Why Bush, Why??????? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-17-2002, 12:22 PM   #21
The Fly
 
bono_luvva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 82
Local Time: 08:48 AM
how can you say something anything like 'iraq will be toast'
haven't you thought of the thousands of people who have nothing to do with iraq apart from living in it (not as stupid as it sounds)......all these innocent people will die if 'iraq will be toast'...just think about it
__________________

bono_luvva is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 12:28 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Dreadsox, please do not let facts get in the way of the Bush bashing.
yeah Dread..you are sorta interrupting the loving spirit of ppl from the left in this thread

DB9
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 12:45 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

yeah Dread..you are sorta interrupting the loving spirit of ppl from the left in this thread

DB9
Whats up with you dude?

I know we may have different political viewpoints, but your comments in this thread were reduced to pure cynicism.

No offense, but I think thats uncool, diamond. It neither fits your style nor your personality.

I am sure I got lots of more loving spirit than your idol Bush, and I dont like when people joke me when I am, for one time, not showing it.

Ok, daddy?
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 12:50 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:48 AM
No prob HipHop w us.
I do think its uncool to bash ANY Pres in office tho regardless of ANY party affiliation.
Ok?
No worries..


Peace-
Dave
diamond is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 01:15 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
I do think its uncool to bash ANY Pres in office tho regardless of ANY party affiliation.
brother

Do you really think its uncool to bash any President in office? Why I ask myself. Several reasons possible, one of them that if you (I) were (was) in his (the Presidents) shoes, who knows what we would (have to) do (in order to stay alive and well).

I dont think its particularly cool, but I think power should be controlled. W the President it cant really be controlled, so at least some criticism is important - important for him, too (if he wasnt the criminal he actually is - sorry to appear uncool now... thats life ).
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 04:09 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
OK


FACT: Itaq is TOAST if Saddam does not follow through this time. The UN will take action.



Peace to all.
First...I should never type that early in the morning. Excuse the Ttaq and change it to Iraq.

2nd: Poor choice of words toast. It was insensative. I will now correct it.

Please change this fact to:

FACT The United Nations will be forced to take action and remove the curent regime.

That sounds so much better than toast.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 04:25 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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.
Yes, and I have corrected my toast comment. I disagree with the term murder. The correct terms are "casualty of war" and unfortunatley "collateral damage". Murder is what their leader has done to their own population. Please, do not call the men and women who serve this country by putting their lives on the line murderes.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
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.
Having been a PROUD member of the United States Army in 1991 I understand everything you are saying. I remember how quickly they surrendered, to reporters and service people. They were terrified and beaten down. Unfortunately, Saddam is not going to line his troops up out in the open this time. They will be in the cities, next to schools, mosques, and hospitals and he will dare us to conduct another air campaign.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
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."[/B]
Again, words were poor. I am sorry. Brace yourself because if this goes down it will be worse than Desert Storm. Unfortunatley, the world is faced with a difficult decision.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
(Sorry Dreadsox, I was replying to your statement to begin with, but I'm not actually directing all of this post at you specifically.) [/B]
It's not personal. The facts are the facts. Debate is good in a democratic society.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are suddenly in line with the Bush Administration and if the UN says go in and remove Saddam it will happen. Again, sorry about my poor word choice.

peace to all
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 10:02 PM   #28
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
OK

FACT: Iraq invaded another country.


Ok, time for some homework peoples, why dont you all try and find out exactly who it was that initially gave an unoficial allowance for Iraq to gain entry into Kuwait in order to trade their oil from a sea port in the late 80s???and where was this oil going to end up- gee I wonder????- sometimes you know, what you perceive to be 'facts' are in fact wrong, or rather they have been politicised and used as propaganda, now you can all flame me for this one, but hey the American media in all of its various genres has never been very good at giving an un-biased and correct acount of events- they generally serve up sugary and patriotic tripe in order to keep the spoon fed masses under the thumb whilst wearing their rose coloured glasses or should that be stars'n'stripes??????
OzAurora is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 10:10 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by OzAurora


Ok, time for some homework peoples, why dont you all try and find out exactly who it was that initially gave an unoficial allowance for Iraq to gain entry into Kuwait in order to trade their oil from a sea port in the late 80s???
Please....enlighten us with your accurate sources. It does not change the fact that Iraq invaded another country.

