They did by not sending troops to support us and saying they didn't have reason to believe weapons were there.
QFTNot wrote:
They did by not sending troops to support us and saying they didn't have reason to believe weapons were there.
Who actually went with us again? UK, Australia, Poland, Canada......
So actually exposing the truth was too hard to do? I'm sure the Iraqi people appreciate that. The French would have done anything to prevent a war in Iraq and if they had any evidence that would stop it they would have provided it.
France sold $20+ billion worth of weapons, including Mirage fighters, to Iraq, and was Iraq's biggest trading partner (after Russia). Iraq made France its largest oil market in Europe. France stood to lose billions in repayments of monies owed on these weapons.
France sold $20+ billion worth of weapons, including Mirage fighters, to Iraq, and was Iraq's biggest trading partner (after Russia). Iraq made France its largest oil market in Europe. France stood to lose billions in repayments of monies owed on these weapons.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-22 11:40:42)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Notice how I only pointed out that one of your points of emphasis was flawed, AND IT IS, that you're whole group of liberal croonies jumped all over me. I'm not even disagreeing with you people that maybe Bush is wrong about wanting to send more troops FFS. The moment I even slightly disagree with you I somehow get thrown into the whole neocon, love war, redneck crowd. So I'm not even going to go any further. Clearly I'm wrong, and even when you are wrong, you are somehow right.
Arguing with my objectivity? Bitch please, I'm generally as neutral as it gets. I don't form strong opinions on many issues because generally things are too gray. What bothers me however is when people bitch unjustly. So when I come into a thread and see bullshit, I call people out on it.
And NOT, I've been to Duluth. It's a nice city. Now stfu.
Arguing with my objectivity? Bitch please, I'm generally as neutral as it gets. I don't form strong opinions on many issues because generally things are too gray. What bothers me however is when people bitch unjustly. So when I come into a thread and see bullshit, I call people out on it.
And NOT, I've been to Duluth. It's a nice city. Now stfu.
As I mentioned before, my point was that Bush is not listening to anyone, and the poll results clearly illustrate that fact.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Notice how I only pointed out that one of your points of emphasis was flawed, AND IT IS
Please explain how this is flawed.
Please show us where anyone said or implied these things about you, or for that matter, called you any names.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
The moment I even slightly disagree with you I somehow get thrown into the whole neocon, love war, redneck crowd.
Time for an intervention, Ajax: you're the one prone to personal attacks. You're the one name-calling. To wit, in this thread alone you've called either me or others:
- dipshits
- idiots
- biased idiot
- "arogant" prick
- liberal "croonies"
Somehow you still believe I'm arguing with your objectivity. I'm not. I'm repeatedly showing you that you'd misunderstood something I'd written, and am trying to help you understand what I meant. But you seem to just get increasingly offensive with your cussing, name-calling, and , and now you're playing the wounded card.
Here's a tip both for yourself and for Bush: when everyone else disagrees with you, and few if any are defending you, you just might be wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14278216/The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Lowing, my good friend, both of us know that I never said such a thing.lowing wrote:
So, BOTH of you are going to REALLY REALLY maintain that you have NEVER, NOT ONCE, READ ANYTHING about terror attacks being uncovered to take place in the US since 911??.......You go ahead and admit that, as truth, and I will post some links for you.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Exactly.
Why should we back up any contention we ever make, when we can just assign the burden of proof to everyone else?
I suggest putting away your indignation, your all-caps, your triple question-marks, and your "gotcha" games and instead just posting some evidence when people ask for it.
And for the record, he's requesting links showing Bush's actions leading to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Exempli gratia: the London foiling, as uncovered by (if I remember right) London's finest with help from some Pakistanis, is something that could not be considered a victory of Bush's.
http://london.usembassy.gov/terror638.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/06/newyor … index.html
With your logic that BUSH himself did not thwart any attacks and should get no credit. Then BUSH himself did not torture anyone, or "invade" Iraq, and should not be blamed. But let me guess, it doesn't work that way does it???
