PDA

View Full Version : The real message of Monkey-Bush to the World


Q-Source
8th September 2003, 09:18 AM
Once again Bush and his double standard. I wonder if he is so naive to think that the World is ignorant about the message that he is really sending.

Comes from here (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?p=53800#post53781)

Good evening. I have asked for this time to keep you informed of America's actions in the war on terror attempt to achieve global domination by force.

Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism those who stand in our way. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress strategic blunders.

America and a broad coalition our unconvinced British poodle acted first in Afghanistan by destroying the training camps of terror and removing the regime that harboured al-Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al-Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al-Qaeda's trail.

We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States.

In Iraq, we are helping the long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the centre of the Middle East although they didn't ask for our help and they don't actually have any connection with terrorism, but they do stand in the way of our global domination plan because they've got lots of oil we want.


And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction although we seem to be having a few problems finding any evidence of them, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council (not that we would do anything like that, of course). Our coalition enforced these international US demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.

For a generation leading up to 11 September 2001, terrorists opponents of American hegemony and their radical allies attacked innocent people Americans and Israelis in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists people who oppose US global domination became convinced that free nations America was decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side.

Since America put out the fires of 11 September and mourned our dead, and went to war knee-jerk crusade, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the wrong enemy. We are rolling back forward the terrorist threat to civilisation the US, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.



This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society they didn't ask for at the centre of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws total lawless chaos and free US controlled institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly, yet worthy of our country and critical to our security.

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism.

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror Iraq would be a lengthy short war, a different kind of war fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front even though it manifestly had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al-Qaeda, only lots of oil and a big bad leader who threatened my daddy

The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrantsAmerican interventionism and the resentments of oppressed peoples the victoms of US-Israeli oppresion. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace as can be seen in Iraq, provided you are blind. Everywhere that freedom America takes hold, terror will retreat ferment.

Our enemies understand this. They know that a free US-controlled Iraq will be free of them, free of assassins and torturers and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated illegally invaded Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately successfully trying to undermine Iraq's Americas progress and throw the country into chaos the US out of their country.

Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam regime who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on resistance to America and other free nations.



We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal, reclaiming Iraq for tyranny stopping the US from dominating the world. Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's former stronghold.

The north of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the south, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups.

Though their attacks are localised, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists have done great harm. They have ambushed American and British service members who stand for freedom and order.

For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort molly-coddled brainwashed delusion in a dangerous real world

They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations who represent the compassion and generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy, the symbol of a peaceful Arab country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over 100 Muslims at prayer, bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings.

This violence is directed not only against our coalition, but against anyone in Iraq who stands for decency and freedom and progress is willing to get in bed with the US.

There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done we have suppressed them and stolen their oil. They want to shake the will of the civilised world America.

In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom the US are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated.

This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror of global domination, to promote freedom US hegemony and to make our own nation more secure.



America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace.

America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit, for their sake and our own. Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: Destroying the terrorists; enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq; and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defence and their own future. getting their oil, easing US dependence on the Saudis and providing a launch pad for a future attack on Iran.

Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's governing council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections


First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theatre, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.

Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces. And in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.

Some countries have requested demanded an explicit authorisation of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq to be led by America even though those countries have categorically stated that "American-led" is what is causing the problem.


I recognise that not all our friends hoped-for stooges agreed with our decision to enforce ignore the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power illegally force regime change in a sovereign state, yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties now need the help of those sniffy little French.

Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilised world American bully-boys and opposing them must be the cause of the civilised world US army. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.

Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own governing council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The governing council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments.

Already more than 90% of towns and cities have functioning local governments which are restoring basic services. We are helping to train civil defence forces to keep order and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law, a facilities protection service, Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders and a new Iraqi army.

In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country. And we are accelerating the training of more.

Fellow citizens, we have been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed

Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's governing council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections.

From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.

Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87bn. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66bn over the next year.

This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads and medical clinics.



This effort is essential to the stability of those nations US global domination plan, and therefore to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan, and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom be promised a slice of the oil booty we thought we would get, but now aren't sure in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success help bail out the US.

The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the days of the dictator, to the miseries of humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear when a brutal and aggressive tyrant other than me possessed terrible weapons.

And for America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans waltz all over the planet illegally invading countries, destabilising others and generally looking after ourselves at every-body-elses expense.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.



The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our armed forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements.

