Bush's America asks: Why us?

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:49
VIEWED: 18384
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SERGEANTX

Friday, October 1, 2004 5:16 AM

I think it should be war on 'terrorists'. And more specifically, the terrorists who attack us. War should be reserved for enemies who mean to kill us. Any other usage is disingenuous and, in my opinion, just doublespeak specifically designed to conceal the real motives.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In all seriousness, these threads are almost getting boring as defeating the pro-Bushies has almost become like shooting fish in a barrel.

You only think you "win" arguments because you agree with yourself. Of course you would think that. We have a difference in opinion, that's obvious. Even John Kerry knew Saddam was a threat and thats why in 2003 he voted to go to war. The US is safer without Saddam and with a free Afghanistan.

The only reason I had posted on this thread is because someone on this board seems to only want to start posts on his political beliefs. I am all for expressing what you believe in, but do so in the right venue. Is a website dedicated to a (one of the best, if not the best) TV show the right venue? I would answer no. This thread wont change anyone's mind. The fact is everyone has their own ideals and beliefs.

But I will say that I am glad I live in a country where we have the freedom to all discuss our concerns about our goverment openly with one another, even if we disagree.

Your problem is that you use the word "belief" *a lot*. I use facts to make my decisions and that is the difference.

I have read news papers not only from my own country but from others as well. I know that the *facts* do *not* support your belief. But, that is fine as long as you know that it's just unfounded belief.

I know that we "win" because we present the *facts* and no-one is able to prove them wrong. They just bring up parallel but unralated arguments to try to side track the discusion. When that doesn't work they leave.

I'll admit that there is right and wrong in some places. For example, the WMD issue has been settled in "our" favour (among *all* others) as there weren't any found. So, much for all that "exact" "intellegence".

The US is actually less safe now as the bombing that you guys have done over there has converted a country into a recuiting hot spot for the terrorists. Over there, if someone in your family is killed then you must revenge or you are not respected (source: interview with an Iraqi M.D. on CBC Sunday).

Saddam was never a thread to the US. Hell, he wasn't even a thread anymore to his neighbours. Looks like all those resolutions and sanctions (diplomacy) worked with regards to dis-arming him, eh?

No-one should be using Afghanistan as an example right now. The place is almost a lost cause. We went in with there being ~50,000 Taliban troops and when the dust settled there where about 40,000 Taliban troops that went into the hills (source: interview CIA agent on CBC Sunday). This has made *a lot* of no travel zones outside of the, what, one or two held cities? The countryside is chaos! And since most of the country is countryside, I'd say that the future is quite dim there. To bad the US had to pull out there troops and divert them to Iraq, eh? (source: any reliable news paper)

And according to your own government you cannot discuss freely your concerns about them. After all, to critize your president in war-time is not patriotic, right?

Sorry, but your arguments don't hold water to me. Actually, they just don't hold water at all.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

BOYD

Friday, October 1, 2004 2:21 PM

I have this exact argument with this American bloke down the road every other day... You are not going to change his mind any time soon. He just eventually stops inviting you around for tea and his wife starts bitching about you!
But its amusing me so keep arguing!

And when your tired come down to New Zealand and enjoy our nuclear and war free country!

Vote Kerry '04

BOYD

Friday, October 1, 2004 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Jim,

The only thing we seem to have in common is a desire to see Saddam tried for his many crimes.

But I would also like to see the Americans responsible for supporting him, while he was commiting these crimes, on trial beside him.

The US, Britian, and France all provided weapons, training, intel support, aircraft... before, during and after these crimes were committed ???

So why not offer the ones who supported this to trial as accessorys to mass murder?

Comments?

Sadly most of us allied nations have helped in someway or another. Should Saddam be tried for his crimes to humanity? Definitely. Should the countries and individuals who funded him be brought to justice? Definitely! For that is the 'reason' *cough* OIL *cough* Bush went after Afghanistan isnt it? To bring those who funded (and supported) Osama Bin Laden to 'justice'.

Double Standards Blow

Cheers
Boyd

Vote Kerry '04

DACUTE1

Friday, October 1, 2004 2:32 PM

I just have to tell this. I was working at a Ren. Fest this summer and listened in on a conversation between some of the actors. One of which commented that he was talking with a young girl, maybe 5-years-old.

The little girl told the actor that she was hoping that we would reelect Bush, because, I quote "Daddy says if we reelect Bush we're moving to Australia, and there's beaches in Australia."

Sorry, the invitation to New Zealand reminded me of that.

Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN

Friday, October 1, 2004 2:34 PM

What did you guys, if you saw them, think of the debates last night? I was very disappointed in Kerry, and totally unsurprised by Bush. The man has no command of the English language and nothing of substance to say. Kerry wasn't much better.
Mostly, it seemed to me they spent the evening playing down things the other said they did and flinging poop at one another. Thoughts?

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 1, 2004 3:43 PM

" Your problem is that you use the word "belief" *a lot*. I use facts to make my decisions and that is the difference. "

So did Bush during the debate.....

I BELIEVE

if Bush wins you all are screwed

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

KIRIKOLI

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:29 PM

Bush was relying on the same few, out of context, "facts" over and over again. He hasn't had anything new to say in a long time.

Kerry was better, I thought, but still disappointing. But I would also partially attribute that to the fact that they were asking the same one question over and over in different forms and practically inviting the candidates to beat up on each other.

I'm sorry, but that is not a debate.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:34 PM

That's the thing about "belief" - nothing as unpleasant as "reality" ever seeps in.

Global warming??? POOF! Doesn't exist!

WMD??? POOF! They're someplace else!

Disappearing jobs??? POOF!! Not a factor!

Jim's head lives in a world of "belief and ideals". So does Bush's. Too bad for him. Too bad for us.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:39 PM

BTW- I listened to the debates rather than watching so I missed all of the body language. But overall, I thought Bush did terribly. He sounded defensive and lost. There were a couple of moments when he sounded just like a whiny teenager rationalizing something to his dad (Kerry) when he said "I know that. I know we were attacked by Al Qiada" and the other time when he was defending multilateral talks with N Korea.

And Bush kept saying "It's hard work". This must be the first time he's ever encountered that phenomenon. So what does he want for finally doing some work- a medal?

I alos think that Kerry made an extremely important point when he said that the Middle Eastern countries and Europe ALL have a stake in a stable Iraq. And they do. If America pulls out, they would HAVE to step in. If I were President, I would simply say- "We're pulling out most of our troops. You're going to step in, but you're alos going to get a piece of the reconstruction pie." I think it's a deal that Europe would HAVE to go for.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE