• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Please Boycott the following liberal rock bands

And what about Dubya's "Actual Intelligence Quotient?"

He's got to be twice as dumb as Clinton.

Do you think I'm "misunderestimating" him?
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
And what about Dubya's "Actual Intelligence Quotient?"

He's got to be twice as dumb as Clinton.

Do you think I'm "misunderestimating" him?


With what God gave him, (and I know it wasn't much) He's doing 1 hell of a job, in my opinion. Bushy's IQ is 91, Clinton's was exactly double...Interesting how Bushy has done (or tried to do) twice as much as our buddy Clin-ton did.

"I am Clin-TON, ALL SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME!"
 
ILikeDubyah said:
With what God gave him, (and I know it wasn't much) He's doing 1 hell of a job, in my opinion. Bushy's IQ is 91, Clinton's was exactly double...Interesting how Bushy has done (or tried to do) twice as much as our buddy Clin-ton did.

"I am Clin-TON, ALL SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME!"

Bush is a meat headed idiot who is inciting more violence against Americans. Clinton did nothing help the problem. Bush enflamed it. I know which one I prefer.
 
jamesrage said:
Bush is part liberal.Republican next to someone's name does not automaticlly make them a conservative.

Besides he had higher grades than Kerry.Went to a prestigious school and is president of this country.What have you done?

A prestigious school means NOTHING if you didn't actually EARN your admission to it.
Bush didn't EARN his way in, his pappa PAID his way in. Give me a break!

My sixteen year old is being recruited by Ivy League schools, not because I'm all that wealthy, but because he's a tallented student!

Bush's only tallent is being his father's son.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
With what God gave him, (and I know it wasn't much) He's doing 1 hell of a job, in my opinion. Bushy's IQ is 91, Clinton's was exactly double...Interesting how Bushy has done (or tried to do) twice as much as our buddy Clin-ton did.

"I am Clin-TON, ALL SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME!"

Please, Clinton and Pappa Bush are buds, don't even try to give me that "it's one or the other" diatribe.
 
sargasm said:
Conservatives have the brains? Is that why Clinton had an IQ of 182? I intern at an organic chemistry lab and all of the the doctors and researchers there are extremely liberal, they are some of the most brilliant and creative people I know. Liberals have the brains and the creativity. Conservatives have the bible and the kakhis.

Claim: According to a study by the Lovenstein Institute, President Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years.
Status: False.

Example:
182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
091 .. George W. Bush (R)

Origin: No, this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.

In any case, IQ is a dodgy enough concept even when measured by tests designed for the purpose — trying to guess not just relative rankings but specific IQ scores based solely on writings and speeches is bound to be error-prone. Based on President George H. Bush's extemporaneous speech-making, for example, he couldn't "speak with clarity" to save his life, but he was clearly far more intelligent than the insultingly low IQ assigned to him above. And a recent article reports President Kennedy's IQ as 119, far below the genius-level 174 ascribed to him here.


http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
 
A prestigious school means NOTHING if you didn't actually EARN your admission to it.
Bush didn't EARN his way in, his pappa PAID his way in. Give me a break!

My sixteen year old is being recruited by Ivy League schools, not because I'm all that wealthy, but because he's a tallented student!

Bush's only tallent is being his father's son.

The last time I remeber, prestigious schools cost lots of money to go to.So if everybody going to that school had to give a huge chunk of cash to go to then it would be very hard for someone to buy their grades if everybody going to that school comes from a rich family.

Do you have proof that Bush's Daddy bought his grades?If you do not then you are just making mindless bullshit liberal accusations.

A person would have to be a pretty intellegent man to be elected president twice.
 
Thats quite a list of rock bandsyou have there... Unfortunately... I won't boycott them.. In fact, I own many of them...

Why do you think that by banning these bands, it will change anything with how people percieve politics, DO you think that if I were to through out all my "liberal" music ( which by the way some of those artists are more conservative than liberal... ) that I will loose my liberal values and become a republican pro- bush?

Doubtful. Many of those artists have good music.. whether or not they have political views in them.. I suppose on the flip side.. i could boycott all the probush pro USA pro war music.. oh wait I do that.. lol But i would never ask another person to do it with me...

I don't believe in censorship.. and this is a small form of it...
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Bush is a meat headed idiot who is inciting more violence against Americans...

What was their excuse before Bush came into office?

On Clintons watch:
1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995 Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

1996 June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998 Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men connected with al-Qaeda two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000 Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

These people don't need incitement. It's an ideology that trancends American Presidents.
 
VTA said:
What was their excuse before Bush came into office?

On Clintons watch:
1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995 Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

1996 June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998 Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men connected with al-Qaeda two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000 Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

These people don't need incitement. It's an ideology that trancends American Presidents.

I don't think so. What I meant by my statement is that I believe terrorist recruitment has only increased and the numbers of our enemies have only grown. Bush has followed their ideology. These people believe they have been wronged so they use violence as a means to retaliate. Bush believed we were wronged on 9/11 so he used violence as a means to retaliate.

If you don't know the reasons behind the terrorist attacks on the US, I suggest you read Usama bin Laden's letter to America. It's absolutely fascinating in my opinion, and might answer some of your questions. Some of his complaints are legitimate, some are not. If you take away all legitimate complaints rather than give him new ones, you will cut off his recruitment lines, but as long as you keep polarizing the Middle East into hating America and loving America, this war will keep going.
 
(the cow printed the list, now going through music collection, tossing CD’s left and right)

God forgive me. I never knew.

And to think, I thought I was being a good American (sob).


From CCR's FORTUNATE SON

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Also

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I suggest you read Usama bin Laden's letter to America. It's absolutely fascinating in my opinion, and might answer some of your questions. Some of his complaints are legitimate, some are not. If you take away all legitimate complaints rather than give him new ones, you will cut off his recruitment lines, but as long as you keep polarizing the Middle East into hating America and loving America, this war will keep going.

Fascinating in it's one-sided view?

"Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not."

Only those that correspond with Islamic Law are legitimate?

In bin Ladens letter he makes a case for the wrongs done to his 'brethren' most notably in Palestine. In the reality of the world, bin Laden has stood pat in the face of Muslim death at the hands of fellow Muslims; who kill more of his brethren than anyone else. He has made had no complaints about Sudans mistreatment of Muslims by Muslims.

Of the starving in Iraq and the bloodshed by the U.S. (as he refers to the 1st Gulf war and the sanctions) he has no problem with the the fact that it was Sadaam who starved his own children, by compromising the Oil For Food program, and that it happened to be his 'brethren' in Kuwait that Sadaam was forcing his aggression upon.

Throughout all of the turmoil - that has been going on since before he was born - this man of a peaceful religion of equality has not once attempted to effect peace. Oddly enough through a number of peace summits and attempts at peace accords that America has hosted, someone who claims to be driven by the plight of Palestine has never made an attempt to include himself in them. His first and only action/reaction has been violence.

And oddly enough, it was 7 years after bin Laden declared war on the U.S. that America took action against his actions, yet America are the war mongers. The benefit of the doubt is afforded to the man and organization that not only does not abide by conventions of war, does not recognize them and targets civilians, hidden behind the weak guise that since we pay taxes, we agree with all policies and therefore are free game and, to put it bluntly, the intended target. To legitimize this, Americans are allowed to be painted with a monotone brush to collectively personify our character as basically evil, God-less, racist dirt, while conversely, we are constantly accused of being the racists. One only needs to take a good look at the treatment of the Kurds, their own kind in Somalia, Sudan etc, of their treatment of Buddhists, Coptics and Christians in their lands, to get a good view of just how lofty the heights of judgment those who use Islam as a cover actually are.

I could go on and find fault with every point of his letter and point my finger at the wrong doings in his own house, that he's conveniently ignored while watching and judging his neighbors', but like the turmoil in the Middle East, this can go on forever. The fact that they have been recruiting and training and growing bolder with each unanswered attack only strengthens the idea that they have no interest in compromise, tolerance, diplomacy and an equal footing in this world.

Just read his intent...
In his letter he states his intent: Calling us to Islam. A Shariah state.
With all do respect to the religion, I don't want to be a Muslim. I have that right and if it's truly a religion of peace that a man may feel content within himself, he doesn't need others to validate it by becoming like him. Like how in America we do not trespass into Mosques and Synagogues in an effort to subjugate them to our beliefs.

