Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
So I get this in my email from one of my Dad's friends. It's basically similar to one I've been meaning to make up for a while. So forgive me that it's not original. As you read it, I ask that anyone out there actually think about what has happened in this nations past, and back through the whole history of the world. I especially want those of you who hold Bush solely and personally responsible for what is going on in Iraq right now. Think about the way the world works. Put things in perspective. If you have an instant reaction, try and supress it, and actually think about it. Obviously this doesn't show all side, but it does list some important facts. But enough of me for now, here it is: ----------------------- Worst president in history? (The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.) Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims; -FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year. -Truman finished that war and started one in Korea North Korea never attacked us! From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year. -John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.-Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without fir ing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 900 soldiers, an average of 450 a year.Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick and killed Mary Jo. ------------------------- [/article  ] Just think about that for a while. It helps to cut through all the crap fed to us from both sides of the media. The war is not a clean operation, but it's also not the meat grinder that it's been made out to be. All in all, it's one of the cleanest wars in history. Call Bush out on other issues, but also remember, he's not a dictator. We're still the US, and as long as we keep ourselves from decending into radicalism our checks and balances, and our own actions as citizens, will keep us out of the extremes of either the right or the left. On a side note, I feel we are decending into extremism. Just look at the candiates. We've got Kerry who's liberal socially and planning all sorts of new and expanded government programs. And we've got Bush, who, more and more is allowing religon to control his desicions, and is also proposing huge government expansion. I find that more and more I'm looking towards the libertarians. But that's another extreme. Things will get a lot better out there if you all step back from your hardline opinions and open your damned minds. Look at what the facts are, and what facts make sense in the big picture. Hell, reconsider your opinion of the big picture all together. If your going to consider yourself an individual savvy on current events, this is something you must do, and do constantly. Just think about it... |
Registered: June 04, 2004
Posts: 3535
|
did anyone know that we fired teh first shots of the Pearl Harbor attack?
Honorable Senate Majority Leader (R-WI) "Liberals have gone stark-raving mad, yes,"- Euterpe
|
Registered: July 29, 2004
Posts: 55
|
Oh good God. Are we really going to argue about this? If you had bothered to read how I phrased my post, I was saying that we did indeed have reason to get into WWII after Pearl Harbor. We wanted to attack Japan which was allied with Germany which was attacking the UK which we had ties to. That's how that little sequence goes. I am perfectly well aware of why we went into that war. Korea was too proxy. Read up. And I mean't that not all of AMERICA (including me in the future) supported it. You really can't make those comparisons in general though, circumstances varied SO widely in all of those conditions. Iraq is a very unique situation. Don't resort to challenging my intelligence just because you don't agree with me, please.
"Wise enough to play the fool, and to do that well craves a kind of wit..." - Twelfth Night
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote:
World War II: War of Allies. Sixth grade history. Duh. We had ties to Britain and Britain was getting attacked by the Germans.
This was by NO means the reason we entered the war. The US was vehemently isolationist untill after Pearl Harbor. We aided Britain, but it was not the reason we entered. The problem is you're using the sixth grade history version as a basis for your logic. Instead of using the complex, actual version, as you should. And on the other wars, the point of metioning them was not to attempt to justify them. It was to show that the Iraq war is by no means a huge blunder, or a deathtrap. However, since we're on the subject: quote:
Korea: Communism. Don't support the attack anyway.
BZZZZZT! Wrong! Western involvement in the Korean War was prompted by, you guessed it, The UN. I think the other points you didn't understand just went over your head. Now onto Costar: quote:
I know about our lack of knowledge about the concentration camps. I was saying that we would have lost even more lives had we waited until he control Europe and large parts of Russia and Africa.
Well, by that logic, we would have saved MANY more lives had we simply invaded once Hitler violated the Versilles treaty. But that would be "pre-emptive" and "unprovoked". After all, we should wait untill they attack us right? quote:
Blocking food to people who don't have food won't help
There's a difference between economic sanctions and food sanctions. Humanitarian aid would of course continue. As long as the current regiem allowed to to go to the people that is. quote:
Al-Queida waits for things to cool down. Look at the time span between the World Trade Center bombings. If just the top command mattered we wouldn't have to raise the terror threat level. Although we have killed many top members they are still a threat.
