Why Bush, Why???????

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i love how all the right-wing people constantly accuse the FYM mods of this grand conspiracy that they're all out to get them. :laugh: :lmao:

i mean seriously, there's no claim anyone could make about this being true where a mod or a leftist could come back and make a counterpoint. this paranoia is more hilarious than anything.
 
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I don?t think he is a sadist - he just doesn?t give a fuck, which is the same bad in his position. He doesn?t care, you know. He doesn?t care about children dying or his responsibility. He is just a criminal who thinks only about himself and his friends. His hands are full of blood, but he stays totally without any emotion towards the pain that he causes.

He doesn?t get a great pleasure from killing (if I look at his career, well.... - but I think he just pursued his career). He only gets pleasure from making money and from using his power. You know, he is an ill man. A true, one hundered percent capitalist. A mass murderer.

And you can bet that he knows what he?s doing, just like every psychopathic street killer who?s able to lie to the... what do they call it... truth detector?

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Free speech, yeah. It always surprises me how full of hate the human race can be.

No matter how much you hate the way Bush handles his responsibilities as the President I think you are taking it too far when you equate Bush with a psychopathic killer and accuse him of being a mass murderer who cares nothing for the lives of dying children.
 
I feel a bit of a celeribty in FYM.
An Egnima of sorts:sexywink:
I also think GWBush to b a reasonable person at the end of the day:)

I think the Media intends to instill fear in the gen population by painting him as a "WarMonger"


And for the record-
I dont think Arun is entirely partisan..he does have "flashes of brilliance" and "open polictical-mindedness" occassionally;)

-diamond-:dance: :cool:
 
Last edited:
Go to the nytimes.com , or probably just about any newspaper website in the world today, like smh.com.au in Australia has it clearly at the top of the page, and check out the US National Security Strategy report. GW's outline for the way the world should be.

It identifies, correctly, the threats that the US is facing now and in the future, but as for what to do about them, it's just wrong. Basically US foreign policy is now based on the fact that whenever something pops up, that may not even be an enemy, just 'different' the US engages in a muscle flexing contest, either economicaly or militarily, which of course in both cases the US would win every time.

It's not a way to fix problems, gain friends, right wrongs in the world or make the world a better place. It's just about being the high school bully, so I think it will just create a cycle of problems for the US.
 
To do otherwise would be to endorse a policy in which we wait for terrorist to strike first. There is little logic in that. The Presidents strategy will save lives and bring thugs in line or eliminate them. We should have invaded Aghanistan in 1998! Thousands of people would be alive today if we had.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:
i love how all the right-wing people constantly accuse the FYM mods of this grand conspiracy that they're all out to get them. :laugh: :lmao:

i mean seriously, there's no claim anyone could make about this being true where a mod or a leftist could come back and make a counterpoint. this paranoia is more hilarious than anything.

God bless you, Khanada. :)
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


I trust that when you make a statement like this, you realise it's not simply that "Iraq will be TOAST" it's "tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens will be brutally murdered." In all honesty, your statement seemed to show a complete lack of regard for the thousands of innocent lives which will be taken if the United States bombs Iraq.

Please, try putting yourself in the position of an Iraqi person - imagine how afraid you'd be if you heard that a country as militarily powerful as the United States was planning to bomb your country. Imagine if you remembered what that had been like back in 1991. Imagine how afraid you'd be, imagine how you'd want to protect your family but be unable to. Imagine being trapped there and not knowing if you'd still be alive tomorrow.

I know some people support bombing Iraq despite these things, but please at least show some understanding of the horrendous impact bombing will have on innocent Iraqi citizens, don't dehumanise them with statements like "Iraq will be toast."

(Sorry Dreadsox, I was replying to your statement to begin with, but I'm not actually directing all of this post at you specifically.)

Exactly.

Which is why I never support war of any kind...we get so caught up in trying to get the bad guy that we forget innocent people will be caught in the crossfire. And the sad thing is that some people realize that and then still don't give a flying frick.

Which is the reason why I didn't like it when we went and attacked Afghanistan...we didn't like losing a bunch of innocent people over here who hadn't done anything to the terrorists who attacked us, so why on earth did we turn around and attack a country that was mostly full of innocent people who-surprise, surprise-didn't do anything to us?

Hypocrisy-very common in the U.S., gotta love it, eh? :rolleyes:.

