I'm Not Exactly Defending Bush

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Neil, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. #81
    Glenn

    Glenn Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,865
    Likes Received:
    6



    I'm a she! :lol: I am so offended.

    Everyone does have a right to their own opinion but it is a fact that Bush did not liberate Iraq but instead destroyed it.

    This is how the topic started and this is what its like now. It was heated up from the start. [/b][/quote]
    How is it a fact that Bush is destroying Iraq? He says his main objective is to form a democracy in Iraq and give it some self reliance on this form of government. Think about the Civil War. Imagine how horrible it would be to be a family in the south and having troops come through your property, kill you, and destroy everything in their path. It was awful, but the war and this tactic of total war was essential to bringing the fighting to an end and strengthening the United States over time.

    I'm not a supporter of Bush but I get quite ticked when people say they know it's a fact that Bush is destroying Iraq.
     
  2. #82
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,865
    Likes Received:
    474



    The fact that a discussion has been had numerous times before does not mean one should stop expressing their opinion on it. Every time this thread is made, there's something new to talk about, and a new view on something can be shared. Look, if you find all of these threads monotonous and all the same, just don't post in them telling us to stop expressing ourselves. Just absolve yourself from the thread and we can go along trying to make our voices heard without people coming in telling us they're pointless. The whole point of these forums is to discuss. If someone supports Bush, someone that doesn't support Bush has just as much right to debate with them over an issue. It's like you're saying that because this site doesn't have an even field of Bush haters and Bush supporters that no discussion should be had. It's not that way. All opinions are supposed and allowed to be shown here, but the fact that some people are in a minority does not mean that their opinion can't be challenged.

    I think it's just you. ;)

    You know just as well as me that a vote not cast for the Liberals only gives the Tories more ground on the minority government. I could vote for the NDP and it would still help the Tories. It's a numbers game. Voting for someone other than the Liberals is like voting for Ralph Nader instead of John Kerry. You'd be depriving Kerry of one vote that could've helped him defeat Bush. It's simple in concept.
     
  3. #83
    J-Flex

    J-Flex Ambient

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,354
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'm sorry but I'm so fed up of this stupidity! How is bombing innocent Iraqi children helping people? They were WAY better off with Saddam than this chaos. Those pictures you see of happy Iraqis were before the war started! American soldiers used to do unimaginable things to Iraqi citizens before they got sued. (Yes, they got sued, in America, and most people still don't know that.)
    Have you ever seen the pictures of when the soldiers took a guy, stripped him naked, put his underwear on his head and made him suck some dogs dick? Have you ever seen the pictures of a Muslim Sheikh forced only to wear a red thong in a jail cell full of girls? (That might sound like heaven to some of you but when you're a religious person, I think not.)
    I get so fucking pissed off when people say that Bush freed Iraq? Thousands are dying, its utter chaos, every single day at least a couple of people die, houses are robbed, there are curfews (anyone goes out after that and they're shot), everyone's getting beaten up and raped, it's just fucking horrible.

    Explain to me how all of that brought freedom.

    I have relatives there and it feels like shit, I get a fever, my stomach hurts like hell everytime I here about an explosion wondering if it's them, waiting for a call saying that something happened to someone, SO DON'T FUCKING TELL ME THAT BUSH BROUGHT FREEDOM TO IRAQ!

    Btw, I didn't flame anyone and I'm not "disrespecting the brave American soldiers" because I know what it feels like to have family over there and I sympathize with all the families of the soldiers that passed away in this pointless war.

    Papercut, you talk about going to a corner and crying in peace, imagine what it feels like to be writing this... [/b][/quote]
    I will explain you:

    first of all what you now see in the media have been many years under the Saddam's regiem and no one outside of iraq ever noticed it or just ignored it

    In other woords what have been killed through war of USA (rockets and other incidents) is been done so many years silently by Saddam in form of rapping tourtering massa excutiones.

    secondly all the explosions and stuff are been organised by arabic fundamelists who don't give a shit about people there they just want to kick non-USA-ers out of moslim countries.