Firstly, there was no real lull in Al Queida activity between the WTC bombings. The USS Cole attack and the attacks in Africa on our embassies come to mind. Secondly, yes they are still a threat. However, you cannot tell me that the massive intelligence campaign, destruction of all thier major established training facilities, and capture/execution of dozens upon dozens of their TOP leaders hasn't weakened them drastically. quote:
"Mission Accomplished" will and never should come.
So you suggest perpetual war rediness and paranoia? quote:
That is why the war in Iraqi can't work because terrorist can and will move elsewhere. If we have to fight a war in every nation that holds terrorists we will never finish.
There are, however, many regiems out there that breed terror. We must take these down, or they will only become stronger. Terrorists will always exist, but removing the major governments and ideologies that support them will weaken them to the point of irrelevence. We still, after all, have Nazi's all over the place too. What do they ever do? quote:
And if they were never destroyed where are they.
They may have been destroyed after Saddam realized war was inevitable, buried, shipped to another country, or all of the above. quote:
Yes, he did have stockpiles at one time. However we have no evidence that he planned on attacking us and he never did.
Other than the fact that he constantly fired at our aircraft, consitantly and repeatably threatened our destruction, and supported several terrorist movements that also called for America's destruction? He was already attacking us. And if he had the power, and oppertunity, he would have taken it further. quote:
But there a still causalties, like there are in every war. So if we didn't invade Iraq we wouldn't have had the causalties.
True, we'd only have an extremely destabilizing and hostile regiem, and genocide. quote:
Kerry and Edwards are my guys for President although I wanted Dean . Congress shouldn't have passed it at all, or at least a lesser version.
So, you think it's OK for Kerry to support the Patriot Act but not Bush? quote:
Yes, I'm very liberal and biased. The parroted stuff is still important.
And I'm trying to tell you why it's not. And don't take pride in bias. That's more or less admiting ignorance.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
|
Registered: July 29, 2004
Posts: 55
|
Okay - - World War II: War of Allies. Sixth grade history. Duh. We had ties to Britain and Britain was getting attacked by the Germans. Plus Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and some Catholics were sent to concentration camps under Hitler's rule. Japan bombed us, and Italy was fascist and...well, there. We had plenty of cause to enter WWII, it was just a matter of U.S. isolationism that kept us out (till Pearl Harbor), not lack of support for going. - Korea: Communism. Don't support the attack anyway. - Vietnam: IT WAS HORRIBLE! THAT'S WHY SO MANY PEOPLE PROTESTED! But it wasn't the result of one President's decision, again, it had to do with our East/West Communist/Democratic stance. Nobody likes Vietnam. Stop bringing it up or I'll begin throwing around Lennon quotes. - Bosnia: We didn't go to "war" in Bosnia, we went to prevent genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and try to keep a little peace. UN did go in eventually. Remember the blue helmets? We didn't interfere with Iraq till we (thought) there was a threat to us - even after Desert Storm when Saddam's practices continued. I've only been alive seventeen years, I can't say that Bush is the worst president in the history of the country, but I'm sure he's in the running. The logic in this article is about as credible as the reporting on FOX News. And what in the hell does Ted Kennedy have to do with ANYTHING?
"Wise enough to play the fool, and to do that well craves a kind of wit..." - Twelfth Night
|
Registered: July 28, 2004
Posts: 73
|
quote:
Actually, we DID wait until he controlled all of Europe and was in the process of invading the USSR. Go read some books and watch the History Channel.
And would everyone PLEASE realize that we had no idea the concentration camps existed? That was NEVER an issue or reason for going to war in WWII. It only came up afterwards.
I know about our lack of knowledge about the concentration camps. I was saying that we would have lost even more lives had we waited until he control Europe and large parts of Russia and Africa. quote:
Yes, that was the point. Everyone screaming about how "Iraq never attacked us" doesn't realize that thier point isn't entirely valid. Mostly because they're just screaming and not thinking about what's coming out.
But at the time of the war communism was the largest threat out there in the minds of most Americans. The justification for war was stopping the spread of the communist threat unlike Iraq in which the American people feared (nonexistent)WMDs. quote:
Oh I don't know, how about push for massive sanctions. It's kind of hard to do anything in that direction because Sudan is somehow on the Human Rights commission at the UN.
Blocking food to people who don't have food won't help quote:
Give me three weeks and I'll create a plot that will be worth raising the terror alert level.