We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honour the sacrifice of their families, and we mourn every American who has died so bravely, so far from home. The Americans who assume great risks overseas understand the great cause they are in.

Not long ago I received a letter from a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He wrote about his pride in serving a just cause and about the deep desire of Iraqis for liberty.

"I see it," he said, "in the eyes of a hungry people every day here. They are starved for freedom and opportunity." And he concluded: "I just thought you'd like a note from the front lines of freedom."

And I want each of them to know - your country thanks you, and your country supports you.

Fellow citizens, we have been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed. Yet Americans are responding with courage and confidence. We accept the duties of our generation. We are active and resolute in our own defence. We are serving in freedom's American hegemonys cause, and that is the cause of all mankind Americans.

Thank you. And may God continue to bless America.



The last words are the stupidiest of his speech. :D

Leroy
8th September 2003, 10:07 AM
Once again Bush and his double standard. I wonder if he is so naive to think that the World is ignorant about the message that he is really sending.

Probably so. But you have to admit, many are ignorant.

mickky
8th September 2003, 10:18 AM
Just change 'broad coalition' to Coalition of the Bribed and Threatened', and it's almost perfect.

Sundog
8th September 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Leroy


Probably so. But you have to admit, many are ignorant.

I have four genius-level kids and one who is simply not very smart. To compound this, he's a shocking liar. I had to take him aside one day and explain to him that, when you lie, it may sound convincing to you, but anyone smarter than yourself sees right through it.

Bush hasn't learned this lesson. He thinks if he gets that "earnest" look of his, and throws in enough spin and enough references to God, we'll believe anything he says.

Tricky
8th September 2003, 10:47 AM
You know, folks, I understand your anger, but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here. Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter.

Nor is it a particular compliment towards monkeys.

shemp
8th September 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
You know, folks, I understand your anger, but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here. Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter.

Nor is it a particular compliment towards monkeys.

Or Fuehrers either.

Sundog
8th September 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
You know, folks, I understand your anger, but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here. Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter.

Nor is it a particular compliment towards monkeys.

But it's perfectly understandable. We have been getting more and more enraged as time goes on, and Shrub just keeps piling on the whipped cream and trying to make us eat it. It's natural if some are seeing red now and getting abusive.

But we have to remember that we are Democrats. We shouldn't play Repugnican games. With their black hearts, they can do it much better than we can.

Regnad Kcin
8th September 2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
You know, folks, I understand your anger, but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here. Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter. Agreed.Nor is it a particular compliment towards monkeys. Thanks. How 'bout a little warning next time lest I enjoy another Diet Vanilla Coke reverse nasal enema?

shemp
8th September 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Agreed.Thanks. How 'bout a little warning next time lest I enjoy another Diet Vanilla Coke reverse nasal enema?

Doesn't take much to get you going, does it?

Tricky
8th September 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
How 'bout a little warning next time lest I enjoy another Diet Vanilla Coke reverse nasal enema?
Ooo! DVC! My favorite!

(would a reverse enema be called an "outema"?)

Q-Source
8th September 2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
You know, folks, I understand your anger,

Anger?
Why don't you comment on the content of the post?


... but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here.

You are right, Tricky. It was not my intention to insult monkeys by comparing them with Bush :D


Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter.

Sorry to hear that. It is just that his speech deserves nothing but a laugh. Bush is trying to gain support among the USA population in order to get more financial resources and continue his "war on terror". He is just using the same rethoric, the same "we are the leaders of the World", "terrorists threaten our innocent people", blah, blah, blah.

q-source

Tony
8th September 2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Sundog

But we have to remember that we are Democrats.


Otherwise known as limp dicks.

Sundog
8th September 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Tony



Otherwise known as limp dicks.

:p

Then how come we have all the orgies?

Tony
8th September 2003, 11:58 AM
Animals dont count. :D

Sundog
8th September 2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Tony
Animals dont count. :D

LOL! This is West Texas, not East Texas.

They don't vote either, except for the sheep, as evidenced by the continued existence of the Republican Party. :D

Tony
8th September 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Sundog


LOL! This is West Texas, not East Texas.


Where in West Texas?

as evidenced by the continued existence of the Republican Party. :D

or any political party for that matter. Sheepism is the staple of party politics.

Sundog
8th September 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Tony


Where in West Texas?



Naah, you get mad too easy and have too many guns.

Tony
8th September 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Sundog


Naah, you get mad too easy and have too many guns.

