Monstrous
Monstrous Café => Say It! => Topic started by: Gnomelover on May 31, 2006, 04:41:01 PM
-
I know, I just hate when ppl use our leaders (Bush, the @#$%^&*!) as a stereotype for all of us
EDIT from The_Seeker:Just to clarify, this is a topic that is about anti-Bush etc. Sorry for hijacking your post, it's just easier for everyone this way.
-
I'm a Republican and I don't agree with everything Bush does. Especially the tap-phone-thing.
-
I hate the war in Iraq, I hate the running on deficet, I hate the depression, I hate the bad damn relations with other countries, I hate the sending illegal immigrants back home!! All stuff the Bush Administration has done. :x :? :evil:
@#$%^&*!
-
I do kind of agree with the war on terror, they bite us, we bite them back. And the US bites hard!
... Erm that was kind of an odd statement... :lol:
-
Iraq isn't a war on terrorism, it's a war from stupidity
-
Well, it was ran my a dictator mad man and had a bunch of Talaban and Al-quida people running around killing innocent people, so we had to get in there to help them out, we've made it a better place. They got their Freeeeeeeeeedom!
-
Bush said there were weapons, then there weren't, then we messed up their country, thenwe chased the wrong person, then we messed their country up more. Bush is the worst American President EVER
-
THey didn't get there freedom, they got Their violence!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Not as bad as Nixon, and we helped their country, but we did screw up at the begining.
-
Okay, good point, Nixon was Worse, but you can see a lot of similairities between the Vietnam War and the Iraqi War. VERY SIMILIAR
-
But we don't have ticked off hippies yelling at Bush, and Iraq improved and VW didn't it got worst.
-
we don't have ticked off hippies, we have tickked of democrats like me yelling at him
-
But we don't have ticked off hippies yelling at Bush, and Iraq improved and VW didn't it got worst.
i'd like to see some proof...and in addition to our armed forces being killed by those who "we're helping" those in afghanistan are now under attack, since the pass has unfrozen...
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq
link here (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Afghanistan;_ylt=AhfeeYp1e5quoAjaj2oAjpGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--)
bush led us there under false pretenses and trumped up accusations...and i don't see how we can ever do for a country, what they don't want us to be doing...he should just bail out, let the ingrates take care of themselves and focus on beefing up america, let them destroy each other...while keeping america safe?
he's letting america fall apart, beginning to do too little, too late...and now only acting to save his "popularity" which is as low as nixon's was, before he resigned...at least nixon showed enough rational that he screwed up and stepped down.
bush and his adminstration is a hypocrit! i know that's nothing new for politics, but he's the first president i remember to alienate so many people, i knew it was bad when he scammed the election from gore...i am happy that people are realizing how Stupid they were re-voting for him.
but like bush, it's now a little to late to remedy their screw up, i just hope there's an america left, when he's done.
-
So you say we should not have wnet to war with Iraq. It would have happened sooner or later. We helped put Bin Laden in control of Afghanistan. This war in Iraq is nothing like veitnam. For anyone to say they are anything alike is kinda insane in my opinion. The united states has been going to hell for a long time before bush became president, and to say it is all his fault shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I will agree that he is far from the best president but to blame one man when congress and the senate truely run this country.
-
Thank you, another (sensible) Democrat
actually, i'm not a democrat, i don't claim either party, i listen and pay attention to the candidates and make my choice on those observations...and bush always rubbed me the wrong way...i voted gore, and then kerry, because i liked what they said and how they carried themselves...bush, he's always been too squirrely for me to trust.
