|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:14 pm
InternalHardDrive Egotistical Moose GAH, I give UP. This is pointless to debate when no one understands that I'm not for Bush, I'm just pointing out that he's working, and he's working hard. I understand that someone else could do better. I don't think that Kerry could and I don't think that Gore could. John Kerry has pushed most Republicans to the fact that if we make fun of him, who the ******** cares. He's using the fact that he was in the military as an excuse for everything and thinks that he's superior to Bush because he 'served' and Bush didn't.
Before I leave in disgust and probably lurk for a while, sneering at answers I have no right to sneer at, I'd just like to wonder how the hell I'm being argued with when I'm on the same side as you people. Is it because I'm the closest to opposition? Or is it because I showed pity for Bush? Well, thing is, I'm aware that Bush is working hard, but in all honestly I don't believe that excuses him from anything since obviously Iraq has become a mess. ^^; Dukes: Plenty of presidents in the past had affairs, and Bush has lied quite a few times. (i.e. saying things like "we never said 'stay the course.'" Honestly, the whole thing with Clinton was pointless. What Saddam did wasn't right, but conditions in Iraq are honestly worse than they were. After we destroyed the infrastructure and failed to restore the country, Iraq has become more dangerous than it actually was. I agree that removing Saddam from power would be a good thing IF there was a clear exit plan that took into account the differnences in culture between theirs and ours. What's more, the Bush administration lied to the American people to get us to go into Iraq. They told us Iraq was tied to al Qaeda - that was false and they knew it. They told us Iraq had WMDs and was in the process of making nuclear weapons - they never found any. They told us Iraq was involved in 9/11 - false, as well. Did they know that? Yes. The Bush administration has constantly deceived America at large. So which is worse? Having an affair and lying about it or leading America into war based on false evidence when they KNEW it was false? As for statistics, that does not take into account the number of Iraqi citizens killed. Those numbers are quite significant. There were numerous cases of fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections, and honestly I'm sure that Bush stole both elections. Besides, even though he has no obligation to do what the majority wants, it doesn't mean we want to sit back and watch him ruin an entire country. >>; Having only a 30% approval rate certainly says something. I'm personally not a fan of Rosie. ^^; I had made a post before this that got lost, it mentioned JFK and Marilyn as an example but I got lazy.
No offense but we're having a hard time restoring the infrastructure when we have people blowing everything we do up and people at home trying to rush out before we're done.
Not going to get into the lies thing, it's not worth it.
Who said worse? For one this is apples and oranges, and for another my point is the legality or lack thereof.
Not going to get into the elections and stealing, also not worth it. Why does he care about his approval rate now? Exactly.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:39 pm
Dukes I had made a post before this that got lost, it mentioned JFK and Marilyn as an example but I got lazy.
No offense but we're having a hard time restoring the infrastructure when we have people blowing everything we do up and people at home trying to rush out before we're done.
Not going to get into the lies thing, it's not worth it.
Who said worse? For one this is apples and oranges, and for another my point is the legality or lack thereof.
Not going to get into the elections and stealing, also not worth it. Why does he care about his approval rate now? Exactly. o.o Um, okay. Of course, this is true. Unrest is something we should have anticipated. But America seemed to be in this delusional state that Iraq would welcome us in open arms. When the attacks first started, I had to question how much our actions corresponded with our words...we destroyed the infrastructure, what the people depend on. If we really cared about the Iraqi people, why'd we do that? If we had come up with a working plan in the first place, perhaps we wouldn't have gotten into this. Apples and oranges? Care to explain? Saying it's not worth it is not holding up your side of the arugment. >>; If the American public doesn't approve of his actions, then the Republican party is more likely to lose the 2008 elections and more seats in the house/senate/etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:53 pm
@ Dukes: Yeah, Rosie's a crazy b***h, but her weight doesn't factor into the situation. >_>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:53 pm
Dukes Padme Potter of Hobbiton Cherry, having an affair isn't illegal. And we can't control what a president does once he's in office. We didn't know he'd do this. Oh, and I just did some research. Bush's highest approval rating since september was 45%. Lowest was 28%, and was on the 18th. The last two months average at about 33%. He wasn't impeached for having an affair, he was impeached for perjuring himself about the affair and obstructing justice.
To Impeach: To bring charges against a high-ranking official.
Thus the impeachment doesn't even bring the president at risk for losing office unless he is found guilty and then it is decided that that is to be his punishment.
I don't think Kerry or Gore would have handled things better, not at all. Sure, maybe we wouldn't be in a war now, but I think they'd have botched 9/11, and Saddam would still be a pain in everyone's a**. If nothing else, I am proud that we FINALLY went in there and finished what we started in 1990. Saddam was a monster and now he's finally gone.
About the US casualties in this war... let's do a comparison with WWII, shall we?
2GW: 4 Years
WWII: 3 Years
2GW: 3,000 Dead
WWII: 291,557 Dead
2GW: 22,951 Non-Mortally Wounded
WWII: 671,846 Non-Mortally Wounded
Now, you look at those numbers and tell me that we've lost alot of people in this war. Even IF you toss in the contractors and the other coalition forces' dead and wounded, it's STILL much less than our losses in WWII.
Also, he has the right to do as he pleases so long as it is legal, he has no obligation to do what the majority wants. It's a Democratic Republic which means we elect as a democracy (everyone gets a vote) representatives (republic style) who we hope will uphold our best interests, but once they're in office we can't make them do anything, and they can do what they want. Usually politicians don't just do as they please because they have to worry about being reelected, but Bush: A. Doesn't have that problem and B. Strongly believes in what he's doing.
