Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where are the Bush supporters now??

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?

US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.

Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.

Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.

I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?

If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.

On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.

Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaida attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?

I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.

In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I forgot to add one thing. If you answer is gonna be that US cannot invade NK because its too tied up in Iraq then let me ask you this:

Why didn't the US attack NK in the first place when it named it among the 'axis of avil' knowing full well that of all the US enemies, NK would possibly be the first to make nukes and use them against US or its allies.

When Bush 'suspected' saddam of having WMDs, im sure he suspected Kim of the same thing. Given the 'US intelligence', wouldn't Bush have known about Kim's plans. I mean it didnt take them long to know that Osama was behind 9/11.

After attacking Afghanistan, Bush had 'choice' between Iraq and NK.

Iraq had oil, NK did not. Iraq was easier to attack then NK, being the pushover US is. NK had a higher probability of having WMDs than Iraq, much higher. Kim is crazier than Saddam ever was. Bush knew after putting hisarmy into afghanistan and iraq, there wudnt be much left to put anywhere else and would therefore make the US 'vulnerable' against bigger threats like NK, still he did not attack NK.

Now, after all those above mentioned points, Bush chose to attack Iraq and ignore NK, makes one wonder as to the true motive of the US government and then lot more questions arise like maybe 9/11 was an inside job considering all the conspiracies around it.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I don't think too many Bush supporters will argue the point anymore. I think through history it has been shown who were the people that saw clearly, and those who maybe had their own fear used against them. Either way, now, IMO, is not the time for I told you So's. Maybe with a bit of luck the US can make it past all of this but I think it will be hard.

I have often wondered if some of the Bush supporters here were actually Bots, because regardless of the issue their firm denial of everything that would shed Bush in some bad light was instantly dissmissed. Although I am sure many of them would claim the same of the other side



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I have often wondered if some of the Bush supporters here were actually Bots, because regardless of the issue their firm denial of everything that would shed Bush in some bad light was instantly dissmissed. Although I am sure many of them would claim the same of the other side


Lol, thats funny, comparing people to Bots. Reminds me of Counter Strike..Aahh. Anyway, back to the issue. I dont think even now people are gonna see through the lies or atleast try to think of the other possibility. Maybe the bush supporters should try my method. Look at the possibilities (of both sides) and then use process of elimination as I did earlier in my post. Eliminate watever makes no sense and try to pick out the most probable thing. Thats how I came to conclusion that Bush attacked Iraq for oil and maybe 9/11 was inside job to 'start up' the 'war on terror' otherwise he wud have attacked NK first or atleast he wud have pulled troops off iraq and invaded NK when Kim announced that he wud test nukes. Still, as you said, these guys are like Bots, they will not budge from their side of the fence and try to peek over and see wats happening on the other side. I, however, like to take the fence down and see everything clearly.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
I, however, like to take the fence down and see everything clearly.


I would like to take the fence down and hug them. Honestly, this has all divided us so much, and at times I feel like I personally am lumped with some enemy because I disagree. At the same time, some bush supporters act like I am against them, and dislike them because of their political views. The beauty of this country is that we are supposed to be able to have differing opinions, and cherish the idea of individualism, while creating a whole. Sure I could puke when I see our president, but that's him. It's not everyone else that supports him. Calling them bots doesn't help much either. What are we doing to bring people together, by removing their humanity?


It's hurtful, because I hold such a respect for people, and it seems that there are some avid Bush fans that would punch me in the face if they met me in person. Its like we're not even a country anymore, it's a miniature war amongst ourselves, and we sit here stagnant.

I just don't get why some would be filled with so much hate for a fellow American, though that does work on both sides of this imaginary fence that we have erected.

By the way, this should really be in PTS, not current events, imo.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I agree that there is so much fighting amongst ourselves here in America.Im beginning to see America as the next Rome.Rome was the power in the world at a flash in time,only to see it fall apart from within.Rome was destryoed from within long before any outside forces finally put it out of its own misery.I also think that we have been giving this administration everything is wants by arguing amongst each other."Divided we fall",and thats exactly whats happening.If we could all stop arguing with each other,and stand together,we could make a difference.We can all agree to an extent,there something seriously not right here nowdays.Maybe IF we could ALL stand together and demand answers from those who have them,we can start to make things right.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82 Calling them bots doesn't help much either. What are we doing to bring people together, by removing their humanity?


