Bush Haters

[Scarletwine]

I'm sick of this "other side" shit.
We may have political differences but some of my neighbors are from that "other side" and I support and care for them. Hell even some of my family is the "other side".

 

[odowdpa]

I heard Rudy Guilliani talking the other day about Kerry and he hit the nail in the head. He said he wants someone in office that can do something thats right and not someone who will change his mind every 5 minutes and be afraid of what people think. He wants someone to make choices even when they are not popularand not be afraid to do so. Face it, Kerry is WEAK-MINDED. Have we ever seen someone flip-flop their votes and mind more than this guy. I have an idea, lets vote for the war and then say I'm against it. Good idea. And I think if people actually knew the issues they'd vote for Bush.

i.e. The economy, taxes, job rates - they are all intertwined, right?

Each bit of money you make gets taxed to hell - it gets taxed when you earn it through working, that same money will get taxed when you invest it and if you make any money off of your investment (as you should!) and you buy a house, then that gets taxed. Now, I'm not sure about everyone here, but the more money the gov't gets, thats less money in your pockets. has anyone here been hired by a poor person? Well, the people offering jobs might not be able to do so if kerry is elected. if people start businesses, then they hire people and the job market booms hence an economic rise.

Now bash me, but the fact remains Kerry will be a strain on our economy - and thats a fact, not me being anti-Kerry.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have an idea, lets vote for the war and then say I'm against it. Good idea.

Maybe at the time he voted for the war, he thought that things were going to turn out better than they are right now. And now that he sees the problems going on, he's started changing his position on the war. That can happen all the time-I don't necessarily see that as "flip-flopping" as much as regretting your support for something.

Originally posted by odowdpa
And I think if people actually knew the issues they'd vote for Bush.

From what I've seen based on both candidates' stances on the issues, I'm sorry, I still cannot put down a vote for Bush. He's done too much stuff to make me angry as of late.

Angela

 

[BVS]

I heard Rudy Guilliani talking the other day about Kerry and he hit the nail in the head. He said he wants someone in office that can do something thats right and not someone who will change his mind every 5 minutes and be afraid of what people think. He wants someone to make choices even when they are not popularand not be afraid to do so. Face it, Kerry is WEAK-MINDED. Have we ever seen someone flip-flop their votes and mind more than this guy. I have an idea, lets vote for the war and then say I'm against it. Good idea. And I think if people actually knew the issues they'd vote for Bush.

i.e. The economy, taxes, job rates - they are all intertwined, right?

Each bit of money you make gets taxed to hell - it gets taxed when you earn it through working, that same money will get taxed when you invest it and if you make any money off of your investment (as you should!) and you buy a house, then that gets taxed. Now, I'm not sure about everyone here, but the more money the gov't gets, thats less money in your pockets. has anyone here been hired by a poor person? Well, the people offering jobs might not be able to do so if kerry is elected. if people start businesses, then they hire people and the job market booms hence an economic rise.

Now bash me, but the fact remains Kerry will be a strain on our economy - and thats a fact, not me being anti-Kerry.

I'm not sure you really know the issues. Many in congress voted for the war and then changed their view as new information came out including some Republicans.

Let me ask you something, do you think defecit spending during wartime is a smart idea?

 

[odowdpa]

If it keeps us safe, yes.

Kerry in his speech said any and all terrorists will be met with swift action if they choose to act . But the key point is that first we will get hit, then he'll do something. Bush is in pre-emptive mode. He is trying to get them before they get us. And let me save your breaths before all the lefties in here get in a huff. Well, then why are we in Iraq? It has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda. All info the pres had suggested they had the materials and its a known fact Saddam was trying to get his hands on uranium - a main component of nuclear weaponry. And US troops are all over Afghan trying to seize dangerous weaponry and people.

With the terror threats that just came out an hour or two ago, I'd rather have Bush in office. Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry would do a decent job, but not to Bush's level.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Have we ever seen someone flip-flop their votes and mind more than this guy.

[...]

has anyone here been hired by a poor person? Well, the people offering jobs might not be able to do so if kerry is elected. if people start businesses, then they hire people and the job market booms hence an economic rise.