    Saddam invited these terrorists just before the war begun.

    Their tactics is been forced by 2 way's :

    1) Forcing by threating a family by holding 1 or more of them.

    2) by paying huge amount of money to poor people. yes it's iraqi poor people who choose for bread for childeren rather than the life of many others.

    Now you talk about freedom in iraq: Many people don't know what freedom is or they don't know what to do with it, their first piriority is having food and sleep place for them self, educated people there understand how important it is. neverless that food/sleep piriorty is for every human look at the Maslow index
     
  4. #84
    Razan

    Razan SUGAAAR!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    1



    I will explain you:

    first of all what you now see in the media have been many years under the Saddam's regiem and no one outside of iraq ever noticed it or just ignored it

    In other woords what have been killed through war of USA (rockets and other incidents) is been done so many years silently by Saddam in form of rapping tourtering massa excutiones.

    secondly all the explosions and stuff are been organised by arabic fundamelists who don't give a shit about people there they just want to kick non-USA-ers out of moslim countries.

    Saddam invited these terrorists just before the war begun.

    Their tactics is been forced by 2 way's :

    1) Forcing by threating a family by holding 1 or more of them.

    2) by paying huge amount of money to poor people. yes it's iraqi poor people who choose for bread for childeren rather than the life of many others.

    Now you talk about freedom in iraq: Many people don't know what freedom is or they don't know what to do with it, their first piriority is having food and sleep place for them self, educated people there understand how important it is. neverless that food/sleep piriorty is for every human look at the Maslow index [/b][/quote]
    First of all, the pictures I see now aren't from Sadams regiem because they have forgien soldiers in it and trust me everyone who's into politics in the middle east (which is like 90% now) knows about Sadam being a bad leader and everything that happened under his rule, but Bush isn't making it any better by blowing up civilians.

    Secondly I think you are sadly mistaken because yes, I agree a lot of the bombs are by frustrated citizens (not arabic fundamentalists) and kill alot of people and it's just disgusting but soldiers do kill loads of people and it's justified just because they're soldiers. I don't understand where you got the idea of bombers wanting to blow up "non-USA-ers" because I would get the impression that they're trying to get US soldiers out of Iraq not the other way around...

    I'm going to research about those tactics that you claim Saddam used because I've never heard of them. Let me get this right, you're saying that Saddam payed poor people to...let some terrorists in before the war started? Why would Saddam even tell the poor people let alone care about their opinions and bribe them? It seems highly unlikely.

    Are you saying that people in Iraq acctually have freedom, let alone not know what to do with it? They don't have a stable supply of food or a safe spot to sleep. Some places are safer then others but in reality no place is safe there!

    I'm sorry if I miss understood some things in your post but it just doesn't make sense. Where's the spelling/grammar natzi when you need him? :lol:

    Bush says things and doesn't do/mean it, people should know that by now.
    I thought Bush's main objective was to make America safe from Saddam and WMD. But now it's all about the poor Iraqi people and how much they wanted to be freed now isn't it?
    Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction there, but were there? No.

    I understand where you're coming from, you think that after all this violence and blood shed there will be peace, just like many other revolutions. But what I'm saying is that we should learn from the past not repeat it. Bombing children isn't the best way to achieve peace.

    How isn't Bush destroying Iraq? He's killing it's people, taking their land, it's utter chaos over there. But let's look at the future since you think it's going to be so prosperous. It's going to be lined with oil rigs (good for the US because the proces'll be cheaper), they probably can't farm again for a long time because the soil is so damaged, people will be too scared to go there, it definately won't be a safe place and there probably will be an illusion of democracy. What I mean by illusion of democracy is that, yes, there will be elections and people will vote but there won't be much of a choice. It's either: someone who doesn't care about Iraq and will do whatever the US government will tell them or someone who doesn't care about Iraq and will do whatever the US government will tell them.

