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.

 

Can we agree that Bush was right? ...Finally?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Dial Toll-Free, Moderators Are Standing By


Originally posted by Blaine91555
MODERATOR

Your friendly and courteous moderator staff may be contacted by U2U or via the Gripe/Idea tab attached to the bottom of the ATS logo at the top of each page.

Please provide a brief description of the problem and a link to the thread or post in question, and they'll be on the case in a jiffy.

However, please bear in mind that the moderators may assess situations differently and operate on a discretionary basis.

Well that, and the fact that a political bickering call in the War on Terrorism forum is about as rare as underage drinking on university campuses.




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Not my fault if you don't understand a metaphor. YOU started the mudslinging not him.


OFF TOPIC : that is immaturity behind belief. A person says "people who voted for Bush voted should be shot" and thats considered a metaphor...? But comparing Bush to Hitler just because it became popular tho its has not one inch of truth, thats cosnidered Truth ...hmmm... how distorted can one single mind me ???


Something tells me you don't quite understand what a metaphor is


ON TOPIC:...

The problem I see whith most of the posters on this thread, is that they would actually rather jump off a bridge than admit they may have been wrong about G.W., and that is pretty sad... that is behond sad, those are the people this Country has to count on. To what point of "humanity" have we come to, that dying and make ignorant claims that are suddenly disguised as "metaphors"
...is actually prefereble than appologising.

It even amazes me more that these childish hatefull reactions, actually come from so-called "anti-war", "pro-Peace" posters...

So wait a minute... you ppl claim to be anti-war, pro-Peace, but you are not even able to appologize when presented with the possibility of beeing wrong ??

I am also surprise by these reactions, because I would think, that most ppl especially AMericans would actually be happy to find out that G.W. could be right about WMD;'s after all, and that would actually shine a better light on present problems.... but no... stupid me ... what was I thinking...

Its better to hate Bush, than be united as a Nation... no wonder the Muslem world feells so empowered, they know westerns, specially Americans are crumbling...they know that many Americans would rather throw a temperfit and call for the death of ppl that voted for Bush, than actually step back and thing ..."wait a minute, what if the guy was right all along? What have been wasting my time on ?"


And all this "Bush destroyed our economy".... hmmmm interesting, but the American ppl is known for the ppl that less saves, or doenst even save AT ALL... ppl that do not save do not have bad economies.... If the economy was that bad, ppl would start to spend less and save more, but in most cases its exactly the opposite... take a look at the past Christmas... the most popular gifts were Digtal cameras, cell-phones, Xboxs (that run from $300 up), hardly gifts of ppl living under a bad economy.

Bush-Bashers.... what a bunch of happy ppl...


[edit on 13-2-2006 by BaastetNoir]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

And all this "Bush destroyed our economy".... hmmmm interesting, but the American ppl is known for the ppl that less saves, or doenst even save AT ALL... ppl that do not save do not have bad economies.... If the economy was that bad, ppl would start to spend less and save more, but in most cases its exactly the opposite... take a look at the past Christmas... the most popular gifts were Digtal cameras, cell-phones, Xboxs (that run from $300 up), hardly gifts of ppl living under a bad economy.


You are totally ignorant. First know what you are talking about before you post.


Judging by this I can only assume that you think we are all rich and that none of us save. Many of us cant save because we live pay check to pay check paying living expences.

Many of us dont even have cars, let alone Digtal cameras or SUVs or even an X-Box. But corporate business is boombing in many cases. And last time I checked, Bush and his VP were from corporate oil companys. Funny how oil has to do with EVERYTHING.

After all isnt this why we put Saddam's party into power. Isnt that why his people were poor as hell? Didnt we do the same thing in Iran? Maby thats why they are fighting us? Or atleast, thats 1 reason.
www.zmag.org... Again, Ignore it if you want. But what happend in the past and the Bush Admin's Oil connections, high oil prices during and after the war in Iraq, & our beef with Chavez are no coincidence.

All I can say is UBL wanted us to stop messing around in the Middle East, indeed we were messing around in the middle east. Setting up illegit regimes that would benefit our oil industry and oppress their people.

