George Bush's acceptance speech.

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

In the long term the birth of a Democratic, pro-America, nation in the heart of the middle east will help bring about an end to the poverty and depair that results in terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong, but this sounds a lot like Israel. Their presence "in the heart of the middle-east," is what's causing many of our problems with terrorists. Their existence could be counted as long term by now.

Poverty and despair doesn't result in terrorism. If that were the case, thousands of homeless in the US would be torching the federal buildings. The homeless would come to your house and burn it to the ground with you in it.

Terrorism comes from well-funded individuals that are pissed off at us and want do do something about it. They recruit the impoverished and sell them on killing Americans (easy to do). America installed Saddam. If you were Iraqi and knew about this, you'd be mighty pissed and willing to blow your guts out as soon as someone strapped a bomb to you.

We fuck with other countries. It's always about money/oil. This will always piss people off. They'll rise up against us till we kill them all. It's not the way I'd like to see things done.

I think we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil (we knew this would be a good idea in the 50's, but we didn't go for it), and stop rearranging foreign governments to suit our needs. I think this will slow and maybe even reverse the growth of terrorism.


One more thing... You can vote for Kerry and still be a Republican. No one can take that from you. Blind adherence to your party does little good. I think Bush has proven to be a horrible president regardless of political alignment. Conservative values are supposed to equal less spending and smaller government. Under Bush we're facing infinite spending and bigger, more intrusive government (patriot act, ignoring the Geneva Convention, etc.).

We are less free than ever. It's not worth it. If Kerry doesn't fix things, vote him out in 2008. We don't need four more years of Bush.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

I guess having a "pro Ammerica" government in Iraq is what its all about isn't it?

Anyway, do you honestly think democracy has a chance of working in Iraq, when it doesn't even work in our respective countries?

To even just introduce democracy in Iraq you need unity between its people, which I really don't believe exists. Iraqis don't view themselves as just an Iraqi, they view themselves as Shia muslims, Sunni muslims etc.

Then there's the fact that most in Iraq would vote for a Fundamentalist state which would most likely be anti-America. No way the Bush Administration would allow that, so democracy immediately just becomes a farce, a waste of time, just like here and in the US.

P.S. The only thing that unites Iraqis is their hatred/distrust of America

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

[ QUOTE ]
Plague said:

I may be wrong, but this sounds a lot like Israel. Their presence "in the heart of the middle-east," is what's causing many of our problems with terrorists. Their existence could be counted as long term by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isreal is an exellent example of how a nation open to trade with the west, with assistance from western nations can flourish and maximize the potential of their limited resources. But, the reason Isreal causes hadred among arabs is because of the way in which it was created, the resulting humiliating wars against it's arab niegbors, and the arab resentment of Ireali success. Isreal hasn't affected widespread change in the middle east because of that resentment to it and the resulting resentment to the western nations that support it.

[ QUOTE ]
Plague said:

I think we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil (we knew this would be a good idea in the 50's, but we didn't go for it), and stop rearranging foreign governments to suit our needs. I think this will slow and maybe even reverse the growth of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all want to do this and every administration since Carter has been promising us electric cars, but I don't think its going to happen any time soon. Hydrogen fuel cells are our best hope and their a long way off.

Sorry MonkFish if I offended you. I should have said "pro-western goverment". The US is partnered with the UK and several other nations in this endeavor and they all hope that a new Iraq will benefit the world.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

Its not you or your actions that offend me, its your (and mine as you rightly pointed out) government that fucks me off.

Seriously though, don't be stupid, we went into Iraq for one fundamental reason - the planet's resources are finite (ie they will run out one day). Any other reason given by our governments is bullshit, its that simple.

Its too much of a coincidence, I'm watching World Business Report on BBC 24 and there's a report on how America may soon have to use its own oil reserves - a few weeks later we're invading Iraq (a large oil reserve).

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but with resources running out quicker and quicker, how long will be until America decides its in their best interests to attack Europe and even the UK?

To be honest I'd imagine America would nuke the planet if they thought it would prolong their supremacy.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
But, the reason Isreal causes hadred among arabs is because of the way in which it was created, the resulting humiliating wars against it's arab niegbors, and the arab resentment of Ireali success. Isreal hasn't affected widespread change in the middle east because of that resentment to it and the resulting resentment to the western nations that support it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can probably replace Israel with Iraq in the above quote and have a statement just as true.

I don't think we should fuck with people.

There may always be fundamentalists that hate the USA just because. We can keep those people a minority by having a different image to the rest of the world than we have now. We're arrogant, people don't like us because we give them reason not to.