    Bush doesn't give a shit about Iraq and you can't deny that. He doesn't even care about the people in his own country! You think he was the slightest bit sad for the victims of Katrina or because the media was giving him a bad name? You're telling me that Bush cares about democracy in Iraq but do you think he would actually go to war without getting alot in return or because it's the right thing to do?
     
  5. #85
    iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0



    Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.
     
  6. #86
    Glenn

    Glenn Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,865
    Likes Received:
    6



    @ Razan: I agree with you on some points but disagree about others. I know that Bush says things but doesn't do them. However, it's stupid how you talked about the objective. You can have multiple objectives, that's what the presidency is all about, obtaining objectives to make America and the world a safer place. Do I necessarily think Bush's methods are doing so? No.

    No there were no WMDs. I was also pissed when Bush was wrong. However, I'd rather go to Iraq and check to see if there were WMDs than not check and have them atttack the US.

    I'm sorry we got into this mess. I wish we didn't even go there but now that we are there, we can't leave.
    I think Bush is an asshole. However, he does believe in democracy and I believe he believes in democracy.

    Innocent lives are definately going to be lost in war. When bombs are dropped to destroy Saddam's government buildings, innocent people will die. Do you think the US intentionally killed innocent Iraqi's. I understand that sick soldiers are raping and mistreating Iraqis but the government did not go to Iraq with the purpose of killing people. They came to Iraq with the purpose of finding WMDs. That plan failed and they moved on to the plan of making Iraq self reliant with democracy.

    Do you know what would happen if the U.S. troops pulled out? There would be more war. Iran and surrounding countries would invade the changed Iraq and control it.
     
  7. #87
    Razan

    Razan SUGAAAR!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    1



    I agree, that is what presidency is all about, but as you said, his actions aren't helping to achieve it and actions say much more than words.
    What I meant to say about the objectives thing was that, that's how people see it, they think they're freeing Iraq, doing it a favour when infact they're destroying it. Or at least that's what I thought. I was just mad at people for praising him for doing something which I believe is totally wrong. I tend to write out of emotions more than logic so excuse me, you're right. The comment I made was stupid, but it's true to a certain extent, so let me rephrase it. The image Bush is trying to achieve is that he cares and wants to help Iraq, and I think that's absurd.

    I understand that you'd rather go and check if there are WMD than take a chance, even if there wasn't any proof, but I still think the soldiers should pull out, you got Saddam, there are no WMD, so why are you still there? You think that neighbouring countries might attack Iraq because of it's vulnerablity. Good point, this has never crossed my mind before...
     
  8. #88
    iamrighthereandnow

    iamrighthereandnow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0



    there is no evidence for this. maybe we should send troops to russia in case china attacks it? or shall we send the troops all over the world?just in case..... i mean france may attack england or something... :chemist:
     
  9. #89
    Ether

    Ether Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    1



    Humanity doesnt say anything because he hasnt acheived that 'goodness' you speak of...once he actually does do something 'good'...which I can say....probably wont be in my life time...then people will say something about it.
     
  10. #90
    saunderitos

    saunderitos Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'm sorry but I'm so fed up of this stupidity! How is bombing innocent Iraqi children helping people? They were WAY better off with Saddam than this chaos. Those pictures you see of happy Iraqis were before the war started! American soldiers used to do unimaginable things to Iraqi citizens before they got sued. (Yes, they got sued, in America, and most people still don't know that.)
    Have you ever seen the pictures of when the soldiers took a guy, stripped him naked, put his underwear on his head and made him suck some dogs dick? Have you ever seen the pictures of a Muslim Sheikh forced only to wear a red thong in a jail cell full of girls? (That might sound like heaven to some of you but when you're a religious person, I think not.)
    I get so fucking pissed off when people say that Bush freed Iraq? Thousands are dying, its utter chaos, every single day at least a couple of people die, houses are robbed, there are curfews (anyone goes out after that and they're shot), everyone's getting beaten up and raped, it's just fucking horrible.