Anywho, I agree with the Bush bashers. I am so fed up with that guy. I cannot wait until 2004 rolls around, I will be so glad to go to the polls and vote against Bush.

By the way, I noticed some discussion of censorship in this thread...I'm very anti-censorship, and I feel everyone should be able to have the opportunity to speak their minds in this thread, regardless of whether you are a Bush supporter or not.

Angela
 
NO more discussion of censorship or modding policies in this thread. by ANYONE. next mention of it, the thread will close.
 
The intention of this thread was for someone to vent their feelings regarding president Bush. Issues will be dealt with whenever someone has them. But not in a thread about pres Bush and his policies.

Thanks Angela.

Please no more.
 
Re: Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

babble said:

No matter how much you hate the way Bush handles his responsibilities as the President I think you are taking it too far when you equate Bush with a psychopathic killer and accuse him of being a mass murderer who cares nothing for the lives of dying children.

Well, so we got different opinions on that matter. I can live with that ;)
 
STING2 said:
To do otherwise would be to endorse a policy in which we wait for terrorist to strike first. There is little logic in that. The Presidents strategy will save lives and bring thugs in line or eliminate them. We should have invaded Aghanistan in 1998! Thousands of people would be alive today if we had.

OK, so other countries copying the Bush doctrine have then the right to attack the USA? I'm thinking here of countries like China, Saudi-Arabia, North-Korea or Zimbabwe. The USA has weapons of mass destruction and those countries may see a threat in the actions/leadership of the USA. So according to the Bush-doctrine, they may attack the USA, to have a pre-emptive strike. Great! More war!
:tsk:


Marty

P.S. I do not want this scenario above to happen as I do not believe in a pre-emptive strike doctrine. By no country.
 
Unlike some of the countries above, the United States works hard to ensure international security and stability. Countries who do not launch unprovoked attacks against other countries, often for the purpose of land or material gain of some kind, have nothing to fear from the USA or its Allies. But countries that support terrorism or more importantly have invaded and attack 4 neighbors in the past 20 years are international outlaws and need to be brought to justice somehow. US pre-emption is done to protect lives and international security, it is a defensive action. But Pre-emption or attacks done to kill civilians are annex another country is clearly unjustified, these are not defensive actions.

One of the only ways to stop terrorist in the act of committing terrorism is to act before they do. Acting after the event has happened is to late. No one wants to loose 3,025 people in the space of 2 hours like we did on 9/11. One of the best ways to prevent a 9/11 is to act before terrorist do, which may sometimes involve largescale military pre-emptive attacks. If a country does not want to be the target of a military pre-emptive strike, don't support terrorist and allow international forces to help you in siezing them on your soil if the country is unable to accomplish that itself. Also do not attempt to annex other countries that border your own or launch missiles at countries beyond your borders for no reason at all.
 
STING2 said:
Unlike some of the countries above, the United States works hard to ensure international security and stability. Countries who do not launch unprovoked attacks against other countries, often for the purpose of land or material gain of some kind, have nothing to fear from the USA or its Allies. But countries that support terrorism or more importantly have invaded and attack 4 neighbors in the past 20 years are international outlaws and need to be brought to justice somehow. US pre-emption is done to protect lives and international security, it is a defensive action. But Pre-emption or attacks done to kill civilians are annex another country is clearly unjustified, these are not defensive actions.

One of the only ways to stop terrorist in the act of committing terrorism is to act before they do. Acting after the event has happened is to late. No one wants to loose 3,025 people in the space of 2 hours like we did on 9/11. One of the best ways to prevent a 9/11 is to act before terrorist do, which may sometimes involve largescale military pre-emptive attacks. If a country does not want to be the target of a military pre-emptive strike, don't support terrorist and allow international forces to help you in siezing them on your soil if the country is unable to accomplish that itself. Also do not attempt to annex other countries that border your own or launch missiles at countries beyond your borders for no reason at all.

But if we attack before they do, all that's gonna do is get them ticked off at us, and then they'll want to attack back.

Plus, not to mention, if we attack first, doesn't that make us just as terrorist as any other country? You may not consider our attacking first terrorism, but the people in the country we're attacking would see it a different way, I'm sure. The people who attacked us on 9/11 didn't see their actions as terrorism, they felt they were justified in what they were doing.

