Why you should support what Bush is doing.

[Qdeathstar]

for those looking to blast bush, here is why you are dreadfully incorrect when if comes to cold hard facts

Before you say OMG he is a staunch republic who cant see past the elephants ass, im not going to sit here and say "Bush is the messiah" because there are a few issues that i think he is being dumb about with all his religious agenda's. One is his staunch support for Isreal. I think that is totally retarted, especiall sence arial shorone is dick.. i mean, talking about freindly peace while building a wall? thats pathetic. But i guess a choice between Arafat and Sharone really isnt a choice is it. Also, Stem Cell research and Therapudic Cloning research, technology that would save more lives that saddam killed, is NOT supported by president bush, and thats really just out of ignorance and religion that anything else.

And for all of you saying "go to the www.costofwar.com" website or whatever... have you asked yourself one question? What is the cost of Appeasement? What is the Cost of Silence? What is the cost of Arrogance? What is the cost of Ignorance? Have our really asked those questions before visiting a site made my empathizers to the "plight" of Saddam Hussain and Al Qaeda. Or have you been stuck in the rut on ignorance that has so enthralled you people that you cannot, and will not, see, that the War on Terror and the Iraqi war will do for the middle east in 10 years, what world war 2 did for europe. Freedom. True Freedom from all. You say america is ONLY interested in the Oil. But where is our oil? Where are we getting all the profit you talk about? Where. Our gas prices are at record highs. But since your not an american, you wouldnt know taht would you?

You say see, the 9/11 panel confirms there was no connection between Alqaeda and Iraq, but totally for get the number 9/11 before "panel" meaning that it was looking for connections to Al Qaeda and Iraq ONLY with regards to 9/11.

You say, No WMD.. what the ****. No WMD. Let me ask you something. How long did we give saddam? a year? How long to you think it takes to get some tanker trunks together, and drive them to Iran? How long?

And, you may say.. the Torture and massacre of his own people, and own family, hundreds of thousands of people, is not enough justification for war. IF you are agaist this war, that is what your saying. And that is JUST TOTTALY BIZZAIRE.

So, now you say. Im not against the war, just the way it waw presented, and i dont like President Bush.. Let me ask you another question. Do you think that American citizens, and the UN would have gotten off there fat asses for one minute to do something good for the world, if the werent convinced it would save there lives? Just some poor people in Iraq, We just do it cuz its the right thing to do. NO. Some times great people have to come to a conclusion on fuzzy facts, but not lies.. Wildrow wilson did the same thing in convincing americans to fight in World War II. How can you say that was the wrong thing to do? How can you say the Iraq war was the wrong thing to do? How. Answer my question without the retard "its wrong to kill and peace saves" crap, because from historical events we can TELL THAT IS NOT TRUE. Peace Kills long term, War heals long term. History has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

ANd let me point out that Iraq and Afganistan as Arab havens for democracy will only help ease the Arab-weastern world tentions. :ur:: If your too busy making money and imrpoving your living conditions, those improvement brought by the western world, how can you hate the western world. Bin Laden and his followers will fade into and empty gray of lies. In time.

It is my view, really, that most liberals and Democrats are short sided.. only see whats strait ahead of them, without looking at the big picture. So, before you go on a flaming torrent, i want you to calm down, and re-read what ive said, and in the mean time, rethink your liberal life.

Face it, the only reasons "the war is bad" is because you like "anti-fag" and all those other little pathetic punk-rock bands that sit around pussy footing while their peers carry the wait of there lazy asses. either thats, are your parents told you "war is always bad" Come on, Realy



But, Given the choice between a peace-humping pric who is so egotistical, and so sure that America is going to hell in a hand basket (cliche) that he cant see past his own overgrown nose, and President bush who is leading this county and the world to new, and infact better places, With strong moral values, and hard working ethics, who favors taxes and opposes third trimester (partial birth abortion) he is the only choice.. I mean, if for abortion, to a point. But when your crushing the Fetus' head to abord it, and it isnt for medical-saftey reasons.. thats a bit much..


Some facts about Kerry why we are at it...

Well first of all, Bush is creating new jobs.. 1.5 million in the bast 6 months, by most standards, thats pretty good. Kerry's Job Creation plan? What are the details all ive seen is fluff..

