View Single Post
Old 05-08-2004, 03:13 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

It's a lot easier to use the [quote ] [/quote ] system.
I don't remember jack about Bush Sr. (since I was between the ages of 6 and 10 when he was in office), but maybe so
I don't either. I got that from the media when they were talking about the War on Iraq. They quickly pointed blame at Bush Jr. for following the document, but the document and the fact that Clinton followed it as well was stated.

Oh, so know you're saying that there was an imminent threat from Al-Qaeda?
Apparently. Al-Qaeda was in the U.S. for a long time before Bush ever came into Presidency, and before Clinton knew anything about it.

So know we're acting upon intelligence from terrorists. [sarcasm]Excellent.[/sarcasm] , that just furthers my view.
The teorrorists didn't just hand the information over, you know.

Meh, I do agree that he is fed some crap, but I also refuse to believe that he is blameless in the intelligence fabrications.
He is only blameless when he isn't told that the information could be false. Otherwise, you could point part of a finger at him.

Originally Posted by Alakazam
It was a purpose, but not a purpose important enough to warrant GOING TO WAR. My point is that the reasons for the invasion were completely incorrect, and I'd be willing to bet that the administration doesn't give a crap about the Iraqi people before the invasion, and fed that line to reporters to make them look better.
The backing for the solid, only applicable for the current situation came out to be half-true. They didn't have WMD: they were making them. Not quite as efficiant as an imminent threat, but they were making them. The terrorists don't neccisarily have to be from Al-Qaeda. But I do think they fed that line to reporters. Safety of America comes first.

If the salvation of an oppresed people is enough purpose to go to war, than what's next? War with North Korea? Iran? Libya? Myanmar? Cuba? If so, who knows how many Americans will have to die needlessly.
That's the thing: It isn't. The reporters aren't denying the first two purposes. They're just stretching the third.

While I'm at it, I may as well add another reason for my opposition to the president: the advocation of two-valued orientation. Before the Iraq War, propaganda was spread that basically said that since Iraq had funded (allegedly) Al-Qaeda that they must be evil, along with their best friends Iran and North Korea.
Actually, it just have more back to the invasion and liberation of Iraq. A "Oh now THIS is the last straw!" thing.
[sarcasm] Oh, you didn't know that Iraq and Iran are strong allies? Oh, yeah, you must have missed that memo. Since they are both unfriendly with the US, they must be in it together -_-[/sarcasm]
I missed the Memo, because I was too busy reading about how Iraq and Iran didn't like eachother. I thought we were passed assumptions like this last quote. The Regime change came before Al-Qaeda ever launched an attack. They weren't just against us, they had evidence that they "HELPED" them. You know, like giving the gun to a kid so he can shoot someone. You can follow back that far on the ladder of blame.

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
Reply With Quote