Very true. Although in my feeble defence it was more of a joke, but you are correct and I am clearly wrong on this. My apologies to everyone, and the board.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I'm here. I support Bush and the administration. I'm rational enough to know that everything has not gone as planned, but in the wake of 9/11, when most politicians would have been looking at the polls to see what to do next, GW took the bull by the horns and took the war to the enemy and he's had the cajones to stay the course when all the effete snobs have screamed, "Cut and Run!"

We have a discussion of loyalty over at Social Issues. It's tough to be loyal in the hard times, but some Americans do so.

But, I guess if you believe that Bush sponsored and carried out the 9/11 attacks, loyalty is probably a very slippery concept, as is reality.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
funny how the bush supporters have not replied to this thread yet and tried to refute my argument. I should make it clear that I use 'Bush Supporter' as a loose term. I am sure by now all of you can understand what I mean when I call someone 'Bush supporter'. I simply mean, the people who thought that attacking iraq and afghanistan was 'war on terror' and not an attempt to gain control over middle east and the oil reserves. Funny how Bush only attacks countries with oil.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm here. I support Bush and the administration. I'm rational enough to know that everything has not gone as planned, but in the wake of 9/11, when most politicians would have been looking at the polls to see what to do next, GW took the bull by the horns and took the war to the enemy and he's had the cajones to stay the course when all the effete snobs have screamed, "Cut and Run!"

We have a discussion of loyalty over at Social Issues. It's tough to be loyal in the hard times, but some Americans do so.

But, I guess if you believe that Bush sponsored and carried out the 9/11 attacks, loyalty is probably a very slippery concept, as is reality.



Grady, c'mon bud. By now you have to aknowledge that the reasons for war with Iraq was a huge cluster, and for none of the reasons the Admin stated - right? Are we at least on the same page as that?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The rationale for the iraq war was multifaceted.


WMD
One the one hand, Iraq had wmd previously, and had used them. There was never a demonstration that they had in fact destroyed their weapons, the UN never stated that they did, and the various sets of inspectors never said that they had confirmed that Iraq had destroyed its WMD. Furthermore, after the war, it was demonstrated that Iraq had WMD programmes, but that they were inactive, only because of the sanctions. Given the money, they'd be re-arming. Prior to the lead up to the war, lots of countries were talking about lifting the sanctions, especially Russia, which is essentially a corporation that sells WMD tech and knowledge to anyone (part of a bid to counter-balance US hegemony). Worse, the inspectors were demonstrated to be utterly ineffectual, not only could they not verify that there were no weapons, but they weren't even able to detect the secret infrastructure of the WMD programmes. In al-Najaf, the US troops found a camoflauged chemical plant. The Inspectors had been in that very city and didn't even see it.

Iraq as a threat
Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened the rest of the arabian penninsula in a bid to steal their oil and affirm Hussein as a regional power. Regardless of their ability to attack, they clearly were the enemy of the US and a destabilizing danger in the region.

Militant Democracy
The idea of the US acting as a militant supporter for radical democratic change in the middle east is the core of the greater War on Terror strategy. Islamic terrorism has deep causal roots, it is those roots that need to be addressed. Muslim terrorists frequently site western interference, politically and also, importantly, culturally, in the middle east as a greivance. Largely they hate that the west has supported parties that have ruled over the muslims, rather than were lifted up to rule by the muslims, such as the House of S'aud, the Baathist Hussein regime, the Shah, etc. These bad rulers, installed and supported by the west, have done nothing for their peoples, who continue to live in ignorance, poverty, and oppression. The jihadis suggest that this can be cured by ignoring the physical world, diving into the spiritual one, and installing a global (or at least regional for now) islamic caliphate, replacing secular-totalitarian law and rule with islamic law and rule.
The west now suggests that democratic governance and civil society is the answer.


So why iraq
Lots of places hate the US, are run by oppressive regimes, fund international terrorism, and potentially have WMD. Why Iraq?
Firstly, the rest of the world is irrelevant. This is all in response to terrorism. Not all terrorist organizations are muslim. Only the radical islamic jihadis represent a serious threat to the US. Thus only the islamic territory is relevant. Given that, Iraq is a sensible choice. Its been ground down by sanctions and was previously defeated. The baathist Hussein regime was extremely unpopular and genocidal. And Iraq under hussein simply wasn't ever going to be open to diplomacy. No rational person disputes any of that. Saudi Arabia doesn't use genocidal tactics to control its public. Its rulers are basically a bunch of rich a-holes. Rich a-holes don't care about power and rule, they care about money. That means that they are allways open to manipulation and ammenable to diplomacy. Iraq wasn't.
The Iranian government is oppressive. But it isn't all that unpopular, and it didn't have a WMD programme. Most importantly, it isn't a straight-up dictatorship and there is allways the possibility of using diplomacy to keep it in line, not to mention the possibility of an internal revolution, entirely absent in iron-fistedly controlled iraq.

