led to the liberation of millions of people while making a significant dent in the terrorist networks and pan-arabist fascism of Saddam's regime, whilst making the world a tad safer. Besides, clinton "bombed the out of Yugoslavia (without UN approval) and where were all the protesters then?
| quote: | | or is he a good president because he is a good liar? |
If you were at least somewhat aware of the 9/11 commission report (Bipartisan), you would know that there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush lied about anything. In fact, what about the democrat Sandy Berger who was stealing secure documents? Kerry and his bull vietnam war hero stories?
| quote: | | or is he a good president because he makes Americans fill ashame of being one when they travel? |
So you and many of the other prejudiced and bigoted Europeans judge a people by one leader?
Basically the bottom line is that you and all the other knee jerk anti-bues are all on the same bandwagon. Bush may not get re-elected, thanks to the liberal media dominance that does nothing but perpetuate the lies and distortions about Bush.
Bush is a leader. Maybe not the best leader, but he takes decisive action when action needs to be taken. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
To answer your questions, you ignorant wanker, here it goes:
Both attacks were authorized with unprecedented precision, and led to the liberation of millions of people while making a significant dent in the terrorist networks and pan-arabist fascism of Saddam's regime, whilst making the world a tad safer. Besides, clinton "bombed the out of Yugoslavia (without UN approval) and where were all the protesters then? |
Bush attacks in afganistan was imo the right decsion, it was obvious that that country hided a man that was a big threat to the USA. On the other hand iraq, he went to war telling the american people and the whole world that there was WMD there, and that saddam was a threat to the rest of the world. He found no wmd, they had VERY poor post war plannning etc. i do believe that the iraqi people will get better lifes after this, BUT that was NOT the reason he went to war. If he was out for liberating people, then he would have gone after some other country where they have it MUCH worse than they ever had in iraq.
Bombings in yogoslavia had a much broader international support even though it wasn't UN authorized. also clinton didn't tell the world Milosovic had wmd :rolleyes:
| quote: | | So you and many of the other prejudiced and bigoted Europeans judge a people by one leader? |
no.
| quote: | | Basically the bottom line is that you and all the other knee jerk anti-bues are all on the same bandwagon. Bush may not get re-elected, thanks to the liberal media dominance that does nothing but perpetuate the lies and distortions about Bush. |
LOL, actually i would say the opposite, after 9/11 ALL the media in USA supported bush pretty much whatever he did. Now the media has realized that was stupid since bush does a lot of stupid things, so really he had his chance.
| quote: | | Bush is a leader. Maybe not the best leader, but he takes decisive action when action needs to be taken. |
Bingo! he is not the best leader! why should the most powerful country on earth have a decent/bad leader?! that is out of my understanding... |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
To answer your questions, you ignorant wanker, here it goes:
Both attacks were authorized with unprecedented precision, and led to the liberation of millions of people while making a significant dent in the terrorist networks and pan-arabist fascism of Saddam's regime, whilst making the world a tad safer. Besides, clinton "bombed the out of Yugoslavia (without UN approval) and where were all the protesters then? |
Both attacks were "authorized" by whom?? The american government?? I guess if we go by that logic it was ok that saddam "authorized" the killing of the kurds. And what Pan-arabist influence did saddam really have? Most arab nations were not too friendly with their naighbors... and ontop of that, Israel is in the middle of everything.
Tad safer? Is it safe that millions of muslims are signalling another "jihad" against the west? That Americans are afriad to wear their flags proudly in Europe, and the middle east?
That there is more anti American sentiment throughout the world than ever before? This world isnt safer, the US has created many more Osama's for years to come
| quote: |
If you were at least somewhat aware of the 9/11 commission report (Bipartisan), you would know that there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush lied about anything. In fact, what about the democrat Sandy Berger who was stealing secure documents? Kerry and his bull vietnam war hero stories? |
He might not have lied about anything regarding 9/11, but he knew things that most Americans would like to know. Like the protection of the house of Saud, Bush's business connections with Bin landen Corp..the list goes on
With respect to the iraq was....HE DID LIE!!!!!!!! He said himself in March 2003 that there was "undeniable PROOF" weapons of mass destruction existed. Where the fuk are they? The war was solely based on this and that false (again a lie) proclamaition that saddam had Direct links to 9/11 becuase he dealt with al-Qaeda
| quote: |
So you and many of the other prejudiced and bigoted Europeans judge a people by one leader?
Basically the bottom line is that you and all the other knee jerk anti-bues are all on the same bandwagon. Bush may not get re-elected, thanks to the liberal media dominance that does nothing but perpetuate the lies and distortions about Bush.
Bush is a leader. Maybe not the best leader, but he takes decisive action when action needs to be taken. |
Its blatently obvious that Bush and CO. went into Iraq for Oil... Pro-bush rhetoric is so washed out and ignorant that it makes me laugh.