It doesn't take alot to try and fight someone. But it does to do it successfully. Al Queida will always have plots. However there command and control has been severely crippled. We've captured or killed dozens of there TOP commanders. We killed there equivilant of a vice president for crying out loud.
But in three weeks nothing big should happen. Al-Queida waits for things to cool down. Look at the time span between the World Trade Center bombings. If just the top command mattered we wouldn't have to raise the terror threat level. Although we have killed many top members they are still a threat. quote:
If you actually look at it, you have no knowladge to back up that claim. You're just putting out negative speculation to try and bolster your point. "Mission Accomplished" probably won't come for another decade, well after Bush is out of office.
"Mission Accomplished" will and never should come. Americans are fighting terrorism like a traditional war. If you destroy the Iraqi military and put in a new government we will still have terror problems elsewhere. That is why the war in Iraqi can't work because terrorist can and will move elsewhere. If we have to fight a war in every nation that holds terrorists we will never finish. quote:
We TOOK Iraq in 51 days. After that we've been an occuping/defending force.
Sorry, minunderstood which event timeframe you were talking about. But as we see now taking Iraq is the easy part, switching it to Democracy and getting the support of the people is the hard part. We still need to do that. quote:
This is complete presumption. The point being, Saddam had substantial stockpiles at one time. We ordered them destroyed and there destruction documented. This NEVER happened. We cannot say they never existed, and still do not exist.
Yes, he did have stockpiles at one time. However we have no evidence that he planned on attacking us and he never did. And if they were never destroyed where are they. quote:
Bremer was no longer needed and was a figurehead for the most part anyway. They had been handed power in increments for weeks beforehand and the Iraqis were ready to go on the date in question. Bremer leaving the country had NOTHING to do with confidence. Your accusation is based on a predetermined bias that everything is going to hell.
True quote:
We're being attacked in reletively small numbers. Civilian casualties are the lowest in any major war in modern history. It's simply a fact that this war, despite it's nature, has one of the lowest casualty rates ever.
But there a still causalties, like there are in every war. So if we didn't invade Iraq we wouldn't have had the causalties. quote:
This act was passed OVERWHELMINGLY by congress. It's our whole governments fault. Kerry, Edwards, and most likely your representatives included.
Kerry and Edwards are my guys for President although I wanted Dean  . Congress shouldn't have passed it at all, or at least a lesser version. quote:
Yes, we must fight those capitalist pig-dogs who have raped our horses and rode off on our women. All comrades to arms! We will take back our country and install an equally evil but economically opposite regeim!
Oops, I forgot a smiley face after my comment. Without it it goes out of context. quote:
Costar, your bias is extremely evident. All you've done is parrot the usual stuff. Also, learn how to post and quote correctly.
Yes, I'm very liberal and biased. The parroted stuff is still important. And yes I used quotes this time even though I had to copy and paste more. |
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
quote:
Acutally, Bush really never cared about terror until 9/11. Terror used be a Democrat issue until 9/11 when Bush took it and made it his mission
Terror was never a Democratic issue, except when Democrats wanted to grab more power (i.e. CALEA, 1996 Omnibus Anti-Terror Act). If terror were at all a Democratic issue, terrorist groups would not have flourished under eight years of Clinton. If terror were at all a Democratic issue, Osama bin Laden would either be dead or Clinton would have pressured Saudi Arabia harder into taking bin Laden, if we didn't ourselves when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter. If terror were at all a Democratic issue, Democrats would not have lead the effort to gut intelligence and military budgets. |
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote:
Acutally, Bush really never cared about terror until 9/11. Terror used be a Democrat issue until 9/11 when Bush took it and made it his mission
This is completely irrelevent to the quote you used it against. Also, tell me how it was a "democratic" issue. quote:
Hitler had already was taking over Europe and had invaded Poland. You know how many more lives would have been lost if we didn't get involved, or had waited until he control all of Europe
Actually, we DID wait until he controlled all of Europe and was in the process of invading the USSR. Go read some books and watch the History Channel. And would everyone PLEASE realize that we had no idea the concentration camps existed? That was NEVER an issue or reason for going to war in WWII. It only came up afterwards. quote:
But NK attacked SK. Communist vs. Democratic. It was a proxy war against Communism.
Yes, that was the point. Everyone screaming about how "Iraq never attacked us" doesn't realize that thier point isn't entirely valid. Mostly because they're just screaming and not thinking about what's coming out. quote:
Yeh, fighting ethnic cleansing is important. What has Bush done in Sudan?
