Leave Bush Alone

PaddyjDunne

Everyone being a little too harsh today?

ixoy

No. No we're not.

koneko

Yeah we really should be nicer, he's only a mass murderer after all.

What's the toll in Iraq, I heard 100,000 possibly dead, is that figure accurate?

sharkman

PaddyjDunne wrote:

Everyone being a little too harsh today?

NO

narommy

ixoy wrote:

No. No we're not.

Yes, ye are.

The sour grapes is apalling.

They Voted as they wanted and not a ye wanted. I think they have voted in our interest btw.

Also these wars were goint to happen anyways. Clinton was shaping up to deal with Afganistan and other sources of fundamentalism and I'm sure Gore would have continued down that route.

What would Kerry have done differently. The issue of terrorism has to be dealt with. He might have tried to get EU backing but given that large Muslim pop in France i douubt that would happen. And he qould continue to act unilaterally

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how on earth did invading iraq do anything to harm terrorists?

bush took the focus off bin laden and al qaida and did something TOTALLY unrelated.

maybe he'll attack terrororism by nuking jamaica next year.

narommy

koneko wrote:

Yeah we really should be nicer, he's only a mass murderer after all.

What's the toll in Iraq, I heard 100,000 possibly dead, is that figure accurate?

There would be that many dead under Sadam and Sanctions anyways over the next few years. At least the end was quicker

Carpo

Not by a long shot. I would have launched a tirade of vitriol, but its not worth getting in trouble with the mods over. Instead I will concentrate my malignant rage in to one sentance. Darn President Bush to heck! I'm sure anyone with imagination can insert the long list of expletives and comparisons to the rear end of barnyard animals and such that should be in there.

Gizzard

narommy wrote:

There would be that many dead under Sadam and Sanctions anyways over the next few years. At least the end was quicker

child like understanding of the world

koneko

narommy wrote:

There would be that many dead under Sadam and Sanctions anyways over the next few years. At least the end was quicker

Yeah, sorry. I guess he really is a good man for ending their lives and suffering for them.

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

There would be that many dead under Sadam and Sanctions anyways over the next few years. At least the end was quicker

Dunno what to say to that.
Better to kill 100,000 quickly eh?

narommy

Mordeth wrote:

how on earth did invading iraq do anything to harm terrorists?

bush took the focus off bin laden and al qaida and did something TOTALLY unrelated.

maybe he'll attack terrororism by nuking jamaica next year.

Iraq was a soft target that nobody really cared about and it was a good choice to show other Arab countries that if US thinks you are hiding terrorists or helping them in any way then you will be dealt with.

Also, America needed a new base in Middle East, Suadi could go at any time.

It is also about trying to spread democracy in the region (hopefully the majority of Arabs don't turn out to be fundamentalists.)

ixoy

narommy wrote:

Iraq was a soft target that nobody really cared about and it was a good choice to show other Arab countries that if US thinks you are hiding terrorists or helping them in any way then you will be dealt with.

Sorry but WTF?! So because you think nobody cares about it, it doesn't matter?! You know a lot of people, worldwide, wouldn't give a fiddle about Eire - do you care if we get blasted back into the proverbial stone age?

Also, America needed a new base in Middle East, Suadi could go at any time.

Again huh? So it's okay to invade, because they need a base? How is that morally justified?

A Dub in Glasgo

Bush is fair game so it is not harsh to be on here posting your disappointment and resentment about the re-election of a war-monger

narommy

Gizzard wrote:

child like understanding of the world

And what would your understanding be? The world is one f*ucked up place:mad:
I dare you to explain it to us

A Dub in Glasgo

narommy wrote:

Iraq was a soft target that nobody really cared about and it was a good choice to show other Arab countries that if US thinks you are hiding terrorists or helping them in any way then you will be dealt with.

Also, America needed a new base in Middle East, Suadi could go at any time.

It is also about trying to spread democracy in the region (hopefully the majority of Arabs don't turn out to be fundamentalists.)

You cannot be serious with this!! Slaughter 1,000s of innocent people to prove a point. What is the difference with this action and all other terrorist actions?

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

Iraq was a soft target that nobody really cared about and it was a good choice to show other Arab countries that if US thinks you are hiding terrorists or helping them in any way then you will be dealt with.

Also, America needed a new base in Middle East, Suadi could go at any time.

It is also about trying to spread democracy in the region (hopefully the majority of Arabs don't turn out to be fundamentalists.)

If the U.S. thinks you are hiding terrorists? What, proof is unneccessary now?

So what we should do is to FORCE the Arab world, by means of war, to vote democratically?
Doesn't that go against what democracy actually stands for?