Its the same stupid things said over and over that might have worked in the 80's during reaganites death-sqaud term...but now...the internet has opened doors...people are reading things that they have never thought of before. The "liberal dominance media" is actually being heard for the first time in 50 years on a grande commercial scale. People like Michael moore have garnered much support. There are questions being asked as opposed to answers being shoved down our throats by conservative CEO's of FOX news, NBC, ABC, and CNN. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Bush attacks in afganistan was imo the right decsion, it was obvious that that country hided a man that was a big threat to the USA. On the other hand iraq, he went to war telling the american people and the whole world that there was WMD there, and that saddam was a threat to the rest of the world. He found no wmd, they had VERY poor post war plannning etc. i do believe that the iraqi people will get better lifes after this, BUT that was NOT the reason he went to war. If he was out for liberating people, then he would have gone after some other country where they have it MUCH worse than they ever had in iraq.
Bombings in yogoslavia had a much broader international support even though it wasn't UN authorized. also clinton didn't tell the world Milosovic had wmd :rolleyes:
no.
LOL, actually i would say the opposite, after 9/11 ALL the media in USA supported bush pretty much whatever he did. Now the media has realized that was stupid since bush does a lot of stupid things, so really he had his chance.
Bingo! he is not the best leader! why should the most powerful country on earth have a decent/bad leader?! that is out of my understanding... |
Well, according to the intelligence that was available (as flawed as it may have been), there were WMDs, and Saddam posed a significant threat to national security. So you admit that the Iraqi people (as polls done on Iraqis seven show) will have a better life and more positive future. Saddam no longer poses the kind of threat he did, could have, and would do eventually...if he wasn't taken out.
The Iraq war had the same international support as the Korean war. By sheer numbers of troops, the Iraq war actaully shows a greater ratio of international support from foreign countries, with regard to ration of American troops and foreign troops. Take one look at the differnence between North and South Korea, and tell me that wasn't one war worth fighting. Regardless of the fact that Yugoslavia didn't have WMD, the International threat that Milosovic was, was nothing compared to Saddam.
Whether the media supported bush after 9/11, well, probably so...but now it seems everyone has forgotten the big picture...and is wallowing in this quagmire-fest. The media is saturated with an anti-bush agenda. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
wow the hypocricy...you complain that no one in here has given a concise, detailed explanation on bush not knowing anything yet you come and go "bush is a good president thats it"
please please explain to the knowledgable people in here how bush is a good president...i really interested in hearing it |
no:D
just joshin:D okay, one reason....drum-roll please.....UN resolution 1518 ta daaah!:D hate on thizzle my nizzle |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Both attacks were "authorized" by whom?? The american government?? I guess if we go by that logic it was ok that saddam "authorized" the killing of the kurds. And what Pan-arabist influence did saddam really have? Most arab nations were not too friendly with their naighbors... and ontop of that, Israel is in the middle of everything.
Tad safer? Is it safe that millions of muslims are signalling another "jihad" against the west? That Americans are afriad to wear their flags proudly in Europe, and the middle east?
That there is more anti American sentiment throughout the world than ever before? This world isnt safer, the US has created many more Osama's for years to come
He might not have lied about anything regarding 9/11, but he knew things that most Americans would like to know. Like the protection of the house of Saud, Bush's business connections with Bin landen Corp..the list goes on
With respect to the iraq was....HE DID LIE!!!!!!!! He said himself in March 2003 that there was "undeniable PROOF" weapons of mass destruction existed. Where the fuk are they? The war was solely based on this and that false (again a lie) proclamaition that saddam had Direct links to 9/11 becuase he dealt with al-Qaeda
Its blatently obvious that Bush and CO. went into Iraq for Oil... Pro-bush rhetoric is so washed out and ignorant that it makes me laugh.
Its the same stupid things said over and over that might have worked in the 80's during reaganites death-sqaud term...but now...the internet has opened doors...people are reading things that they have never thought of before. The "liberal dominance media" is actually being heard for the first time in 50 years on a grande commercial scale. People like Michael moore have garnered much support. There are questions being asked as opposed to answers being shoved down our throats by conservative CEO's of FOX news, NBC, ABC, and CNN. |
Why are you comparing the gassing of the Kurds to the war in Iraq? America waged a war against specific military targets and Saddam holdouts, the gassing of the Kurds was a genocidal attack on a group of innocent people. I won't even continue because your thinking smacks of the kind of moral reletavism that allows discussion to degenerate into a complete illogical mess.
How do you know that millions more Osamas are being created? The only reason they exist is because they are allowed to steep in ignorance and hatred because their leaders deny them freedom. Liberating Iraq, and hopefully more countries in the middle east will allow freedom to proliferate, and the hatred to dissintegrate.
Again, refer to the 9/11 commission report. There was no lie.
