It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


George W. Bush:A Dictator in the making or a President with a noble cause?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:32 AM
First and foremost,I created this thread not to throw insult on Bush and his Administration but to discuss Bush's real agenda.

As most of you know,George W. Bush is the U.S President and some may call him the guardian of democracy by shining light unto countries with totalitarianism.Well,of course his methods of doing so may seemed awkward.This is quiet true to say the least but let's look at the two agendas:

1)A President with a noble cause
He fights for the freedom of the people suffering around the globe.Could it
be his real agenda is for freedom,peace and love through the invasions that he had ordered?Is George W. Bush truly the reincarnation of the saying "De Oppresso Liber"?

2)A Dictator in the making,bent on world domination
He intervenes directly into the problems of another country and resolve it his way.His so-called "fighting for the freedom of these people" caused more terror than ever and hundreds of American soldiers perished fighting for another country's war.Iraq War-the search for WMD.Where is the WMD now?Is it all a lie to reach his goal of global domination?

I'm truly with answer number 2.There is just too many events that happen in his hand that seemed unjustified and wrong.

Pick which you think suits your opinion and give a reason.Thanks.
And please,I don't want any conflict in this thread.Keep it cool!

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:33 AM
Is it possible to beleive he has no noble cause, but also isn't bent on world domination? That's a pretty rational opinion

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:36 AM
Nah,anything that someone does has a reason to it.Bush said he invaded Iraq to search for WMD and then suddenly,no no,he was fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi?Why the change of plans Bush?

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:53 AM
Interesting sources to read:

George W. Bush is above law?

Pope feels Bush is a war criminal?

U.S war crimes from International War Crimes Tribunal

Bush,the war criminal

Efforts to try Bush as war criminal

Comprehensive guide to Bush's war crimes**(a must read)

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:32 AM
the answer to your question is:

2)A DICKtator in the making, bent on world domination

you said it all in the sources to read.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Heartagram
Bush said he invaded Iraq to search for WMD and then suddenly
he was fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi?

This is nothing new in politics. Reasons for doing things shift all
the time. Abraham Lincoln took America into a civil war to keep
the union together. This may or may not have been entirely
legal. States DO have a right to leave the Union. However,
after the war started, the bigger picture of freedom for slaves
became the battle cry and THAT is now what the Civil War is
remembered for ... not for the initial reason of keeping the
Union together.

The secondary reason which emerged .... freedom for slaves,
was still a good reason for the war. Same with Iraq. WMD
have not been found to date but freedome for the Iraqis, who
were being mass murdered by the hundreds of thousands is
still a good reason to go to war. Liberation sometimes comes
in as a secondary reason. But it's still a good reason AND it's
not the first time reasons have shifted mid war... and I'm sure
it won't be the last. Heck, Clinton took us to war (without any
UN resolutions at all!) in Yugoslavia on the pretext of getting
Slobo out because he was a genocidal maniac (true) ... even
though he was no danger to the USA. The real reason Clinton
went in ??? Wag the dog. Still ... the liberation of the people
from Slobo was a good thing even though it wasn't the real
reason we went in and even though there was no UN mandate
and Slobo was no danger to America.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:34 AM
You see FlyersFan,with all due respect,you are a typical average American example.

You police and enforce your ideas unto another country and blabber about how your cause was justified usually using the words "freedom" as an excuse.

Another point I want to bring out is the fact that U.S never learnt from history.Well,that's a fact-"we learn from history that we learn nothing from history".

Shift of plans?Why shift plans?If you really don't have WMD in Iraq wouldn't you just hide your tail in between your legs and scurry back to your country saying "my bad".I don't get it.Is it along the way,oh!,they're suffering!I will help them?it's truly unsincere and totally misleading.

Sounds more like a charade to me.

[edit on 14/2/05 by Heartagram]

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:39 AM
Well if we make it trough his second term without the 3rd world war i think we can consider ourselves lucky.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:53 AM
Yup,but I strongly feel that somewhere in this years some invasion might happen again.Probably Iran or N.Korea.

Anyways,hopefully with Bush's 3rd year in office,people will start to realise and see his flaws as the U.S President.

[edit on 14/2/05 by Heartagram]

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Heartagram
Shift of plans?Why shift plans?

It was explained to you. I will give you one more explaination
because you are not American and you don't understand the
reference I made to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. One
more try and then if you still don't get it, it's your problem.

PRIMARY reasons shift. That's just the way it is. That's the way
it has always been. It's the proper way to run things. Adjustments
need to be made continually because if you are too ridgid in your
way of doing things, then instead of getting things done, things
will break. When the 45 nation Coalition of the Willing went into
Iraq the primary reason was because Iraq failed to fulfill it's
responsibilities under United Nations Resolution 1441. Also, it
was widely believed that Saddam had WMD primarily because
he had used WMD on the Kurds and because Saddam himself
was threatening to use WMD.

Once things got going for those reasons, a BIGGER reason became
clear. Mass murder, mass rape, and mass torture. It no longer
mattered if Saddam had WMD ready to use or not. Iraqis were
being mass murdered in the hundreds of thousands. They were
being mass raped (Rape was a government policy) and the families
of the rape victims were forced to watch. For the world to continue
to sit by and just watch and refuse to help .... well, that would have
been evil. Plain evil. Germany and France thought their illegal
Oil for Food billions were more important than helping the Iraqis
to get rid of Saddam and his regime. However, the 45 nations in
the Coalition of the Willing understood the horrors and were
determined to stop them.

I used the American Civil War as an example. Here's another one.
Hitler and WWII. The reason America went to war against Hitler
was to stop him from taking over the world. When America and
the other nations went into Germany we uncovered the Nazi camps
which had killed over 6 million people. The primary reason for
entering WWII was to stop Hitler. Another reason which came up
was to stop the mass murders. We didn't realize how bad it was
until we went in. Once we were in ... the world understood and it
all said 'NEVER AGAIN' to those kinds of evils. Well, those kinds
of evils were happening under Saddam. It had to be stopped.

I have explained things the best I can. If you still don't understand,
or you don't WISH to understand and all you want to do is to hate
George Bush, then there is nothing more I can say. I have explained
things to you. The IRAQI PEOPLE are happy Saddam is gone and
frankly, THEY and their opinion are much more important when it
comes to deciding if America did the right thing or not by going into
Iraq. The IRaqi people are happy Saddam is gone, and they are
just as frustrated and miserable about the idiotic insurgents who
are trying to destroy their new freedoms, as we are unhappy with
the insurgents.

Iraqis are happy.. they are free ... Saddam is gone ... they are
getting their country back after 30 or 40 years of misery. Be happy
for them and don't let your anti-American bigotry cloud your sight.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Heartagram
Bush said he invaded Iraq to search for WMD and then suddenly
he was fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi?

States DO have a right to leave the Union.

Wrong, only Texas can leave the Union leagally.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:04 AM
don't even try reason. They are brainwashed lambs. The rape chambers and murders are under new management. The old American puppet dictator will be replaced by a new american puppet dictator. The ruse is up, the arabs have learned that any american chosen leadership will end up as a dictator. What is new, nothing at all.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:08 AM
Dictator in the making!!!

Hail Bush

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:09 AM
hey hey!I have nothing against Americans!I hate Bush.That's all.Get it?

Yeah,I see your point in the "shift of plans" idea but I don't see the point in enforcing your ideas unto others?Just because you saw the mass murder of Jews or the Holocaust created by Adolf Hitler doesn't give you the right to invade another country and doing what is best for them.Let them do their job it's their own country.The way your country fought for independence from the British showed your strengths to liberate yourself.Look where your country is now,strong and influential.

Why do the job for them when deep down inside those oppressed souls they can do it for themselves?Let them have your kind of history without anything to do with assistance from any foreign country.

I am happy from the Iraqis for able to have a say in what they want and being free.That's all?Freedom is just freedom.Freedom doesn't provide you with food neither it assures them another psychotic madman like Saddam would take over and reliving those horrible days of Saddam.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:11 AM
Give them some credit. They did liberate 100,000 Iraqi's from pain, too bad they are dead to enjoy life.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:12 AM
Both 1 and 2 because i think he is a new age Napoleon in the making. Like Napoleon his goal is probably spreading democracy but knows he needs to be a dictator to do this. His holy mission is going to take longer than he will have in office and only a strong leader that sticks to his guns has any hope of accomplishing such a goal. In my personal opinion democracy will not be brought with the sword, this method has had only limited success in the past.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:17 AM
i'll get panned for saying it but Bush and his administration are just too complex to put into such a category of 1 and 2. I think they are a mix of both

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:19 AM
Quite true,Trent.

Such invasions in the name of freedom have limited success.In the short run,such moves are very effective in introducing quick freedom to the oppressed.However,the long run,such invasions could cause suspicion by other nations and also having the invaded country to slowly getting up on her feet but always falling because of her uncertainty of the future.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:32 AM
"1)A President with a noble cause"

I think this can be safely ruled out straight away. Even if the Iraq war had never happened, ive got the Bush administrations number on the Afghanistan opium scandal. This alone incriminates them and previous administrations and sheds light on their true, behind the curtain agenda. Not to mention the coc aine deals from elsewhere, would anybody like a fat line of coc aine?

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:49 AM
Well taking in consideration that he has some very close link to profiteers, and has given free reign to the elite, and that he has taken our nation on a bumpy road to control in the middle east, yeah he is a dictator in the making.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in