I would encourage you to read my comments again, lowing. I've underlined a key part above for your convenience. I suggested that your links should show that Bush's actions led to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Led to. This does not mean that I need Bush to be the one holding up evil bearded men at gunpoint. It also doesn't mean that if anyone anywhere stops a terrorist plot that we should all line up to thank Poppa Bush for Saving Us.lowing wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14278216/The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Lowing, my good friend, both of us know that I never said such a thing.lowing wrote:
So, BOTH of you are going to REALLY REALLY maintain that you have NEVER, NOT ONCE, READ ANYTHING about terror attacks being uncovered to take place in the US since 911??.......You go ahead and admit that, as truth, and I will post some links for you.
I suggest putting away your indignation, your all-caps, your triple question-marks, and your "gotcha" games and instead just posting some evidence when people ask for it.
And for the record, he's requesting links showing Bush's actions leading to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Exempli gratia: the London foiling, as uncovered by (if I remember right) London's finest with help from some Pakistanis, is something that could not be considered a victory of Bush's.
http://london.usembassy.gov/terror638.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/06/newyor … index.html
With your logic that BUSH himself did not thwart any attacks and should get no credit. Then BUSH himself did not torture anyone, or "invade" Iraq, and should not be blamed. But let me guess, it doesn't work that way does it???
Actually, I think that does sort of make sense. Bush himself gave the orders (against the caution of military officials and the UN) to attack Iraq. He also defended and approved of the use of torture. So for those it is fair to say he is responsible (along with others involved).lowing wrote:
With your logic that BUSH himself did not thwart any attacks and should get no credit. Then BUSH himself did not torture anyone, or "invade" Iraq, and should not be blamed. But let me guess, it doesn't work that way does it???
You can't really give him direct credit for stopping a terrorist attack though. The FBI, CIA, and military work constantly to prevent such things regardless of the president. It's not like they wait for the president to give the order, "hey guys, don't forget to try to prevent terrorist attacks." It's not like some presidents give orders to NOT prevent terrorist attacks.
Also, one of the link you provided was a terror attack stopped by the British government. The US government was simply relaying the info to the press.
Last edited by QuadDamage@U (2006-12-22 13:54:47)
The CNN link was to a story about the NYC subway being on alert. "No arrests have been made in Manhattan, but operations continue outside the city." Nothing about thwarted plots.QuadDamage@U wrote:
Also, one of the link you provided was a terror attack stopped by the British government. The US government was simply relaying the info to the press.
Regarding the foiled plot in Los Angeles, I'll buy it. But I want to look for any corroborating stories though about this attack. It smells a little fishy to me that city officials - including the mayor of Los Angeles - would know absolutely nothing about this attack nor the related arrests until a day before the White House press conference held months later.
Anyway, it occurs to me lowing that you're in a difficult position anyway to provide what anyone else can believe would be concrete evidence of thwarted plots. Because of the nature of this kind of thing, the only evidence you can provide would originate from the White House, Pentagon, or Dept of Homeland Security. But with many of us finding it hard to trust any of these, the thwarted LA terror plot White House press briefing sounds a bit like "We caught some evil guys, the details are secret and we can't release any of their names nor any other information, sorry, but trust us that we caught them so be thankful for the War on Terror and NSA wiretapping." Honestly it's difficult to argue for that or against it, no fault of yours nor mine.
First, I won't stfu because you want me to. Sorry. I'll continue to make my points with valid reasoning, devoid of name calling and flaming rants. Try it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Notice how I only pointed out that one of your points of emphasis was flawed, AND IT IS, that you're whole group of liberal croonies jumped all over me. I'm not even disagreeing with you people that maybe Bush is wrong about wanting to send more troops FFS. The moment I even slightly disagree with you I somehow get thrown into the whole neocon, love war, redneck crowd. So I'm not even going to go any further. Clearly I'm wrong, and even when you are wrong, you are somehow right.
Arguing with my objectivity? Bitch please, I'm generally as neutral as it gets. I don't form strong opinions on many issues because generally things are too gray. What bothers me however is when people bitch unjustly. So when I come into a thread and see bullshit, I call people out on it.