I'll tell you exactly what's going on. The internet and the free flow of information, as great as it is, has allowed impressionable people like yourself to become brainwashed by the "anti-establishment." |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
There is:
Sadly, he lost in the '00 primaries thanks to certain fundamentalist elements which have rendered a previously reputable party now quite the opposite. |
hey, much respect to that man but honestly, he's frail. he's a wonderful senator, his constituancy loves him. i don't think he's got the "stuff" for the world climate. just my opinion. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
Why are you comparing the gassing of the Kurds to the war in Iraq? America waged a war against specific military targets and Saddam holdouts, the gassing of the Kurds was a genocidal attack on a group of innocent people. I won't even continue because your thinking smacks of the kind of moral reletavism that allows discussion to degenerate into a complete illogical mess. |
Im comparing the gassing of the kurds to this war becuase its the same ing thing, INNOCENTS whether direct or indirect, for the THIRD time are being MURDERED in this country. You people think you were so smart to come into that region and think you can magically take it over and all the children will be cheering the soldiers on the streets like it was pathetically shown in the media days after the PResident proclaimed an end to the war.
Im also comparing the gassing of the kurds becuase it was "AUTHORIZED" by the Iraqi government.. just like this "war" was "authorized" by the US senate. Both were authorized but that doesnt make it right...get it??????
And guess who turned their back on this massacre and called it an "arab problem" when this took place....you guessed..good ol reagan/Bush admin
| quote: |
How do you know that millions more Osamas are being created? The only reason they exist is because they are allowed to steep in ignorance and hatred because their leaders deny them freedom. Liberating Iraq, and hopefully more countries in the middle east will allow freedom to proliferate, and the hatred to dissintegrate. |
Millions will be made, becuase over a BILLION are muslim.. living in these environments that foster extremism. who do you think is helping the insurgents in Iraq??? Iraqi's???? AHAHAHAHA...take a look at all the muslim nations.... people are flocking there to save their "arab" brothers and sisters
You sound like a stupid republican spewing out the same bull about the middle east that has been reiterated since the 80's
the reason why MORE TERRORISTS ARE BEING CREATED is becuase of the anti-american/corporate sentiment that has arose from the war and occupation. Were these insurgents there before the war....no...after the war..yes
| quote: |
Again, refer to the 9/11 commission report. There was no lie.
I'll tell you exactly what's going on. The internet and the free flow of information, as great as it is, has allowed impressionable people like yourself to become brainwashed by the "anti-establishment." |
How bout you read a little more and stop watching Fox news...you sound like Bill Orielly. Hmm..im guessing you think that Bush was "misinformed" about the WMD...and he didnt lie..looooooool
And how the was saddam a threat to the US....a nation on the other side of earth! Iran.. Kuwait and even Israel werent even complaining and crying about this so called imminent threat and they are IRaq's neighbors!
get real:rolleyes: |
|
|
| fastmp3 |
| man the idiocy i'm reading in this thread :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
stupid huh?
yeah, i try not to waste my time here. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
Well, according to the intelligence that was available (as flawed as it may have been), there were WMDs, and Saddam posed a significant threat to national security. |
I still don't get it, not-so-long-before the CIA said that Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA, but when bush started his pre iraq talk, suddenly CIA had a lot of "proofs" that iraq posed a big threat to the USA. the intelligence was quite obvious sexied up imo.
| quote: | | So you admit that the Iraqi people (as polls done on Iraqis seven show) will have a better life and more positive future. |
Hopefully, but with a lot of bad luck (and bad planning) it will turn out to be worse. some fundamentalistic al quaida person taking over the country...
| quote: | | Saddam no longer poses the kind of threat he did, could have, and would do eventually...if he wasn't taken out. |
That is true, but there are a lot more bigger threats to the US (and the rest of the world).
| quote: | | The Iraq war had the same international support as the Korean war. By sheer numbers of troops, the Iraq war actaully shows a greater ratio of international support from foreign countries, with regard to ration of American troops and foreign troops. Take one look at the differnence between North and South Korea, and tell me that wasn't one war worth fighting. |
I don't know too much about the korea war, but i think that war is rather different from this one.
Also look at vietnamn, guess they were happy for their help too...
| quote: | | Regardless of the fact that Yugoslavia didn't have WMD, the International threat that Milosovic was, was nothing compared to Saddam. |
Ehm no, that was what i said too. the differnce though was that Clinton never said he posed a threat to anyone outside yogoslavia either...
again, if bush had gone to war for the reason to help the iraqi people, then the whole thing would have been a different thing (although i think he would had big troubles convincing the american people to go to such war)
| quote: | | Whether the media supported bush after 9/11, well, probably so...but now it seems everyone has forgotten the big picture...and is wallowing in this quagmire-fest. The media is saturated with an anti-bush agenda. |
Perhaps just everyone has got some perspective on the whole thing?
damn i need sleep :p |
|
|
|
|