:roll: :roll:

Not to worry, The only thing I would come over to your house to smoke would be filled with "natural herbs". ;)

Nyarlathotep
8th September 2003, 12:14 PM
Most of this struck me as merely a bunch of political posturing, not much different than what I normally hear and have learned to tune out. This bit, really pi$$edme off, though.

For a generation leading up to 11 September 2001, terrorists opponents of American hegemony and their radical allies attacked innocent people Americans and Isreaelis in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists people who oppose US global domination became convinced that free nations America was decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side.


So in other words, the 9/11 hijackers were merely "People who oppose US global domination" (as opposed to mass murderers, I guess). And the "Americans and Isrealis" were merely "Americans and Isrealis", not actually people, and certainly not innocent, apparantly they deserved to die. I don't know about the people who were killed on 9/11 who were neither American nor Isreali, I guess they were just collateral damage.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for him last time, I doubt I will vote for him this time. A lot of this speech WAS pure political BS (like nearly any speech by nearly any politician anywhere in the world). However, it really angers me whenever I hear that the Hijackers were doing some sort of good and noble thing or that the victims (and/or the US as a whole) somehow deserved to be attacked. I heard too much of that right after the attacks and as the 2nd anniversery of the atacks draws near, I expect to hear even more. Would the person that wrote this seriously suggest that if some Al-Quaeda member were to gun down my family and myself on the street, that it would be okay because he would just be defending himself from "US domination of the world" ? I ask this because that is basicly what he is saying about the people that died on 9/11.

I am so ****** angry now that I have to stop before I write something I will regret. I am at work so I can't take it out on my wall, I guess I am going to have to go kick the carp out of my car.



:mad:

Sundog
8th September 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Tony


:roll: :roll:

Not to worry, The only thing I would come over to your house to smoke would be filled with "natural herbs". ;)

Let's just say that if Q-Source suddenly crossed from Mexico to New Mexico I could watch it with a telescope.

(Edited to add: Oops, I thought QS was in Mexico...)

Tricky
8th September 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Q-Source
Anger?
Why don't you comment on the content of the post?
Okay, Q.

It's fairly clever and even humorous, depending on your political persuasion. But it is a bit ham-handed and predictable after the first few sentences. I give it a B-minus.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/alles_moegliche/mixed-smiley-021.gif


Originally posted by Q-Source
You are right, Tricky. It was not my intention to insult monkeys by comparing them with Bush :D
BZZT! I already made that joke. :p

Originally posted by Q-Source
Sorry to hear that. It is just that his speech deserves nothing but a laugh. Bush is trying to gain support among the USA population in order to get more financial resources and continue his "war on terror". He is just using the same rethoric, the same "we are the leaders of the World", "terrorists threaten our innocent people", blah, blah, blah.

I mostly agree, but it is is black humor. Far too many people take him seriously for me to be amused by him. However, my point was still that when all one sees is the "sound byte" title of the thread, one may conclude that the author is a knee-jerk liberal, something which is not true of either you or Shemp.

Quasi
8th September 2003, 12:29 PM
I am curious Q-Source- do you feel the WTC 9/11 attacks were justified, and that civilian targets are acceptable in a political/economic conflict? Hey, you vote your way and i will vote mine. Personally I will vote against Bush, but you seem a little extreme in your hatred of the guy, which distorts your objectivity.

Leroy
8th September 2003, 01:02 PM
Bush hasn't learned this lesson. He thinks if he gets that "earnest" look of his, and throws in enough spin and enough references to God, we'll believe anything he says.

It's scarry to think, but some will.

But we have to remember that we are Democrats.

Not all of us :cool: I am curious Q-Source- do you feel the WTC 9/11 attacks were justified, and that civilian targets are acceptable in a political/economic conflict?

What does that have to do with Iraq? It was Bin-Laden and his terrorist who were supposedly responsible for 9/11, not Saddam or Iraq.

Solitaire
8th September 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Most of this struck me as merely a bunch of political posturing, not much different than what I normally hear and have learned to tune out.

Theology Of Empire (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910) :)

Ziggurat
8th September 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

So in other words, the 9/11 hijackers were merely "People who oppose US global domination" (as opposed to mass murderers, I guess).


Yup, that's pretty much what many of the critics of our war on terrorism are saying (Ted Rall, anyone?). The far left doesn't really care about human rights, they seem much more concerned with the rights of dictators.


Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for him last time, I doubt I will vote for him this time. A lot of this speech WAS pure political BS (like nearly any speech by nearly any politician anywhere in the world). However, it really angers me whenever I hear that the Hijackers were doing some sort of good and noble thing or that the victims (and/or the US as a whole) somehow deserved to be attacked. I heard too much of that right after the attacks and as the 2nd anniversery of the atacks draws near, I expect to hear even more.


It's symptomatic of the decay of the far left, which I've been waking up to over the last year as they scambled to defend Saddam. I don't like Bush either, never have and never will. But much as it pains me to say this, I'd pick him any day over those who think we did something wrong by taking Saddam out of power.

DanishDynamite
8th September 2003, 02:07 PM
Ziggurat:The far left doesn't really care about human rights, they seem much more concerned with the rights of dictators.

...

I don't like Bush either, never have and never will. But much as it pains me to say this, I'd pick him any day over those who think we did something wrong by taking Saddam out of power. The blatant ignorance and binary thinking displayed by these viewpoints, never ceases to amaze me. Just amazing.

Of those (many) people I know who were opposed to this war, not a single one gave a sh*t about the well being of Saddam. Every single one was of the opinion that his imminent demise would be a cause for celebration. What they were opposed to, was the manner of the war. The unsanctioned invasion by one UN country of another UN country. I don't see how intelligent people cannot understand this, unless they are being willfully ignorant; understand that it is the principle of international law which is being defended, not some two-bit hoodlum.

Sundog
8th September 2003, 02:09 PM
I wonder if a two-bit hoodlum is necessarily a binary thinker?

RandFan
8th September 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Tricky
You know, folks, I understand your anger, but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here. Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter. Thanks Tricky,

I think my interest in this forum has perhaps come to an end. To be fair there can be a good deal of honest discussion but lately it just seems to be a place to post conspiracy theories and ad hominem.

I really do understand the anger and frustration that is being felt by those who oppose our current policies in Iraq. The problems in the mid east and rest of the world are real and deserve an airing. I read a great article today that said Bush is very close to his own "tet offensive". The article was coherent and quite convincing. It was however devoid of emotional reasoning. I couldn't help but wonder why posters here couldn't make more of this type of coherent argument rather than settle on personal attacks.

I really have no desire to participate in school ground arguments. I came to the forum for honest and intelegent discussion. I took on Jedi Knight even at times when I agreed with him because I found that he often arrived at his position through specious reasoning.

I wan't to confess that I am not entirely innocent in this regard. I have acted inapropriately and at times irrationally. I thank those who were patient with me and who helped me improve my skills and at times persuaded me to change my mind.

I'll do some follow ups to some of my earlier posts and then I think it is time for me to move on.

Thanks,

RandFan

DanishDynamite
8th September 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Sundog
I wonder if a two-bit hoodlum is necessarily a binary thinker?
Two-bit.....binary.....:D

Sundog
8th September 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by RandFan
I'll do some follow ups to some of my earlier posts and then I think it is time for me to move on.

Thanks,

RandFan

I for one would genuinely miss you, were you to do so. In order to provide a reason to stay, I will speciously accuse you of leaving because you know all your points have been countered.

I hope it works. :(

You can't leave. Who will I hold up as an example of a reasonable Republican?

DanishDynamite
8th September 2003, 02:23 PM
RandFan:I'll do some follow ups to some of my earlier posts and then I think it is time for me to move on. Nice try, Randbaby. It's a habit, like smoking, and it cannot easily be kicked.

Besides, I'd miss your regular xenophobic right wing contributions. ;)

Seriously.

Tricky
8th September 2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Sundog


I for one would genuinely miss you, were you to do so. In order to provide a reason to stay, I will speciously accuse you of leaving because you know all your points have been countered.

I hope it works. :(

You can't leave. Who will I hold up as an example of a reasonable Republican?
I echo the sentiments of Sundog. Don't make me call your son.:mad:

peptoabysmal
8th September 2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

However, my point was still that when all one sees is the "sound byte" title of the thread, one may conclude that the author is a knee-jerk liberal, something which is not true of either you or Shemp.

LMAO!!!!

(wiping tears from eyes)

Ahem...

How about just "jerk liberals"? :roll:

Seriously, if these two aren't knee-jerk liberals, then Bush must therefore be a knee-jerk liberal, by definiton (logical NOT). You've been hammering on the wrong guy.