"I will agree that he is far from the best president but to blame one man when congress and the senate truely run this country."
and even they are beginning to distance themselves from him...bush isn't to blame for everything, but he isn't doing too much to make things better...i think his ratings show that most of america is now agreeing with those like gnome and i.
bush sucks and is giving americans a bad name...
and yes, the wars in the middle east are going down the same path as vietnam...our men do not know who are friends or enemies are, they are being undermined by the people they were sent to "protect",the goverment is giving them crap for equippment to fight their war and the president who sent them over there is going down in ratings...and, they are beginning to suffer the emotional consequences from having to live in such a state of uncertainty as is being demonstrated by the disturbing news coming out about how they are responding in these high stress situations, resulting in "innocent" villagers being killed.
fortunately most of the americans today are nothing like the soldier hating hippies...that is a major difference, but that hasn't anything to do with the war and everything to do with people realizing it's neighbors family members dying...
for what, terrorism? *looks confused*
they still havne't got bin laden, our soldiers are still being picked off and now with the growing belief in the 9/11 conspiracy, the impeach bush movements and those like nancy sheehan who are pointing out the tear inspiring realities of our boys and girls dying in a country that does not want them there, and definitly not for america
...how can you say it's any different than vietnam?
watch gunners palace, and then say you support bush's actions in iraq, and it's a good thing to be there.
-
Honestly in my opinion this country should withdraw all support from around the world. We should spend all the money we spend helping other nations on our own country. What I am saying is help our country first.
-
But we don't have ticked off hippies yelling at Bush,
Oh yes! We're still here, just older and quieter.
Most of us VOTE and work behind the scenes now instead of marching and protesting. I was a very young hippie during the Nixon years so I wasn't as involved as I would have been if I was five years older.
I hope all the Americans involved in this thread are registered and exercise their right to VOTE. It's so very important.
~Morticia
edit: subject title d.v.
-
To Light Warrior the temptation to become isolationist is strong, but faulty. Those with great power and money (the USA, the Western world) must act or else they are no better than those committing atrocities. Yes mistakes are made, and yes that noble goal is often abused or mishandled, but we must act, apathy is not an option.
To Jordyn and Gnomelover Yes Bush is doing a great deal of harm, but not because of the invasion, but how he directed it immediately after victory.
The invasion was, albiet rather mishandled, quite necessary. Part of the problem results from the UN being hampered by the enormous bureaucracy that encompasses it. The second comes from a genunie misunderstanding of the culture by the Bush administration. You do not label someone as evil and then attempt to negotiate with them. He only fuels the radicals. If his administration knew more than the fact that Muslims happen to live in the middle east, there would be many fewer problems.
As for this being like Vietnam, the comparision is boldface hyperbole. We have lost over 2200 troops in Iraq, a tragic number. However, go to the Vietname War Memorial if it comes to your town sometime soon. One of the larger plates holds close to 3000 names by itself. Hundreds of thousands died in Vietnam. There was nearly zero reason to be there. Nothing resembling success occured. At least in Iraq we removed Saddam, are dismantling Al Queda and are establishing some semblance of a democratic government. At least our troops helped to change and build something, instead of just working to destroy something.
-
But still Omni we shouldn,t be helping them for this long because they need to get on their own two feet again. But most likely as soon as we leave it will be chaos again so it does not matter. Notice how this is a war of terror yet there will always be terroists, what are we acomplishing?
-
The invasion was, albiet rather mishandled, quite necessary.
Why?
In Iraq we... are dismantling Al Queda and are establishing some semblance of a democratic government.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/storm_dancer/support-fox.gif)
~ Viper ~
-
Omnl, I will have to say that I some what agree with what you are saying. The point I was trying to make is that many things in the UNited States are left unattended and no matter who is the president. They will always be that way because those who run this country. Have no concept what it is to be below the poverty line and do not care. The leaders of this country care only for the almighty dollar. I do understand about us helping other countries and that is fine, but many places in the inner citys and the outskirts of towns could be improved upon so much. I myself have seen the effects of those less fortunate in this country being overlooked and getting the shaft,While we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help out other countries.
-
Awww DV, you cut me deep. Fox news? I don't even watch TV news, I get it all from 4 sources: Slate, Fark, BBConline and Drudgereport. Between all of those I tend to get a relatively balanced picture of things.