Flip-flopping politicians and trickle down economics, now who does that remind me of? That's right -- George Bush denouncing the economic policies advocated by Reagan (the champion of trickle down economic theory) as "voodoo economics" and then suddenly embracing them himself!

 

[Scarletwine]

"Now bash me, but the fact remains Kerry will be a strain on our economy - and thats a fact, not me being anti-Kerry."

No giving a tax cut during a war (the first in US history) is REALLY straining our economy. I for one don't like owing trillions to China.

 

[odowdpa]

you have to look at the overall picture and not nit-pick. if we want to nit-pick, we could have a field day on your man. and if I hear Kerry speak about Vietnam one more time, I'm gonna lose it.

and I read people on here saying that they'd kill themselves if Bush wins. Please, lets not take it that far.

 

[zoney!]

Bush is in pre-emptive mode. He is trying to get them before they get us.

So you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"?

I am not saying we shouldn't stop terrorism before it happens...I believe Bush has done a good REACTIVE job since 9/11 (honestly, it is our - U.S. - own ignorance to think that something like that couldn't happen on our own turf). BUT, to proactively send troops to wherever there is a possibility of a terror is just going to lead to more people hating America.

Let's protect ourselves HERE...like we are doing in our airports and cities. Let's create security measures in our sea ports before they attack there.

 

[odowdpa]

whats this? are my eyes seeing correctly? someone here agrees with something that Bush is doing i.e. Homeland Security.

Zoney, I respect your comments as I think you know what your talking about, but I profoundly disagree. I don't know if its where I live or the uneasiness I'm feeling, but stopping terrorism is nearly impossible. You can not stop someone from putting explosives in their car and blowing it up in a crowded area. Its similar to troublesome insects or whatever...you don't just squash what you see, but you have to go to the nest to really get at the problem. And thats what Bush is doing. Taking a wait and see approach has bad news written all over it....You have to get to the center of the problem. This is why i don't understand why half the nation is against him, he's looking out for YOUR safety.

 

[Angela Harlem]

This has been said a few times in this forum and elsewhere, that terrorism can not truly be easily defeated and is infact probably almost impossible. I agree with this. Yet, Bush tries. Admirable it might be, but it is not going to achieve the goal is it. By supporter's admissions, it wont. He is wasting lives, resources, money. It's a battle (over terrorism) which wont be defeated in a war or a conflict. Iraq or any of these places having a coalition troop presence will not see the end of it. Bush might put out spot fires, but it's the best he can hope for. And the cost frankly, doesn't justify it. Something which needs to be watched very closely is the opinions of some of these places toward America and the affiliated west. Is troop presence fueling something bigger than the grounds to currently work from?

But like verte said (in this thread or another, sorry I cant recall) the humanitarian issue was a good enough reason for this in the first place. I truly think that is a fine enough reason. To use it to aim to put an end to terrorism or even throw the proverbial spanner in the works is, I feel, futile. It's not enough, or the right avenue. It's not something. Fueling hatred is not going to stop 'them' attacking 'us'.

 

[zoney!]

My disliking of Bush has nothing to do with what he is doing with Homeland Security. I deal with post 9/11"Homeland Security" measures daily in my job. And I agree...you can't stop terroristic actions. They will find a way to do it if they want.

BUT, I am all for making sure that we have all the information we can possibly get to justify military actions in another country. Our military actions lead to even more hate. Some kid watches his mother accidently run over by a humvee (ok...this is going to be a "way out there" story ), and the people in his culture/community tell him that the US had no reason for being in his hometown, and suddenly, we have a teenager who is willing to do a suicide bombing. It's cyclical. And I am not sure if it is right.

edited to say, Angela Harlem is way more eloquent than I am. on what she said in her first graph.

 

[A_Wanderer]

As opposed to sitting back there and letting people suffer because we dont think its our place to interfere, kind of an its allright when arabs kill arabs because hey their arabs what else do we expect world view. The racism of lowered expectation is what builds this concept of non interference and I for one am sick of it. The UN stands by while people die and they try to maintain the status quo of "peace" well I tell you there will never be peace while people suffer needlessly and the only way to end it is to initiate change. We can either try this which is a new form of the interventionist liberalism of old or we can sit back and wait for the enemies of the free world to develop the tools to wipe out civilization.