Now then, about The View. It sucks. And about Rosie O'Donnel - She's an idiotic b***h who was once a popular host but lost what she once had and needs to drop eighty pounds, maybe more. Dukes, 3000 lives is still 3000 people who would most likely still e enjoying life right now had there not been a war. You tell this isn't as important to someone who's lost someone. And about the view, to each their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:25 pm
I'm not gonna get too far into this... buuuut...
With President Clinton... and his affair, the attitude was that as long as it was behind closed doors, it was fine, right?
A bit of info though... the Israeli intelligence was tapping Monica's and Bill's phone, to get some "pillow talk"... (before was fact, after this is speculation) probably to blackmail him to gain "favors" from the US...
And... He lied under oath...
You've got my opinion of what I think should have happened...
And with President Bush Jr. ... He lied to the American public... He's goofing up the war...
Now you know my opinion of him...
However, I will say this... I AM what you would call a "hawk"... Personally, If I had my way... Kim Jong Ill (or whatever his name is), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro (and brother) would all have lost their power a LONG time ago... as well as a bunch of other "bad" leaders... And I am glad that Saddam is out of power... the way that man treated his populace was nothing less than horrendous... and he was only one leader who did this; there are still many more left...
And I'll end with a famous quote:
"All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
~Sibeiko
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:51 pm
Sieg Reyu.2 http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
O___________O That counter is going up by thousands alarmingly fast.
I read no newspapers, I have no cable so I watch no news, and the only time I hear about politics is from my parents, who are hard core republicans and hard core Bush supporters. Therefore I dont feel I should contribute to this thread. Although I do say my mommy is very smart, and if she supports Bush she must have -some- kind of a reason. I should ask her next time I see her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:09 pm
Enter at... ...Your Own Risk
Ok first off we must understand the information Bush got that helped him decide to go in to Iraq was misleading,and sometimes false. Lets us look back to when the war began. Bush said that there were WoMDs in Iraq and the UN sent people over to check that out. non were found but Bush thought in his mind and with the information he was given that Saddam was hiding these WoMDs somewhere and we had to find them. So we went into Iraq wit the purpose to find the WoMD and the people hiding them,including Saddam.
So we went off to do that but than(and I can't find the reason why) Bush decided that the people of Iraq needed to be free of the dictatorship of Saddam(I don't dissagree with the thought at all,we should have just thought it through) and so we began to hunt down Saddam and his helpers all under the guise of "WAR ON TERROR". This is where it went wrong. We got Saddam out of power but that craeted a vacum for the real terrorists to funnel into Iraq.
If Bush and the millitary had thought things through and went "hey if we get rid of Saddam whats gonna happen? Could the terrorists we say we are fighting really show up?" These questions didn't seem to be asked at all and now 3,000+ American soldiers and thousands more Iraqi have been killed because no one thought it through.
So now we are stuck in a place where there isn't a clear cut answer. If we pull out now we doom the Iraqi people but if stay we might be staying there for 30 more years. All I know is deep down in my gut sending more troops isn't going to solve anything,I don't know what will but I do know the Presidents way isn't going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:39 pm
Femme-nazi means:::
Female who thinks that all males are below her and all woman kind should be above EVERYONE and that men are all ignorant wankers who aren't worth their time, except to boss around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:09 pm
[Cherry.Wine] Femme-nazi means::: Female who thinks that all males are below her and all woman kind should be above EVERYONE and that men are all ignorant wankers who aren't worth their time, except to boss around. If I were you, I wouldn't call that femme-nazi. Call it sexism. Because it IS sexism, and femme-nazi is a very loaded term. Not everyone even agrees on its meaning. Please understand, though, that feminism and sexism do not go hand in hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Peles Tears Ok first off we must understand the information Bush got that helped him decide to go in to Iraq was misleading,and sometimes false. Lets us look back to when the war began. Bush said that there were WoMDs in Iraq and the UN sent people over to check that out. non were found but Bush thought in his mind and with the information he was given that Saddam was hiding these WoMDs somewhere and we had to find them. So we went into Iraq wit the purpose to find the WoMD and the people hiding them,including Saddam. The FBI, even, said that there were no WMDs or that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Bush wouldn't take that as a response, however. There was a document made by the right-wing...a plan to take over the Middle East. One of the writers was Cheney. I personally think a big part of the decision was to further that plan. I mean, Bush is talking about invading Iran. That's crazy. sweatdrop The document isn't a "leftist conspiracy" either...one of the writers of the document spoke out about it. Quote: So we went off to do that but than(and I can't find the reason why) Bush decided that the people of Iraq needed to be free of the dictatorship of Saddam(I don't dissagree with the thought at all,we should have just thought it through) and so we began to hunt down Saddam and his helpers all under the guise of "WAR ON TERROR". This is where it went wrong. We got Saddam out of power but that craeted a vacum for the real terrorists to funnel into Iraq. I agree that Iraq needed to be freed...but why stop at Iraq? Why not free the millions of other people under totalitarian government? And it definitely needed to be thought out, too, I agree. sweatdrop And on the "War on Terror"...we're fighting something that is never going to be stopped. There will always be terrorists. Terrorism didn't suddenly emerge with 9/11. Are we going to fight an endless war? sweatdrop Quote: If Bush and the millitary had thought things through and went "hey if we get rid of Saddam whats gonna happen? Could the terrorists we say we are fighting really show up?" These questions didn't seem to be asked at all and now 3,000+ American soldiers and thousands more Iraqi have been killed because no one thought it through. So now we are stuck in a place where there isn't a clear cut answer. If we pull out now we doom the Iraqi people but if stay we might be staying there for 30 more years. All I know is deep down in my gut sending more troops isn't going to solve anything,I don't know what will but I do know the Presidents way isn't going to work. Agreed. sweatdrop Sending more troops is only more likely to escalate the problem. I'm wondering if there is, in fact, no good solution to this problem. We might be left with trying to lessen losses as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
