do you read the newspaper? Pardon my French but you're at the prime age of parroting what's popular to think without thinking it through yourself. Your argument sounds so much like all the other kids who think hating Bush is the cool thing to do.Originally Posted by LL2
But there was. Countless minority members had their votes uncounted for. Atleast that's what the "conspiracy" says
Evidence please.
Announcing and doing are 2 different things entirely. He announces it yearly anyway.
I'll start by saying i am NOT INVOLVED in this outside of asking clarification for things like i have been, but i will show you scrubs how to handle this kind of thing. This will be really tough since i know nothing of this stuff anyway so don't expect me to really do much.
A liberation includes setting up a functioning government where citizens have equal rights. The government that we did set up is far from functioning. Just because the citizens voted a couple times does not mean they have actual equal rights or the government functions. In fact in the extremely short time the government has been around in iraq, there has already been discovered corruption at all levels of it. That's hardly functioning to benefit the citizens in any way, and i doubt it was a goal anyone had for this country.
It's easy to call it a win when you change the objective multiple times. It went from disarming saddam, to liberating iraq, to "we're happy with saddam gone". They changed the song to what they already had done and said GG. People define losing as having overall bad progress in this case. We have a few minor victories but in the entirity of the situation we've accomplished nothing significant since taking saddam out.
Militaristic double talk. To be extremely technical we were never in a war with iraq to start with. Congress never declared it. Call it a conflict then, or an occupation but the fact is people are fighting and dying over there daily. Saying it's an occupation suggests they're chillin out over there and making a couple arrests, not having gorilla warfare.
Honestly i don't know the difference you're trying to make. In a war you carry out strategic military operations in order to reach an objective. In said occupation they are still doing military procedures to reach an objective. Was there a point to this difference?
No agreement will be met on this. People want different presidents for different reasons. What you would want from him others would not. I won't put out a life story for my views, but this is a longer way of saying this is a "difference of opinion". You and i both hate hearing it but what other explanation is there? I do not like what he is doing, therefore he is bad to me.
side note: hoover commonly gets this bad rep. i did some research on him in high school and he had some good ideas on how to get out of the depression and such but the country was too lazy and didn't want to do it. No joke. Also hoover just got elected at the WRONG TIME. Almost any president at the same time would have been labeled a failure.
The media stirred people into a hating frenzy. They're sheep and will follow most of what they hear from people they respect or think sound smart.
don't hurt me T_T (Q'-')==Q(>_x)
No, there isn't a difference. It's a war. A war that we've only made worse.
Well if you want to get into semantics a liberation only includes toppling the current government. We did that. It was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation(OIL lol) so the objective was completed. On the government issue, of course there is corruption in the government, that's only to be expected, but it's a far better system than they've had before. Look where they're coming from, there will definitly be corruption in the early stages of the government, it'll take time to weed that out, and once that happens there's one last country terrorism can turn to, get funding from, or hide in, and I don't think anyone could possibly say that's not a good thing.
Iraq is not a singular objective. It's a big picture war. I've said I agree with the theory of the war in Iraq but it was executed poorly. Terrorists now have one less powerful regime to shelter them with Hussan gone, and it's proven that Democratic systems of government spread. Just placing that in the Middle East could have massive future effects on the entire area, which would only get worse and become a bigger threat to Western Civilization if left alone, which the UN seemed more than willing to do, as usual.It's easy to call it a win when you change the objective multiple times. It went from disarming saddam, to liberating iraq, to "we're happy with saddam gone". They changed the song to what they already had done and said GG. People define losing as having overall bad progress in this case. We have a few minor victories but in the entirity of the situation we've accomplished nothing significant since taking saddam out.
There's plenty of dangerous areas in Iraq and it's far from a walk in the park, but the media certainly exhasperates what Iraq is like. Certainly it's bad there, but not as bad as most think. The troops occupying Iraq are certainly no worse off than the troops occupying Bosnia and some other countries.Militaristic double talk. To be extremely technical we were never in a war with iraq to start with. Congress never declared it. Call it a conflict then, or an occupation but the fact is people are fighting and dying over there daily. Saying it's an occupation suggests they're chillin out over there and making a couple arrests, not having gorilla warfare.
Well there have been 43 Presidents, so one of the worst ever would have to be at least in the bottom 10 or so. There have been Presidents who've ruined the country, and Bush hasn't come even close to that. Aside from suspending Heabus Corpus(by far the worst thing the administration has done) he really hasn't done anything outraegously damaging.No agreement will be met on this. People want different presidents for different reasons. What you would want from him others would not. I won't put out a life story for my views, but this is a longer way of saying this is a "difference of opinion". You and i both hate hearing it but what other explanation is there? I do not like what he is doing, therefore he is bad to me.