Oh I don't know, how about push for massive sanctions. It's kind of hard to do anything in that direction because Sudan is somehow on the Human Rights commission at the UN. quote:
Crippled al-Qaieda? No, he has been doing abosulety terrible in fighting terror. Al-Qaieda isn't crippled, if it was why would we be raising the crappy terror level scale?
Give me three weeks and I'll create a plot that will be worth raising the terror alert level. It doesn't take alot to try and fight someone. But it does to do it successfully. Al Queida will always have plots. However there command and control has been severely crippled. We've captured or killed dozens of there TOP commanders. We killed there equivilant of a vice president for crying out loud. quote:
The reason we haven't had an attack is because al-qaieda takes time and plans. Just wait until Bush does an "Mission Accomplished" with the war on terror, then we're screwed.
If you actually look at it, you have no knowladge to back up that claim. You're just putting out negative speculation to try and bolster your point. "Mission Accomplished" probably won't come for another decade, well after Bush is out of office. quote:
How long have we been in Iraq, less then 51 days?
We TOOK Iraq in 51 days. After that we've been an occuping/defending force. quote:
Let's see, no chemical weapons = searching forever.
This is complete presumption. The point being, Saddam had substantial stockpiles at one time. We ordered them destroyed and there destruction documented. This NEVER happened. We cannot say they never existed, and still do not exist. quote:
Until the iraqi puppet gov falls. The same day I iraq got power Bremer left the coutry. That shows confidence.
Bremer was no longer needed and was a figurehead for the most part anyway. They had been handed power in increments for weeks beforehand and the Iraqis were ready to go on the date in question. Bremer leaving the country had NOTHING to do with confidence. Your accusation is based on a predetermined bias that everything is going to hell. quote:
Is it clean because we are constantly being attacked?
We're being attacked in reletively small numbers. Civilian casualties are the lowest in any major war in modern history. It's simply a fact that this war, despite it's nature, has one of the lowest casualty rates ever. quote:
Right on! The not dictator would have passed the Patriot act, it protects me :rollseyes:
This act was passed OVERWHELMINGLY by congress. It's our whole governments fault. Kerry, Edwards, and most likely your representatives included. quote:
No it won't. We have to fight right wing extremism with left wing extremeism or else we would be pulled into the conservative void
Yes, we must fight those capitalist pig-dogs who have raped our horses and rode off on our women. All comrades to arms! We will take back our country and install an equally evil but economically opposite regeim! Costar, your bias is extremely evident. All you've done is parrot the usual stuff. Also, learn how to post and quote correctly. |
Registered: July 28, 2004
Posts: 73
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
Let's clear up one point:
President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims;
Acutally, Bush really never cared about terror until 9/11. Terror used be a Democrat issue until 9/11 when Bush took it and made it his mission
_-_FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, _450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year._
Saddam was a crazy guy who attacked kuwait. We helped them and freed kuwait. Hitler had already was taking over Europe and had invaded Poland. You know how many more lives would have been lost if we didn't get involved, or had waited until he control all of Europe
_-_Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us!
_From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year._
But NK attacked SK. Communist vs. Democratic. It was a proxy war against Communism.
_-_John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
_From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year._
_-_Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
_Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11. _
Yeh, fighting ethnic cleansing is important. What has Bush done in Sudan? Bush did the entire war in Iraq wrong. Not only that if he said the war in Iraq was to stop killing no one would have probably gone. But no, there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! and they were going TO KILL US ALL!
In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
Crippled al-Qaieda? No, he has been doing abosulety terrible in fighting terror. Al-Qaieda isn't crippled, if it was why would we be raising the crappy terror level scale?
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without fir ing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
_We lost 900 soldiers, an average of 450 a year._
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
The reason we haven't had an attack is because al-qaieda takes time and plans. Just wait until Bush does an "Mission Accomplished" with the war on terror, then we're screwed.
Worst president in history?
W. Bush
Come on!
Yeh, he really is.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
Yeh, the unneeded war
It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.
How long have we been in Iraq, less then 51 days?
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
Let's see, no chemical weapons = searching forever. Since Hillary found the records
finite time < infinite time
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick and killed Mary Jo.