In fact the same can be said for his "medicare program"... I hear him saying it "will be better" and will this and will that.. but i want to know HOW. he has no idea HOW.. he just keeps talking about what he will do...

And for your information. HE ISNT CUTTING TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, but instead increasing the tax on the wealthies americans

This is what the wealthiest americans pay:

people who make about 250 grand a year... $88,936.00 plus 38.6% of their total income

While the middle class (30-60K)only pays

$3,637.50 plus 27% percent mean

so if your making 250K a year, you pay 185426 paid to the US covernment ,and that means they only get 64,564 a year, a lot less that their income..

while, if the midde classment is making 60k, he only pays a little under 20k in taxes, and keeps 40K of his money... and thats a lot more percentage wize that the Upper class.

And thats with the Tax cuts.. think about what will happen if Kerry gets his way..

AND LASTLY, IF YOU SAID "Man, that was too long to read, but anyway, your wrong, and yeah, kerry is the man" YOUR OPPINION IS TOTALLY WORTHLESS. Because it is obvious you have no intition of having an opinion based on fact, or seeing the other sides view. OMFG.. it took me 1 hr to do this, Please read it, its really worth it.

[Apothos]

lol.

[Evergreen]

Actually before the last 6 months Bush managed to UNCREATE 3 million jobs.

Go go bush, Statistics out of context are bullshit.

You ever read about the wonderful wonderful articles about the jobs going missing in america?

[Qdeathstar]

now thats more like it.

Evergreen,

Kerry is saying the economy is getting worse, and that clearly is a lie. And Bush is not the only one responsible for the job loss, as according to the Fed, the ressession started before Clinton left...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Have our really asked those questions before visiting a site made my empathizers to the "plight" of Saddam Hussain and Al Qaeda.

Don't be stupid, no-one cares abouth the plight of Saddam or Al Qaeda per se. It's the thousands, nay millions of other people that are affected along the way.

Or have you been stuck in the rut on ignorance that has so enthralled you people that you cannot, and will not, see, that the War on Terror and the Iraqi war will do for the middle east in 10 years, what world war 2 did for europe. Freedom. True Freedom from all.

If you think that the Middle East will have true freedom in 10 years then I really don't know what to say.

You say america is ONLY interested in the Oil.

Who said that? I certainly never did. It wouldn't make much sense. There are lots of long-term interests the US Government follow when deciding policy. Having a policy totally focussed on oil (but ignoring labour, security, etc) would be rather illogical, even for Bush.

You say, No WMD.. what the ****. No WMD. Let me ask you something. How long did we give saddam? a year? How long to you think it takes to get some tanker trunks together, and drive them to Iran? How long?

I think you're missing the point here. [a] Why would Iran accept Iraqi trucks considering the hostilities between the two countries and [b] more importantly, the whole reason we went to war was because we said Iraq had WMD THEN. It's a completley different question as to whether Iraq ever had WMD. Think about it like this :

The police decide to raid your house because they say you've got loads of guns and you're going to shoot up the neighbourhood with them. Other people say to the police that you don't have many guns left anymore, probably not a threat. The police raid anyway, and don't find any guns. They then say "You idiots, he obviously got rid of them!". If they got ****ing rid of them there was no need for the raid. Do you see?

the Torture and massacre of his own people, and own family, hundreds of thousands of people, is not enough justification for war. IF you are agaist this war, that is what your saying. And that is JUST TOTTALY BIZZAIRE.

Not really. They might be justification for war, it depends on the context. But that wasn't what was presented. If the war was to topple Saddam because of human rights abuses then fair enough, but why not just use that argument than inventing a whole load of other bullshit?

Peace Kills long term, War heals long term. History has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

I fail how to see you can generalise this blandly in any useful fashion. According to this, we should constantly try to have wars, irrespective of the context. If war always heals then why not just constantly fight?

Face it, the only reasons "the war is bad" is because you like "anti-fag" and all those other little pathetic punk-rock bands that sit around pussy footing while their peers carry the wait of there lazy asses. either thats, are your parents told you "war is always bad" Come on, Realy

lol, anti-fag, changing their name to sound like something different. COMEDY GENIUS. lol, bush=c*nt, hahaha. The wit.