So, given all that, the rational for invasion of iraq, so long as its part of a policy of supporting militant democratic revolution in the middle east, is a sensible start.

Whether or not anyone is actually interested in that anymore is another question entirely.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm here. I support Bush and the administration. I'm rational enough to know that everything has not gone as planned,



You have not answered my question and have only stated that you support Bush and the administration.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
in the wake of 9/11, when most politicians would have been looking at the polls to see what to do next, GW took the bull by the horns and took the war to the enemy and he's had the cajones to stay the course



Again, you only say that, Bush went to war in the wake of 9/11. My question was, why Iraq and not NK when clearly NK was a greater threat to US at the time since it was more capable of making nukes than Iraq was. And also the reasons given for Iraq war later turning out to be false shows how well Bush and his administration takes decisions by attacking the enemy which was of a much lesser threat but financially more profitable. Doesnt speak much for Bush and Co. And to add, you have not answered my question, just stated the fact that Bush went to war after 9/11.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

But, I guess if you believe that Bush sponsored and carried out the 9/11 attacks, loyalty is probably a very slippery concept, as is reality.



Nowhere in my post did i mention that i BELIEVE bush carried out 9/11 attacks. I said that it could be considered a possibility considering the situation now, which I dicussed in length in my post.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
The majority of the world leaders agreed that Saddam represented a threat to the free world, as did the Congress of the United States. GW made his case to the public, but the world leaders and Congress looked at the same data that Bush did and came to the same conclusions.

Saddam outsmarted the world and paid the consequences. All the reasons that we went to war did not turn out to be valid, and that wasn't our fault, but the fact remains that having Saddam on trial for his crimes is a good start toward cleaning up the region.

In war, things never quite work out the way you plan. There is an old saying among Marines that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. That's why adaptation and improvisation are so valued among fighting men.

Blaming your own leaders every time something goes wrong is stupid and self-defeating, as is forgetting the circumstances that led this nation to where we are now.



When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

[...]

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

[...]

By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

[...]

President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:

"The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are... The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.

I yield the floor.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War


That was John Kerry then.

This is John Kerry now.


In an interview after the speech, Kerry said he has learned from the mistakes of his campaign, including his inability to articulate an easily understood position on the war. Now, drawing on his experience as a Vietnam-veteran-turned-war-critic in the early 1970s, he is making clear that he is a full-throated opponent of the Iraq war.

"It was right to dissent from a war in 1971 that was wrong and could not be won," Kerry said in his speech. "And now, in 2006, it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today, [and] dissent from policies that are wrong today, and end a war in Iraq that weakens the nation each and every day we are in it."

www.boston.com


Now, maybe you want to be like Hanoi John, but not me. I'll take GW any old day.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
You guys say that Iraq was a threat at that time and needed to be immediately taken care of even though it required pulling lot of troops out of afghanistan and putting almost all the US military in Iraq.

You argue that this was necessary after 9/11. I should remind you that Osama was never caught and still roams free. So shudn't Bush be worried about the person who ACTUALLY attacked US (according to Bush) rather than someone who COULD be a threat. So, why then would Bush attack Iraq before putting all the military strength and intelligence into finding Osama. Why suddenly engage all the troops into Iraq knowing full well that North Korea could take advantage of the situation (lack of enuff military).

This was was supposed to be war on terror yet you say that islamic countries were relevant after 9/11, when Bush himself said that this was was on terror not war on islam.

So 9/11 or not, at any given time, North Korea was a bigger threat to US than Iraq. NK had better military and technology and also it had nuke technology given to by dear ol US (by clinton). So how can Iraq be more of a threat at that time. And by your logic, Bush should have pulled out troops from Iraq and have already started to invade NK, since NK is openly 'challenging' US. but thats not the case, is it.

You still have troops in Iraq. What exactly are they doing there anyway, trying to stabilize the region? Clearly Iraq was more stable with Saddam in power. Now its just a rubble and a battleground and the troops keep fighting. Why are they fighting, u shud ask. Saddam is already been captured. His regime has been topples so why oh why hasnt Bush called the troops home. And even more so now, why hasnt he pulled them out of Iraq and started preparing them for attacking NK.