Who cares? The war was still not needed
-------------------------
[/article ] Just think about that for a while. It helps to cut through all the crap fed to us from both sides of the media. The war is not a clean operation, but it's also not the meat grinder that it's been made out to be.
No, bullets don't really grind
All in all, it's one of the cleanest wars in history.
Until the iraqi puppet gov falls. The same day I iraq got power Bremer left the coutry. That shows confidence. Is it clean because we are constantly being attacked?
Call Bush out on other issues,
Econ, healthcare, job loss, national deficit,but also remember, he's not a dictator.
Right on! The not dictator would have passed the Patriot act, it protects me :rollseyes: We're still the US, and as long as we keep ourselves from decending into radicalism our checks and balances, and our own actions as citizens, will keep us out of the extremes of either the right or the left.
On a side note, I feel we are decending into extremism. Just look at the candiates. We've got Kerry who's liberal socially and planning all sorts of new and expanded government programs. And we've got Bush, who, more and more is allowing religon to control his desicions, and is _also_ proposing huge government expansion.
I think Bush is "misunderestimating" the importance of seperation between church and state.
I find that more and more I'm looking towards the libertarians. But that's another extreme. Things will get a lot better out there if you all step back from your hardline opinions and open your damned minds.
No it won't. We have to fight right wing extremism with left wing extremeism or else we would be pulled into the conservative void Look at what the facts are, and what facts make sense in the big picture. Hell, reconsider your opinion of the big picture all together. If your going to consider yourself an individual savvy on current events, this is something you must do, and do constantly.
Just think about it...
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
So, what's the magic number to consider killing genocide? 1,000,000? 2,000,000? Is killing 1,999,999 okay then?
By the way, this is a world war we are in. Perhaps much more of one than WWII, due to the nature of terrorism.
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote:
1.) Germany and Japan were allies- WWII was a war of allies. If we went to war with Japan we would be going to war with Germany, thats just the way it was.
And this is the way I feel that it is in the war on terror. With the enemy we are fighting, official treaties are ignored completely. To include your other point in my response: quote:
The war on Iraq is confined to Iraq, however WWII was fought almost everywhere in the world and nearly every country was involved in it- hence WORLD WAR.
The war in Iraq is most definitely NOT contained to Iraq. We have forgien fighters there from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia and other muslim nations of the south pacific, Russia, Africa, and many other nations. The war we are fighting in Iraq is now more than ever part of the global struggle against extremist islam. We are in a world war. It's just not like the last three. quote:
The article said that President Bush "captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people." During the Holocaust 6 MILLION jews were cruely murdered in concentration camps by Hitler and his followers.
Is there really any difference in how evil you are when you've killed 300,000 or 6 million? Genocide is genocide. quote:
If we had done nothing, the entire race of these people in Europe and probably all over the world would have been destroyed.
Likewise, if we do nothing against the threats posed to us by the extreme social movements around the globe, it is OUR civilzation, and OUR race that will be destroyed. In the end, Saddam's regeim pledged to destroy America on countless occasions, violated over a dozen resolutions, scammed billions of dollars of food aid from its' people, commited acts of genocide against over 300,000 people, and attempted to shoot down and kill Americans, Britons, and other allies for at least 5 years. They DID attack us. And people act like WMDs were the only reason. And while World War II is in the picture. You'll find this an interesting read: Nazi roots of radical Islam |
|
Registered: August 12, 2003
Posts: 44
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
_-_FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, _450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year._
...captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
Now first of all I just wanted to let everyone know that I do not in anyway believe that George W. Bush is the worst president in U.S. history. I would just like to point out a few things: 1.) Germany and Japan were allies- WWII was a war of allies. If we went to war with Japan we would be going to war with Germany, thats just the way it was. 2.) The article said that President Bush "captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people." During the Holocaust 6 MILLION jews were cruely murdered in concentration camps by Hitler and his followers. Many other groups that did not fit into Hitlers "ideal person" were murdered as well such as the physically and mentally handicapped, the homeless, gypeses, and others. Millions of these people were killed in furnaces and gas chambers. If we had done nothing, the entire race of these people in Europe and probably all over the world would have been destroyed. 3.) WWII and the war against Iraq are two very different wars. They are fighted in very different styles. The war on Iraq is confined to Iraq, however WWII was fought almost everywhere in the world and nearly every country was involved in it- hence WORLD WAR. These factors were not taken into account in this article. I'm not trying to disprove these facts, I'm saying that they're are factors that are not mentioned in this article that I feel are important. |
Registered: July 15, 2004
Posts: 212
|
That was a good read. Those aren't the reasons why I specifically don't like Bush, but I did like the article. quote:
That is not how American society should work. This blind support for EITHER side extremely dangerous. It's the kind of stuff that gets fascists elected and puts Communists in power.