Bin laden offered us peace under fair conditions, and Bush Admin laughed at him. Bush isnt protecting our borders, but he is quick to take away our freedoms in the name of defense.

(yes i did edit)

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo

And all this "Bush destroyed our economy".... hmmmm interesting, but the American ppl is known for the ppl that less saves, or doenst even save AT ALL... ppl that do not save do not have bad economies.... If the economy was that bad, ppl would start to spend less and save more, but in most cases its exactly the opposite... take a look at the past Christmas... the most popular gifts were Digtal cameras, cell-phones, Xboxs (that run from $300 up), hardly gifts of ppl living under a bad economy.


You are totally ignorant. First know what you are talking about before you post.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]



You may be right; but don't call people ignorant unless you can back it up with somekind of relevant information.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
So there we have it, you don't have an SUV or an Xbox so you put down those who may, meaning the rich oil barons, menaing GW Bush. If you were born into money, would you feel the same way? If your family was somehow related to Bush and you reaped the benefits, would you still take cause?

Jealousy is the worst form of hatred, that only perpetuates to those who do have, and then when those that do have give it up, it is those who did not have who are there to take it away. The hypocrite, what a wonderful person.

You are only ignorant if you have not read the facts of both sides, and have not made an informed decision. There in lies the problem. It is easy to bandwagon and ride the insults, but it is not the defender who must prove prove they are right, but the accuser who must prove the accusation.

Bush need only state that there has not been a terror attack in 4 years, which I think is an accomplishment since it seems that everyone is against us., and no one can say, wow, you're right. We ahve been able to have Christmas and New Years and teh 4th of July, with nothing happening.

Why is it so hard to not admit that you are wrong about the president, butthat he is right?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
This thread belong in PTS, for the way it has evolve in a bashing contest is a shame is still here.

I love to see the conflict of interest when it comes to Mr. Bush public opinion.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Whoa, it looks like another thread headin for the toilet. I would Hate to be the Mod's in this forum.

Anyhow, The Bush administrations war on terror is supported by a majority of Americans who know radical Islam needs to be delt with NOW, not in 2025 or 2033...NOW!!! I wish we had a better President, but right now Bush is the best we got!


The mistakes in this war are many, but once you read up on historical battles...you find that there are screw-ups and mistakes in every war, but the side that exploits their enemies mistakes will probably win.


Maximu§



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Again you can Ignore this. Like everyone who is pro war does. But I want somone to tell me im wrong. Did these events not happen? If so then we need to really question Bushes motives for war and look at weather our own government was behind 9/11 like Moussaoui hints at. Remember Bin Laden never clamed he was behind 9/11, so we dont even know who did it, all we know is who benefited. And guess who?


After all isnt this why we put Saddam's party into power. Isnt that why his people were poor as hell? Didnt we do the same thing in Iran? Maby thats why they are fighting us? Or atleast, thats 1 reason.
www.zmag.org... Again, Ignore it if you want. But what happend in the past and the Bush Admin's Oil connections, high oil prices during and after the war in Iraq, & our beef with Chavez are no coincidence.

All I can say is UBL wanted us to stop messing around in the Middle East, indeed we were messing around in the middle east. Setting up illegit regimes that would benefit our oil industry and oppress their people.

Bin laden offered us peace under fair conditions, and Bush Admin laughed at him. Bush isnt protecting our borders, but he is quick to take away our freedoms in the name of defense.


I can never support Bush in because of this. Atleast I have a solid reason for disliking Bush.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
The originator of this thread made an amazingly immature statement that somehow sucked a lot of people into discussing this non-topic.


Aelita, I do not think this thread is that much of an immature statement as you might think.


Originally posted by Aelita
For one thing, it's is supremely naive to think that this is some kind of Good vs Evil struggle. Anybody who thinks that should be sent back to grade school.


Have you looked at the state of the world as we speak? Try to do a google search on present wars being fought and you will see who is involved in half of the world wars at this moment. i'll give you a hint, it is not the U.S.


Originally posted by Aelita
If an Islamic faction decided to punish the US for its intereference in the Middle East, it's just that. I wish the US prevails no matter what, but it's an affront to expect me believe that some kind of biblical Good vs Evil battle. It's not.


I wish it was only an "Islamic faction" but it is more than that. In south Africa alone millions of people have been systematically murdered by Arab militias backed by Islamic governments. Half of the conflicts in the world have Muslim extremists fighting in them. Are the Muslims extremists really just fighting against injustices caused by the west? or are they trying to continue what their prophet Mohammed started in the middle ages? I am pretty sure it is the latter.



Originally posted by Aelita
Then, what exactly Bush was right about? As we all know, there were no proven links between Al Qaeda and Saddam,


Really?
Let's see if that is true shall we?


During the summer of 2000 — as the Los Angeles Times detailed on January 20, 2002 — at least $99,455 flowed from financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates into a Florida SunTrust account Atta shared with his roommate and fellow hijacker, Marwan Al-Shehhi. That August, they began flight lessons at Venice, Florida's Huffman Aviation.

On April 4, 2001, the FBI says, Atta departed Virginia Beach's Diplomat Inn with Al-Shehhi and cashed a SunTrust check for $8,000. No American eyewitness saw Atta again until April 11.

Atta next was observed April 8 by an informant of BIS, the Czech Secret Service, who reported that Al-Ani met an Arabic-speaking man in a discreetly located restaurant on Prague's outskirts. Atta is believed to have returned to America the following day.

While skeptics dismiss this encounter, Czech intelligence found Al-Ani's appointment calendar in Iraq's Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein's defeat. Al-Ani's diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with "Hamburg student." Maybe, in a massive coincidence, Al-Ani dined with a young scholar and traversed the nuances of Nietzsche. Or perhaps Al-Ani saw Mohamed Atta and discussed more practical matters.

For his part, Al-Ani was jettisoned from Prague on April 22, 2001 for allegedly plotting to blow up Radio Free Europe's headquarters there, also home to Radio Free Iraq. (Al-Ani's predecessor, Jabir Salim, defected to England in December 1998. He said Baghdad gave him $150,000 to arrange the car bombing of RFE, but he could recruit no one to complete the mission.) American forces arrested Al-Ani last July 2 in Iraq. Not surprisingly, he denies meeting Atta.


Excerpted from.
www.nationalreview.com...

We have Czech intelligence telling us of at least one link between a 9/11 terrorist and Saddam's regime....

Then we have the evidence from Spain in which a Spanish judge found that one of the terrorists who was part of the 9/11 terrorist plot, which was planned in Spain, had been invited by the Iraqi embassy to a party in Spain. It is kind of strange that there are so many Al Qaeda terrorists who have some sort of connection with Iraq yet the "liberal media", and unfortunately others too, claim that "there was no link".

Here is another interesting link.

findarticles.com...




Originally posted by Aelita
and the WMD program was virtually non-existent, much less capable of producing a wepon that can be deployed "in 40 minutes". I personally hate being lied to, so I can't understand the originator of this thread who apparently loves this stuff.


You mean non-existent like the "non-existent" empty chemical warheads found in Iraq?.... or the "banned" scud missiles and other missiles which Iraq was not supposed to have anymore? or the "non-existant" banned missiles which were found in scrapyards around the world and were sent from Iraq? or the "non-existant" centrifuges which at least one scientist was told to bury and hide? or the "non-existant" tons of documents which dealt with wmd?.......

Is that what you are talking about?



Originally posted by Aelita
To the poster who said the Islamic is planing the establishment of a Caliphate - yeah right. I know there is a hardcore faction in islam that wants it, but it's no more meaningful than a bunch of evangelistical crusaders here in the US who wants to spread the word of God everywhere on Earth.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Aelita]


First of all, Jesus, or Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) did not go around with a sword raiding caravans, kidnapping women and little girls and making them their slave wives, nor did they behead anyone, which Muhammed did to people even after being captured.

i think you missed the long thread that Valhall did on the Caliphate and the goals that Islamic extremists, like Osama Bin Laden, want to accomplish.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I think what people forget about ATS is the fact its a conspiracy site and if your post has a conspiracy orientated oriental flavour it might not sound like you are inflaming.

Maybe all replies should have an equal conspiracy answer. That way we can cut across opinions that sound inflaming. I'm no better but hope to improve as well.