Sigh. People are against the war for various reasons. I doubt the majority are fans of anti-flag. I went on a demonstration with over a million people. Perhaps 10% had probably even heard of Anti-Flag. Some of the people there were in their 50's and 60's, some were veterans of previous conflicts. Don't try and present yourself as the sole bearer of reason and logic. You're being as stupid as the people who say "lol, the only reason people support the war is because they saw Fox News, brainwashing!!!".

p.s. Since when was job creation a legitimate role for government according to the American right? Or is it OK if the jobs are in defence and not in health and social services?

[Evergreen]

I mean I could go on about how Bush's protection methods to save American Steel backfired and almost killed the steel industry dead. (people just made what they wanted from the steel in canada and then imported it as it's finished product into america avoiding the stupid taxes, in the end it saw most of the american steel jobs go directly to canada, for that canada says thanks).

Lumber thing also backfired with you guys getting fined tonnes, I mean hey let's put some job numbers on the map and hide the real costs of keeping them which was money that could of been used to pay for about 4 times the amount of people they managed to KEEP employed.

GOOOO BUSH!

[acropolis]

i'll read this when i have time. which is not now.

in point of fact i don't like bush because i believe that he is a militant fundamentalist muslim, and a quick perusal of your post did not turn up any specific adress to that major issue.

but as i said i'll double check when i have time.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

for those looking to blast bush, here is why you are dreadfully incorrect when if comes to cold hard facts

Your "cold hard Facts" arent facts at all. You present no facts. Prepare to be buried.

1st point

Dont feel special because your gas prices are high. So are the rest of the worlds due to the current situation in Iraq and the Middle East. Your Government is also pumping oil BACK into the ground for reserves.

2nd point

Al-Qaieda and Sadaam were fundamentally opposed, and most spectators agree that if Sadaam did help Al-Qaeda then they most likely wouldve used his own bombs and training against him. Kind of like they are doing now with the USA.

There was very little evidence of Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq before the war, but now im sure you can see the evidence that they are their operating now on your precious CNN or whatever you watch.
In fact many people believe that Osama used September 11th as a tool to get Bush into the middle east so he could win battles there as well as more middle eastern support. Whether he planned this to happen, as some suggest, or not, it has worked better than he could have ever hoped. Not only are they in the middle east, but they are focussing the bulk of their war effort on someone Osama had no relation with. Now all he has to do is sit back and pick off American soldiers with ease.

3rd point.

If US intelligence is as good as they said it was in the build up to the war, then how come they didnt notice all the WMD being moved about? Surely it'd be a tricky thing to hide an entire weapons programme.
The only reason there was belief in these allegations, is because America helped Iraq with WMD programmes in the late 80's.
American intelligence is continually proving to be shoddy. Anyone remember a certain asprin factory?

4th point

Yes Sadaam did torture maim and kill. He also helped Iraq become an economic model for the rest of the Arab Kingdom. And he isnt the only dictator that tortures and all the rest. Zimbabwe has government funded camps where children are brainwashed, raped and trained to rule small towns in vigalante fashion. That is just one example off the top of my head.

Summary.
People oppose the war because it is a joke. There has been no evidence to support going into war, other than the fact that they disliked Sadaam. I dislike Sadaam, he was a dictator and evil, but bombing the hell out of Iraqs infrastructure was the worst possible way to bring peace.

I wont comment on the rest of your thread because its mostly American internal politics, a subject im not that well informed on.

Edited for missed words and this disclaimer:

This is all off the top of my head, and took about four minutes to write. If you can give me a worthy reply i will think up more facts, but right now your not worth it.

[Zar]

qdeathstar - if economics was so easy as you put it, then we wouldnt need to bother studying it.

the problems are far more rampant than laying it down to basic tax cuts and unemployment.

the public is just presented with such easy numbers because they wouldnt know any wiser. most of those numbers in theory if applied properly mean nothing on their own. They would be considered a smalelr variable in a larger context

[MrL_JaKiri]

re: WMDs. You do realise that there were people LOOKING for WMDs in Iraq for years beforehand, don't you?

[Kurashima]

Badly Written , poorly though out, probably posted whilst half drunk or asleep.

Its not in the league of a "WarFalcon Special" or one of Texan's well thought out, beautifully vicious and sarcastic "Eurotrash" rebukes.

2/10, must do better.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Badly Written , poorly though out, probably posted whilst half drunk or asleep.

The more likely explanation is 'whilst stupid'

[IncubusGod]

Dear God. What a misguided post.