And NOT, I've been to Duluth. It's a nice city. Now stfu.
Second, I'm not a liberal. I'm a real conservative. And any REAL conservative can see how God awful this administration is. It's a joke. They're weak on spending, weak on borders, weak on war. They're an embarrasment to the Republican party.
Please, never call me a liberal again. I'm not a psychopath. I can think for myself. This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. It's a plain simple fact, and many experts on both sides of the fence agree, that this presidency is a train wreck.
I seem to think you are about 15?Des.Kmal wrote:
yeah? well im going to come to ur house, beat the shit out of you and take all of your possesions. what are you going to do about it?Because no war is a good war? The only winning move is not to play. I think that alone makes me more intelligent than any warmonger.
There's no need for Bush to listen to that poll. I don't listen to critics, especially those who aren't experts, and neither should Bush. You're criticizing him for something he doesn't deserve to be criticized for. However, he should listen to his generals/military advisors/PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT's opinions and take them into consideration. I'm not saying average civilians should not have opinions on this matter, because they should, but Bush should not be criticized for it. I don't think I'm misunderstading you at all. I just think you are wrong.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
As I mentioned before, my point was that Bush is not listening to anyone, and the poll results clearly illustrate that fact.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Notice how I only pointed out that one of your points of emphasis was flawed, AND IT IS
Please explain how this is flawed.Please show us where anyone said or implied these things about you, or for that matter, called you any names.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
The moment I even slightly disagree with you I somehow get thrown into the whole neocon, love war, redneck crowd.
Time for an intervention, Ajax: you're the one prone to personal attacks. You're the one name-calling. To wit, in this thread alone you've called either me or others:
- dipshits
- idiots
- biased idiot
- "arogant" prick
- liberal "croonies"
Somehow you still believe I'm arguing with your objectivity. I'm not. I'm repeatedly showing you that you'd misunderstood something I'd written, and am trying to help you understand what I meant. But you seem to just get increasingly offensive with your cussing, name-calling, and , and now you're playing the wounded card.
Here's a tip both for yourself and for Bush: when everyone else disagrees with you, and few if any are defending you, you just might be wrong.
"Somehow you still believe I'm arguing with your objectivity. I'm not." - that wasn't directed at you.
Yes, I am defensive. There's no denying that. It comes from the fact that I make it a habit not to insult or harm anyone unless they attack or harm anyone who didn't deserve it. I think you are being very unfair to president Bush, along with a large percentage of the population and it upsets me to see it so often. I don't love the man, I didn't vote for him(yes I'm old enough to vote), but my god people treat him unfairly, just like any president before him. It's annoying, and it gets old fast. Sometimes it's justified but a lot of the time it's not.
Also, I did not call you an arogant prick. I said you sounded like one, which you did. Most liberals I've seen have serious ego issues as far as their intelligence goes. When you begin a comment with "snore" or "lol", you show that you fall right down this line.
As for name calling, look at the title of your thread. There was no need for you to add delusional, yet you did anyway. Maybe you're just as guilty as I am.
I think we've finally found the disconnect. My point wasn't to criticize him for ignoring the will of the American people. My point is to wonder (aloud) who he's actually listening to. Is he listening to experience (ie the generals)? No. Is he listening to intelligence (ie generals, the non-partisan Iraq Study Group)? No. Is he listening to prevailing opinion (ie the fact that not a single national poll supports in him any way, neither on Iraq nor on his overall job performance)? No. To what is he anchored, other than to his own personal gut? Clearly he's off in his own world, following his own lonely course, based on his own version of reality.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
There's no need for Bush to listen to that poll. I don't listen to critics, especially those who aren't experts, and neither should Bush. You're criticizing him for something he doesn't deserve to be criticized for. However, he should listen to his generals/military advisors/PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT's opinions and take them into consideration. I'm not saying average civilians should not have opinions on this matter, because they should, but Bush should not be criticized for it. I don't think I'm misunderstading you at all. I just think you are wrong.
