Why Bush, Why??????? - Page 4 - 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 09-20-2002, 03:29 PM   #61
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,683
Local Time: 02:42 AM

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.

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.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 03:32 PM   #62
The Fly
 
babble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lynn Haven, FL
Posts: 145
Local Time: 02:42 AM
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
I donīt think he is a sadist - he just doesnīt give a fuck, which is the same bad in his position. He doesnīt care, you know. He doesnīt 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 doesnīt 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 heīs doing, just like every psychopathic street killer whoīs able to lie to the... what do they call it... truth detector?
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
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.
__________________

babble is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 03:37 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:42 AM

I feel a bit of a celeribty in FYM.
An Egnima of sorts
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-
diamond is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 08:28 PM   #64
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 08:42 AM
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.
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 09:04 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:42 AM
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.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 09:45 PM   #66
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes
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.

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.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 09:59 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,568
Local Time: 02:42 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.

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? .

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
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 10:12 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:42 AM
NO more discussion of censorship or modding policies in this thread. by ANYONE. next mention of it, the thread will close.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 12:46 AM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,568
Local Time: 02:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
NO more discussion of censorship or modding policies in this thread. by ANYONE. next mention of it, the thread will close.
Just curious...why can't we discuss that? And why would the thread close if we do?

Angela
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 12:54 AM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:42 AM
because that is not the topic of this thread.

angela, i urge you to pm me if you have questions.




no more.


lilly.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 12:55 AM   #71
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:42 PM
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.
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 04:07 AM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Re: Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Quote:
Originally posted by babble

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
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 11:12 AM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,815
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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!



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.
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 09-21-2002, 04:57 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:42 AM
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 is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 05:03 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,568
Local Time: 02:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 05:24 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:42 AM
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.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 02:08 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:42 AM
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. ī

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 donīt tell me Saddam is a terrorist!

If you donīt 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?
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 04:13 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
[i]If you donīt 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.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 06:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:42 AM
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!
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 12:04 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:42 AM
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. wouldnīt 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? Wouldnīt 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 doesnīt assume that I know a military plan. It is very easy to understand that if you donīt 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 STING2īs opinion (The goal of any US operation) seem to differ a little on that matter.
__________________

hiphop 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 03:42 AM.


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