It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Someone Pls. Tell Bush,"The World ' Is'nt 'Safer' scince He's Around"..

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper

The American left are comrades in arms with Iraq militants as they were with the Vietcong during the Vietnam war----that is the only explanation to their rabid and irrational hate of Bush and American policy around the world.


comrades with Iraqi militants!!!



as they were with the vietcong???!!!!!



irrational!!!



who needs Billy Connelly when you can listen to a sleeper history lesson?




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Cherish says,


Bush is hated for REAL reasons:
Foriegn policy
lieing to the public
hostile corporate take over of Iraq
for the prison abuse scandals
sending our sons to die for his family fued with saddam
his leave no child a dime and no billionaire behind policy
for not taking care of the needs inside this country
for outsourcing jobs
for his lack of an envioronmental policy
for his drucken driving record
for statements like "your with us or against us" and "bring 'em on"
for not caring about where osama is (and admitting it)
and on and on.
Hmm lets look at these with more scrutiny,

Foriegn policy
Are you talking domestically or foriegn opinions here.
what are the specific policies in question?

lieing to the public
I assume you mean about WMD's....How do you explain the unanimous UN resolution that was passed right before the war that pretty much spelled out Iraq's lack of compliance and the suspicion thet iraq was indeen involved in wmd's as far as the worlds intelligence agencies were concerned?

hostile corporate take over of Iraq
Please profide any evidence that corporations have ANY control over what is going on from either a policy or a millitary standpoint....lets hear the specific charges here.

for the prison abuse scandals
Lets be clear, while ultimatly the President is the cmdr in chief and technically responsible....the soldiers involved directly are the ones responsible for the unfortunate situation at the prison.....youve taken part time soldiers, with no training in running a prison, and put them in charge of a prison full of hostile people....what the heck did you expect from average citizens, being put into a very serious place, without the proper training in the task they were assigned?
But ok bush personally went over there and held the leash...
(PS some of us think that some minor "persuasions" as seen there are FAR from torture, and likley deserved by the thugs held there.)

sending our sons to die for his family fued with saddam
what is the name of your son serving and which branch?
Dont short change the daughters also serving...
You are talking about people that VOLUNTEERED to serve their country, reguardless of the why/what the government asked of them.
Oh but they just signed up for cheap college and some bennifits right?

his leave no child a dime and no billionaire behind policy
By this im guessing you didnt like the tax cuts?
Hmm well even tho I think that the rich should pay more tax than others...the tax break Bush gave was applied to ALL citizens,
or are you for some type of economic discrimination based on what criteria?

for not taking care of the needs inside this country
How many DECADES has this problem of the needy been around here?
LONG before Bush came around
Which specific needs here?
or are you just using broad generalities because you know any specifics you list would be torn apart?

for outsourcing jobs
BLAME GREEDY CORPORATIONS!!!
Plus the major outsourcing began under the CLINTON era....
hold corporations accountable...they are stroking the pay checks not the government.

for his lack of an envioronmental policy
REALLY? did you bother to look, or is this again a blanket bash with no substance....
please read this and then come back and tell us wigh ones arent to your liking....www.whitehouse.gov...

for his drucken driving record
BIG DEAL!!! Who cares, you know how many other citizens have this on their records....like teddy kenedy? so what, this is a traffic offence not a felony.

for statements like "your with us or against us" and "bring 'em on"
Ohh big words gonna hurt me...this is total emotive opinion here..
let me rephrase for you
"your with us or against us" time to decide world
"bring 'em on" if you think you can get a piece of the USA, bring it!!
and dont forget
"wanted; dead or alive" i feel this way about every terrorist we kill or capture.


for not caring about where osama is (and admitting it)
can you back up this slander with anything...especially not something pulled out of context?

and on and on.
and on goes the non specific emotive and ill informed opinions on this bush bash thread.

COME ON people, bring MORE that this weak drivel to the table if your gonna try and "get Bush" WITH IT


please explain using something other than gut reaction to show how the world is "less safe"



[edit on 4-2-2005 by CazMedia]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Caz, those words kinda piss people off. A leader of a nuclear nation shouldn't say things that piss off the entire world, including the people he works for. He lied, again and again and again. His drunk driving record is important for he is a freaking president! Gee, Mr. Presidents record of doing half a pund of crack a day for 18 years doesn't matter. When it does for it affects the brain. Alchohol kills brain cells.... so all his binge drinking might affect him.

Also, the people volunteered to protect their nation, not invade countries for oil. Now afganistan, that was to rid of an attacker. Saddam had not attacked us, had no ties to 9/11, had no WMDs, no proof he was even making them, and their should be after over a year of occupation if there was any, all he had was oil. Again, they agreed to DEFEND AMERICA! Not invade countries for oil.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
James
i think the words you mention are the catch phrazes in the discussion...
weather they tick some people off or not isnt the issue....as we believe in freedom of speech, this would of course apply to our President. Why shouldnt he speak his mind? Why shouldnt our leader be able to tell other nations something they dont want to hear...ITS HIS JOB to stand up for America and deliver bad news, or unpopular information both here and abroad...his hands (any Presidents) should NEVER be verbally tied because someone might not like what he's going to say.

As for alleged LIES....if these allegations were true, why dont you hear his political opponents saying this openly? Why hasnt there been any hearings to impeach him for these lies?
Ive asked before and ill ask again, aside from the debatable lie of WMD vs poor intel, what other examples are being offered here? More vauge gereral ones? All im asking for is the list of lies so that ALL can look objectivly at them. Lets put them to the ASSUMPTION test eh?

You allege that a drunk driving record matters because of brain cell capasity...you ASSUME the possible damage to his brain IF ANY is evident...which is unlikley that the republican machine would utilize such a flawed tool to become president if this were true...(you underestimate your opponents if you think their stupid) again THIS WOULD BE AN ASSUMPTION and not fact.

Also lets note that the founding fathers have NO stipulations in the requirment for presidency that this offence would violate..so again, big deal.
If you apply this logic to the president, why not senators like T Kenedy, who drunkenly let a woman drown from his exploits...yet Bush's history with this injured noone. t kenedy must go then too, as well as ANY person in a government position with similar problems, even if overcome and in their past. No second chances with you eh? noone can learn from past mistakes? a lack of forgivness is usually branded a conservative trait


As to our honorable volunteer armed services,
They didnt volunteer for only duty they approve of, they volunteered to serve the needs of their nation....weather thery like them, approve them, or desire them....it is NOT their position to decide what missions they get. Nor is it the publics domain..it is our democratically determined leadership...congress and the president, that are charged with making this determination...you dont like the war? BLAME YOUR CONGRESSPERSON for giving the President a blank check and the OK to pull the trigger.

As to the OIL allegation...
WHERE IS ALL OUR OIL THEN? How come there arent boatloads of it pulling up? why isnt the national reserves tanked up to full?
YES there is no doubt that oil is a strategic resource that would better serve MANY interests in the world, not just the USA's...(as we see with oil for food) It is in the USA's interest that A) our allies arent in bed with a known dictator under international scrutny, while stealing.
and B) that the government that controls the oil (iraq) is indeed cooperative with USA interests and a good member of the world community, this includes a REGIONAL long term strategy that is needed for the WORLD to be assured decent access and use of the commodity OIL.
dont be so nieve and self centered that you fail to see the bigger picture than JUST USA interests in this OIL or the regional implications.

To sum it up, im bringing tangibles to the table for discussion and still all i see offered in defence is ASSUMPTIONS based on anti bush rhetoric.
Show me the goods, perhaps ill understand where this comes from other than "emotional wishful thinking land".



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join