And what of the fact that it was in response to you pronouncing judgment upon me that I "fail at proper debate"?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Also, I did not call you an arogant prick. I said you sounded like one, which you did. Most liberals I've seen have serious ego issues as far as their intelligence goes. When you begin a comment with "snore" or "lol", you show that you fall right down this line.
Fair enough.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
As for name calling, look at the title of your thread. There was no need for you to add delusional, yet you did anyway. Maybe you're just as guilty as I am.
If you are going to hold Bush's feet to fire for EVERYTHING negative, IE Gitmo, torture, chaos in Iraq, any terror attacks that might occur in the future. Then you are equally obligated to hold him accountable for the positives as well, IE, NO terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Plain and simple.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I would encourage you to read my comments again, lowing. I've underlined a key part above for your convenience. I suggested that your links should show that Bush's actions led to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Led to. This does not mean that I need Bush to be the one holding up evil bearded men at gunpoint. It also doesn't mean that if anyone anywhere stops a terrorist plot that we should all line up to thank Poppa Bush for Saving Us.lowing wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14278216/The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Lowing, my good friend, both of us know that I never said such a thing.
I suggest putting away your indignation, your all-caps, your triple question-marks, and your "gotcha" games and instead just posting some evidence when people ask for it.
And for the record, he's requesting links showing Bush's actions leading to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Exempli gratia: the London foiling, as uncovered by (if I remember right) London's finest with help from some Pakistanis, is something that could not be considered a victory of Bush's.
http://london.usembassy.gov/terror638.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/06/newyor … index.html
With your logic that BUSH himself did not thwart any attacks and should get no credit. Then BUSH himself did not torture anyone, or "invade" Iraq, and should not be blamed. But let me guess, it doesn't work that way does it???
Watch 'WarGames' much?jonsimon wrote:
Because no war is a good war? The only winning move is not to play. I think that alone makes me more intelligent than any warmonger.
No need to bring up this fact, it will not lead to people bitching about the US. As you can see, it has been ignored.Kmarion wrote:
So actually exposing the truth was too hard to do? I'm sure the Iraqi people appreciate that. The French would have done anything to prevent a war in Iraq and if they had any evidence that would stop it they would have provided it.
France sold $20+ billion worth of weapons, including Mirage fighters, to Iraq, and was Iraq's biggest trading partner (after Russia). Iraq made France its largest oil market in Europe. France stood to lose billions in repayments of monies owed on these weapons.
I think that's a fair argument, lowing, but I think it's flawed.lowing wrote:
If you are going to hold Bush's feet to fire for EVERYTHING negative, IE Gitmo, torture, chaos in Iraq, any terror attacks that might occur in the future. Then you are equally obligated to hold him accountable for the positives as well, IE, NO terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Plain and simple.
The only situation in which the "There have been no attacks since 9/11" argument would be valid, is after an EPIC surge in terrorism in the country since 9/11. This is why I believe the whole "War on Terror" is for the most part bullsh*t. 9/11 was horrible, but if you actually look at the terrorism the world has been experiencing, there has been no real global crisis as a result of it.
So, while your logic makes sense, you just can't compare the "No attacks since" and the torture, chaos in Iraq, etc. Because, while there have been a few moderate-level terrorist attacks, you still can't say that because of Bush, there haven't been any attacks. Because, there were hardly any attacks before 9/11.
A global push to stop terrorism world wide is quite a proposition, and in order for it to even be considered in the first place, we must makes sure we have at least the majority of the worlds support. Afgahnistan was where the ones responsible for 9/11 were hidden, and we took care of them, for the most part.
But, you must admit, lowing, that Bush has screwed up much more than other presidents would've (yeah, even democrats). His policies have isolated us, instead of uniting us, his approach to combatting terrorism, instead of winning hearts and minds, and rebuilding countries, and sending enough troops for the job, has been "shoot first, ask questions later" with far fewer amounts of soldiers actually needed for the job.
But history has taught us one thing : F'ing around with other countries internal affairs doesn't help them, you, or anyone, for that matter. Does that mean we can't combat terrorism? No.... but it means that if you're going to consider it in the first place, you should recognize WHY terrorism exists in the first place, and conclude HOW you're going to defeat it at the source of the problem.