Peace to ALL
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 02:53 AM   #30
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 08:48 AM
I don't think Bush is that bad. He's probably an alright guy. I think he's probably nice enough, pretty funny, dumb as a plank of wood.

Bush is only a worry because he isn't that smart. He's just a monkey puppet. It's Cheney and Rumsfeld who are the real worry. If I could give one bit of advice to Bush it would be 'more Powell, less the other two'. At least problems would be getting fixed rather then more fucked up.

The argument with Iraq has so many holes in it, on both sides. As it stands, where the game is right now, this hour, I don't think either the 'for' or 'against' can really claim to win any argument. It's a real mess. I think an unnecessary mess. Now the situation with the UN has gotten really complicated really quickly. It's going to be a really really big deal from here on in.

I have a list of about 50 questions I'd love a few people here to answer, but Im afraid of what the thread would turn into... it's actually not political, just more 'what now' questions. I think you can forget asking whether or not the US should attack Iraq, it's going to happen, it's more how, when, under what law, what next, what happens to the UN, what happens to the world...

Iraq may end up getting themselves blown off the map, but in the process they may make the US look really terrible and may spark the beginning of the end of the UN. The winner is..?
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 08:22 AM   #31
The Fly
 
bono_luvva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 82
Local Time: 08:48 AM
if everything turns out ok then bush will just start a war with a different country...
bono_luvva is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 11:27 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Yes, and I have corrected my toast comment. I disagree with the term murder. The correct terms are "casualty of war" and unfortunatley "collateral damage". Murder is what their leader has done to their own population. Please, do not call the men and women who serve this country by putting their lives on the line murderes.


I disagree too - with the term "collateral damage." These are people's lives we're talking about - not buildings that happened to get in the way and be destroyed. To dismiss that as just "collateral damage" is to dehumanise those people and claim their lives are unimportant and expendable. If the US bombs Iraq tens of thousands of innocent people will die. I'm sure people like to make themselves feel better about those deaths by distancing themselves from the reality, and dismissing it as "collateral damage" but that shows a complete and utter disregard for human life. The life of a person in Iraq is worth the same as the life of a person in the United States and I'm sure most people would hate to hear American citizens referred to as collateral damage so please don't use that term to refer to the Iraqi people either.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Saddam is not going to line his troops up out in the open this time. They will be in the cities, next to schools, mosques, and hospitals and he will dare us to conduct another air campaign.


Saddam hasn't dared the United States to do anything - the US will bomb Iraq from the skies because that way it can almost guarantee the safety of US troops, no matter what the cost to the Iraqi people. You think there are any circumstances under which Bush would fight a war on the ground, which entailed less risk to innocent Iraqis, but more risk to the United States? Not a chance.

Quote:
Brace yourself because if this goes down it will be worse than Desert Storm. Unfortunatley, the world is faced with a difficult decision.


I know it'll be worse than Desert Storm, as horrifying as it is to imagine that. That's exactly why I don't simply "brace myself" for the start of bombing raids - I get involved in campaigning against them ever beginning.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 02:55 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Just a few points here. When the Police in your community are called on to use deadly force to stop a criminal, people in your community may get caught in the crossfire. No one dismisses this, but this fact cannot stop one from acting in order to prevent greater loss of life down the road. All lives are equal, but 100,000 lives do have priority over 10,000 as sad is that sounds. To not be able to act at all for the fear of the deaths of innocent civilians would mean that Hitler would rule the planet.