If I'm selfish and vindictive to my neighbors, they might not want me around. If I take steps to be a caring, trustworthy neighbor, I may have friends all along the block.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

[ QUOTE ]
MonkFish said:

Seriously though, don't be stupid, we went into Iraq for one fundamental reason - the planet's resources are finite (ie they will run out one day). Any other reason given by our governments is bullshit, its that simple.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but with resources running out quicker and quicker, how long will be until America decides its in their best interests to attack Europe and even the UK?

To be honest I'd imagine America would nuke the planet if they thought it would prolong their supremacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you that is "being stupid". I don't know where you got the idea that the US and the UK were invading Iraq for oil. Did you figure this out all by yourself? Dont' you think that if the US and the UK went to war just for oil it would be self evident and the people of those nations would not allow it? You seem to have a very pessimistic view of the world. No one is going to "nuke the world". The invasion of Iraq was done for the benefit of the world not for "oil" or imperialistic means.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

"The invasion of Iraq was done for the benefit of the world not for "oil" or imperialistic means."

Now who's being stupid. Why did Bush have such a hard-on for war then? Why not wait and let the UN weapon inspectors actually do their job - like the rest of the world wanted?

Lemme let you in on a lil' secret - every war that has ever been fought has ultimately come down to a battle for resources or supremacy. Thats how war works. It's not just a simple case of "they're the bad guys, we're the good guys".

Understand?

And yes I do have a pessimistic view of the world, especially when cunts like you are in power, you couldn't give a fuck about your fellow human beings - its all "me, me, me". Well listen up dick-head, we've all gotta live on this planet together and the time will come when we all will have to unite in the same struggle, and when that happens self-indulgent, ignorant pricks like you will be the first to go.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

Yeah, why didn't Bush wait for the inspectors to finish?

Maybe it was because they would have told the world definitively that there were no WMD and thus Bush would have been forced to call off his war.

Saddam was over there being all belligerent, making us think he had WMD, getting us all aroused thinking we could go and conquer his ass. How sad if reality had interfered and deflated Dubya's little Texan war-stiffy.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

Bush junior competing against Bush senior. *Cough*

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

Damn you are dumn. "every war in history was fought for resources" what a load of shit. I try to help you understand the situation but you don't listen to my wisdom.

 

I don't think wise men call people "dumn"

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

Damn you are dumn. "every war in history was fought for resources" what a load of shit. I try to help you understand the situation but you don't listen to my wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a load of shit. If not for resources, then for what? To kill people for the hell of it?

If Iraq and Iran had no oil, nothing we wanted, and got in a war with eachother, would the US care? I don't think so.

I think all war is based on resources. Even the civil war - the south has free labor (a resource) and the north wants to abolish it. The south says "Hell no! We'll fight with your ass."

I think you cross the line with calling people who disagree with you "dumn" (whatever that means). You then claim you have wisdom.

I think name-calling weakens your credibility.


[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

Dont' you think that if the US and the UK went to war just for oil it would be self evident and the people of those nations would not allow it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think an uncontested $8 billion contract for Haliburton makes the quest for oil self-evident. As far other nations not allowing us to do something? I'm almost laughing now. Bush just ignores what other nations say. His invasion record is enough to make other countries think twice before stepping in to stop us. I don't get into ANY kind of conflict with someone who is four times my size, is bristling with weaponry, and has nothing to lose. Bush's conduct fits the description - "you mess with me and I'll fucking kill you!" Other countries believe it. And they hate us for it.

Good and evil is perception only. Bush says we're good and the terrorists are evil. The terrorists might think exactly the opposite. There is no right or wrong here. Terrorists attack with bombs strapped to willing followers, we attack with expensive precision machinery. I don't see one being "better" than the other. We do not win wars because we are good. We win wars because we have the biggest fist and can hit the hardest.

 

Re: George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
Dont' you think that if the US and the UK went to war just for oil it would be self evident and the people of those nations would not allow it?

[/ QUOTE ]
er 10 million people got together and protested it. but your government didn't listen.

[ QUOTE ]
Plague said:
we attack with expensive precision machinery


[/ QUOTE ]
and it's not even that precise! inevitable civilian casualities give citizens of those countries even more reason to hate america. a mother has just heard that her son has been killed in an airstrike that hit his school; how do you explain to her that it's justifiable?
IamThePope, i really hope that you are in the minority in the states, because if you're not then god help us all.

 

Re: I don't think wise men call people "dumn"

World War 1 was just from old people and diplomats hating each other. The soldiers didn't want to fight for the most part.

 

Re: I don't think wise men call people "dumn"

the Civil war was fought over States Rightes. S. Carolina attempted to succeed from the union due to the social-economic differences between the North and South and their fear that the first Republican President would try to abolish slavery. The north fought to preserve the union and the south fought to gain independence.

The First Gulf War was fought over oil. This one was fought because the US felt threatened by Saddam in the post 9/11 world. Oil really had nothing to do with it.