As for why the invasion was necessary, well, I would have to say because the UN is totally innept. If they had in any way, shape, or form been a functioning body that could enforce its resolutions (1440 springs to mind), the invasion would not have been necessary. The reasons given to us by Bush for the invasion were always faulty. There should have only been one reason: the UN gave him an ultimatum, he ignored it, so he was punished. Sadly, we've been told that there were other reasons, which turned out to be false. The point is the invasion to depose Saddam was necessary, but it was gone about in the most screwed up way possible.
Lightwarrior, I agree with you about issues of domestic strife. In this age of "football" politics, where everyone just roots for their team and makes short plays for position, both sides are screwing things up. I'm a libertarian, so I think the whole system is being messed up by the government anyway (I'm not anarcho-capitalist, just libertarian).
Finally, WeeFolkMan, there is no such thing as the South, as you have named it. Who is going to rise? of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line and East of Texas, 4 of them have the worst school systems in the country. It's like being threatened by the head and torso of Monty Python's Black Knight. The only thing rising in the South is the sea level every time hurricane season comes around.
-- and by the way, welcome to Monstrous.
-
Resolution 1440? "The Security Council... Condemns in the strongest terms the heinous act of taking hostages in
Moscow, the Russian Federation, on 23 October 2002, as well as other recent terrorist acts in various countries, and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security... Demands immediate and unconditional release of all hostages of this terrorist act...Expresses the deepest sympathy and condolences to the people and the Government of the Russian Federation and to the victims of the terrorist attack and their families...Urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001), to cooperate with the Russian authorities in their efforts to find and bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of this terrorist attack... Expresses its reinforced determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations."
There is nothing there that justifies the invasion of Iraq.
As for calling the UN inept, etc... what you actually mean is the UN doesn't do what the USA wants it to do. For years now it has been irking US hawks who hate the UN for daring to impose restrictions on its unilateralist policies. The USA has stated that it wants full spectrum dominance, and the concept of a global, democratic "talking shop" just doesn't fit their blueprint for domination of world commerce.
Back to Iraq. You say, "the invasion to depose Saddam was necessary"... But you still don't say why. I don't believe for one moment it had anything to do with the humanitarian aspects or the liberation of an undertrod people. After all, operation Desert Storm resulted in 200,000 civilians killed and 1,800,000 made homeless. When asked about the Iraqi casualties, Colin Powell replied: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in". So much for the USA caring about the Iraqi people...
After the war, the USA sold military hardware worth $100,000 million to neighbouring countries. And to show how important democracy and freedom is to the USA, 90% of all the arms sales were to unelected governments.
Then USA pushed through the economic sanctions against Iraq. The World Food Program and UNICEF reported that 1,211,285 people died of embargo-related causes between August 1990 and August 1997. This figure includes over 500,000 children under 5. Both totals are bigger than the 130,000 people that Amnesty International estimated to have died in Iraq between 1979 and 1989 as a result of the country's human-rights record. In addition, many Iraqis suffer from cancers induced by the depleted uranium used by the USA when bombing the country.
So, we can strike out democracy and humanitarian concerns. How about this..? David Frum, a speech writer for George W Bush wrote: "An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein – and the replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans."
Michael Klare is a US political scientist. He confirms the truth: "The removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by someone beholden to the United States is a key part of a broader United States strategy aimed at assuring permanent American global dominance."
Or in the words of a "terrorist": "This war brings billions of dollars to big companies, either to those that manufacture weapons or those who reconstruct Iraq, like Halliburton and its sister companies. And from here it becomes clear who benefits from the outbreak of wars and bloodshed: war traders and vampires who administer world politics from behind the curtain."
There seems to be a lot of talk in the USA at the moment demanding a new policy of isolationism. It won't happen, of course, because that would reduce their control. But maybe it is the rest of the world that should be calling for, and encouraging a US policy of isolationism. A snapshot - 20 yrs ago:
1.The USA legislature refuse funding for the Contras (anti-Nicaragua mercenaries set up and trained by the USA).