Angela
 
I think its a little more complex than how you state it. But again with Terrorism, the only way you can stop terrorist who are about to act is to strike before they do. Were not going after the people of a country but the criminal regime that controls the country. Many people in these countries wish we would take such action. These countries are dictatorships where people are taken out in the middle of the night and shot for no reason. A pre-emptive regime change, if democracy is put in afterwards, is liberation for the people. Were not going to target civilians in are pre-emption like terrorist do. I can't find any justification or even any rational for targeting civilians under any circumstances. The only objective it accomplishes is to inflict pain and fear on innocent people.
 
I think it is indeed a little more complicated than you state to find every terrorist, identify him as one, and kill him. This would need a totally different strategy.

Say, if intelligence got more hot leads on terrorists of 9/11 in Hamburg, what would they have done? Would they have told Bush to bomb Germany? I doubt it, I really doubt it heavily. ?

Now, if there are political leaders like Saddam, you can figure out a way of how to remove them, why not with a nuclear bomb so a feeew civilians die in the name of love, honourable and for a good cause (sorry that I go to vomit shortly), but then don?t tell me Saddam is a terrorist!

If you don?t want civilian deaths and you want to kill a very few really dangerous people, war is surely not the right way. I think you can follow the very basic tactics I am talking about.

So we are back at our original question: Why, Bush,... why?
 
Last edited:
If you don?t want civilian deaths and you want to kill a very few really dangerous people, war is surely not the right way. I think you can follow the very basic tactics I am talking about.[/B]


This assumes you know the military plan for action against Iraq. I doubt any plan involves carpet-bombing of Baghdad. In fact Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated very clearly that any action is not against the people of Iraq, Hussein is the target. Today, the people of Iraq are more likely to be killed by their current leadership than by US armed forces.
 
HIPHOP,

I don't understand why you would compare a cooperating US ally(Germany) to Iraq. Of course we wouldn't bomb Germany, we have complete access to virtually everything we need there, and when it comes to catching individuals both countries are on the same page.

The goal of any US operation is not to just take out Saddam so one of his family members can take control or one of his Republican guard units takes control, the goal would be to change the entire regime. Hence the term regime change. Saddam's regime consist of his entire family, loyalist in the Iraqi government bought off by Saddam and are deeply tied to him, plus over 100,000 Republican guard troops. This does not include the regular who's true loyalties will be suspect if war happens. All of that has to be taken care of if regime change is happen. You CANNOT accomplish that with a couple of spies. Only a large conventional military force can achieve that goal!
 
So you think the 100,000 would be loyal to who when the head is cut off? People in Iraq are not content with the leadership as well. You think it would be so easy for a brother of Saddam Hussein to take and keep control?

You, STING2, were stating that U.S. intelligence services had a spy near to Saddam, in his inner circle. Either this is not true, and the informations about when to use which weapons to do what are not known to the U.S. Or there are enough spies, who could also take military action with support of special small troops.

The reason I brought Germany in;... I am simply referring to the argument: In Iraq there are terrorists so lets bomb them. Well, in Germany there were terrorists too, it seems. But sure enough the U.S. wouldn?t move a finger, meaning diplomatic rel. etc., but no mixing into inner policies of an ally, let alone bombing around with a few thousands of dead civilians "by the way". You get my point? Everywhere there may be some terrorists. In Liechtenstein too, maybe. Or in Switzerland. Switzerland is not part of the NATO. So I ask myself if this is really a war against terror. I think the definitions of the reasons for this war got kind of twisted. I think to lead a "war" against terror is impossible, because a war normally happens between two states. In this case, a better definition would be: "Every action (including military) that is possible to wipe away terrorist groups and persons connected with it".

Does this take a war against Iraq to minimize potential terrorist attacks? Wouldn?t it be more useful to keep the intelligence up and alive and alerted in two dozens of countries and take quick action where it is needed (for example to take action in Bagdad if aware of planned terrorist attacks, so all the allies can agree without thinking to the potential harm of Bush to the world when he plays protector, without informing the rest of the world with facts)?

nbcrusader: This doesn?t assume that I know a military plan. It is very easy to understand that if you don?t want many civilian deaths, war (carpet bombing etc.) is not the right way. If Hussein is the target, why not small special troops? You really need to wipe out all the army now or not? Your opinion (Secretary Rumsfeld stated...) and STING2?s opinion (The goal of any US operation) seem to differ a little on that matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom