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.



page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 09:57 PM
every word out of the bush administration is pure unadulterated bull#.

the practically already-declared war on iraq has nothing to do with anything but OIL.

i can't believe how many people actually believe something only because its been repeated enough times and they see their peers start to believe it so human nature takes over and they believe it too.

rhetoric. rhetoric carefully scuplted to further a particular agenda. rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with being accepted and furthering the agenda. the agenda of the rich. the agenda of the oil industry. the agenda of the forces that put our good buddy g.w. in office. the agenda that will put in place events from which there will be no return. an agenda that is greedy and evil and spiteful.


rhetoric. bull#. the u.s has wmd up the bottom. those wmd's will only become a legitimate threat when the u.s starts waging its unocal-sponsored war. how many would support the war if they knew their own hometown would probably be bombed? for what? a threat the administration fabricated to gain support for a war to support purely selfish, corrupt, and evil interests?

i don't think all the bad things that have happened since bush took over are a coincidence. its becoming a very frightening pattern.

"an evil man"

rhetoric. bull#. bush and cheney are evil, dangerous men. rumsfield is a dangerous man. ashcroft is an evil man. rice is a token black puppet and nothing but a tool of the administration -- says exactly what she is told to say. powel is a liar. they are all liars.

"he gassed his own people"

yeah and we helped iraq gas iran. and they weren't really his own people. they were innocent civilians and women and children. they also were a rebel ethnic group engaged in a war with the leader of thier country. like the terrorists in chechnya.

"he invaded his neighbor"

after recieving the go-ahead from the us, saddam's mistake was that he did not withdraw when he was told to.

so is the administration for or against invading soveriegn nations with military force?

i would not be surprised if plans were already being made to take control of saudi arabia and iran while were taking iraq.

israel has been given the green light to wage full-war against iraq if it repeats the types of attacks seen in the first gulf war.

if this happens it will destabilize and ignite the entire middle east in all-out war.

that's what i f'in think.

"the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bushís desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. "

-- Nelson Mandela
yesterday (as of 9-10-02)

posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 10:09 PM
France and China will alway's be against America.So what.

I would love to see diplomatic solutions work,but it will never happen with Saddam.

I,ve said it before and I'll probably saw it again,do we want to sit around and do nothing and hope for the best,or do we cut the head off the snake?

And Bush is no worse or better than any other President we've had in recent history.Cowardly Clinton had his share of scandels and murders too.If you have noticed nothing

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 10:13 AM
And like on all the political boards I post, I'll deflect beforehand: Native New Yorker, Air Force vet, I vote, own property and once belonged to the NRA. I'm a capitalism junkie, hate fascists, am Catholic and think democracy in theory, is the best form of governance. Did I forget anything? Because since I think Bush & his minions are illegitimate and ill prepared to lead this country, I get my patriotism questioned by certain types.

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 11:45 AM
i think 'governance' should be 'government'. sorry to be pedantic but its own of my gripes. democracy is indeed one of the best forms of government (apart from, perhaps, a benign dictatorship) but it should only be regarded as part of governance.

- qo.

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by quiet one
i think 'governance' should be 'government'. sorry to be pedantic but its own of my gripes. democracy is indeed one of the best forms of government (apart from, perhaps, a benign dictatorship) but it should only be regarded as part of governance.

- qo.

No worries
Someone sweating the small stuff makes the big stuff possible!
It should have been 'democratic theory' to allow the use of 'governance'.
Those benign dictatorships fall apart for me on the sucession issue; you know, cousins start kissing and we have another Sun King on our hands!

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 05:10 PM
thx, 'bout time.

anytime anyone bitches about what a bastard gw is, someone starts ranting about how terrible clinton was. because of a bj? that's his business. that 'sin' won't cause the loss of life and despair and destruction of millions of people.

whitewater? all politicians are corrupt. if they weren't they wouldn't be politicians. whitewater won't cause a war. that 'scandal' didn't hurt me.

posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 05:15 PM
All politicans are crooked putting blame on Bush and ignoring Clintons scandels is very onesided.


They are all the same.


log in