    Explain to me how all of that brought freedom.

    I have relatives there and it feels like shit, I get a fever, my stomach hurts like hell everytime I here about an explosion wondering if it's them, waiting for a call saying that something happened to someone, SO DON'T FUCKING TELL ME THAT BUSH BROUGHT FREEDOM TO IRAQ!

    Btw, I didn't flame anyone and I'm not "disrespecting the brave American soldiers" because I know what it feels like to have family over there and I sympathize with all the families of the soldiers that passed away in this pointless war.

    Papercut, you talk about going to a corner and crying in peace, imagine what it feels like to be writing this... [/b][/quote]
    well fucking said RaZaN
     
  11. #91
    Razan

    Razan SUGAAAR!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    1



    :lol:
    The whole war happened "just in case".
     
  12. #92
    Linja

    Linja Good. Be magnanimous. Über Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    12,551
    Likes Received:
    166



    :lol:
    The whole war happened "just in case". [/b][/quote]
    Razan. :lol: I think you had a massive brain wave there. That was brilliant. It's true. They invaded Iraq "just in case". They're thinking about invading Iran "just in case". Everything is happening "just in case".
     
  13. #93
    J-Flex

    J-Flex Ambient

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,354
    Likes Received:
    0



    My point is not that Bush made it better.
    My point is if any other fuckin Kerry/Clinton was on charge it would have been worst, you see these pictures because Media is allowed to make pictures of anything. Under Saddam Regieme he had the control of every media, so you say "i know what everything happend under his rule" but you underestimate it alot.
    besides what do you mean by blowing up civillians? ever seen a war that no civillian suffered from it??
    No you don't get it let me tell you it shortly :
    1)Saddam invited Arab fundamilists (just before the war)
    2) his right-hand people of the Bath party stole money from the Bagdad Central Bank and took it to Syrie(just after USA "won" the war)
    3) Fundamilists operated between Syrie and Iraq by getting paid from Saddam's right hand to creat chaos in Iraq. (A great mistake of USA by not guarding the borders)
    4) Fundamilists's operation to recruit Iraqies went on by threating Families, paying poor people in iraq to blow them self for their goals.
     
  14. #94
    Glenn

    Glenn Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,865
    Likes Received:
    6



    I agree, that is what presidency is all about, but as you said, his actions aren't helping to achieve it and actions say much more than words.
    What I meant to say about the objectives thing was that, that's how people see it, they think they're freeing Iraq, doing it a favour when infact they're destroying it. Or at least that's what I thought. I was just mad at people for praising him for doing something which I believe is totally wrong. I tend to write out of emotions more than logic so excuse me, you're right. The comment I made was stupid, but it's true to a certain extent, so let me rephrase it. The image Bush is trying to achieve is that he cares and wants to help Iraq, and I think that's absurd.

    I understand that you'd rather go and check if there are WMD than take a chance, even if there wasn't any proof, but I still think the soldiers should pull out, you got Saddam, there are no WMD, so why are you still there? You think that neighbouring countries might attack Iraq because of it's vulnerablity. Good point, this has never crossed my mind before... [/b][/quote]
    That's fine to be mad at Bush. You're entitled to your own opinion. Hell it's easy for me to say that because I hate Bush too. :)

    Yeah I suppose we could have pulled out after making sure there were no WMDs. If somebody attacked Iraq, it would be no different than how the US military responds. They wait until something bad happens and then bring down the terrorists.

    Actually my history teacher came up with the idea that neighboring countries would attack. :lol: But I agree.

    I'm glad that we rephrased our opinions so we agree now. ^_^
     
  15. #95
    Razan

    Razan SUGAAAR!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    1



    How is it that Kerry (why did you even mention Clinton, he can't run for president again?) would make the war worse? This is Bush's war, it's his mess, he did things his way. No one (that was running for president) could have done it worse. It's all just opinions really but how do you know that Kerry's going to do worse, that was way too judgemental.

    That's exactly what I mean, there's never been a war in which no civilians suffered from. Do you think that's a good point your making? You just said it yourself, wars kill civilians. Haven't people learned not to repeat their mistakes. All previous wars have screamed out to us "War is bad" and yet you still think it could bring some good. Acctually it can bring some good, only after decades when the troops leave and a sense of normality is restored to the country. Could it be a better place than before? Ofcourse. But is war neccessarily a good way of making that happen? No.

    No media anywhere is allowed to take pictures of anything they want. In America they'll never show those disgusting pictures I described, in here they'll never show a story of a brave soldier risking his life for Iraq. It's the same all over the world, some places more than others but mostly the same.
    I take offense to that. I don't just look at what the media shows me, agree with them blindly then think I know what happened in Saddam's regieme! I research it and look at different opinions. Saddam was a ruthless dictator, I don't underestimate anything he's done, but so are half of the leaders of the world today. So what? No one knows or even cares. Should you just oppose them and go around killing all the dictators and their followers? You would be against half of the world.

    Not a single Iraqi terrorist act happened before the US got involved. Not a single one in the history of the world. Bush created all those terrorists by bringing war to the country, not the other way around. All this talk about people getting payed to blow themselves up happened after America "won" the war right? I just don't understand it, people did suicide bombings in Iraq before they "won" the war, so they weren't payed by Saddam. I've searched for sources confirming your theory and none of them do, where did you get this idea from?

    Btw, it's Syria not Syrie ;)

    @ Glenn, :lol: I'm glad we agree too.
    You may not have noticed this, but in all the other topics that we debate on, we always happen to agree at the end :D

    @ Mali, why thank you but those massive brain waves hurt my head too much, I'm glad I decided not to be a politician. It sucks :lol:
     
  16. #96
    Glenn

    Glenn Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,865
    Likes Received:
    6



    I haven't noticed it, but it's definately a good thing.
     
  17. #97
    Methybrea

    Methybrea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    1



    Well, on the topic of Bush...whether he has done good all depends on what political/social/economic view you take. Being more of a socialist/liberal/social democratic I would obviously say that its hard to think of anything that Bush has done that has been beneficial.

    What everyone can agree upon is that Bush is a hardline conservative who has made US policies that fall behind the developed world when it comes to attitudes on social programs, abortions, gay marriages, religion, tolerance, etc. Whether you like that or not is up to you, but in my opinion he is keeping the country in the 20th century. His religious fanaticism is quite embarassing in an age where tolerance and understanding is supposed to be permeated through society.

    Economically, he has favoured the likes of the multi-national corporations with tax cuts and cutting government regulations which have led to an increase in disparity across the nation. Instead of building a strong social safety net and fostering an attitude of social responsibility and environmental awareness, he has for the benefit of corporations privatized social programs/services and reduced the public sphere at the core of any free democracy.

    He has been blind in foreign policy. He has alienated countries with his "either your with us or against us" approach. His interventionist policies in Iraq echo the policies of Reagan, Lyndon Johnston and other Presidents against Communism in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Ecuador and other parts of Asia and South/Central America. Just listen to him on interviews and observe that he is clueless when it comes to history, geography, and foreign policy! Therefore, how can clear, forward-thinking, and fair policies and actions be made if the president is running on his name and the blind support of his followers?

    I'll let you think about that.
     
  18. #98
    Shade

    Shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    3



    I would disagree with that. Most *true* conservatives would consider Bush to be an abysmal failure. Conservatives stand for the lack of government involvment and spending, whereas Bush has increased government spending umpteenth times and has given the government the ability to basically go wherever they want into the private lives of American Citizens.
     
  19. #99
    LinkinPark890

    LinkinPark890 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    1



    Yeah i know....tell us what he did good...if he did any thing good.
    I can't believe bush he got re-elected.
     
  20. Neil

    Neil Super Duper Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    4,927
    Likes Received:
    8



    You people have turned this topic exactly into what I was speaking out against.
     

Share This Page