Wait a minute! This is a guy that decided to attack a country becuase he thought that they had weapons of mass destruction! That he would go to war with them without consulting congress! This is a guy that still has our people in that country dying everyday becuase for some reason the united states has to "help" everyone! Yes, this sounds like decent foreign policy!
Mex I'm still waiting for evidence that countless minority voters were turned away. Were homosexuals and Democrats also turned away?
There should have been military intervention sanctioned by the UN in Iraq based on the treaty of the '91 Iraq war. Hans Blix reported that Iraqi officials were uncooperative during the inspections, violating the treaty. Plenty of remnants were found of components for WMDs. No full arsenal was found, but evidence suggested one could and possibly was being made. This was enough justification for going after Saddam in the first place, but aside from that WMDs were never the real reason. It was the public reason. The real reason for the war was to curve terrorism in the long run by taking down a prominent pro-terrorism administration and setting up a Democracy.
What happened there is not a liberation. If they called it something different i wouldn't be splitting hairs. The administration would say at press conferences that they would open us with open arms or something like that. There have been plenty of reports and studies saying the iraqi people hate us being there and think we are fucking it up even more. That goes beyond media filters, and it's also why they change the objective as i said previously. Toppling the government in power is the first part of a liberation, and we have not done the second.
When i say corruption is rampant it's because that's the other part of the liberation we did not meet. I know perfectly well every government in power has some corruption at some level, but to have it at all levels this soon after making it shows how poorly a job we did setting up our democracy. One may say the iraqi people chose those people, but surely americans "pushed" for the ones they thought were good.
If i knew my american history a bit better i would say our government didn't start off corrupt, but i can't make that call since i don't know. It would be a nice counter example though.
?
And this.
Which is it then?
What you quoted of me and this part of your message does not connect. I'm trying to make it work though, and i'm assuming you just forgot a key sentence to explain how all of this is relevant to me.
I will agree that the possible outcome that you listed here is highly desirable by anyone with common sense, and some of these things about democracies spread and the UN sits on it's ass is spot on. We ARE the UN.
I am yet to hear 20 bosnians died from a suicide bomber in their temple. I am yet to hear bosnian radicals gunned down 3 soldiers on patrol. Cite me proof of this please.
Since i am biased against media though i will agree they stress too much on the negatives and not the positives, but i was never questioning the news coming out of there. I was talking about the hazards that people there have to deal with daily.
Again this up to opinion, the last part though. If we knew more history we could reach an understanding of the 10 worse presidents, because i am sure there are plenty that sucked.
as far as I know, no.
I'll get you some sources when I have the time to support my argument
When Jon Stewart responds to your blog comment?
It hasn't been longer than 6 years. Even if it were it has caused no where near the amount of destruction and bloodshed that occured during World War 2.
The majorities opinion doesn't necessitate that someone is a good leader in any way.
he lost the popular vote the first time but still won, which says the system sucks.
Even if he won it the first time it wouldn't prove anything to his capability as a leader, the only thing it suggests is that he's a good public speaker.
Bush hates black poeple!
^
oh yeah, to all high school liberals, bush is pretty much the best humanitarian leader of any major country. hes about the only one who really brings up human rights issues to the un and has been far more vocal than anyone else for intervention in darfur.
just cos they got oil i bet lol
i just have to say that, according to this website(i forget the name) the FBI knew about and could have stopped 9/11. also, if you have ever seen the videos of 9/11 you will know that the buildings did not topple over. It looked more like a planned demolition. the bombs were placed inside the building. also, if the FBI knew about it, then Bush knew about it, then it's clear that Bush must not have cared. Bush would have had the buildings evacuated and closed off WAY before the buildings went down. Bush is a crappy president because HE DOES'NT CARE!
derp
Of course the buildings didn't topple over. The metal melted so they collapsed. I'd like to see a plane that actually has the impact to make buildings of that size TOPPLE OVER.
Also saying they knew about it, well, who knows how much they knew, etc. I'll really have to do research into that, but I doubt their information was very specific.
9/11 in Clinton's fault anyway.
My only qualm with Bush is the Katrina catastrophe, it could have been handled ALOT better. I refuse to spout public opinion on the war in Iraq or the public polls. A nation voted him in and if we did not like him we could have voted him out...theoretically. I like his stand on some things; you've got to admit he's quite courageous and stubborn in his ways (not necessarily in a bad way)
I'm bringing sexy forward
i'd prefer to spread equal responsibility than to blame 1 person. yes clinton's fault because he knew before, but also bush's fault because he was informed also. it doesnt take 6 years to prevent 20 people from hijacking shit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