2.President Reagan secretly approves arms sales to Iran in contradiction to official USA policy. The money from these sales is diverted to the Contras. The purpose is to destabilise the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega.
3.Colonel Oliver North sets up centers in Colombia where cocaine dealing obtains more money to buy arms for the Contras. The drugs trade leads to a crack cocaine epidemic in Western countries.
4.The USA's policies inflict more than 50,000 casualties in Nicaragua. This includes nearly 3,500 children killed and over 6,000 children orphaned.
5.The USA is criticised by the World Court for its undercover action against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. The Court orders the USA to pay reparations of $ 17,000 million which the USA refuses to abide by.
6.The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution calling on all governments to observe international law...
Now, I'm by no means anti-USA; long time members of this forum will know that I have gone out on a limb many times to try to defend the actions of the US. I like Americans. But your politics and your global-bullying stink.
Rebuttals?
~ Viper ~
-
Honestly in my opinion this country should withdraw all support from around the world. We should spend all the money we spend helping other nations on our own country. What I am saying is help our country first.
That is what I agree, from what I know, you have a big problem with people who dont even read, your social politics sucks (in NY, city government gave small dog-like boxes for homeless to sleep in, like the bed with the roof on top of it, and inside a litlle TV),and all they do all days long is beg- rob- kill- drug,they do get their social money just for doing nothing. Im sure that they have no motivation for life itself, if you give them the excuse for doing nothing from the start.
guns are not the smartesst choice to invest your future on, cause future then becomes dependable on the gun in all it means. By doing War(time when innocent die)fare(doing something for your own money benefit, and nothing else), humans are certainly going very wrong direction, which is very unnussual due to our famous innteligence and soul that is of God.
And, yes, for Gods sake, stop that world police officer attitude!!!
Sorry, I know I said no more politicraps, but just couldnt resist :-D
-
*backs away slowly from debate*
I really really hate discussing politics when it's not in person, so I'm just going to give this round to DV and go back to talking about paranormal things
-
So you say we should not have wnet to war with Iraq. It would have happened sooner or later. We helped put Bin Laden in control of Afghanistan. This war in Iraq is nothing like veitnam. For anyone to say they are anything alike is kinda insane in my opinion. The united states has been going to hell for a long time before bush became president, and to say it is all his fault shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I will agree that he is far from the best president but to blame one man when congress and the senate truely run this country.
My opinion from a different continent is that though the US helped Bin Laden (and I think they are still helping keeping his family wealthy) it's true they should be spending less on foreign affairs and much more on home ones.
Also, if there were reasons (true ones) to start a war back in 1991, the Gulf War, there were not real ones to invade a country that did not want to be invaded or helped or saved. Who invested the US of the knight's role worldwide (or where oil is concerned, by the way, as no Communist threat may be used as an excuse anymore)? And as for Vietnam, I was not born then, my opinion is based on books I've read, pretentious probably, and movies, though all I remember vividly is the scene out of Hair, you know, the soldier boarding on a plane, then an aerial view of the cemetery where fallen ones were buried.
You can't invade a country because its policy is different from yours or its leaders stopped doing what you ask of them. Did you look at Michael Moore's documentary about the post-11.09? Well, when the army advertised the need for cannon fodder (ok, that's the way I put it) they did it giving the message to poor states, cities, neighborhoods. Places where if you want ends to meet you got to make a hard choice. Then you find Moore before the Congress only to find out that only one of the elected (those who take decisions, as you put it) is overseas with the army.
I guess suggesting some Chomsky's is out of question, right?
Let me stress out once again that's an opinion from another continent, another country, another reality.
-
Thread now closed.
Thankyou to all who participated in the debate.
Can we move onto the next subject now..?
~ Viper ~