Everyone deserves to be free

There is no bad reason to remove a thuggish dictatorship

Terrorism will only end when it is not a viable option that achieves results.

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

EVERY administration, EVERY politician shamelessly lies. Why is anyone shocked? Why is it suddenly a big surprise?

True
Bush sets a world record for all the lies he's told, or is about to tell. He still has
some time left to make up more lies.

 

[odowdpa]

The thing is, these people are going to keep on attacking the U.S. no matter what we do. If we do nothing, then they will continue to terrorize us without any fight. As I read I think in the Post this morning, we are the "brass ring" for the Al Quada. Hitting us on U.S. turf is golden for them.

True, I agree with the above two posts that we will be alienating some people with our pre-emptive measures, but if not, we will be sitting ducks. And i'm not willing to just sit here in the middle of the fire waiting for something to happen. If my safety is in jeopardy, like a wounded animal, they will take all measures to ensure their safety. You have to infiltrate. I just hope the U.S. has people infiltrating Al Quada..who knows though as they would never speak about that.

But i think the main difference in people views comes down to international affairs....some people put int'l relations before other things, which could be dangerous in the most extreme cases. And i'm not saying I'm against int'l relations, I actually am a dual-citizen with the EU, its just some things come first and tough choices need to be made.

 

[odowdpa]

quote:

"Everyone deserves to be free

There is no bad reason to remove a thuggish dictatorship

Terrorism will only end when it is not a viable option that achieves results."

Listen, there will always be a form of terorism, thats just life, if you don't believe that, then your living with your eyes closed. And there will always be injustices. You just have to try and minimize it.

 

[zoney!]

Is the New York Post still a Murdoch property?

 

[odowdpa]

I'm not sure, but I tell you what, its so funny reading the papers everyday. You can tell people's views just by their choice of paper.

NY Post - Very Republican Paper

NY Daily News - Liberal Rag (plus Page Six is better )

Wall St. Journal - Republican

NY Times - Dems paper and also has writers that make things up.

If you want to be entertained for a while, just read the WSJ or the Times editorial sections - good reads, very biased towards their party. If your like me and are reading the opposing paper, you should begin talking to yourself about how absurd the read is about two lines in.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You Rock odowdpa

Im quite serious, you seem to have conviction and also read over all the articles out there. I personally love to hate reading collums from lefty wankers, it gets the blood pressure going up in the morning. Nothing like a big bit of hypocracy to wake you up.

I will not just sit back and accept injustice, I know that realism is a must but when you have the oppertunity and the will it must be siezed. The reason the world is fucked now is because we let the nationalist movements run wild in the 20th century and ruin the half baked pieces of Empire formed in the early 20th Century. Peace on Earth can be achieved and it is the only way to guarantee the survival of the human species and allow us to move forward.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I shall just add my two cents by recalling Machiavelli

?a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated, and liberality leads you to both.?

So if the US intends to maintain a unipolar power structure through the 21st Century as PNAC envisions then it must show the world that it is very powerful but at the same time work to fix problems, to become loved or revered rather than hated. Difficult to do in the world of realpolitik but certainly possible when the civilized world finally moves beyond the concept of the nation/state.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I shall just add my two cents by recalling Machiavelli

?a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated, and liberality leads you to both.?

So if the US intends to maintain a unipolar power structure through the 21st Century as PNAC envisions then it must show the world that it is very powerful but at the same time work to fix problems, to become loved or revered rather than hated. Difficult to do in the world of realpolitik but certainly possible when the civilized world finally moves beyond the concept of the nation/state.

And what if the PNAC boys don't really give a sh*t about being 'liked'? The massive build up of hate is the core of the problem, and most of their doctrine will only inflame that.

Did you do much reading of the PNAC website pre Iraq war? It used to have some really great stuff on there. It's much more sensitised and 'PC' (in a super power political sense) now.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

This is why i don't understand why half the nation is against him, he's looking out for YOUR safety.

But explain to me how bombing a country will make us safer? If Bush's actions involving wars were indeed supposed to make us less likely to be attacked (I realize there's always that distinct possiblity regardless, but the way Bush was talking, the threat was going to be greatly reduced), why are there still threats? Why was our government considering pushing back the election this year for fear of an attack? Just now there's another story of yet another threat against our country. Obviously Bush's method isn't really working all that well if all that stuff is still happening.

I have no problem whatsoever with our government keeping an eye out on any potential threats against our country-it's just that once we have an idea of what groups exactly are a threat to us, why can't we just find some way to go after those specific groups, instead of have a war that kills innocent people in the process and makes the people there even less thrilled with us?

Also, A_Wanderer, in regards to getting rid of thuggish dictatorships-does this mean that you're totally in favor of getting rid of every single dictatorship that exists out there (some of which, keep in mind, the U.S. supported)?

And I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me: Saddam is killing his people, and that's bad (obviously), so what's our solution to the problem? A war, which will...kill a lot of the same people that we're trying to stop Saddam from killing.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

But explain to me how bombing a country will make us safer?

That was Clinton's strategy. He would lob missles into Iraq. It happened quite a few times during his presidency. He also lobbed them into the Sudan.

#1 People are forgetting that the main reason we were on the hit list from Al-Qaeda is that they were pissed off about us being in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To protect them from Saddam. We no longer have to be there and this makes us safer.

#2 This has created a front in a war which had no front. Hopefully it is pulling terrorsits towards Iraq and away from our land. This by itself makes us safer because they are focused on the military.

Is it pretty? No, it is not.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I must remind people that Al Qaeda in the 1990's was setup around the goal of removing infidels soldiers from Saudi Arabia, now this has already happened does Al Qaeda simply dissolve, Their Demand was answered do they stop attacking?

Answer is of course no, these are religious fanatics and they will not stop until civilization is brought to its knees and Word of Islam is the only thing left on this earth, not a happy picture because this ties in with the entire apocalypse death cult that is Islamist Terrorism in the Globalization Age.

If I had a magic wand and could remove despotism and replace it with freedom and peace in any place then I would in a heartbeat, I dont think that reinforcing bad regimes is the proper way to win any war on terror because the same problems will occur again (that is US support for dictatorships which turns people to the next best option which has become Islamism). Now in the real world we have to operate differently but when the oppertunity arises it must be taken, if the political will exists then it should be siezed. Now here is where it gets more fine, I do not advocate war against any and all dicatorships, I believe that using all tools at the disposal of the civilized world we may court them into reform. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is an awful leader however in that particular situation political pressure may be able to solve the problem and reform the government within a suitible timeframe. Pakistan too is a situation where by courting Musharraff the US is also using democratic reform as part of the Stick and Carrot game of diplomacy. Saudi Arabia, ah yes, now this is the Big Fish in my book. Saudi Arabia is already downright awful, it sponsers the enemies of the west with its oil money, it spreads a violent and expansionist ideology and its corrupt dealing with the world have given it a lot of enemies, now the problem is that you cannot put too much pressure on them or the Kingdom will collapse, if that occurs then oil prices would skyrocket and the global economy could crash, Europe and Asia would be especially hard hit and it would be a fuckup of monumentous scale. From such chaos an even worse system could take root and you could have an Afghanistan Redux with more money and control of a large portion of the world Oil, not a pretty picture. Saudi Arabia is why I think Iraq is a must succeed operation. If Iraq can provide stable supply and introduce liberal democratic principles into the region it may help accelerate reform in other more progressive Arab countries such as Jordan and Egypt. Saudi Arabia could then have more pressure applied to it and the internal politics may be swung in the favour of reformist elements. Now I dont know nearly enough about internal Saudi politics to formulate a plan however in principle Saudi Arabia must be changed from within because there is no way you could take millitary action there. Where theres a will theres a way, if both are there take it.