As most people have explained above, you missed the main crux of the arguments against Bush by a mile. You claim that liberals are being hysterical and not backing up or even understanding the issues. Well I think by you inability to percieve the arguments you've made yourself look stupid.

Your grasp of international politics is laughable.

How long to you think it takes to get some tanker trunks together, and drive them to Iran?

Heh, you really haven't a clue do you? You ever hear of this little thing called the Iran-Iraq war?

Clearly you dont understand what kind of regime Iraq had, Saddam was a secular leader. Religion was a tool he used to control people but he oppressed it heavily to prevent what had happend in Iran (a takeover by the muslim fundamentalists)
Al Queda considered him an enemy as much as they do europe.
Personally I belive they save their bile hatred for Saudia Arabia (well the rulers) and the U.S.

Bush didn't start this war because of the Humanitarian Abuses Saddam inflicted. Most of the misery caused to the Iraqi people was as a result of U.N. Sanctions. If the U.S. actually cared about the poor ordinary Iraqi's it would have acted long ago.

When you say the critics of Bush say he's only after Oil, you (along with alot of others) dont see the real issues. Oil may be a plus but it's not the full objective of the intervention in the Middle East and Afgansitan. The Us needs influence in this region more and more as the hardline islamists take more and more power. The U.S. could not afford to see their partners and friends being over-run or replaced. Saudi Arabia for example. A system of rule that by all definitions, fits a tyranical regimie (albeit not as harsh as some). Restrictions on media,political parties (there pretty much are none,no opposition,no democracy) etc. And yet the U.S. ignores all this for the sake of influence in this region through the Saudis. Also for example, look at the countried surrounding Afgansitan, mad dictators, people being boiled alive, human right abuses. But they are friends in the "war on terror" so their crimes are ignored,again for co-operation and influcene in the region.

Listen...I could go into more details but Im supposed to be working. Next time you try to talk about international politics, try to read up on the subject before this.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The more likely explanation is 'whilst stupid'

warning, YahweII has hijacked MrL's keyboard.

[Nodrog]

I mainly don't like Bush because he's an (economicaly) left-wing statist pragmatist like most politicians, and I'm not really noticing much in your post that contradicts this.

[Phang]

i saw the thread title and starter and thought 'oh no, not him again'. i read the thread anyway.

IT DELIVERED

[Petru]

Oh boy...

[sayonara]

People who can't spell should not be allowed opinions.

[pablissimo]

This is why Qdeathstar is on ignore. I don't have to read the shite that starts the storm, I just have to read the rebuttals which are always better written and more entertaining.

[JonnyBGood]

What's the cost of allowing freedom of speech on internet forums



PS Plz read up on how taxation works and the wider economic ramifications.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

especiall sence arial shorone is dick..

This is where I stopped reading.

Please read it, its really TOTTALY BIZZAIRE.

Fixed.

[Vaio]

1 minor point.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why would Iran accept Iraqi trucks considering the hostilities between the two countries ?

The same reason why most of the Iraqi airforce ended up in Iran during the Gulf War, cause they could

Apart from that, the responses are a lot more interesting and more accurate to read than the original post.

~Vaio~

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

A Load of Shite

You are conveniently forgetting the fact that Bush was voted in due to some very large voting fraud and before you accuse me of it. I am not a Michael Moore fan

~Vaio~

[Qdeathstar]

i love getting attention :-) I will respond to a few of you later, and... Ill edit my post.. maybe Flame away boys. Flame away.

[BesigedB]

he wants to outlaw gays.

that's a load of bull****

[Qdeathstar]

well, fags are fags....

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

well, fags are fags....

...and about four steps up the evolutionary ladder from you

[Qdeathstar]

probably...

[Hicks]

Anti Flag are awsome live, I'll come back and laugh at this thread when I'm sober.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Vaio

You are conveniently forgetting the fact that Bush was voted in due to some very large voting fraud and before you accuse me of it. I am not a Michael Moore fan

~Vaio~

Maybe not, but the only reason you claim fraud is that you read his book, which - may I add - is as shamefully biased as they come. Face it.

[Boogster]

Though the post was incoherent, misguided and overly simplistic, I agree on the principal point:

Bush is not as stupid as Moore would have you believe.

I refuse to jump on the anti-establishment, "It's cool to be liberal when you're young" bandwagon.