War sucks, politics sucks, Bush sucks, and the middle east sucks. Those are 4 things I'll remember the 2000's for.
Ok fair enough, then there hasn't been any real epidemic of torture by the US either so we really need to stop talking about it., and stop blaming Bush for it.Spearhead wrote:
I think that's a fair argument, lowing, but I think it's flawed.lowing wrote:
If you are going to hold Bush's feet to fire for EVERYTHING negative, IE Gitmo, torture, chaos in Iraq, any terror attacks that might occur in the future. Then you are equally obligated to hold him accountable for the positives as well, IE, NO terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Plain and simple.
The only situation in which the "There have been no attacks since 9/11" argument would be valid, is after an EPIC surge in terrorism in the country since 9/11. This is why I believe the whole "War on Terror" is for the most part bullsh*t. 9/11 was horrible, but if you actually look at the terrorism the world has been experiencing, there has been no real global crisis as a result of it.
So, while your logic makes sense, you just can't compare the "No attacks since" and the torture, chaos in Iraq, etc. Because, while there have been a few moderate-level terrorist attacks, you still can't say that because of Bush, there haven't been any attacks. Because, there were hardly any attacks before 9/11.
A global push to stop terrorism world wide is quite a proposition, and in order for it to even be considered in the first place, we must makes sure we have at least the majority of the worlds support. Afgahnistan was where the ones responsible for 9/11 were hidden, and we took care of them, for the most part.
But, you must admit, lowing, that Bush has screwed up much more than other presidents would've (yeah, even democrats). His policies have isolated us, instead of uniting us, his approach to combatting terrorism, instead of winning hearts and minds, and rebuilding countries, and sending enough troops for the job, has been "shoot first, ask questions later" with far fewer amounts of soldiers actually needed for the job.
But history has taught us one thing : F'ing around with other countries internal affairs doesn't help them, you, or anyone, for that matter. Does that mean we can't combat terrorism? No.... but it means that if you're going to consider it in the first place, you should recognize WHY terrorism exists in the first place, and conclude HOW you're going to defeat it at the source of the problem.
War sucks, politics sucks, Bush sucks, and the middle east sucks. Those are 4 things I'll remember the 2000's for.
Not to sound like a broken record but....Name something else positive he's done while in office. Congratulations on not being attacked. A vast majority of our Presidents in the past can claim that as well. If that's his greatest claim to fame, then shame on him. It's not as if the "bad guys" have been knocking on our doors trying to blow up everyone each week, and the mighty Bushmaster keeps knockin' em down. To be totally honest, I don't think the "bad guys" have really tried since. Nothing on that scale anyway. And sadly, I bet they could still pull it off just as easily. I don't believe whatsoever that GWB is directly responsible for the 5 years of "peace" we've had, not in any way.lowing wrote:
If you are going to hold Bush's feet to fire for EVERYTHING negative, IE Gitmo, torture, chaos in Iraq, any terror attacks that might occur in the future. Then you are equally obligated to hold him accountable for the positives as well, IE, NO terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Plain and simple.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I would encourage you to read my comments again, lowing. I've underlined a key part above for your convenience. I suggested that your links should show that Bush's actions led to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Led to. This does not mean that I need Bush to be the one holding up evil bearded men at gunpoint. It also doesn't mean that if anyone anywhere stops a terrorist plot that we should all line up to thank Poppa Bush for Saving Us.lowing wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14278216/
http://london.usembassy.gov/terror638.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/06/newyor … index.html
With your logic that BUSH himself did not thwart any attacks and should get no credit. Then BUSH himself did not torture anyone, or "invade" Iraq, and should not be blamed. But let me guess, it doesn't work that way does it???
What we needed after 9/11, that I'm realizing now, is to find a way to capture that unity we all felt immediately after, and hang on to it. People only saw three colors, red white and blue. And it wasn't even a war cry either, it was just a renewed respect for ourselves. Along the way we've lost that, and we're at war with ourselves again.