The man of manners, that he claims to be, should also know that It's disrespectful to insinuate other religions are inferior by holding Islam above them, let alone quoting text that it's A-Ok to fight against disbelievers of Islam and Allah.

His attempt to abolish America's debauchery and overall evil suggests a God complex.
Polarized? Yeah, the tolerant vs. the intolerant.
 
Sure. I'll boycott all of those bands. But you have to organize an anti-Bush protest in D.C.

Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo...
 
VTA said:
Fascinating in it's one-sided view?

Fascinating in many aspects. I didn't expect him to compose any such letter, and it came as quite a shock to hear certain things and completely agree and hear other things and completely disagree. Incredible similiarities to us, as well as the vast differences, etc.

Only those that correspond with Islamic Law are legitimate?

In bin Ladens letter he makes a case for the wrongs done to his 'brethren' most notably in Palestine. In the reality of the world, bin Laden has stood pat in the face of Muslim death at the hands of fellow Muslims; who kill more of his brethren than anyone else. He has made had no complaints about Sudans mistreatment of Muslims by Muslims.

Of the starving in Iraq and the bloodshed by the U.S. (as he refers to the 1st Gulf war and the sanctions) he has no problem with the the fact that it was Sadaam who starved his own children, by compromising the Oil For Food program, and that it happened to be his 'brethren' in Kuwait that Sadaam was forcing his aggression upon.

It sounds like you're trying to justify our shortcomings and wrongdoings by pointing out his own. That may work for Americans, but it won't work for Arabs. I want stop terrorism more than I want to stop terrorists. That's just me.

Throughout all of the turmoil - that has been going on since before he was born - this man of a peaceful religion of equality has not once attempted to effect peace. Oddly enough through a number of peace summits and attempts at peace accords that America has hosted, someone who claims to be driven by the plight of Palestine has never made an attempt to include himself in them. His first and only action/reaction has been violence.

And oddly enough, it was 7 years after bin Laden declared war on the U.S. that America took action against his actions, yet America are the war mongers. The benefit of the doubt is afforded to the man and organization that not only does not abide by conventions of war, does not recognize them and targets civilians, hidden behind the weak guise that since we pay taxes, we agree with all policies and therefore are free game and, to put it bluntly, the intended target. To legitimize this, Americans are allowed to be painted with a monotone brush to collectively personify our character as basically evil, God-less, racist dirt, while conversely, we are constantly accused of being the racists. One only needs to take a good look at the treatment of the Kurds, their own kind in Somalia, Sudan etc, of their treatment of Buddhists, Coptics and Christians in their lands, to get a good view of just how lofty the heights of judgment those who use Islam as a cover actually are.

Clinton took did nothing for the situation- That's not good. Bush enflamed the situation- that's worse.

I could go on and find fault with every point of his letter and point my finger at the wrong doings in his own house, that he's conveniently ignored while watching and judging his neighbors', but like the turmoil in the Middle East, this can go on forever. The fact that they have been recruiting and training and growing bolder with each unanswered attack only strengthens the idea that they have no interest in compromise, tolerance, diplomacy and an equal footing in this world.

They have grown even more stronger at every answered attack. As for the comprimise, tolerance, etc... I believe that bin Laden is far beyond this. He does not seek any of this, but his followers do. Usama has an agenda that branches out all the way to Global Islamic rule. Many of his followers have been goaded in by he and his other cleric's propaganda. They act out of fear and retalliation. We can break the followers out from under him if we refuse to be the same monster he is.

The man of manners, that he claims to be, should also know that It's disrespectful to insinuate other religions are inferior by holding Islam above them, let alone quoting text that it's A-Ok to fight against disbelievers of Islam and Allah.

His attempt to abolish America's debauchery and overall evil suggests a God complex.
Polarized? Yeah, the tolerant vs. the intolerant.

There are no moderates left in Islam. There are now only those that fear America and those that see America has their potential savior. He has forced the middle to pick a side and he has caused the terrorist's numbers to grow as well as the number of... America lovers. I'm baby sitting, but I'd love to talk more about this. See ya.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
It sounds like you're trying to justify our shortcomings and wrongdoings by pointing out his own. That may work for Americans, but it won't work for Arabs. I want stop terrorism more than I want to stop terrorists. That's just me.