Our soldiers do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties including puting their lives at great risk. Also, ground operations can increase civilian casualties over airstrikes because the circumstances of and environment in which combat could erupt in an urban environment do not lend themselves to the lengthy well researched, thought out, and precision targeting that is involved with most airstrikes with modern US technology! This is in total contrast to a war like World War II where precision targeting from the air really did not exist. If we had bombed Baghdad with World War II technology back in the 1991 Gulf War, we would have killed millions of people. Now thanks to heavy defense spending and the resultant increase in technology, precision targeting while not 100% perfect, has saved perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives when the US goes to war.

It should also be noted that nearly half of Iraq's military losses came during the 4 day ground war, contrary to popular belief that the 1991 Gulf War was just an air war.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 05:31 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

I disagree too - with the term "collateral damage." These are people's lives we're talking about - not buildings that happened to get in the way and be destroyed. To dismiss that as just "collateral damage" is to dehumanise those people and claim their lives are unimportant and expendable. [/B]
Well, call it what you will. You are wrong to call it murder. Their leader is the person making thier lives expendable not our military. I did use the word "unfortunately" before the words "collateral damage". It is better than calling the soldiers who protect my country murderers.

The problem here is that we do not dehumanize people and claim their lives as expendable. However, it seems like it would be okay to allow this man to continue to violate UN Resolutions and Peace agreements again and again. It is okay for him to potentially develop a Nuke. This is a man who tryed to bring the whole region into the war by lobbing bombs at Israel during Desert Storm. Talk about "dehumanizing" people. If you remember Israel was not even involved in the war. Do you think he would not think twice about lobbing a Nuke/Biological weapon this time?

Maybe we should wait and let Israel do it themselves. Do you think the entire Arab world would sit back while Israel eliminates the threat on their own?

The United States would not have to act if the United Nations would enforce its own resolutions surrounding Iraq, period.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
If the US bombs Iraq tens of thousands of innocent people will die. I'm sure people like to make themselves feel better about those deaths by distancing themselves from the reality, and dismissing it as "collateral damage" but that shows a complete and utter disregard for human life. The life of a person in Iraq is worth the same as the life of a person in the United States and I'm sure most people would hate to hear American citizens referred to as collateral damage so please don't use that term to refer to the Iraqi people either.[/B]
I really resent this statement. Honestly, if you think a soldier takes pleasure in the use of deadly force there is no point in discussing this. I know of no person other than the truly sick people in this world who take pleasure in killing. You called it murder. As for hating to hear American Citizens call it "collateral damage" I am sure murder will fly much better.

No one said their life is not worth the same. It seems by the actions of their own leaders they feel otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Saddam hasn't dared the United States to do anything - the US will bomb Iraq from the skies because that way it can almost guarantee the safety of US troops, no matter what the cost to the Iraqi people. You think there are any circumstances under which Bush would fight a war on the ground, which entailed less risk to innocent Iraqis, but more risk to the United States? Not a chance.[/B]
OK. You are not listening to what I said.

to quote myself:
"They WILL be in the cities, next to schools, mosques, and hospitals and he WILL dare us to conduct another air campaign."


Saddam had his troops out in the open last time. They will not be this time. They will be placed next to churches, schools, mosques in the event of a war this time. This WILL increase the civilian casualties because he is trying to eliminate the effectiveness of the air campaign. When I said he will "DARE US" I was referring to this strategy. I never said he "IS" daring us.

As for any circumstances at a ground war... We had a ground war last time after about 45 days of bombing I believe. Was it effective at protecting the lives of people who put their lives on the line for my country yes. It is absolutely sound strategy to bomb them. Is it horrifying that this time more civilians will be a risk, absolutely. The problem is we are dealing with a coward who would rather see innocent people risked by placing his troups in highly poulated civilian areas.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
I know it'll be worse than Desert Storm, as horrifying as it is to imagine that. That's exactly why I don't simply "brace myself" for the start of bombing raids - I get involved in campaigning against them ever beginning. [/B]
This is where we differ. If the United Nations does not enforce the cease fire agreement then the United Nations is a useless organization. Their agreements and decisions will mean absolutely nothing in this world. If that is true, then there is no hope for peace in this world.