I support America's presence in Iraq because:

Saddam was a threat to his own people, and to the Western World. Iraq is better of without him.

Yes, the motives for war were muddled.
Perhaps there were no WMD. Perhaps we were duped. Perhaps Michael Moore is right, and Bush is the root of all evil - manipulated, yet the manipulator - stupid, yet smart enough to fool us all.

I don't believe Oil is a sufficient, or subsantiated motive.

A final, tenuous note.
The success of politics relies, to some extent, upon trust. The electorate must trust that politicians will responsibly carry out the mandate given to them through the vote, or democracy itself becomes useless. Politicians are, contrary to popular opinion, not all bad people. I do not believe that either Bush or Blair would knowingly go to war, risking thousands of lives, with no sincere motive.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Wildrow wilson did the same thing in convincing americans to fight in World War II.

sooooo many levels.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I mainly don't like Bush because he's an (economicaly) left-wing statist pragmatist like most politicians, and I'm not really noticing much in your post that contradicts this.

i don't know if it's funnier watching commies say "the USSR wasn't a real communist government!" or righties saying "Bush isn't a real right wing nutjob!"

anyway

i'm not sure whats wrong with pragmatism in politicians, or statism in a head of state, but sometimes i really do get the impression that you use "left-wing" and "bad ideas" interchangeably. Nazis? Left-wing! Tax cuts? Left-wing! Trillions on dysfunctional missile defense? Left-wing! Invading the wrong country? Left-wing!

Anyway, I don't like michael moore; i don't like hippies, tree huggers, commies, minorities, whiners, pacifists, or lefties in general. And so there's a certain obvious reaction that says, "since they all hate George W., I should like him!"

But shit tastes bad no matter who's eating it.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I support America's presence in Iraq because:

Saddam was a threat to his own people, and to the Western World. Iraq is better of without him.

Yes, the motives for war were muddled.
Perhaps there were no WMD. Perhaps we were duped. Perhaps Michael Moore is right, and Bush is the root of all evil - manipulated, yet the manipulator - stupid, yet smart enough to fool us all.

I don't believe Oil is a sufficient, or subsantiated motive.

A final, tenuous note.
The success of politics relies, to some extent, upon trust. The electorate must trust that politicians will responsibly carry out the mandate given to them through the vote, or democracy itself becomes useless. Politicians are, contrary to popular opinion, not all bad people. I do not believe that either Bush or Blair would knowingly go to war, risking thousands of lives, with no sincere motive.

Currently, I dont think anyone would agree Iraq is better off. Sadaam had kept his torture in his pockets and Iraq was a propsering society which many people believed to be a model for the Arab kingdom. Now its an anarchist state, with a lot of basic infrastructure, such as water and power, still in ruins after bombing raids.

There are also many different factions vying for power in Iraq, Shi'ites etc, and many are just aggressive if not more agreesive than Sadaam. The Arab world is not one we can judge by Western world standards, which is why a lot of it is pissed off at our countless attempts to change it.

While I dont agree with torture and dictatorship, i disagree equally with being lied to by the largest country in the world who hold endless stocks of nuclear weapons, and continue to develop them while attempting to persuade everyone else to stop them.

And why Iraq, not North Korea, a country who lives in total international isolation. A country that holds Anti-american rallies while firing off test nukes into the ocean. A country still officially at war. North Korea is calming down and becomming more open to peace talks, an option that Sadaam was seemingly open to in the lead up to war. He even challenged Bush to an international debate on the subject, but seeing as the west continues to portray him as the root of all Middle East evils he was not given the chance.

Yes i know he had many chances before, and had done many many bad things, but he recently had done many encouraging things. Even allowing weapons inspectors back after earlier debacles and allegations against them.

The US government chose a time that had good hope for Iraq, using actions that couldve been used more effectively a decade or two ago while the violations were actually going on. Instead they offered support for Sadaam, turning a blind eye until Kuwait. The action shouldve come then, instead of waiting for Iraq to get back on track and become a decent country.

The time america chose was a little too conveinient after losing a lot of face from the Afghanastan/Osama debacle. They had reason for that, but after that wasnt going to plan they distracted us with the Iraq war to keep us occupied.

And what of Iraq now? The USA had spent too much on trying to prove the war was just and convince us (and themselves) that they had current cause for it. Now it is a total mess as i said earlier.