Then I'll clarify. Given the evidence that those facts I had mentioned provides, it should be plain that 1. bin Laden is in no position to make judgments, let alone take on the role of 'divine judge' by using violence and murder as a first and only option. Being from a wealthy and influential family, he could have easily tried to use that wealth and influence to institute change in a diplomatic fashion - at least attempting to effect change in a reasonable fashion that might legitimize his other efforts afterward.

Instead he went the low-brow road and now after claiming many lives attempts to appear sincere and fair-handed in this letter. Therefore, 2. he is a hypocrite and I'd be hard pressed to take him at his word.


Gandhi>Bush said:
Clinton took did nothing for the situation- That's not good. Bush enflamed the situation- that's worse.

Before they were ambushing innocents in embassy's and large buildings.
Now, for the most part, they are facing the American military in Iraq.
I'll take the latter.


Gandhi>Bush said:
They have grown even more stronger at every answered attack. As for the comprimise, tolerance, etc... I believe that bin Laden is far beyond this. He does not seek any of this, but his followers do.

Then he should most certainly understand that he has brought the current war and all of its trappings down on his brethrens' head and so should his people.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Usama has an agenda that branches out all the way to Global Islamic rule. Many of his followers have been goaded in by he and his other cleric's propaganda. They act out of fear and retalliation. We can break the followers out from under him if we refuse to be the same monster he is.

Which is why on the ground in Iraq our soldiers are doing things on a daily basis that go unreported because they are not glamourous enough to warrant front page status. Namely, an American soldier being named a Sheik by the locals who appreciate him. Building schools and reaching out to them in a human way. Giving them 'town hall-like' meetings to air their greivances with American military, and explaining who we are fighting and why. I'm not suggesting that these instances can sugar coat the bad and harsh realities of war; only trying to impart that an answer to the numerous acts of war against us needed to be adressed, while maintaining that our humanity does remain intact.

Gandhi>Bush said:
There are no moderates left in Islam. There are now only those that fear America and those that see America has their potential savior. He has forced the middle to pick a side and he has caused the terrorist's numbers to grow as well as the number of... America lovers.

Well given that the war is far from over, I'll refrain from any concrete ascertions as to what that may mean. Only time will tell who has been more successful in convincing those who chose either side whether or not they made the right choice.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I'm baby sitting, but I'd love to talk more about this. See ya.

Diapers and baby food. Good times I'm still enjoying:mrgreen: ... there'll be plenty of time to continue later...
 
JustineCredible said:
Please, get real. This nimrod who started this thread is just another goosestepping bush-bot. Give me a break. Reality never once plays into his fantasy world.

At best he's some chain yanker simply spewing out what he believes is the right-wing agenda.

"goose-stepping bush-bot" - that's priceless.

be sure to vote in the poll that could turn hot air onto flesh'n blood activisim:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3088
 
Last edited:
VTA said:
Then I'll clarify. Given the evidence that those facts I had mentioned provides, it should be plain that 1. bin Laden is in no position to make judgments, let alone take on the role of 'divine judge' by using violence and murder as a first and only option. Being from a wealthy and influential family, he could have easily tried to use that wealth and influence to institute change in a diplomatic fashion - at least attempting to effect change in a reasonable fashion that might legitimize his other efforts afterward.

Instead he went the low-brow road and now after claiming many lives attempts to appear sincere and fair-handed in this letter. Therefore, 2. he is a hypocrite and I'd be hard pressed to take him at his word.

I don't agree with his methods, and yes I think he is a hypocrite, but I also think the way to unmake terrorism all together is to do exactly what we did with racism and that kind of intolerance. We didn't attack people who held the idea. We attacked the idea itself. We prosecuted transgressors and everything else we could do to fight the idea.

I think the best way to handle this threat is to make every claim he makes illegitimate. There were many things in his letter that many people liberal and conservative agree with. His remarks about homosexuality are not unlike those made by people on the right. His remarks about objectifying women in advertising is something that I've heard myself say. His thoughts about Israel are not uncommon even in the United States. I believe we can beat him by taking away the motives that appeal to common men. After than he will just be some crazy old man living in the Arab equivalent of a trailer park. We can beat him by making him as much of a monster as we can and making ourselves as much of a saint as we can. You don't do this by waging a very devisive war both in American communities as well as Arab.