You said in your last statement it is not personal. I hope that is still so. I am not "bracing myself" either. I have called my congressman and senators and emailed them in support of the president of my country. The nice thing is that you and I can differ on things and still do our part. Although it seems like things are working with the strategy of my president.

The fact remains that President Bush, no matter how much people do not like him, has gotten the UN to act. Through diplomacy Egypt and Saudi Arabia have pledged to support UN action if it is deamed to go through. It is FACT that Saddam seems to be backing down and is moving towards inspections. It is a FACT that we are not at war, yet and I hope the UN can continue to apply the pressure.

Sounds like things are going great.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 07:56 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Quote:
Originally posted by OzAurora
For any of you who are Bush lovers than I think I better warn you that you probably should not read any further. In this post you are going to hear my true feelings towards this guy- and it aint nice, yes all of my opinions will probably be flawed by your standards if you like him, but I dont care, no amount of persuasive rhetoric will make me change my mind-call my thoughts here subjective or whatever you like- just dont rant and rave pro-bush crap, this is a thread for those who oppose this mans beliefs to discuss why it is that he is the way that he is. So after saying that I would just like to know why this man wnats to single handedly try and start or lay the foundations down for what could be WW III, a war based on escalating the already established conflicts between christian and muslim, why does he believe that he can do this- no one apart from Blair adheres to his campaign- I for one certainly dont, I see him as an arrogant war monger trying to finsih off what his Daddy started. I realise three things for certain,

The war machine fuels the American economy

There is oil in Iraq

Sadam is a product of the Reagan adminstration's own doing- remember the Iran/Iraq war- one of their own 'puppets' who they now want to bomb the crapper out of- how hypocritical, just look back to Vietnam guys, it probably wont work or it will esculate out of and beyond control...

Why does Bush feel that he can over ride the wishes and concerns of both the UN and practically every 'western' country in the world- does this man have a plank of wood between his head??? is he a sadist and gets great pleasure from killing, maming, seeing countries struggle into economic dissaray and having countless people the world over despise both him and his policies........

Now to the issue of Sadam- sure I can congress that he is a mad-man, but in all honesty from where I stand both he and Bush dont really share to many disparities at the moment, it is kinda like who is the lesser evil?????? and really if Sadam wants to make chemical weapons, how on earth is he going to do this, where on earth is he going to get the weapons grade plutonium from???? anyway this could go on for ages but I just want to let you know that I despise Bush and everything that he stands for why does he think that he can act as a supreme, benevolent dictator to the world???? I wish he would go an nuke himself and all of his propaganda bullshit up instead


If you ever wonder why conservatives criticize liberals as children, look no further! It's a wonder to me that 99% of this trash comes from the Europeans and Australians. I guess you can't help it since the vast majority of your politicians and media are ultra-liberal and you've basically been brainwashed with only one political point of view.

Every point you make in this thread is based on pointless conjecture. To suggest that attacking Iraq will cause WWIII is to assume that the Muslim countries around Saddam will support him in an all out attack on the west (or just the USA). First, the countries around Iraq that could join him in such a war would never support him. There's no way Iran is joining in because of their conflict with Iraq. The Saudis are out of the question because we have decent relations with them and they sell 16% of their oil to us so they are also financially bound to us. Jordan is close allies with the U.S. so they are out of the question as well as Kuwait. So, who exactly is willing to perpetuate such a Muslim vs. Christian war other than terrorist groups, which we are already at war with?

"The war machine fuels the American economy"

Does it every bother you liberals that these phrases are used so often and without regard to logic that they become cliches? While it is true that war-time economies see a boost in certain sectors, we're definitely going to lose a lot of money fighting this war. Make up your minds liberals! Half of your are bitching that the war is too expensive and the other half are bitching that the war will make us money.