Best thing about politics that I've ever heard. I was blind for about two years of being nothing but a democrat. Everything in my mind was skewed to make the dems look better. I've ever so slightly matured and things are much more clearer now. Its time to take in BOTH sides. I know! Its an amazing concept. |
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote:
Yeah, all those things pointed out were "true", however, in our lifetimes we haven't seen any President get on the news and blab on and on about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Axis of Evil so damn much. It was constantly on the news.
This is because this is the first major war that's occured under our new 24 hour news cycle. Back in Vietnam, there were daily reports and daily body counts. During the Iranian hostage crisis, the show Nightline was created specifically for covering the event. The reason you heard the president blab so much was because the public watches so much news. It would have been the same had we had our current media in previous times. Put it in perspective. quote:
So, when it turned out there weren't any WMD's, people were kinda pissed, because they'd been hearing about it so much. So it made Bush look really, really, wrong...and just like we'd been hearing about the WMDs and controversy around them for so long, you're gonna hear about Bush being a bad president for a long time, since it turned out they never existed.
Firstly, it is hard fact that it has not been thoroughly established that they never existed. There was lots of fishy stuff and bad intelligence, however there was lots and lots of good intelligence also. The entire world had intelligence that told them the weapons were there. This leads one to beleive that Saddam either destroyed the weapons in secret and never told us (In which case he had viloated UN resolutions even further), or the weapons were buried/shipped somewhere. We may never know, but my bet is some evidence will turn up in the long run, even if it's just a paper trail. The fact remains, however, that WMDs were not the ONLY reason supplied. They were the main media focus, and the main government focus, not because it was the best reason, but because it was the most sensational reason. In this respect, I am not trying to defend Bush. I am throughly upset with many of his policies, and the way he's been handling PR and such. So many things could have been done better. quote:
I mean, that reason alone is enough for a lot of people to dislike Bush enough to want any President besides him. Kind of like "okay, i'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt anymore".
But the point is it's NOT reason enough to want anyone else. Yes, some things went wrong. But many, many things went right. People, in their rush for sensationalism, have left the right reasons, and the good news in the dust. The result is this wacko reasoning that we should elect "Anyone but Bush." This is the type of stuff that gets extremists elected. Bush being one of them. It's been getting worse and worse for years ever since the social revolution of the 60's. Nixon's fallout lead to Carters election, Carters failings lead to Reagan, which followed into Bush Sr. Bush's problems lead to Clinton, who's policies and personal issues p!ssed off a lot of the country, which, in turn polarized the country and, I beleive, aided in Bush's victory over John McCain. It's been swinging right to left to right for the last 50 years, getting worse each time. Look at what happened with the poll numbers after the DNC: Absolutely nothing. This means that very, very few people are actually thinking about the issues, and have already made up thier minds and shut the door to anything else. That is not how American society should work. This blind support for EITHER side extremely dangerous. It's the kind of stuff that gets fascists elected and puts Communists in power. This is why people like Red and marine, and thier counterparts on the left (too many to list) scare the crap out of me on certain levels. |
Registered: July 28, 2003
Posts: 2838
|
-----"""THIS IS AN EXCELLENT TOPIC! YOU CONTINUE YOU TO AMAZE ME DOC. YOURE AWESOME!!!!"""
Shuttup. My God.
To Doc:
Yeah, all those things pointed out were "true", however, in our lifetimes we haven't seen any President get on the news and blab on and on about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Axis of Evil so damn much. That got annoying. It was constantly on the news. So, when it turned out there weren't any WMD's, people were kinda pissed, because they'd been hearing about it so much. So it made Bush look really, really, wrong...and just like we'd been hearing about the WMDs and controversy around them for so long, you're gonna hear about Bush being a bad president for a long time, since it turned out they never existed. I mean, that reason alone is enough for a lot of people to dislike Bush enough to want any President besides him. Kind of like "okay, i'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt anymore".
|
Registered: December 11, 2003
Posts: 9501
|
| |