Surely Bush shouln't let NK slip away. Since Iraq was attacked based on suspicion (against the agreement of lot world leaders), then NK should be attacked right away (no one will even oppose the invasion).

And the threat of nukes going off cannot be used as an excuse for not attacking since Iraq could have done the same but US attacked anyway.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
GradyPhilpott, please post your own argument and opinions rather than posting a very large source and a candidate speech. Posting the entire speech and only one line of your own saying who presented the speech shows that you really don't have an opinion of your own and only follow what comes out of a politicians mouth.

I mean, comeon, using it as source and pasting the whole thing is two differnt things. You should be presenting a valid argument answering my question.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Grady,

Sorry bud, but you didn't answer any of the OP's questions. Nowhere in your post did you mention NK? They were just as much of a threat, just as much of an "evil axis" but why did we invade Iraq so hastily? As much as you say Saddam was an "evil" man and needed to be eradicated.....what about Kim? Good for you that you support the troops and GW, but the fact remains that we went to an oil rich country (that we found out possed no threat) instead of going for a real threat...nukes in NK.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
NYGEN,

Come on man. WMD's were false, and were based on poor intelligence that no one bought other than those that were trying to make it fit.

Iraq was never a threat. They had no WMD's, had allowed the UN in there and was doing EVERYthing they were asked to do. Although it wasn't fast enough for the Bush admin.

This also can not even be tied to terrorism, for those that hit you are still free, and your admin has given up even looking for him. That alone should bring some gaint red alarm bells for those that hold to the offical story of 911.

I tend to agree with your assessment with Islamic factions in the middleeast and that is really a tough road to hoe. However, there is some(a lot?) of merit in their complaints about the western interference, and while many of the leaders in those countries have intentionally kept their citizenery in the dark ages, the simple truth is that if THAT was the reason there are many better countries to go after than Iraq which was tied down tight and couldn't sneeze without the world knowing it. Meanwhile, Saudi Arberia(sp?) and others who were at the very least tagentally involved with 911 have not even been glanced at.

Ny, you are clearly a very intellegent person and I in no way wish to disrespect you, however I have to ask do you really beleive that anything that you wrote about the WMD's, Iraq being a threat or some Islamic cultural war is what caused this?

I keep remembering something I saw once on youtube.
The war is not ment to be won..



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?

US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.


We helping the people...not our fault that the insurgents decided to kill more people than America does. We can't protect everyone. Not to mention that Iraq HAD WMDs, these days the CIA has no reliable intel on Iraq so its a guessing game. Nothing new there, in CIA's history.



Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.


We invaded NK, China backed them up and we lost over 40,000 men for that. We invade NK, we go to war with China since its nearby and NK is China's ally. We still have about 25,000 troops in SK. But then SK won't support our invasion of NK if we decided to. Not to mention we are stretch thin.


Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.


We could invade NK but then we have only 25,000 men. against how many NK men? 1.2 million?


I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?


Your opinion, Al Qaeda has been left alone for years, about time we strike back.


If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.


Give us another million soldiers and we could do it.


On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.


We gave Afghanistan about a month before we invaded. Iraq 3 years.


Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaida attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?


Definitely yes.


I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.


I'm sorry thats pretty much wrong, since we fought conflicts with many non-oil producing countries than oil producing countries.


In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.


Thats funny. Thats based on what you believe not current news reality.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Sorry bud, but you didn't answer any of the OP's questions. Nowhere in your post did you mention NK?


I don't have a reason that the Congress chose Saddam over NK or Iran, but I would imagine that logistics had much to do with it. There is also the matter of Saddam's record of violating UN resolutions for some ten years before the invasion.

Read John Kerry's speech in my last post. He makes a better case for going to war with Iraq than I ever could.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War

Remember, I am just a common citizen, not a policy maker, as some here envision themselves.


[edit on 2006/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Where are all the Bush supporters?

Well, to begin with, you're asking us to accept your opinion about NK as fact. And if we disagree with you, you feel justified in calling people "Bush supporters". Not just you, but ATS in general.

See, political parties don't really matter. The logic or fallacy of a person's premise does. That's what cannot be argued or debated here on ATS. If I disagree with your ideas on NK, then I'm automatically a "Bush-supporter" in your eyes.

I really despise sloppy thinking. Once again, not referring to you. But there are very few people here who can accept the fact that their premises could be questioned; they immediately go on the offensive and start with the labeling.









 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join