And I do not think Bush was as bad as he sounded before the war started but in a way wish he left iraq alone so that Iran and Iraq would have destroyed each other instead of Americans sacrificing them selves for this war. Now that Iran has nuclear issues would Iraq let them have it under Saddam?

But anyway its better than being sitting ducks, who knows if nuclear technology could have been sold to terrorists if the terror organisations did not dispurse and maybe ruin a deal with Russia. Now its in the hands of Iran they will continue the terrorist agenda by annoucing Israel to be wiped out. The conspiracy is that we are led to confusion and can no longer trust anyone not even the news.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wish it was only an "Islamic faction" but it is more than that. In south Africa alone millions of people have been systematically murdered by Arab militias backed by Islamic governments. Half of the conflicts in the world have Muslim extremists fighting in them. Are the Muslims extremists really just fighting against injustices caused by the west? or are they trying to continue what their prophet Mohammed started in the middle ages? I am pretty sure it is the latter.


Diffrent story, its just people using religion to justify ambitions. Islam isnt evil.
Its like saying being German in 1935-1945 ment that you were evil just because of what the Nazis were doing. Im sure there is a lower persentage of extreamests to moderate muslems than there was Nazi Germans to non Nazi germans.

Oh yeah... Im still waiting for somone to tell me im wrong on my last post.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Oppress freedoms of choice do or die bleed if you leave the religion.
Destroy the infidels and non-believers.
Mirror prophecy to suite the Arab agenda and destroy all religions prior to Islam.
No evidence of miracles or the sighting of God in any form.
Conversation with the angel GABRIEL is inconsistent with the Bible Gabriel and his opinions of Jews by the Angel are evidently wrong.
The Devil can appear as beautiful as an Angel too the behaviour was inconsistent of an Angel.
And many others

'The satanic verses' book obviously caused protests and the orders of death to the author. Maybe we have a right to speak out too as they have about us as it can cause wars or world wars exacly what the devil wants with the jews wiped out in the process. Its has all been about the Jews they are GOD'S people and like like Jesus fall victim to mans judgments. History repeats it self the enemies change their names but the heart of man is always the same.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
First, Bin Laden never offered a truce. He has been hell bent on estroying us since Saudi let Americans on thier soil. He beat Russia, and he feels he can destroy the US, which he is winning by the way. For ever person who says that they hate the government of AMerica, he has won one more convert to his views. Realize, you feel the same way about out country as Osama bin Laden.

Second, your only basis for stating you don't like the administration is because of his oil riches. Jealousy is so, i don't know, third grade?

Third, please read a little of the history of Iran, and realize your statements are bunk. Are you old enough to remember the hostages?

fourth, we never supported Saddam, we reestablished diplomatic relations in the 80's and where the classic Rumsfeld photo comes from shaking hands with the enemy.

fifth, again, I will say that you do not have to agree with him, but admit that he is cight with the war on terror, and the 11 failed attacks are proof. We need DHS, just as we need UCAV's guarding our borders and citites, but the ACLU would never allow such a thing. So what plan do you have now for the borders?

Spend more money on troops for posts ripping apart the 3 trillion dollar budget, but what else is there to do? Would hte administration dare raise taxes to hear complaints?

Answer some of those questions, as yours were answered Tasketo



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Some would have you believe that there is no battle between good and evil, but this is patently false and it obvious to anyone who has lived long enough to have experienced both.

George Bush is right to the extent that he understands better than any politician in America, at least, what the full extent of the threat against America really is and he has a plan to do something about it. Has he been correct about every single decision he has made? Of course not, but at least he's has the courage to stand up for what is right for America and to do so without hesitation or backpeddling.

Personnally, I'm concerned about what will happen to America when he leaves office. Until then, I know that as of 9/11, the most dangerous job in the world is an al Qaeda terrorist.

[edit on 2006/2/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

fifth, again, I will say that you do not have to agree with him, but admit that he is cight with the war on terror, and the 11 failed attacks are proof.


I have yet to see any proof of these 11 failed attacks. 1 I might give you, the shoe bomber, but others? Where's the data? Where are the culprits? I have long ago learned not to take a what a politition sais as gospel. Just because Bush said there were 11 attempted attacks, doesn't make it a fact.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by sensfan]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First, Bin Laden never offered a truce.

Really? He didnt? What?

WASHINGTON – Rejecting a suggestion by Osama bin Laden of a negotiated truce in the war on terror, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was only one way to deal with terrorists. "I think you have to destroy them," Cheney said.

www.consortiumnews.com...
www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
l


Originally posted by esdad71
Second, your only basis for stating you don't like the administration is because of his oil riches. Jealousy is so, i don't know, third grade?



My only basis?

Even if that were, witch it isnt, wouldnt that be enough considering what has and is happning isnt this enough?

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top administration
officials face a conflict of interest because of their deep
connections to oil and gas companies witch are expected to benefit from the new agenda. Read that one more time and let it sink in. Conflict of interest. The guy who started such a controversial war has a conflict of interest

Indeed they have benefited.


Originally posted by esdad71
Third, please read a little of the history of Iran, and realize your statements are bunk. Are you old enough to remember the hostages?

fourth, we never supported Saddam, we reestablished diplomatic relations in the 80's and where the classic Rumsfeld photo comes from shaking hands with the enemy.


History egh?

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein)

1984: Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq

Good vs Evil egh?


Originally posted by esdad71
fifth, again, I will say that you do not have to agree with him, but admit that he is right with the war on terror, and the 11 failed attacks are proof. We need DHS, just as we need UCAV's guarding our borders and citites, but the ACLU would never allow such a thing. So what plan do you have now for the borders?

Spend more money on troops for posts ripping apart the 3 trillion dollar budget, but what else is there to do? Would the administration dare raise taxes to hear complaints?


Aww.. you got me on this one.


Answer some of those questions, as yours were answered Tasketo


I did.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
1. No conflict of interest

2. Saddam came to power in 1979, and had those who opposed him killed.I know the history since the 50's.

3. We choose the lesser of 2 evils with Iraq and Iran in the 80's, and actually benefited from both of them economically. I am not saying it is right, but people still buy Mercedes and VW's. Now there is a conflict of interest .

Our government through history have backed lots of people who bit them in the ass.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
1. No conflict of interest


Really? Can you honestly say that? Or is it just all coincidence that the best people Bush could find for his administration just so happen to have ties to the oil industry?


Originally posted by esdad71
2. Saddam came to power in 1979, and had those who opposed him killed.I know the history since the 50's.


I didnt say he didnt. But maby you dont know that in the early 1960's U.S. had unsuccessfully attempted to assassinate of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim. I wonder why? I hope it wasnt over oil.



Originally posted by esdad71
Mercedes and VW's. Now there is a conflict of interest .

Right. Lets ignore bush and talk about cars.

Crap, my car is outta gas.



Seriously, No conflict? You cant be serious. Who else agrees with him?


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harvestfreak
People will always hate those who have freedoms, its that simple. This is no longer about religion its about the fight between freedom and oppression. People think the the US is taking away our freedom, they are not. They are just changing and making new rules. You have the power in this country to say anything you like about the president, the government, heck even your neighbor. If it was like all of you claim it to be, you would not be able to do that, if you did you would be arrested or killed.
The people that make a big deal out of the US taking away our freedom, name some freedoms that have been taking away from us in the past 50 years.
The M.E. is a touchy subject, because so much hardship has fallen on them, people like to blame stuff on others. Its not the US's fault that most of the M.E. is in poverty, its the governmets problem. Sure we tried to liberate the people and help em out. If it weren't for the US the M.E. would still be a savage part under oppression, where anything you said or done, that was against the law of the government you would be killed.
So you can say all you want about the US being evil, the fact is that no matter what we do people will still hate us. Because we are what freedom is all about.


I don't know about the ME but IRaq was much better (from the perspective of the common man) before all this crap happened.
There was only one rule you had o abide by,
Don't mess with Saddam.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Bush is wrong cause he's wrong headed and you can't make soup out of defecation.

PTS Thread

He was raised in a fascist leaning self-serving environment and it shows.

We don't need none of that. Not now. Not ever.






[edit on 2/14/2006 by bodebliss]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join