Yago
came undone
No country can exist with religious people in power without letting the people either Ski or get drunk on a Yacht ! That's a proven fact !
The George W. Bush Thread
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
Oh go on. I like mock indignation. 
But on topic I was under the impression that the latest news from Iran showed that there was a backlash against the 'Council' for restricting left wingers from standing for election. A step in the right direction don't you think?
But on topic I was under the impression that the latest news from Iran showed that there was a backlash against the 'Council' for restricting left wingers from standing for election. A step in the right direction don't you think?
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
It is, sure, but the process (at this rate) will take very long.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
In a nutshell, this is the attitude that a great many Americans take. GWBush has ACTED, after so many that have only talked, most specifically WJClinton.
I agree with Singer. The moderates are much more numerous than the hardliners. It's forcing the hardliners into some very dictatorial actions to maintain their hold on any power at all. Having free Shi'a next door in Iraq is not making it any easier for the hardliners. This is a situation that Washington is properly handling very delicately, but the simple fact of the US presence is an asset IMO.
J
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
I¨ll pick up the sword for western civilization now.
Clinton put in place a programme to specifically prevent any terrorist attack. All warnings were categorically ignored by the Bush Administration. Hence the ATTACK.
Saddam had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the terror.
I don't give a crying flute if you are going to join the troops. That does not in any way give you any authority on any matters at all, except as perhaps a pathologiocal case of utter stupidity.
Listen folks. The Republicans have been lying from day one. No republican have in any way so far been capable of disproving the MOUNTAIN of accusations against the war pigs.
And NOW we hear that they at least 'we' are capable of ACTING. Jusus Christ and the Mother of GOD. This is not a play!!!
The United States is not a Hamlet-like persona ready for a tragic but honorable defeat.
Over 9000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Over 3000 in Afghanistan. Note these are approved numbers. Unlike the numbers you read of what this and that regime has done.
Ladies and Gentlemen. The Fundamentalist will drag you down with them. Do not listen.
To say that 'a great many Americans' are taking the stance that the US should have troops in 190 countries and invade whenever oil interests is threatened is a blatant lie.
Now a NORMAL Christian would accept responsiblity unto himself, but, no, the FUNDAMENTALIST Christian just have to include everyone into their private hell.
And then there is this total and utter silence on the involvement of the Mossad in this whole affair. But let us not forget that a shoot out on the mideast is only the setting for the whole scene of the returning of Christ. Naturally the Jews are expendable. Remember James 'fvck the Jews" Baker III role in the election?
Stop this, or I will be voting for the total rearmament of Europe.
Moderator Action: Insults removed. Consider this a warning. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
ArbitraryGuy
Rusty Shackleford?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,076
Um... What program?
Please ready this summary of the Clinton Administration on Counterterrorism:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20040120.htm
Why not read the article the summery is based on insted... a different picture emerge.
Clarke[full name Richard A. Clarke] tried to raise the same action in the Bush administration prior to 911, and wanted to push this plan that the Clinton administration had brought forward(that was ready and delivered to the Bush administration). But he had nine futile months of fearsome fighting to get Terrorism on the Bush agenda to no real success. After 911, it was of course a different ball game.
More about Clark[leaving the Homland security department.] http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030129S0004
Could Clinton have done more, yes, could Bush I & II(prior to 911) have done more, yes.
So who is to blame, well I would guess the military system that hade not changed from the soviet threat to a new threat.
Plexus
Architeuthidae puericomedentis
On the discussion of "The Senate Rejected Kyoto 99-0", the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res 98) was passed 95-0 in '97:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Misleading and outright false. Dr, you are usually better with facts. Clinton's administration had programs, true, but recall that under that administration the first WTC attack occured. Over the course of 8 years Saddam was able to throw out the weapons inspectors and alQueda built itself into the organization that was able to carry out the 9/11 attack. Clinton was ineffective against terror, and in fact, paid the subject little attention.
As for intelligence failure in the 9/11 situation, there have been a number of threads. Suffice to say your statement is false. In the aftermath of ANY intelligence failure, there are obvious threads that get dropped and leads that are not followed. Your statement is tantamount to an accusation of willfully disregarding knowledge, solely for political reason, which is in your words, a blatant lie.
To say that Saddam had NOTHING to do with terrorism is humorously false. He gave wealth to Syria for example. He employed terrorism on his own populous. If you said that he had nothing to do with al Queda, you might be able to marshal an argument, but you might still lose the debate. To say his hands were perfectly clean of terrorism blood is laughable.
Such language. The GBA and the Republican party in general are not blameless. The entire issue of WMD was bungled, again in hindsight. As to accusations, persons with a political axe to grind have made many, such as your own. Show me some with some teeth and we'll could discuss them. As it is this is empty ranting.
I heard it was over 15,000. What is the point? Are you suggesting that the civilians were better off before the fighting?
Now we have a name. Since you reply to my post, I assume it is directed at me. If not, please advise. As to the factual basis of your claim, the US military is governing exactly ONE country. While I do not deny that the free flow of oil at market prices is central to the policy leading to the invasion, that is hardly the same as "invade whenever oil interests is threatened."
Again who is the Fundamentalist? Certainly I am not.
Now you want to have both sides of the argument. First you accuse the Mossad of involvement, then you call them expendable. The reason there is silence about the Mossad is that the Mossad is involved in Israel and not in Iraq. Pointedly so. This is pure dialectic smoke. What the return of Christ has to do with anything, you will need to elaborate.
What exactly was the role of James Baker III? Remind us. Which election for that matter?
All in all, this is not one of your better rants Dr. You raise few facts, and many of them are suspect. Insteadd you resort to name calling and inuendo. I said, and I stand by the statement, that a large part of the American electorate feels a strong sense of satisfaction about Iraq. They consider it a job that needed doing and a job that was well done.
The war was prosecuted almost flawlessly, with fewer casualties than the number of firemen lost on 9/11. The much more difficult job of getting the nation running again has proceeded well, given the short amount of time involved. As much press as they receive, postwar casualties amoung American and British servicemen are less than two a week. Compare that to the experience of USSR in Afghanistan.
The whole WMD aspect was bungled, that much is clear, yet the bigger picture remains clear. This was not an Imperialistic war, as the good Dr suggests. This was a situation that needed fixing on a number of levels, both small and large. Oil interests play a large part, true, but so do humanitarian interests, and a sense of unfinished business from the 1990/91 conflict. The fact that Saddam was in violation of a cease fire matters as well.
I suppose there will always be people that are suspicious of motives. The US taxpayer is bearing a substantial burden to calm suspicions that this is a war of aquisition. As I said above, the free flow of oil at market prices is benefit enough.
J
Morfos
Warlord
There is a huge difference between the right and the left.
The Right: I hate Right-Wingers for good reason. They consider anybody who disagrees with them either a moron, traitor, or communist. They are narrowminded and closed minded. Its unfortunate that they control our country. In politics they usually attack ideologies, such as Liberalism and Socialism.
The Left: The opposite of the right. They are more tolerant of people who disagree with them. In politics they attack the politicians, not the people who vote for them. I am a Liberal, so I am of the Left somewhat. And I hate the Right-Wing.
The Right: I hate Right-Wingers for good reason. They consider anybody who disagrees with them either a moron, traitor, or communist. They are narrowminded and closed minded. Its unfortunate that they control our country. In politics they usually attack ideologies, such as Liberalism and Socialism.
The Left: The opposite of the right. They are more tolerant of people who disagree with them. In politics they attack the politicians, not the people who vote for them. I am a Liberal, so I am of the Left somewhat. And I hate the Right-Wing.
wildWolverine
L'Etat, c'est moi
It seems to me that your post is closed-minded and intolerant, yet you call yourself liberal -- isn't that an oxymoron by your definitions?
ArbitraryGuy
Rusty Shackleford?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,076
That's a really tolerant stance... you "hate" those that don't agree with you. Seems you've shown us the truth: Liberals claim tolerance, but in reality are loathing, spiteful, and hateful of those that don't agree with them. Why? Because liberalism has no valid ideological argument... but that's another topic
I don't see how you can really lay down the entire fault of the 1993 WTC bombing at Clinton's door. He was in office barely a month when it happened. A lot of the blame fell on the FBI, actually.
Say what you want about him not making Fortress America, but dragging things up from the past like that isn't going to do anything. Americans were used to terrorism being an overseas adventure, save Oklahoma City, a domestic affair. But if it is true that Clinton's gathered intelligence was passed onto Bush, he had 8 months to do something about it. By then, his teams would be settled into Washington and they could get work done. If that is true...then Bush was really caught off-guard.
Say what you want about him not making Fortress America, but dragging things up from the past like that isn't going to do anything. Americans were used to terrorism being an overseas adventure, save Oklahoma City, a domestic affair. But if it is true that Clinton's gathered intelligence was passed onto Bush, he had 8 months to do something about it. By then, his teams would be settled into Washington and they could get work done. If that is true...then Bush was really caught off-guard.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Works for me.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
The "New American Century" guys can hardly be called unbiased. PNAC is controlled by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. I wouldn't trust that site.
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
Remember that 3000 elderly Jews in a Florida county were registered as having voted for Pat Buchanan. He is on record as having written that the US should have allied themselves with Nazis during World War Two. I consider this an anomaly.
If the Jews are generally considered to have the tendency to vote Republican I doubt that this vould have happened. Indeed james Baker is on record as having said "**** the Jews, they won't vote for us anyway".
And on another matter. Sorry for comparing you to a fundamnetalist. Nevertheless the fundamentalist vote is very important for George Bush. there is no denying that.
The fundamentalist generally believe that the UN is an evil organisation. That Clinton is a murderer. That terrorizing abotion doctors and their patients is ok. That Christ will be ressurected after the armageddon in the Middle East where the Jews are destroyed. Clearly insane.
I'd never use PNAC as a totally credible source. To them, Clinton and bin Laden were best buds.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
Right. They're whole platform is bent on world domination using many key outposts and stations strategically positioned across the globe. It's really scary stuff. I'm not making this up.
EDIT: Wow, that really makes me sound crazy. Ah well.
