Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where are the Bush supporters now??

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Grady I'll have to take issue on a number of points you made....


Well, I'll let John Kerry explain it to you.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
MFSC,

I respect your opinion, but Socialism???

It has failed miserably on every attempt in History.

In fact, I'm not sure any country has ever reached the pinnacle of being able to proclaim true socialism. It usually degrades into Communism or a Dictatorship.

Sorry, but we have become the Greatest Nation to ever exist because of what we are... A bunch of Capitalist Pigs.....


Semper



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Grady I'll have to take issue on a number of points you made, 1. Bush took the war to the enemy, who exactly is the enemy, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, Bush did not attack them did he I wonder why.
2. Saddam was a threat to the world, oh really, just exactly how does a tin pot despot of a third world country with very limited forces become a threat to the world. You might as well claim that Somalia or Mexico are a threat to the world but we all know there not.

Even your claim of he was a threat to the region is false, Iraq-Iran fought themselves to a standstill for years and got nowhere, at best he was more capable of killing innocent civilians than being a military threat to anybody. And to claim that he was a threat to the worlds only superpower is ridiculous as witnessed by Iraq1/2.
The US/UK were quite happy to supply and arm both these countries in the past and now we play the righteous card. If your nextdoor neighbour was a theif would you give him a spare set of keys to mind no you would not so why do we allow our elected goverments to arm countiries that then threaten us.

Why dont people just be honest and say that we went into the Middle East to assure our future oil supplies and to protect Israel, I,m getting fed up of the war on terror bull all the time.


Very well said and of course very true. I have made the same point about Saudi Arabia for some time and have yet to see one clear answer on why the US never bombed the bejesus out of that region given the ratio of 9/11 terrorist origins. Here's the US supplying Iraq with weapons used against Iran and even the slimeball rumsfeld shaking hands with the big bad boogeyman himself. It reeks of contradiction and pure deception. But being that its so unpatriotic to question this administrations efforts there's no way to convince others.

North Korea is indeed a threat and one thing I would like to point out is that regardless of whether NK has the missile capability of attacking the US (obviously this is not a reality) they have the potential to possibly supply the blackmarket with the technology. We all know how crappy the US ports are guarded so this only enforces the fact that blackmarket nukes could be and are a far bigger threat in the hands of terrorists than a regional dispute. For this reason alone NK poses 100 times the threat that Iraq ever tried to.

brill

[edit on 11-10-2006 by brill]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
This heads a bit off topic, but socialism only works in theory. As soon as you involve people it totally fails.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
What really amazes me is not the topic at all, but the posts on this thread.

Semper


What amazes me is the lack of Bush supporters who have responded. I could probably count them on one hand.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Why is it that you would think one thread topic from one member would bring all of the "Bush" supporters running?

Do you truly consider this thread that compelling?

Look at the title, it does not exactly invoke an attraction of the intellect. I was bored and wanted to see what it was all about.

I have seen, now I'm gone.

Night

Semper



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
honestly I think it is a lack of support



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
That would be an assumption I would expect.

Alas, those types of blanket assumptions are not really conducive to the subjective flow of interesting thought process between individuals. i.e. boring

Semper



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Semper, I thought you were leaving - You are to good for this thread anyway.

Next time I want to know the entertainment value you derive from my posts, I'll ask, and I'll make sure I don't, because I really don't care.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Now was that necessary?

I thought we were discussing a topic, not me.

Though I feel honored to be a topic of discussion, I feel it would, however, slight the author of the thread.

Relax and debate my friend. This is just a debate, no one came to your house and stole your chickens. Don't take it personal.

Semper



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Nice speach that Grady its a pity it was all based on lies and deception though, lies, Saddam was responcible for 9/11, lies he had WMD, lies he threatened the west, and I find it highly hypocritical that a country that does have an abundance of WMD'S is dictating to the rest of the world what they can and cannot do.

The reason why America is facing these threats is beacuse of its foreign policy and its attitude to others, as I have said you keep poking the dog sooner or later its going to bite you. Do you really believe that you can continue on this course without being challenged, or are you just a blind patriot that believe's his country can do no wrong. Well your country and mine are doing things wrong and people are suffering for it. Being American or British does not mean that we are superior to all others.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I want to make something clear. People keep criticizing the title of the thread.

The title is meant to poke those people who follow Bush blindly without questioning anything he does. If Bush sayd we should invade X country then these people belive it is the best thing for them without actually questioning the motive and trying to understand it.

The title was meant to simply awaken the people from ignorance and encourage them to question their leaders.

It does not take an expert to realize that Bush has been a complete failure as a president.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Why is it that you would think one thread topic from one member would bring all of the "Bush" supporters running?

Do you truly consider this thread that compelling?

Look at the title, it does not exactly invoke an attraction of the intellect. I was bored and wanted to see what it was all about.

I have seen, now I'm gone.

Night

Semper


So you want an exciting title for the thread while to question your intellect while you ignore the actual post. A reminder to u.....this forum is all about the content people post, the title hardly matters. Title is only meant to attract attention.

And giving an excuse like 'i clicked coz i was bored' does not count. Point is you still clicked on the title even though it did not invoke the attraction of your intellect. So, I guess I did manage to get your attention enoughh for you to post on this thread multiple times.

You are contradicting yourself.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Nor does it take an expert to understand that blanket statements like that are invariably wrong.

Many people in this country still support the man of conviction that sits in the White House.

Also, it was YOUR representatives that voted us into Iraq and Afghanistan using the exact same information available to President Bush.

