We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Does Bush mislead the American public?; Yes I know a political thread
Topic Started: Nov 17 2005, 11:23 PM (1,471 Views)
Aaron
Member Avatar
A blast from the past.

Stephen
November 21, 2005 06:18 PM
Quote:
 
OK, so you tell me what we could have done.


Castro's a dictator and has been rumored to have weapons, why didn't we invade Cuba?

My solution would have been simple pursue peace, use the allies, put more and more pressure on the UN to do its job and keep it up over the months to come. I think you can see where I'm going, don't go to war. Wait him out and let him die. Or plant some assassins to take him out. The problem is the Bush Administration was looking for a reason to go to war, everyone's afraid of nukes. Oh wow! looks like Sadam, in addition to a bunch of other countries has nukes. Let's motivate everyone into going to war by saying he has nukes. Do you see my problem with that logic? By that logic why weren't several other countries invaded. The difference is Iraq had something they wanted. Oil, Revenge, whatever. It was more of looking for a reason to invade then actually having one. That's what so disturbs me. I see no valid reason for war period. None. Half the world whether we know about or not, has nukes. There are plenty of looney tune dicators who could shoot off a nuke any day, so why do we focus on one. Why sadam. When we still had no Osama. When Castro is still in power. When the MiddleEast was still in conflict. The reason was there is no reason. Bush wanted war, he made his excuse and he got war. And he got caught. But we're so bright, we elect him again. Oh what a brave new world we live in. :rolleyes:

ok a few things, It *Could* of lead to war what your sugesting Saddam *may* of been to stuberned to do what the UN told him and the UN would of went to war with him, (US would still be invuled olny with more international support) and
Quote:
 
Or plant some assassins to take him out.
You can not kill a world leader ;)
I agree with you that we should of tryed to let the UN handle it more but we needed to draw a line in the sand at some point in time all Bush realy did was speed up the process and lost some internation support becasue of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Special Forces
Member Avatar
Baja
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't care what President you are, none of them want to see our boys go in harm's way and put in the line of fire where they may get killed. If anyone like that they are sick in the head and I know President Bush or any other President don't want to make that decision to go to war.

The fact is WMD isn't the only reason we went to war with Saddam. Another one was ties with Al-Queda and if you think Al-Queda isn't in Iraq you're pretty much dead as a door nail. We are finding thousands of Al-Queda insurgents in Iraq. And don't say well we invited them in with the war. No. They were there well before we went to war. It was all ties with terrorism. When President Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address he said we will go after anyone who has ties or harbors terrorism. You're either with us or against us. A bold statement indeed, just like when President Reagan said the Soviet Union is evil, it was un heard of.

It was a promise to the world that day that if you harbor terrorism you're going to have problems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Das
Member Avatar
Smells of rich mahogany
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bah, to tired to debate this, but quickly:

The war in Iraq wasn't nessasry, but a war was. Someone knocked down the Twin Towers, and someone had to be punished.
Hell we could have attacked any contry, but Iraq just happened to be there. If we hadn't attacked someone after that it would have just given everyone the impression that attack America is ok.

Oh, and if we just left Iraq the contry would probably desend into anarchy and/or a civil war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OcelotJay
Member Avatar
<3 mine [big]Miaow[/big]
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Or plant some assassins to take him out.

Is this is reference to Castro or Saddam? If it is Saddam, then incorrect. If there is sufficient evidence that Saddam is a threat to his people and/or other countries, assassination is perfectly viable. If it wasn't, the US would never have attempted it before, even if it was all fixed.

Quote:
 
It was a promise to the world that day that if you harbor terrorism you're going to have problems.

It's a shame that Bush can't go about it through means other than that of a bully who basically goes to countries and says 'hand over your sweets or I'll smash your face in'. :rolleyes:
I'm willing to bet if Blair opposed him he'd invade Britain for 'harbouring terrorists' - in relation to the bombings which revealed a British organisation of terrorists. :ermm:
While Saddam may have 'harboured' terrorists, it was simply an excuse because the WMD one failed (which I bet surprised them). I suppose at least Bush can cover his back. :/

Quote:
 
Let me ask How did bush lie about the WMDs?

  • Both America and Britain had plenty of intelligence that made it clear that there were no WMDs
  • Anyone with half a brain cell (which Tony and George seem to share) would realise that the WMDs weren't going to be there, no doubt sold off, hidden elsewhere or used (I believe they were used on the Kurds actually, could be wrong)
While the UN are a bunch of cowardous morons, they wouldn't say no to war for no reason. The fact is they knew, as did the US and UK, that there were no WMDs but the allies being the allies they decided to go vigilante and try to be big tough men. They disobeyed the UN, stuck two fingers up and decided to do it their way. Ironically that's precisely what these so called terrorists do. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

Jay: My comment was, if he really was such a big threat remove him then. And I know you aren't supposed to assasinate world leaders obviously, but its been done. So let's not pretend it hasn't.