I wouldve been more than happy to see Sadaam ousted and a new effective government put into place, but to paraphrase David Eddings' fantasty character Garion: A kingdom will take a long time to recover after a rebellion and loss of a king. If that rebellion is followed by a civil war it will take even longer.

We are now in for an uneeded long and messy civil war as each Iraqi religion tries to gain power.

[Qdeathstar]

Currently, I dont think anyone would agree Iraq is better off.

Well unfortunatly no one has said that CURRENTLY iraq is better, we are saying that in the future, IT WILL BE WITHOUT A DOUBT. Another reason why liberals appear to be short sighted.

Iraq was a propsering society which many people believed to be a model for the Arab kingdom. Now its an anarchist state, with a lot of basic infrastructure, such as water and power, still in ruins after bombing raids.

A prospering society before the first gulf war, before they attacked Kuwait unprevoked.

There are also many different factions vying for power in Iraq, Shi'ites etc, and many are just aggressive if not more agreesive than Sadaam.

Thats why we must bring democracy for the peoples of Iraq

]The Arab world is not one we can judge by Western world standards, which is why a lot of it is pissed off at our countless attempts to change it.

So what your saying is...

A culture likes to kill and eat babys. We cant judge that culture. Cant judge
In a culture, pedophilia is the norm. We cant judge that culture. Cant judge
A culture eats its own people... we cant judge.

TRUST ME, certain cultures are better than others, and if a culture is better, it should be allowed to spread.

While I dont agree with torture and dictatorship, i disagree equally with being lied to by the largest country in the world who hold endless stocks of nuclear weapons, and continue to develop them while attempting to persuade everyone else to stop them.

Well, the united states is BUILDING nuclear arms, they are only tested 1.. they just have them. And as an american, im personally glad they are keeping theirs why telling others to get rid of theres. And the fact that the united states has Nuclear arms has nothing to do with whether or not iraq was a good choice.

And why Iraq, not North Korea, a country who lives in total international isolation. A country that holds Anti-american rallies while firing off test nukes into the ocean. A country still officially at war. North Korea is calming down and becomming more open to peace talks, an option that Sadaam was seemingly open to in the lead up to war. He even challenged Bush to an international debate on the subject, but seeing as the west continues to portray him as the root of all Middle East evils he was not given the chance.

thats not why bush chose saddam. Bush chose saddam because he was the easiest evil dictator to get rid of, to show the other dictators he ment what he was saying when he said it. It worked in lybia.. but not so succesfully in North Korea, but in due itme. In due time

Yes i know he had many chances before, and had done many many bad things, but he recently had done many encouraging things. Even allowing weapons inspectors back after earlier debacles and allegations against them.

Yeah, but the Inspectors described them as Un-cooperative... and they didnt allow inspectors in, it was one of the conditions of the treaty they signed w/ the united states.

The US government chose a time that had good hope for Iraq, using actions that couldve been used more effectively a decade or two ago while the violations were actually going on. Instead they offered support for Sadaam, turning a blind eye until Kuwait. The action shouldve come then, instead of waiting for Iraq to get back on track and become a decent country.

I agree with you here.. with the exception that Iraq was a decent country. After the war.

The time america chose was a little too conveinient after losing a lot of face from the Afghanastan/Osama debacle. They had reason for that, but after that wasnt going to plan they distracted us with the Iraq war to keep us occupied.

I know, the War on Terror gave bush just the right ability to do what was needed, to get rid of saddam and bring the west to the east.

and what of Iraq now? The USA had spent too much on trying to prove the war was just and convince us (and themselves) that they had current cause for it. Now it is a total mess as i said earlier.

again with your short sightedness. NO one is concerent with now, but instead the future.

wouldve been more than happy to see Sadaam ousted and a new effective government put into place, but to paraphrase David Eddings' fantasty character Garion: A kingdom will take a long time to recover after a rebellion and loss of a king. If that rebellion is followed by a civil war it will take even longer.

Yeah, but he didnt say that the rebellion SHOULDNT TAKE PLACE. Just that it would take a long time for it to recover. SO DONT WORRY ABOUT THE HERE AND NOW, AND INSTEAD THINK ABOUT THE LONG TERM.