Also, it seems like all of you children seem to use the "worst case doomsday scenario" a little too often. Everyone remember all the fear the left was trying to spread in response to our war in Afghanistan? What happened there? WWIII? Nope.
Will Iraq escalate into Vietnam? To even suggest that it would shows that you have no idea what went wrong in Vietnam. Even Bill Clinton is quoted as saying that he would be surprised if the war took longer than a week. Really, there is no comparison between a guerilla war in Vietnam and a potential war in Iraq.

" is he a sadist and gets great pleasure from killing, maming, seeing countries struggle into economic dissaray and having countless people the world over despise both him and his policies........"

How many wars have we fought so far during his administration? One. Let's not forget that the country paused for quite some time before pursuing a war in Afghanistan. He could have just jumped into it, but he didn't. He took his time and built a broad base of support among our allies. He delivered speeches at mosques asking for tolerance towards Muslims and he met with dozens of international leaders. Maybe these comments might be legitimate if there was no 9-11 and we just attacked Afghanistan for fun, but we didn't. Similarly, he didn't have to go to the UN and give this speech. He could have just attacked since he already had a lot of support within congress to do so. Why shouldn't we cave into the pressures of a bunch of socialist pacificists you ask? Are Americans no longer in charge of our own destiny? Has our representative democracy failed us to the point where we need a bunch of nations (who are mostly economically dependent on us) to dictate our foreign policy for us? NO!

"Now to the issue of Sadam- sure I can congress that he is a mad-man, but in all honesty from where I stand both he and Bush dont really share to many disparities at the moment, it is kinda like who is the lesser evil??????"

What is the difference between Bush and Saddam Hussein?

Hussein:
-Used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurds in his OWN country (the most widespread use of such a weapon ever). In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.
-Launched a war against Iran killing nearly a million people.
-Builds mosques in his honor on every birthday using billions of dollars he could be using to feed his people.
-Only taking advantage of half the amount of UN aid (in the U.N. oil-for-food program), which amounts to a 4 billion dollar loss of aid that his people can't use.
-Destruction of over 3,000 Kurdish villages. The Iraqi government's campaign of forced deportations of Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern Iraq has created approximately 900,000 internally displaced citizens throughout the country.
-the violent suppression of the 1991 uprising that led to 30,000 or more mostly civilian deaths
- the draining of the southern marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed Hussein's southern flank of thousands of Iraqi Shiites
-execution of thousands of political prisoners
-Invasion of Kuwait in 1990
-Following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi authorities killed more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians, held foreign diplomats hostage, unleashed environmental crimes on a colossal scale, looted Kuwaiti property, rained missiles down on Israeli civilians and committed war crimes against American soldiers. The fate of more than 600 missing Kuwaiti citizens remains unknown.

Bush:
You fill in the blank here and try to make it match what I listed above. Clearly you've done a lot of thinking about this comparison, so I'm looking forward to your list.

"and really if Sadam wants to make chemical weapons, how on earth is he going to do this, where on earth is he going to get the weapons grade plutonium from???"

Where is Saddam going to get a nuke or chemical weapons!? Are you freaking serious!? Come on!

According to UNSCOM findings, Iraq has produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin (produces liver cancer) and clostridium (gas gangrene). Iraq
has admitted to arming ballistic missiles with botulinum, anthrax, and aflatoxin. Saddam said the VX nerve project was a failure. He has now admitted producing four tons of VX nerve agent. Over 600 tons of VX precursors are not accounted for. These could make 200 tons of VX. One drop of VX is enough to kill dozens.

Since the end of the Cold War, a murky nuclear black market has emerged in and around the former Soviet Union. Facilities in the new republics where weapons-grade nuclear materials are stored are poorly guarded and there have reportedly been many cases of smuggling of nuclear materials to unknown buyers outside Russia, usually by transnational criminal organizations.

Let me say again how much I hate ultra-liberals. Let me count the ways.....Your baseless generalizations, thoughtless analogies and general stupidity is almost endearing....almost. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars & FizzingWhizzbees deliver no surprise once again.


MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 08:02 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Oh My Goodness!!!!!!!!

Did someone just use FACTS to make a point?????


hehe!!!!!!!

I do not hate anyone liberals ect. But I love people who use facts to make their points!


Peace to all
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 10:08 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Well said garibaldo.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 12:05 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Sorry this is going to be a very short reply, I don't have much time online but just wanted to respond very briefly to these points:

Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
If you ever wonder why conservatives criticize liberals as children, look no further! It's a wonder to me that 99% of this trash comes from the Europeans and Australians. I guess you can't help it since the vast majority of your politicians and media are ultra-liberal and you've basically been brainwashed with only one political point of view.


I'm not sure how much you know about European politics, but to describe Europe as having "ultra-liberal" politics is simply incorrect. There's been a massive increase in the power of the centre-right in European politics lately. France is a prime example - Chirac won the election, but his opponent was the extreme right Jean Marie Le Pen - it was hardly a triumph for the left that Jospin was defeated in the first round. Berlusconi is in power in Italy and I don't think anyone would dream of calling him a liberal! In Germany the centre-left Schroeder isn't doing particularly well in his bid for re-election, and Spain isn't exactly known as a stronghold of the left either. Even in Britain Tony Blair is showing his right-wing colours by backing war with Iraq. Perhaps someone from Australia would like to chip in with some more info, but last time I checked, John Howard was hardly a left wing politician either.

And quite frankly, to say people have been brainwashed is nothing less than insulting. Many of the people I've talked to here (yes, both left and right of the political spectrum) are well-educated people who research issues throughly before coming to their own conclusions on them - they haven't been brainwashed by anyone.

Quote:
Does it every bother you liberals that these phrases are used so often and without regard to logic that they become cliches? While it is true that war-time economies see a boost in certain sectors, we're definitely going to lose a lot of money fighting this war. Make up your minds liberals! Half of your are bitching that the war is too expensive and the other half are bitching that the war will make us money.


It's not a contradiction at all. The concern is that wars are extremely costly for the state and mean that money raised through taxation must be spent on the military. Many people on the left believe that this money would be better spent on education, or on healthcare, or social security. However, it's also true that wars are good for the economy - WWII is perhaps the best example of this, as many historians actually believe it was only WWII that finally brought the United States out of the depression of the 1930s. Whether you agree with that point or not, you still have to acknowledge that the US economy was much larger and stronger in 1945 than in 1939. There's really no contradiction between arguing against war because of its cost and stating that it benefits the economy.

Quote:
Let me say again how much I hate ultra-liberals. Let me count the ways.....Your baseless generalizations, thoughtless analogies and general stupidity is almost endearing....almost. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars & FizzingWhizzbees deliver no surprise once again.


MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
Point one - I don't think talking about how much you hate people of certain political persuasions really strengthens your argument. Perhaps in future we could keep discussions focused on the issues and avoid resorting to personal insults.

Point two - I'm not a liberal. Thank you.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 12:31 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Fizzing,

Aside from bringing down the price of oil over the long run, could you explain what the economic benifit of the 1991 Gulf War was to George Bush I and the US economy? World War II is sited as helping the economy in the USA and in this particular circumstance it probably did, but the US economy would have grown with or without the war, the economy was already rising out of the Great Depression. Its true that countries go to war to defend their economic interest, but not for economic gain unless their planning on raping or stealing another countries assets as in the case of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 12:48 PM   #40
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
I'm sick of this stuff

even it it were true (and I would say it isn't) then it adds nothing to the rest of your post + I don't see what the political inclination of mods has anything to do with the threads and posts that are in fym

not that many threads are closed and when mods do close threads it usually is because of the way people act instead of the (political) content of the thread at hand

it gets nearly impossible to moderate this forum in any way when you are (for no particular reason) being labelled as a biased leftie every day



everyone going out of his way blaming the mods for the state FYM is in will be reported to the admins
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×