How convenient to have one single entity to focus all of your blame on. However, reading the Constitution one understands the limits of the President and the absolute ridiculous idea that he is to blame for everything from Global warming, to the war to the next tropical storm.

My opinion is that this is simply an example of intellectual otiose. Instead of investigating, researching and acquiring the facts, the Bush Bashers just "fall back" on the old mantra of "It must be Bush's Fault."

It is also popular and gets you far less flamed and even at times may make one sound like they are current on affairs, al least to those that also fall under the category of rational faineant.

Kind of like everyone beating up on Johnny, because he wears boots instead of Air Jordons. Hey lets all be popular and do the same thing.

Semper



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Semp dont make me laugh, a man of conviction, Bush couldnt find his ass using both hands, and to say people still believe him just goes to show how many of you are wrong and wont face up to the reality of your actions.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
To the best of my knowledge, my beliefs do not in anyway equate to "actions" so I have no concept of what your referring to.

As for the rest of your post, you have a right to your opinion, as I have a right to mine.

The belief that any opinion is more or less correct then another's is also a very excellent example of the thinking that is applied by Bush Haters.
Unrequited hatred for an individual or an ideal could never be conducive to any form of enlightened thinking or "open Mindedness" to coin a phrase.

That is becoming more and more apparent as time goes by. Those that support President Bush are normally ready to accept failings, even be critical of certain policies. On the flip side of that, the Bush Haters are ever making blanket statements, unqualified outbursts and emotional exclamations attempting to defraud another's opinion. This instead of simply stating a case and debating the merits. This phenomenon above all else, causes one to examine the motivations and conclude the possibility this is a social issue and in no way based on factual examination.


If one assumes their self to be correct, there is never any need to insert detractions into the issue. However, if one is arguing a weak and unsupported point of contention, it is only human nature to become emotionally involved and therefor erratic in context.

Semper



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Semp I dont hate Bush or anybody come to that its not about hating its about people doing something wrong, its about lying and deceiving people. Were not in the dark ages where people blindly believed what they were told, were now in the imformation world where its getting harder to hide the truth and coulped with the voice of so many who want to know whats going on.

America like the rest of the world runs on oil, America consumes more of it than anybody else, if you want to bring America to a standstill then just stop the oil flowing. Your leaders know this and that is why we are engaged in wars in the Middle East. Why dossent Bush and Co just tell the truth, why just not tell the people that you need oil and the last thing you want is Muslim extremists getting hold of the supply or even worse that the dollar is shelved and the Euro is used, that would be good bye America wouldnt it.

When we had the farmers blockading fuel depots a while back and petrol was rationed for about a week you would of thought it was the end of the world for some, fights breaking out at petrol stations, all because of oil.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Why do people come here and try to always show that 'Bush haters' patronize the bush supporters. Why always attack by trying to ask your opinion to be respected.

How about you actually give a good opinion and debate about it. Thats why we are all here for. Instead of always crying about how the 'bush haters' are trying to criticze bush supporters.

We are criticizing Bush, not his followers. We are merely encouraging the followers to open their eyes and not just follow Bush blindly.

Why does the US government have so many secrets from its own people when it has nothing to hide?

Its pretty clear that all this war is for OIL and not to fight terrorists. Thats my conclusion from my understanding and logic. If you have a different conclusion than state it here, instead of constantly bashing the bush haters of posting against Bush.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Do you truly consider this thread that compelling?

Look at the title, it does not exactly invoke an attraction of the intellect. I was bored and wanted to see what it was all about.

I have seen, now I'm gone.

Night

Semper


This thread was under the hot discussions list on the main page for a couple of days. Yet you are here claiming it does not attract attention.

You have seen and you have gone. Indeed you have. Read and move on since you cannot actually make a reasonable argument against it, instead you criticize the title and the thread itself. Lol....im sure the ATS mods must be pretty stupid to put this thread under hot discussions....



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
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.

Flase. The vast majority of US ARMY active combat brigades are not deployed in iraq.


So shudn't Bush be worried about the person who ACTUALLY attacked US (according to Bush) rather than someone who COULD be a threat.

No, he should be attacking everyone, everywhere, that is a threat. Bin ladin in afghanistan, and hussein in Iraq. You've completely and utterly ignored the entire logic of the Iraq War, the movement for militant democracy in the middle east. The only rational criticism of the plan to attack iraq must also be a criticism of the plan for militantly supporting democracy.


So, why then would Bush attack Iraq before putting all the military strength and intelligence into finding Osama.

Because the US is capable of doing two things at once. The nazis never attacked the US prior to the declaration of war, and when the Japanese bombed pearl harbor, the US went to war with a focus on europe, becuase it was the right strategic move at the time. Afghanistan had already been invaded, conquered, and the taliban dispersed. Hunting for bin ladin doesn't require that the US not be involved in Iraq, and many of his operatives and sympathizers have been captured and killed, in iraq.


Why suddenly engage all the troops into Iraq knowing full well that North Korea could take advantage of the situation (lack of enuff military).

So what are you suggesting? That the US should've invaded North Korea or not?

The US didn't invade North Korea because while it is a state sponsor of terrorism you can still actively promote a democratic movement in the middle east while North Korea is around. North Korea doesn't have any pull in the middle east, or anywhere outside of North Korea. When a state is invaded its government is destroyed. If the US wants to destroy the government of North Korea, all it needs to do is stop giving that famine stricken country food and medical supplies and watch it starve to death. Iraq had already been attacked, had already been under years of sanctions, and yet it still was keeping aspects of its WMD programme secret and funding international terrorism. The only option available with Iraq was military invasion.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join