Q-Source
9th September 2003, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
I give it a B-minus.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/alles_moegliche/mixed-smiley-021.gif


B-minus is not so bad. :)



I mostly agree, but it is is black humor.

Behind the black humor there is a true fact.

Q-Source
9th September 2003, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Quasi
I am curious Q-Source- do you feel the WTC 9/11 attacks were justified, and that civilian targets are acceptable in a political/economic conflict? Hey, you vote your way and i will vote mine. Personally I will vote against Bush, but you seem a little extreme in your hatred of the guy, which distorts your objectivity.

I don't justify ANY violent attack on ANY country for ANY reason. This is what I am trying to say. Bush and Blair lied to the whole world saying that they would attack Iraq because there was enough evidence to suggest that Saddam had chemical weapons, the truth was that it was a blatant lie.

They didn't care about the consequences of starting a war: the human casualties, the innocent civilians, the total costs, etc. The USA has always been behind Iraq's resources.

I wonder why the US citizens always have in mind 9/11 and never think about the thousand of innocent people who have also died in Iraq and other countries thanks to Bush's global domination plan?.

Why on Earth do you think that the people who died on the WTC are more important than the Iraqi people who have died because of an unjustified war????? They have also died for political and economic reasons and I am sure that most of the USA citizens supported Bush's actions, so don't even dare to ask me if civilians target are acceptable in any world conflict. Ask YOU that question.

Q-S

Some Friggin Guy
9th September 2003, 09:21 PM
I can't speak for any but myself. That being said, he's the way I look at things.

I was lied to. I was told there was a definite threat of WMD being used. I was told said weapons could be deployed within 40 or so minutes. I know the war was quick, but it wasn't THAT quick.

I am a realist. I do know that there had been WMD in Iraq at some point, though I can't say for certain when those weapons went away. I do know that the US is now using the same arguments about not being able to find the weapons that the scoffed at the UN for a scant year ago.

I know that it was not Saddam who ordered the attacks on 9/11, thouhg I am certain he celebrated them (just an educated guess, given his attitude towards the US). Hussein was certainly a brutal dictator and should not have been left in power, but a pre-emptive strike was not the best way to deal with it. Had we let the inspectors do their job, we may not have had to go it alone (or with a small coalition.)

I also know that, given the situation brought on by Bush and his desire for this war (did anyone actually believe this war was not a forgone conclusion before he even went to the UN?) we will be in Iraq for years, and there is a chance that we will never acheive our goals there. Certainly, we might, but we have to allow for the possibility that this is a situation we cannot win.

I feel (admittedly, this is an emotional response) as though Bush is trying to play a game of international 3 card monte, with the weapons being the red card (Is the anthrax under here? NO! Try again)and it is a dangerous one, at that.

In short, I understand that Bush was thrown into a really tough situation for any leader. I know that he has done what he thinks is right. However, I believe he has made some mistakes and should own up to them.

Q-Source
10th September 2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

In short, I understand that Bush was thrown into a really tough situation for any leader. I know that he has done what he thinks is right. However, I believe he has made some mistakes and should own up to them.

He did choose to enter to that situation. He has lied deliberately to get his ultimate goal which is global domination.
Yes, he has done what he thinks is right for the USA only. It does not mean that people around the world has to forgive his mistakes.

GroundStrength
10th September 2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Q-Source


He did choose to enter to that situation. He has lied deliberately to get his ultimate goal which is global domination.
Yes, he has done what he thinks is right for the USA only. It does not mean that people around the world has to forgive his mistakes.

Wow, this will be my first post to this particular forum. Let me say that I have become disillusioned with both parties (all either of them seem to want is more of my money), but I lean toward the right.

I highly doubt that GW's goal is world domination, more control over the earth's oil seems more likely. Yes, he has lied to justify the actions in Iraq and has tried (unsuccesfully) to link Iraq to 9/11 but most every other President of the United States has lied and given us their earnest looks and spin (I can do without the references to god) to try and accomplish their agenda. I think these speeches do little to sway the opinion of the great majority of people in this country and serve to solidify support where it already exists.

I think his major problem is that his support from those people is beginning to falter.

KelvinG
10th September 2003, 07:58 AM
I find it interesting that the primary tatic now used by the pro-war supporters on this board is to resort to calling anti-war folks names like "whining liberals" and "radical lefties."
It seems the pro-war side has given up arguing for the validity of the war (since it is a futile cause now that they've been proven so hopelessly wrong) so they simple resort to name calling.

It's very telling.