Bush rules

Am I the only one here who thinks that bush is a good president? Am I the only one who does NOT believe he planned/allowed the 9/11 attacks? Can any president who told the french/germans to KISS OUR ASS*S be that bad? Is lowering taxes a crime? Come on repulicans I know your out there so SHARE THE LOVE

No, you're not the only one, you're just as wrong as the others.

You may yet grow out of it.

Good luck with the treatment, I hope this website performs well as part of your recovery process.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Am I the only one here who thinks that bush is a good president?

Sad to say you're not the only one dumb enough to think that here in ATS.

But it's ok. You have good company.

There may still be hope for you yet if you open your eyes.

[Edited on 8-6-2004 by Ocelot]

Originally posted by mwm1331
Come on repulicans I know your out there so SHARE THE LOVE

We've got conservatives, Libertarians and Independents that might come to your Bush love in.

But I thought the Republicans were extinct.

Might want to try this forum: Cryptozoology and Mythical Beasts

Originally posted by mwm1331
Come on repulicans I know your out there so SHARE THE LOVE

Again I say.

I would smack you upside the head but I dont think it would do any good.

Uhhh....OK.

Bush is BY FAR the worst President this country has had in the past two...

Well, I forgot about Clinton.


Mr. M

Originally posted by mwm1331
Am I the only one here who thinks that bush is a good president? Am I the only one who does NOT believe he planned/allowed the 9/11 attacks? Can any president who told the french/germans to KISS OUR ASS*S be that bad? Is lowering taxes a crime? Come on repulicans I know your out there so SHARE THE LOVE

Share the love? No thank you.

I am conservative (very much so), but am NOT a Republican.

I don't think Bush planned it, although I do not rule it out, as none of us really know. I do however think it stands a pretty good chance that he at least knew.

Telling the French and Germans to kiss our ass? Yes, we like being the biggest loudest kid on the playground. If it was a fanciful as you make it, perhaps it would be good. It seems rather, that both us and they were playing political games, picking the side that benifited us economically rather than speaking and supporting what we think is right.

Is lowing taxes a crime? HELL NO. I wish they would cut MORE MORE MORE. I do on the otherhand, wish them to cut spenditures before they assess a tax cut. I think an independant audit might be nice for a change. I think Welfare and Social Security are getting pretty bloated. Let's trim the fat.

You won't find a lot of Bush love out here. He's closest to my beliefs (at least his platform is) and I'm not even sure if I'll vote for him.

I might just pick Alf.

Jethro I agree on cutting welfare and social security. However I believe we went to Iraq BECAUSE it was the right thing to do.

Originally posted by mwm1331
However I believe we went to Iraq BECAUSE it was the right thing to do.

Why?

For 1 thing whether the intelligience was bad or not we did have credible threat. As I said on another thread If a policeman shoots a suspect who is reaching into his jacket/pants in a way consistant with reaching for a weapon, even if it is later proven that he had no weapon the shooting is considered justified. We knew that saddam had used WMDs in the past, we had credible intelligience that he was attempting to devolp nukes, and a U.N. secuity council ruling that unless "full and final disclosure" was forth comming by a given date that force of arms were authorised. Even though now many governments point to the lack of WMDs found as a damning piece of evidence there were NO governments at THAT TIME who did not state publicly that they believed he had them. Hindsight is 20/20 inteligence is not

Originally posted by mwm1331
For 1 thing whether the intelligience was bad or not we did have credible threat. As I said on another thread If a policeman shoots a suspect who is reaching into his jacket/pants in a way consistant with reaching for a weapon, even if it is later proven that he had no weapon the shooting is considered justified. We knew that saddam had used WMDs in the past, we had credible intelligience that he was attempting to devolp nukes, and a U.N. secuity council ruling that unless "full and final disclosure" was forth comming by a given date that force of arms were authorised. Even though now many governments point to the lack of WMDs found as a damning piece of evidence there were NO governments at THAT TIME who did not state publicly that they believed he had them. Hindsight is 20/20 inteligence is not

Israel has Nukes, North Korea has Nukes, Pakistan and India has nukes, we have nukes.

Not to mention we AIDED and FUNDED Saddam in his use of the "chemical weapons" he had "used" on people before.

There was no more threat than many other countries pose to us. It should be obvious to anyone interested in why terrorists want to hit us, which is because we have involved ourselves in the Middle East all too often, among other places.

Can you really tell me that Iraq was such a larger threat than some of the other atrocity ridden nations that we had to go to war?

Was it not easily possible to fund and arm a revolt against Saddam from the inside? I think so.

It was done for economic security, that I don't think anyone can dispute, but read the myriad posts on this topic and you'll learn a great deal about why we went to war really.

It was no liberation, it was no WMD effort. It lies at the bottom of an economic power struggle for something we should be seeking to get away from.

The fact that oil played a major role in choosing Iraq to be the FIRST of these countries that we are dealing with does not in my opinion make our motivations any less valid. If anything that makes it more so. The fact is that oil is needed for the security (both militarily and economically) and welfare of the United States. As such those who threaten the flow of oil are threatening the National security of the United States.(not a good idea) As to Saddam while we did give him weapons we did NOT give him, or support him in developing ,chemical weapons. We gave conventional wepons to both Iran and Iraq during the 80s to limit both of thier powers. This is an ancient and time honored strategy that has been used throughout history (Babylonia, Greece, Persia, Macedonia, Machiavelli) While Saddam was not a threat to us per se he was a threat to our allies and interests( and far more of one than the other countries mentioned) and as such was worthy of toppling.
As for funding a revolt from within , no it wasnt possible as a dictator he was simply too good to be taken down by his own people.
While I agree That we should be trying to get away from oil dependence that requires a change at the individul/societal level more so than the governmental. Case in point a reliable, practical, alternative to petroleum feul has already been developed but how many people even know of it much less use it?
www.biodiesel.org...

To go deeper into the countries you mention
North korea-
1 there is no proof that they have devolped nukes only that they are trying
2 a friendly government and/or bases in Iraq would shorten supply line and facilitate a war against them the same can not be said in reverse.
3 North korea hs not waged a territorial war of agression since the 50s saddam did in the 90s (more imminent threat in my opinion)
Isreal -
1 isreal is an ally of ours
2 isreal has a democratically elected government
India -
1 democratically elected government
2 If not a staunch ally neither a staunch enemy
Pakistan -
same as above

First North Korea. CNN posted this

"For its part, the United States is keen to see the standoff resolved but is standing firm amid concerns expressed by top officials that the nation is a "rogue state" holding the world hostage to nuclear blackmail."

They are Blackmail artists, and have been for quite a while. The UN inspectors getting kicked out, the nuclear program, the Admitting to having at least one nuclear bomb (which at the very least we have to take them at face value that they could have some), the non-proliferation violation, and they want non-agression treties from the world's major militaries?

I ask myself, why. There are only so many answers to that one.

As for Iraq, I'll have to come back to that later. I've been up all night and am really tired.

Like I said jethro we will get to North Korea, but we wont make the mistake Napolean did when he invaded russia. Iraq is central to shortening our supply lines for an assualt on North Korea

Originally posted by mwm1331
Like I said jethro we will get to North Korea, but we wont make the mistake Napolean did when he invaded russia. Iraq is central to shortening our supply lines for an assualt on North Korea

So, the deal is, is we go on a rampage across the world. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordon, maybe Saudi Arabia (depending on how the House of Saud hangs in there), North Korea, then end up with little ol' Cuba?

What then? China?

Why don't we just tell the world to bow down and kiss our cute little toes?

The world would sack us before we got done with that list. There is no way we could be seen as heroic (not like we are not either, but still) should we go after that list.

It's obsene and can be managed other ways.

It wont be nescesary to go after Iran, Syria or any other middle eastern countries once Iraq is in hand. The fact is a democratic republic in Iraq will naturally lead to democracy spreading throughout the middle east. Aslo the presence of a base of power there will serve to keep the others in line. Look at tripoli.

Originally posted by mwm1331
It wont be nescesary to go after Iran, Syria or any other middle eastern countries once Iraq is in hand. The fact is a democratic republic in Iraq will naturally lead to democracy spreading throughout the middle east.

Is our brand of democracy so hot they can't keep it on the shelf once they've tasted our sweet necter? I think you are living in a pipedream. I'm pretty sure that most over there that do want change, would still not model themselves after us. They have no real reason to switch.

Aslo the presence of a base of power there will serve to keep the others in line. Look at tripoli.

Perhaps, but I do not think we need more overseas bases. In fact, I think we need to eliminate them altogether. Every other nation in the world is perfectly content and functional without them. Want to wise up military spending? I do. I would like to be able to spend the money where it should go and maybe save a little along the way. Cut overseas bases, and give the military folks a fat raise and some additional benifits (second tour and on).

Originally posted by mwm1331
Am I the only one here who thinks that bush is a good president? Am I the only one who does NOT believe he planned/allowed the 9/11 attacks? Can any president who told the french/germans to KISS OUR ASS*S be that bad? Is lowering taxes a crime? Come on repulicans I know your out there so SHARE THE LOVE

RIGHT ON!

DEMOCRATS SUCK - If they spent half the effort they put into trying to find his faults into looking at reality....we'd have nothing to talk about

quote:

Is our brand of democracy so hot they can't keep it on the shelf once they've tasted our sweet necter? I think you are living in a pipedream. I'm pretty sure that most over there that do want change, would still not model themselves after us. They have no real reason to switch.

my response
I disgree jethro the desire to choose is central to human existence. The more choices people have the more choices they want. It is natural to want as many options to choose from as possible. When those of neighboring countries see that thier neighbors have more options than they do they will naturally want to increase thier options as well. For an example in history look at the french revolution. The french people had been dissatisfied with their leaders for centuries however it was not untill they saw the American revolution as an example that they were able to succeed in revolution. Prior to that thier dissatisfaction had taken the form of riots, but they had not actually tried to depose thier leaders en masse untill they realised that was an option

Originally posted by mwm1331
The fact is a democratic republic in Iraq will naturally lead to democracy spreading throughout the middle east. Aslo the presence of a base of power there will serve to keep the others in line. Look at tripoli.

Democracy would imply that the Iraqis choose thier own leaders, which we will not allow them to do. Democracy can happen without us. Keep an eye on Iran. As the old guard dies the kids are going to raise up and put a Starbucks on every corner. Unless we muck it up. Look at Libiya. Sanctions and diplomatic pressure work. It wasn't because of Iraq. Gadhafi was on his way to try to get back into the international community long before Iraq.