Ok so, if and when we are attacked again, we will not read on this forum how Bush's policies on terrorism and the patriot act and wire tapping all were NOT a miserable failure right? Again, damned if he does damned if he doesn't.Not wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but....Name something else positive he's done while in office. Congratulations on not being attacked. A vast majority of our Presidents in the past can claim that as well. If that's his greatest claim to fame, then shame on him. It's not as if the "bad guys" have been knocking on our doors trying to blow up everyone each week, and the mighty Bushmaster keeps knockin' em down. To be totally honest, I don't think the "bad guys" have really tried since. Nothing on that scale anyway. And sadly, I bet they could still pull it off just as easily. I don't believe whatsoever that GWB is directly responsible for the 5 years of "peace" we've had, not in any way.lowing wrote:
If you are going to hold Bush's feet to fire for EVERYTHING negative, IE Gitmo, torture, chaos in Iraq, any terror attacks that might occur in the future. Then you are equally obligated to hold him accountable for the positives as well, IE, NO terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Plain and simple.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I would encourage you to read my comments again, lowing. I've underlined a key part above for your convenience. I suggested that your links should show that Bush's actions led to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Led to. This does not mean that I need Bush to be the one holding up evil bearded men at gunpoint. It also doesn't mean that if anyone anywhere stops a terrorist plot that we should all line up to thank Poppa Bush for Saving Us.
What we needed after 9/11, that I'm realizing now, is to find a way to capture that unity we all felt immediately after, and hang on to it. People only saw three colors, red white and blue. And it wasn't even a war cry either, it was just a renewed respect for ourselves. Along the way we've lost that, and we're at war with ourselves again.
It is almost amusing, if not so pathetic to read comments, that basically say so what we weren't attacked, big deal, WHAT ELSE has he done? It would be a big deal to you if we HAD been attacked again wouldn't it? The liberal bi-partisan gun barrels would be fully loaded then, wouldn't it?? Your views on this is very transparent. You refuse to give him credit for anything positive but want to crucify him for everything negative.
Also stop with the bullshit about all the presidents were successful at stemming terrorism. That is so frickin weak, it is a sign of desperation to keep credit from going where it deserves.
Based on that bullshit logic, George Washington was a great president because airplanes never hit the WTC on his watch. What a stupid excuse for denying Bush credit for his efforts on national security.
Because of the decisions of Carter,Regan, and Clinton, 9/11 happened. Bush messed up also, but the wheels for that event was put in place many many years agolowing wrote:
Ok so, if and when we are attacked again, we will not read on this forum how Bush's policies on terrorism and the patriot act and wire tapping all were NOT a miserable failure right? Again, damned if he does damned if he doesn't.Not wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but....Name something else positive he's done while in office. Congratulations on not being attacked. A vast majority of our Presidents in the past can claim that as well. If that's his greatest claim to fame, then shame on him. It's not as if the "bad guys" have been knocking on our doors trying to blow up everyone each week, and the mighty Bushmaster keeps knockin' em down. To be totally honest, I don't think the "bad guys" have really tried since. Nothing on that scale anyway. And sadly, I bet they could still pull it off just as easily. I don't believe whatsoever that GWB is directly responsible for the 5 years of "peace" we've had, not in any way.lowing wrote:
If you are going to hold Bush's feet to fire for EVERYTHING negative, IE Gitmo, torture, chaos in Iraq, any terror attacks that might occur in the future. Then you are equally obligated to hold him accountable for the positives as well, IE, NO terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Plain and simple.
What we needed after 9/11, that I'm realizing now, is to find a way to capture that unity we all felt immediately after, and hang on to it. People only saw three colors, red white and blue. And it wasn't even a war cry either, it was just a renewed respect for ourselves. Along the way we've lost that, and we're at war with ourselves again.
It is almost amusing, if not so pathetic to read comments, that basically say so what we weren't attacked, big deal, WHAT ELSE has he done? It would be a big deal to you if we HAD been attacked again wouldn't it? The liberal bi-partisan gun barrels would be fully loaded then, wouldn't it?? Your views on this is very transparent. You refuse to give him credit for anything positive but want to crucify him for everything negative.