[Qdeathstar]

I think you're missing the point here. [a] Why would Iran accept Iraqi trucks considering the hostilities between the two countries and [b] more importantly, the whole reason we went to war was because we said Iraq had WMD THEN. It's a completley different question as to whether Iraq ever had WMD. Think about it like this :

The police decide to raid your house because they say you've got loads of guns and you're going to shoot up the neighbourhood with them. Other people say to the police that you don't have many guns left anymore, probably not a threat. The police raid anyway, and don't find any guns. They then say "You idiots, he obviously got rid of them!". If they got ****ing rid of them there was no need for the raid. Do you see?

No its a bit different. It would only be the same think if the Police said "Sometime in the next year, were going to search your house for the guns" before they searched your house. Havign the warning, it would take nothing for you to move them over to your next door neighbor..

And, Im so sure that Iran has air tight boarders so that no one can get pasted. Trust me, It dont take much to get accross the Iraq/IRan boarder.. they were talking about how easy it was on CBS..

Al-Qaieda and Sadaam were fundamentally opposed, and most spectators agree that if Sadaam did help Al-Qaeda then they most likely wouldve used his own bombs and training against him. Kind of like they are doing now with the USA.

Yeah but the enemy of my enemy is my freind comes into play a bit hear as well. Im not saying there is an air tight case of Al-Qaeda/Saddam connections but it is intreging. And it is 100% that he as tied to Terrorist organizations. He paid palistine homicide bombers families money after a they blew themselves up.

qdeathstar - if economics was so easy as you put it, then we wouldnt need to bother studying it.

I ment to edit that bit out... it was for a different conversation. To talk about a specific issue regarding economics. Sorry.

Listen...I could go into more details

Uh, thats all i can think to say.. uh so uh i guess uh i better write something uh" Is what taht sounds like to me.

People who can't spell should not be allowed opinions.

Why, and is that the crux of the attack on my argument?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

TRUST ME, certain cultures are better than others, and if a culture is better, it should be allowed to spread.

Who said Aryanism was dead?

[Qdeathstar]

and you tottally for to mention the context of that line. And being white isnt a culture, being western is a culture :-/

and btw, since you say you cant judge culture, then why are you judging aryanism???

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

and btw, since you say you cant judge culture, then why are you judging aryanism???

Where did I say one can't judge a culture?

[Qdeathstar]

thats what the bit of quote you picked up was talking about, so i have to assume your refering to that.? otherwise your post was worthles.

[Leshy]

One can judge a culture for it's actions, but that does not somehow give you the right to declare yours as better, or use it as a basis to force your culture and way of life upon others. By default, you have then become worse than the culture you were judging in the first place.

As for your statement being related to cultures, the notion that your culture is somehow better than others and that gives you the right to impose it upon others, and therefore using a similar argument as Hitler's "wir brauchen Lebensraum", it's not a far-fetched analogy to look at the racially based Aryanism. Especially when one considers the other culture you are referring to, happens to be another race as well.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Maybe not, but the only reason you claim fraud is that you read his book, which - may I add - is as shamefully biased as they come. Face it.

Bollocks my lad. Michael Moore isn't the only person ever who looked at the election and went 'Wait a second...'

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Thats why we must bring democracy for the peoples of Iraq

What, in order to get the Shi'ite extremests in legally, and therefore remove all possible ground for a legal deposition?

Oh, you wacky americans!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Well unfortunatly no one has said that CURRENTLY iraq is better, we are saying that in the future, IT WILL BE WITHOUT A DOUBT. Another reason why liberals appear to be short sighted.

It's the 'without a doubt' part that's the problem. If the 'liberals' see possible problems that your faction (whoever they may be) don't, who is shortsighted?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

thats not why bush chose saddam. Bush chose saddam because he was the easiest evil dictator to get rid of, to show the other dictators he ment what he was saying when he said it. It worked in lybia.. but not so succesfully in North Korea, but in due itme. In due time

It worked in LIBYA? Ahahahaha. 'Get rid of your arms! Ok, got rid of them? Good, we'll send envoys over to sell you some more!'

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Yeah, but the Inspectors described them as Un-cooperative... and they didnt allow inspectors in, it was one of the conditions of the treaty they signed w/ the united states.

Iraq hasn't been uncooperative to the UN weapons inspectors; for example, the counter example people tend to bring up for this is 'Iraq forced the WI out!'. The counter statement to that is 'No they didn't, they were withdrawn by the UN'.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Maybe not, but the only reason you claim fraud is that you read his book, which - may I add - is as shamefully biased as they come. Face it.