Memnoch

Sleipnir wrote:

If the U.S. thinks you are hiding terrorists? What, proof is unneccessary now?

So what we should do is to FORCE the Arab world, by means of war, to vote democratically?
Doesn't that go against what democracy actually stands for?

the funny thing is all the war-mongerers and pro-war people don't actually WANT democracy in iraq.. if u actually talk to them about it this becomes quite clear.

They say they want "democracy" but only as long as its not muslims fundamentalists running the show. Therefore provisons must be made to prevent this. I'd be happy to agree with that IF they didn't have fundamentalist christians running the show in the great example of democracy they have i the US.

Any form of real democracy in iraq would result in a muslim fundamentalist state.

narommy

ixoy wrote:

Sorry but WTF?! So because you think nobody cares about it, it doesn't matter?! You know a lot of people, worldwide, wouldn't give a fiddle about Eire - do you care if we get blasted back into the proverbial stone age?

Again huh? So it's okay to invade, because they need a base? How is that morally justified?

Nobody that has the power to do anything about it.

Morally justified?? What's that got to do with America retaining it's power base

Memnoch

narommy wrote:

Nobody that has the power to do anything about it.

Morally justified?? What's that got to do with America retaining it's power base

what its got to do with is the murdering of 100,000 innocent people.

But you obviously don't care because it doesn't affect you or people like you.

How would you like it if america bombed your neighbourhood and killed everyone you know to retain their power base?

Hobbes

narommy wrote:

Also these wars were goint to happen anyways. Clinton was shaping up to deal with Afganistan and other sources of fundamentalism and I'm sure Gore would have continued down that route.

Unlike Bush, Clinton actually bothered to go after OBL before he became a serious threat. What did the republicans do? Go on about Monica.

What did Bush do? Ignored three reports about OBL planning to attack the US. When OBL did attack he called off his people and asked them to do up plans to hit Iraq which had nothing to do with it.

Sent a small force into Afganistan to go after OBL.

As for Iraq. GO READ UP ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ. You think people are going on about oil? It is worse then that. Here is a nice starting point to start your research.

Bush can easily be ranked as one of the worst presidents ever in US history. What amazes me is how he manages to get away with it. I know Americans aren't clueless, I can only assume they are totally oblivious to what is going on .

seamus

Stop trolling narommy please. America is not better than the rest of the world, period. It will get its comeuppance and realise this eventually. Unfortunately for innocent Americans.

PaddyjDunne

What do you all suggest we do about the war against terrorism now then. Pull troops out? I'm genuinely interested. What would you do?

ro_chez

To say that Bush is succeeding on the war on terror by invading Iraq is rediculous. He's creating thousands of new terrorists every day.

Sleipnir

PaddyjDunne wrote:

What do you all suggest we do about the war against terrorism now then. Pull troops out? I'm genuinely interested. What would you do?

Ah ferchrissakes.
THE WAR IN IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Geddit?

Show me when Iraqi terrorists attacked the U.S. warranting a war?

Carpo

narommy wrote:

Nobody that has the power to do anything about it.

Morally justified?? What's that got to do with America retaining it's power base

Great. I'll just get me rifle and make the world a better place with one shot shall I? Sure if noone manages to stop me then its ok.

Sleepy

Honestly, I'm not pissed at Bush. I'm pissed at the millions of eejits who voted for him.

PaddyjDunne

So what would you all do if you could fight this war against terrorism then? Pull all the troops out? Or perhaps you'd all do nothing except a Michael Moore style propoganda/documentary about how it is just one mans fault? Seriously, if you could do anything what would you do to sort out the mess?

narommy

Sleipnir wrote:

If the U.S. thinks you are hiding terrorists? What, proof is unneccessary now?

So what we should do is to FORCE the Arab world, by means of war, to vote democratically?
Doesn't that go against what democracy actually stands for?

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

koneko

Paddy,
You can't seriously buy into the "war on terror" thing. You think bombing and attacking nations is going to stop terrorists? You don't think maybe it creates more enemies and terrorists?

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

the world will be a better place (out of fear)

oh goodie.

pork99

I think this swung it for Bush

Memnoch

PaddyjDunne wrote:

So what would you all do if you could fight this war against terrorism then? Pull all the troops out? Or perhaps you'd all do nothing except a Michael Moore style propoganda/documentary about how it is just one mans fault? Seriously, if you could do anything what would you do to sort out the mess?

there are pleanty of peaceful solutions to the problem of terrorism that don't involve butchering innocent people.

Take a look at northern-ireland. Did the terrorism there end because britain dropped endless amounts of bombs on it and killed 100,000 people? Did measures like that END the terrorism and restored peace?

No it didn't, it was intelligent peaceful discussion that has improved the situatino there.