Before they were ambushing innocents in embassy's and large buildings.
Now, for the most part, they are facing the American military in Iraq.
I'll take the latter.

Then our embassies need more security. The American Military taking drastic actions against an Arab country with unstable rationales is making an adverse effect on the hearts and minds of recruitment lines of potential terrorists. That's where the most important battle is fought. What is Usama without followers?

Then he should most certainly understand that he has brought the current war and all of its trappings down on his brethrens' head and so should his people.

Do you really think that is how an Arab views this? Someone's brother starved to death in Afghanistan because International Aid workers were removed before the US invasion and he was displaced into Pakistan. Do you think he blames Usama?

Which is why on the ground in Iraq our soldiers are doing things on a daily basis that go unreported because they are not glamourous enough to warrant front page status. Namely, an American soldier being named a Sheik by the locals who appreciate him. Building schools and reaching out to them in a human way. Giving them 'town hall-like' meetings to air their greivances with American military, and explaining who we are fighting and why. I'm not suggesting that these instances can sugar coat the bad and harsh realities of war; only trying to impart that an answer to the numerous acts of war against us needed to be adressed, while maintaining that our humanity does remain intact.

I can't speak for others, but I know our soldiers are awesome. I've seen the postitive and the negative. I just don't think that when an Arab flicks on Al Jazeera that he will see anything positive.
 
Wait, so let me get this straight.
Bin Laden is a low brow guy from a rich family, and he's lived a spoiled life, and he goes to violence as the first and only option, and views himself as a divine judge put here by god, fighting this war for god.
Sound like anyone else you know?
 
ILikeDubyah said:
I'm not sheltering myself from anything anti-bush, I just think he's getting a bum rap. I still cannot fathom why people hate him so much.

Bush is getting a bum rap? Let's see, 1800+ US soldiers are now dead, not to mention countless Iraquis and Afghanis. Bush used the media to get the american people to think Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11. He didn't find any WMD. He didn't catch Bin Laden. You can't root out terrorists by setting up puppet governments. He brags about being a "war president" and representing his base "the elite".

Unless you have billions of dollars, or are getting a nice contract from a company that benefits from this war, YOU HAVE NO REASON TO SUPPORT BUSH. But, I would still like to hear how you try to justify your support for an arrogant elitist and immoral president whose whole life is a consistant series of one ****-up after another.
 
ban.the.electoral.college said:
Bush is getting a bum rap? Let's see, 1800+ US soldiers are now dead, not to mention countless Iraquis and Afghanis. Bush used the media to get the american people to think Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11. He didn't find any WMD. He didn't catch Bin Laden. You can't root out terrorists by setting up puppet governments. He brags about being a "war president" and representing his base "the elite".

Unless you have billions of dollars, or are getting a nice contract from a company that benefits from this war, YOU HAVE NO REASON TO SUPPORT BUSH. But, I would still like to hear how you try to justify your support for an arrogant elitist and immoral president whose whole life is a consistant series of one ****-up after another.

1800 dead out of how many hundreds of thousands of troops serving? Bet it's less than 1 percent. Name 1 other war in US history (Aside from Gulf War 1) that lost less than 1 to 10% in combat....You can't. Bush used FAULTY intelligence PROVIDED TO HIM, and acted on it.

EVEN if they didn't find WMD, even if they weren't related to 9/11, it no longer has any bearing (in my book). We're now fighting a war to promote democracy in an area of the world where it could never exist on it's own, we're fighting to give the peoples of these lands BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, which have been denied to them for generations, and if you think about it, in the long run, good ole' Bushy has secured future oil for all of us here in the US. Granted, it'll take a while, but I'll bet it works, and it's something that the old Iraqi Regime was standing in the way of.

The only thing I don't like about Bushy is "No Child Left Behind". it just doesn't work, but I'm not willing to condemn the man over that alone. Everybody bitches about "Gov't Contracts"....The companies that get those contracts have suppliers & employees to pay too. Everybody gets a piece of it (as long as they don't work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart or something. Oh yeah, I wouldn't support Bush, because he does things like CUT TAXES, LIMITS STEM CELL RESEARCH, and PROVIDES FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE! (In case you didn't realize, that was VERY sarcastic.

I came up with a new reason to support Bush after reading your post...."I support Bush because it annoys you, and that's a good enough reason for me!"
 
Isn't the death toll closer to 8,000 once you count soldiers that didn't die in Iraq but died in hospitals as a result of their wounds in Iraq...
 
scottyz said:
Isn't the death toll closer to 8,000 once you count soldiers that didn't die in Iraq but died in hospitals as a result of their wounds in Iraq...

I would like to see a source for something like that. I thought 1,800 was a fairly comprhensive number.
 
scottyz said:
Isn't the death toll closer to 8,000 once you count soldiers that didn't die in Iraq but died in hospitals as a result of their wounds in Iraq...

Yeah, and I love how these bloodthirsty americans so blindly support a man who is clearly acting on his own behalf. A criminal by nature, associated with Enron not to mention the Bin Laden family. Middle america supports him because the media fails to concentrate on criticle issues. And the wealthy support him because he's attempting sucure Iraq as a new market of opportunity. Anyone who doesn't fit these two descriptions are just a bunch of fools for supporting a man who turns everything he touches to ****.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't agree with his methods, and yes I think he is a hypocrite, but I also think the way to unmake terrorism all together is to do exactly what we did with racism and that kind of intolerance. We didn't attack people who held the idea. We attacked the idea itself. We prosecuted transgressors and everything else we could do to fight the idea... ...We can beat him by making him as much of a monster as we can and making ourselves as much of a saint as we can. You don't do this by waging a very devisive war both in American communities as well as Arab.

As for taking away his reasons, it's not quite so easy. For one thing, like anyone clever enough in his misdeeds, he mixes truths within his rhetoric, painting all encompassed within it, an image that's less than savory, e.g. "The infidels are on holy land". Translated, America has a presence in Saudi Arabia. America has had such a presence for a long time and it is sanctioned by the Saudi royal family. Manipulated in any way, it can sound bad, as conversely anything can be sugar coated. There are far too many variables to call it black and white. Wisely or not, and I myself have questioned our country's very staunch stance regarding Israel, America has backed it's statehood, -though the UK seems to have avoided its share of the blame for creating it in the first place. At this point raising our collective hands and saying go to it wouldn't be wise.

Pull out of Palestine, which is happening in small increments at the moment - which is met with Hammas' ascertion that suicide bombing has worked-, get out of Saudi Arabia, which I believe we have closed bases there, and then what? They'll go away? Planes have been hijacked for such reasons as to demand the release of a murderer from prison. Hate and intolerance will always exist. Take away what it claims is it's main focus and it will just refocus itself.

All of this said, terrorism transcends one man and his organization. We're nit-picking one particular in a massive situation, that has been fermenting a long time. It's an ideology that wasn't started by and will not end with bin Laden or Al Qeada.


Gandhi>Bush said:
Then our embassies need more security. The American Military taking drastic actions against an Arab country with unstable rationales is making an adverse effect on the hearts and minds of recruitment lines of potential terrorists. That's where the most important battle is fought. What is Usama without followers?

Well, I'd have to disagree. It's not reasonable to accept these irrational actions and think we just have to buckle up and find a better way to take them. They should stop. They should be made to stop.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Do you really think that is how an Arab views this? Someone's brother starved to death in Afghanistan because International Aid workers were removed before the US invasion and he was displaced into Pakistan. Do you think he blames Usama?

Which is why we're trying to build a Democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because we can't fight them forever. We have to try to influence this ideology and the way to do it is to accept that the hardliners are gone and work on future generations. Is it the greatest strategy? I don't know. But history tells us that despite the 'violence begets violence' ideal, it worked to knock off Hilters Ideology. It worked to put an end to Japans very warlike history, and it worked to win this country it's freedom.

Is it working in Iraq? Only time wil tell.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I can't speak for others, but I know our soldiers are awesome. I've seen the postitive and the negative. I just don't think that when an Arab flicks on Al Jazeera that he will see anything positive.

That's propoganda and it's a part of every war and measures are taken to counter it and we can only continue on that tact to be hopeful.
 
Back
Top Bottom