Also stop with the bullshit about all the presidents were successful at stemming terrorism. That is so frickin weak, it is a sign of desperation to keep credit from going where it deserves.
Based on that bullshit logic, George Washington was a great president because airplanes never hit the WTC on his watch. What a stupid excuse for denying Bush credit for his efforts on national security.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-22 21:09:15)
I agree with USmarine. It could also be argued that we had it coming for much longer before than even the Carter presidency. In some ways we were lucky we went so long without being attacked, after reading about all the violence that has occured in parts of the world the past 50 years.
Is he such a noob at war, or is someone else pulling the strings? Do you believe he makes the decisions or Corporate America (Arms Sales Etc) & financiers?stef10 wrote:
Bush is such a noob of war.
Could be, but from my stand point, the world has been trying to accommodate, understand, appease and aid the ME for a long time now. The problem is we are not allowed to help ALL the ME. Since they all hate each other by helping one group and then later try and aid someone the first group doesn't like we have now become an an enemy to the first group. It is insanity. I think the real issue with it is, they truly and simply don't care about their lives or anyone else's life. To them life doesn't begin until they die and reach their 72 virgins and shit. We hold life as precious and we want everyone to feel the same way. They all hate each other, and are willing to kill each other and willing to die trying, without pause. They will also kill anyone that interferes in their killing of each other.usmarine2007 wrote:
Because of the decisions of Carter,Regan, and Clinton, 9/11 happened. Bush messed up also, but the wheels for that event was put in place many many years agolowing wrote:
Ok so, if and when we are attacked again, we will not read on this forum how Bush's policies on terrorism and the patriot act and wire tapping all were NOT a miserable failure right? Again, damned if he does damned if he doesn't.Not wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but....Name something else positive he's done while in office. Congratulations on not being attacked. A vast majority of our Presidents in the past can claim that as well. If that's his greatest claim to fame, then shame on him. It's not as if the "bad guys" have been knocking on our doors trying to blow up everyone each week, and the mighty Bushmaster keeps knockin' em down. To be totally honest, I don't think the "bad guys" have really tried since. Nothing on that scale anyway. And sadly, I bet they could still pull it off just as easily. I don't believe whatsoever that GWB is directly responsible for the 5 years of "peace" we've had, not in any way.
What we needed after 9/11, that I'm realizing now, is to find a way to capture that unity we all felt immediately after, and hang on to it. People only saw three colors, red white and blue. And it wasn't even a war cry either, it was just a renewed respect for ourselves. Along the way we've lost that, and we're at war with ourselves again.
It is almost amusing, if not so pathetic to read comments, that basically say so what we weren't attacked, big deal, WHAT ELSE has he done? It would be a big deal to you if we HAD been attacked again wouldn't it? The liberal bi-partisan gun barrels would be fully loaded then, wouldn't it?? Your views on this is very transparent. You refuse to give him credit for anything positive but want to crucify him for everything negative.
Also stop with the bullshit about all the presidents were successful at stemming terrorism. That is so frickin weak, it is a sign of desperation to keep credit from going where it deserves.
Based on that bullshit logic, George Washington was a great president because airplanes never hit the WTC on his watch. What a stupid excuse for denying Bush credit for his efforts on national security.
When it is said we are only their for oil, I do somewhat agree to this, but NOT just the US. The world needs oil, the on going conflicts in the ME affect the world. The ME is sitting on the world oil supply. As the world moved forward with technology the ME stays stagnant in biblical times with the one resource needed to continue advancement buried in their ground. They should all be swimming in quality of life, like Kuwait, but nope, they waller in starvation, violence, and poverty.
Bottom line, they have nothing to live for and don't care. The rest of us do have something to live for and we do care.
side note, when I say "we" I mean the world not just the US
This whole "we haven't been attacked so warrantless wiretapping, the invasion of iraq and the patriot act are justified" reminds me of the simpsons episode where they spend a ton of money on an anti-bear police force and hold up the fact that there are no bears in springfield as proof that the police force is doing a good job.