That's not even remotely an accurate guess. The reason I claim fraud is because as I was married to an American at the time and I had to sit through hours and hours of the US election coverage, including the recounts in Florida and the revelations of irregularities.

The only books by Moore I have read are 'Stupid White Men' and the one about his TV show. Nice try to discredit me.

F'k off until you can do a better job, ta

~Vaio~

[Zar]

qdeathstar - where were you educated? Did you take your SATS? Did you get below 500 in english?

[IncubusGod]

QDeathstar just give it up. You lose.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Though the post was incoherent, misguided and overly simplistic, I agree on the principal point:

Bush is not as stupid as Moore would have you believe.

I refuse to jump on the anti-establishment, "It's cool to be liberal when you're young" bandwagon.

Bush is portrayed as stupid for satirical purposes only. He definitely isn't academically intelligent but he's not a complete idiot, i think everyone actually realises that. And anyway - he's a puppet in essence, the people around him sort out his policies and speeches for him, i don't reckon he has much say in what happens, the neo-conservatives/fundamentalist christians have surrounded him.
The American government is really bad, possibly the worst ever.
I'll talk about the Iraq war in a second but first some other awful things that have happened under Bush:

The US national debt has increased about 100 fold
Benefits cut for War veterans, the unemployed and students
Unemployment at record high
When he came into office the budget was surplus $200billion, now its deficit $500billion! and at the same time he is cutting taxes, mainly for the people who can afford it
9/11 - no matter what you say there is something dodgy about it. I'm not in on all the conspiracy theories but there was some strange policy decisions before and after.

they're off the top of my head, i could find hundreds more if you want? or someone else can carry the baton...

I support America's presence in Iraq because:

Saddam was a threat to his own people, and to the Western World. Iraq is better of without him.

Yes, the motives for war were muddled.
Perhaps there were no WMD. Perhaps we were duped. Perhaps Michael Moore is right, and Bush is the root of all evil - manipulated, yet the manipulator - stupid, yet smart enough to fool us all.

I don't believe Oil is a sufficient, or subsantiated motive.

The Bush administration repeatedly told us that Iraq was linked to al-quada and hence 9/11. This has been PROVEN to be false. In US courts no less.
The Bush administration told us repeatedly that they had NO DOUBT that Iraq had WMD. We HAD to invade Iraq because they were an imminent threat. If the weapons were smuggled to a different country before the war then they weren't a threat. and anyway numerous reports have said that IF they had weapons then they would practically be useless now unless they'd been developing new weapons. The UN has been there for years looking for them, of course they were impeded but not to the extent that large weapons programs could be hidden from them. They have NEVER had nuclear weapons and we were told they were on the verge of getting them.
Of course Saddam was bad, there are better ways of dealing with him, especially when the US is already committed to another war that is costing them over $100billion.
And anyway - does anyone really think the US/UK did this for the Iraqis?
There must have been something in it for us, Oil is one theory, extra influience in the middle east is another. A way into Iran is another.
It should have been planned better and done better.

A final, tenuous note.
The success of politics relies, to some extent, upon trust. The electorate must trust that politicians will responsibly carry out the mandate given to them through the vote, or democracy itself becomes useless. Politicians are, contrary to popular opinion, not all bad people. I do not believe that either Bush or Blair would knowingly go to war, risking thousands of lives, with no sincere motive.

They have their own motives no doubt.
How can you trust the White house? Bush is the first president EVER to refuse UN election inspectors. The amount of secret documents flying around, classified information. The whole Enron debacle.
It all just builds up and hopefully by next year a better president will be in place.

[Zar]

there is nothing wrong with cutting benefits for war vets

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Zar

there is nothing wrong with cutting benefits for war vets

That's a rather inconsistent view, given that the significant veteran numbers will be made up of former conscripts.

So what you're saying is the government should feel free to reduce benefits for the people it forced to fight an unjust war?

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Zar

there is nothing wrong with cutting benefits for war vets

Cutting healthcare benefits to anyone is bad in my book.
Saying how much he supports the troops, then trying to cut there salary and benefits is just two-faced.
He hasn't even visitted a single funeral for the troops. Hopefully he'll lose support from that portion of the population.