That uncontested goverment contract to Haliburton was made because no other company was capable of doing the job Haliburton could. In recent months we've learned that Haliburton has been over charging the goverment and the press has been crying foul trying to link it to Dick Cheney somehow. If you want to believe there is some kind of massive conspiracy to profit from the war via Haliburton and Cheney thats fine. In all probability it's much ado about nothing.

Don't no if you know this Onny but 10 milion people is just a vocal minority. The US has a population of over 300 million. Over 75% of the populace in the States agreed with the War in Iraq. The people agreed with the war because they knew its reasons and they agreed that Saddam was a menace and should be dealt with. So actually I'm part of the majority.

 

Re: I don't think wise men call people "dumn"

Actually, Onny is what we people like to call the voice of the silent majority.

 

Re: I don't think wise men call people "dumn"

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
The First Gulf War was fought over oil. This one was fought because the US felt threatened by Saddam in the post 9/11 world. Oil really had nothing to do with it.

Don't no if you know this Onny but 10 milion people is just a vocal minority. The US has a population of over 300 million. Over 75% of the populace in the States agreed with the War in Iraq. The people agreed with the war because they knew its reasons and they agreed that Saddam was a menace and should be dealt with. So actually I'm part of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just grabbed what I needed.

Who was threatened by Saddam before the war? I sure as hell wasn't. Not all through the 90's (after the end of the first Gulf War), and not up until the beating of the war drums in 2003. Then I was afraid of having to fight in a war on sketchy premises, which have changed several times throughout the last 1 1/2 years.

That 75% that supported the war...Who came with that number, and how did they get it? The number of people I have met in my own personal study puts it down at around 25% actually fully supported the war. Maybe even less. You gotta remember, there's a margin of error because I don't have as large a survey base as professionals do.

What about the other 75%? Well, some of of them actively protested the war, out on the streets and at the capitol. Here's the thing you have to know about protestors also: For every 1 of them that you see, there are normally at least 5 or 6 more supporters who, for whatever reasons, weren't at the protests.

Then there's a significant group that simply didn't really believe in the war, but supported it for one of the initial reasons. You know, WMD, terrorism, that fun stuff.

There's also a group who simply didn't care about the war. Surely they're part of your overwhelming majority, part of that 75%, because they did not oppose it.

Then we have *sigh* the diehards, the ones who believe all towel-heads must die. These are probably directly in proportion to the people who protested it.

Not an overwhemling majority actually supported this war. But in leading up to it, unless you vehemently opposed ALL aspects of the war and its motives, you were counted a supporter. Now how badly does that skew the numbers?

 

the Land of Oz

Panty_J, you've been living in the land of Oz, look at any poll taken before the Iraq war and you'll that the populace overwhelmingly supported it.

 

Re: the Land of Oz

Okay, without resorting to lowbrow attacks: Those polls are skewed. For example, one of the questions asked was "Do you think Saddam should be removed from power in Iraq?"

If you answered yes to this, you were considered to be in support of the war. When you phrase your questions this way, It's easy to get what seems like overwhelming support.

Almost nobody I know would say that Iraq is for the better with Saddam in power. But I know the opinions are much more divided on whether we should have gone into a full war against him.

I don't trust the poll results because they are statistics that were most likely mislabeled or poor polls to begin with.

Besides, the world I live in, the people around me, told a MUCH different story than the polls that claim they all wanted to go to war. Seeing that, it's impossible for me to believe that the country as a whole wanted war.

 

Re: the Land of Oz

Bullshit, millions of people got off their arse and marched through the streets in protest AGAINST the war (worldwide).

Not one person felt strongly enough to march the streets in SUPPORT of the war.

Opinion polls should never be used to prove anything because each individual poll will give different results depending on how questions are phrased, how many people were asked, how broad a spectrum of people were asked etc.

But if you insist, every poll I saw had 55% - 70% against before the war started in Iraq. After the war started it levelled off at around 40% - 50%, because the questions were rephrased on the polls from "Should we go into a pre-emptive war and cut out the UN?" to "Was it right to get rid of Saddam?"

You really are an idiot IamthePope, you're so blind and you just swallow everything your govt. tells you because you think you're being patriotic. Trust me you're not, you're just being a nationalist - need I remind you nationalist sentiment is how the Nazis got started?

But I'm guessing there is no hope for you, you obviously lack any kind of compassion for human beings - unless they're white, straight, catholic, homophobic, rich, ignorant, and American.

 

Re: I don't think wise men call people "dumn"

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

The people agreed with the war because they knew its reasons and they agreed that Saddam was a menace and should be dealt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Switch Saddam with Bush and you get the same results. I'm glad the rest of the world doesn't act on these agreements like we do. We'd be attacked by 159 countries at the same time. Nice that they have the sensibility not to destroy a country over one man and his group of buddies.

I think your textbook definition civil war post sounds prettier and more noble than what I posted about resources.