And Bush's state of the union was a lie in many ways if I recall correctly. Al Queda's all good and well. But last I checked he made it secondary to nabbing sadam. He's actually stated he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore. You'll excuse me if I question whether he really did just want war or not for oil or revenge or whatever because every decision he's made has been wrong, foolish or unconstitutional. Perhaps his best decision was promoting Condeleza Rice. And I question that as well. Now all that in account, I'm not criticizing him the man, so much as him the president. For all I know he may be a very nice person, but his decisions are stupid. Plain and simple. He rushed war. He sat on Katrina. That vile Patriot Act. No Child Left Behind. Need I go on?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OcelotJay
Member Avatar
<3 mine [big]Miaow[/big]
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Stephen
November 22, 2005 08:42 PM
Jay: My comment was, if he really was such a big threat remove him then. And I know you aren't supposed to assasinate world leaders obviously, but its been done. So let's not pretend it hasn't.

Sorry, I meant to qoute Aaron when he said 'You can not kill a world leader'. :$ Ironically I was meant to be agreeing with you. :rofl: Must have hit the wrong quote button. >_<

Quote:
 
He's actually stated he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore. You'll excuse me if I question whether he really did just want war or not for oil or revenge or whatever because every decision he's made has been wrong, foolish or unconstitutional.

Mhmm. It's not surprising that Bin Laden is out of the picture, it was shown that their families have old ties. And some things just don't add up...makes me wonder a lot about Bin Laden's power.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~*Princess_Jessa*~
Member
[ * ]
Not only does Bush mislead the US, he also tries to lead a country he is not president of..AUSTRALIA!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Special Forces
Member Avatar
Baja
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
~*Princess_Jessa*~
November 23, 2005 11:24 AM
Not only does Bush mislead the US, he also tries to lead a country he is not president of..AUSTRALIA!!!

What are you talking about? :ermm:

Quote:
 
And Bush's state of the union was a lie in many ways if I recall correctly. Al Queda's all good and well. But last I checked he made it secondary to nabbing sadam. He's actually stated he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore. You'll excuse me if I question whether he really did just want war or not for oil or revenge or whatever because every decision he's made has been wrong, foolish or unconstitutional.


Yes, because Saddam was a threat. To his own people and us. With him being tied to Al-Queda there was a very real chance he was going to try to get his hands on those weapons. This refers to what I said in my other post.

Special Forces
 
Think about this for a second. If there was a convicted murderer and a cop and then a gun about 30 feet from the both of them. Are you going to let him go grab the gun and do what he did before which is murder people or are you going to stop him before he can get his hands on that gun? I think you're going to stop him before he hurts anyone.

Same thing lies true with Saddam except put Saddam in that position with murderer.


And second, Bin Laden is not out of the picture. If you rely on the media, the media only covers what is going on RIGHT NOW. We are still in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden. My best guess is that he's dead. He had problems, physically along the way and we went after him with everything. I suspect he's dead.

And it can't be "unconstitutional" according to you. He got permission from Congress to declare war. The President cannot CANNOT declare war. Absolutley false. Congress is the only body of people that can declare war. The President can propose it and say here this is what I have look at it and tell me what you think. So don't blame the President for all the war, Congress gave him the green light. ;)

Quote:
 
He rushed war. He sat on Katrina. That vile Patriot Act. No Child Left Behind. Need I go on?


Did you read what I said about the months before the war in Iraq? We went to the UN we tried inspecting, Saddam wasn't cooperative and we had to draw the line somewhere. You can't fool around forever and meanwhile this dictator is aquiring weapons or planning something.

And the No Child Left Behind act was passed and is working. I've seen the difference. And again Katrina isn't full the Presidents fault. This one guy doesn't control everything, gas prices, war (as in declaring), hurricane aid. He only has a limited if any say in those. The governor of Louisiana was dilly dallying for some stupid reasons and the Mayor of New Orleans sounds like to me he was corrupt. He let a train that fit 900 passengers leave New Orleans days before the hurricane which could have been used by the people to evacuate. Same thing they had tons of buses, nothing happened. Now that I told you all about what the President can and can't do and what he can control I think that is enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aaron
Member Avatar
A blast from the past.

No Child Left Behind workds good in theoiry but in real life it does not, my school is in the red and is strugling with funds, NCLB is part of the reasion since the students dont care about there education in my school they give low test scores thus cutting funds also our school has gotten little or none of the money they were supose to get for Special Education students with NCLB.
About the hurcanes, The state and local govermts were sitting on there butts when they should of been doing something also who is smart enought to stay in a low laying area when a hurcane is coming to you and your area has an evaction order/sugestion by the National Weather Service or NOAA. (porvided they had a way to get out)
Dogbert’s New Ruling Class Email Oct 2005
 

Each of you is so intelligently designed that you can survive a Category 5 hurricane via a process known as running away.
Yes it may of just been as a joke but its funny becasue its true also which is sad that people don't seem to use common sence any more (at lease the part in bold other part is what you beleave in)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Special Forces
Member Avatar
Baja
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
But the part about running away, some people are too poor to get on a bus or a car or any type of transportation. Walking would not have been smart because you're without shelter and if it comes you're left in the open.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aaron
Member Avatar
A blast from the past.

Special Forces
November 23, 2005 03:53 PM
But the part about running away, some people are too poor to get on a bus or a car or any type of transportation. Walking would not have been smart because you're without shelter and if it comes you're left in the open.

Note I said that people that have the means to, ;)
I was just trying to point out that the people who could get out but desided to stay were stupid and casused a ton of extra truble.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3