The problem is people who think solutions to every problem are at the blunt of the knife.

let me educate you on, one basic simple fact.

The more people you bomb and kill in muslim countries, the more terrorists there will be, and the worse terrorism will become, unless off course you decide to commit mass genocide and wipe out every muslim man, woman and child.

People who support the butchering of innocents are the real terrorists. Bush and anyone who supports his murders included.

A Dub in Glasgo

narommy wrote:

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

Democracy in countries outside the US is all about who is in power with US interests at heart. It has got Sweet FA about what the people of the country want if it is against US interests.

narommy

Sleipnir wrote:

Ah ferchrissakes.
THE WAR IN IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Geddit?

Show me when Iraqi terrorists attacked the U.S. warranting a war?

Probably right, Only possibility would be the instillin of fear into Arab Nations. Probably not best approach.


Also
Who said he was succeeding

Carpo

narommy wrote:

the world will be a better place (out of fear)

I think Ive gone right through anger and despair and come out the otherside. I couldnt stop laughing when I read that.

Hobbes

narommy, your view is somewhat flawed.

Certainly each country should make sure its interests are looked after. However doing it at the expense of others is not on.

Lets say it is right then. The US was right to invade Iraq and install its puppet government. It is only looking after its own interests? So by that extension 9/11 is justifed as they were only looking after their own interests? So other attacks on the US will be allowed because the US is allowed do it?

narommy

seamus wrote:

Stop trolling narommy please. America is not better than the rest of the world, period.

I don't think I am trolling. More like viewing it like the US voters did.

Illkillya

and poor oul Hitler was just looking for a bit of lebensraum

bonkey

narommy wrote:

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

And you make this assumption on what basis? That thousands of years of "peace through superior firepower" have actually worked???

If history supported this theory, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

Yes, but it would be nice if the average voter put even as much effort into informing themselves prior to choosing a President as they do into informing themselves prior to choosing a car.

Then again...who was it who said that democracy gives a nation the leader it deserves?

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

Why? The Americans cried out in outrage when Austria legitimately and unequivocably elected Haider....so obviously democracy to them is only acceptable when the candidate is. WHy should European citizens treat the US any different in return?

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

narommy wrote:

I don't think I am trolling. More like viewing it like the US voters did.

Is that your view or are you somehow trying to play devils advocate?

Gizzard

narommy wrote:

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

seriously are you a retard or something?

RuggieBear

Illkillya wrote:

and poor oul Hitler was just looking for a bit of lebensraum

Could this be Goodwin's law already

In my mind, Bush won the popular vote fair and square (well besides all the dirty tricks, but sure both sides were at that).....just show's you what a strange place america is......

sharkman

narommy = my m(ind) naro

I think he is baiting everyone into a flame war !

narommy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that your view or are you somehow trying to play devils advocate?

Both,

Most of my arguments have been put forward by somebody at some time over the last few years. I happen to agree with most of them and have problems reconciling others.

Bluntly, Bush would have had my vote.


( did troll a bit because of the stuckup/ superior nature of many Boardsie members and their lack of respect for the choice of the US people)

BolBill

Hey Narommy, So you'd have voted for Bush. You must be deep south inbred trailer trash so because any states with HALF A BRAIN voted for Kerry, and yes if that means I'm saying that more than half the Americans are dense well so be it.

The world is an unsafe place for another FOUR F**KIN' YEARS now, thanks USA !!!!!! (Assholes)

Memnoch

sharkman wrote:

narommy = my m(ind) naro

I think he is baiting everyone into a flame war !

if you believe he/she is trolling then report em. I already did as that is the impression i'm getting

sharkman

Memnoch wrote:

if you believe he/she is trolling then report em. I already did as that is the impression i'm getting

Report me or narommy ??

Far from trolling , I heve been reading this thread and posting on many others all morning ..

narommy

sharkman wrote:

narommy = my m(ind) naro

I think he is baiting everyone into a flame war !

If boards is not for debate, then what is it for? It seems like everybody just wants to agree they don't like Bush without trying to understand the US view point?

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

Both,

Most of my arguments have been put forward by somebody at some time over the last few years. I happen to agree with most of them and have problems reconciling others.

Bluntly, Bush would have had my vote.


( did troll a bit because of the stuckup/ superior nature of many Boardsie members and their lack of respect for the choice of the US people)

You're right, I have a total lack of respect for any idiot who voted for that terrorist.
I can have an opinion on the election, just not a vote.

Hobbes

narommy wrote:

( did troll a bit because of the stuckup/ superior nature of many Boardsie members and their lack of respect for the choice of the US people)

And you don't actually put anything forward to say why Bush should win.