Lastly Saddam was killing a lot more people than the war itself. Some 100,000 people in Iraq are alive today because the US went in there with the Coalition. Some 15,000 civilians have been killed in the war and subsequent postwar situation. This is a vastly lower number than those who would be lying dead under Saddam. We have brought hope to Iraq in one of the most successful millitary campaigns in the history of the world, liberating a country with minimal casualties on all sides, if WW2 was worth the price in defeating Nazi Germany then supporting the Second (Technically Third) Gulf War is a no-brainer. Regardless of what talking heads say this campaign was brilliant, the country is moving forward steadily and the ludicrous claims of a mass exodus, Stalingrad style battle for Baghdad, use of WMD's against civilians or ethnic bloodbath predicted by the anti-war movement did not eventuate, mistakes were made to be sure but as one knows the best laid plans dont survive the first encounter. Some proponents out there did say that the US would be greeted as liberators but most did not, Iraq is going pretty much as I envisaged it, short war followed by long period of nation building where you are a day trip away for any budding Jihadis. In 20 years down the track if there is a stable liberal democratic Iraq standing as the first Beacon of freedom in the Middle East I know that history will judge the action as just and the first major victory against Islamic Fundamentalism where we took the fight to them and created a catalyst for change in the region.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:
#1 i mostly agree. But i don't think it's correct to say that the US troops were there to protect one dictator against the other. I think it's more "the US troops were there to protect the Oil of Saudi Arabia"

#2 Many people claim that this has created a front.
Is it really like that?
Does the Al-quaida now wear uniforms? Does the US see Al-Quaida on the battlefields? No! It's still terrorism also they (And not only Al-Quaida) make many terroristic strikes in iraq. Why? Because this country is easy to attack, nothing worth to worry for a terrorist. A weak Government which is not democratic elected and can't do anything without the help of the coaltion of the willing.

Maybe some of the terrorists are "lucky" and find the WMDs which could be there.
If they really get access to such weapons thanks to the chaos which is there we can only pray to God...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Al Qaeda does not really exist, it is just one part of the much vaster web of Islamic Fundamentalist Terror groups out there, see the enemy for what it really is Islamofascism from the operative planing a bombing to the power players Saudi Politics, it is a vast all encompassing problem that is not beaten by launching a few misiles or chasing around in Afghanistan, it is done by removing the support base and eliminating the key operatives and leaders.

The INTERIM government was selected mostly by the UN, when the elections do take place there will be a democratically elected government there calling the shots. That is a key part of nation building, transitional governments, East Timor had to do it and now Iraq does to, it doesnt do any good trying to make it out as a puppet regime in some sort of cold war replay.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:
What do you think about the US administration decision to harbour terrorists?
http://forum.interference.com/t94531.html

I don't think it has to do anything deeper with Islam, people like them just use whatever oportunity they have to get support of radicals. Because of Mr. Bushs behaviour it's the easiest way to get new terrorists by calling yourself "Islamofundamentalist who defends the arab world"

 

[TylerDurden]

#1 People are forgetting that the main reason we were on the hit list from Al-Qaeda is that they were pissed off about us being in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To protect them from Saddam. We no longer have to be there and this makes us safer.

#2 This has created a front in a war which had no front. Hopefully it is pulling terrorsits towards Iraq and away from our land. This by itself makes us safer because they are focused on the military.

Is it pretty? No, it is not.

You are not in Saudi Arabia. You are in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Once you are out of Saudi Arabia you will still be in Iraq.
You will be in Iraq for a very, very, very long time.
Even if there was no US military presense there (and there probably always will be, even just if it's in the form of bases) and simply a democratic government there, it will be a target for the same propaganda that makes you being in Saudi Arabia so dangerous. They had 2 reasons before (Israel, Saudi Arabia) and they now have either 3 (add Iraq) or still 2 (replace Saudi with Iraq).

Point #2 just isn't reality.

 

[Dreadsox]

Point #2 most definitely is. There are more terrorists going into Iraq which = safer America. It has created a battlefield.

Iraq is not the holy land, Saudi Arabia is.

Its nice to have differing opinions.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox
Afik Iraq has some holy places too.
And you're right, the Terrorists who do Suicidal attacks in Iraq can't come to the US but i think you forget that the situation there multiplies the number of people who are willing to join the terrorists.
I bet many Terrorists have Mr. Bush on VCR to show the people down there that he was talking about crusade, that there was torture in Iraqi prisons etc.