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.

 

Bush Haters in Good Company?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Well it seems that all you Bush Haters have an ally.


Iran thinks American voters have had it with the Bush administration's foreign policy and says the campaign for the 2008 election is proof.

"What is very clear in the United States is that everybody is looking for changes. That is very important," he said on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq."

"The foreign policy of the United States will affect this presidential election in the United States and that's why all the candidates are trying to say something new to public opinion," Mottaki said.

Mottaki said he was not concerned by the snub, noting that "usually, we as Muslims do not shake hands with the ladies, I am sorry, but we do respect the ladies a lot."

Town Hall

Gee, what a compatriot...

What with all the comments of "change and hope" being bandied around, I wonder if Ahmadinejad is running for President...All the same buzz words...

Semper




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Did you know Ted Bundy, Hitler, Bush, McCain, Bin Laden and Charles Manson also all agree that 1+1=2? What do you think?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

Iran thinks American voters have had it with the Bush administration's foreign policy and says the campaign for the 2008 election is proof.



I guess that Iran didn't take into consideration that this is an election year?Something we normally do every four years???



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Yes, if you disagree with the President or his administration, you embolden the terrorists. I thought this line of thinking stopped when Rumsfeld retired.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Yes, if you disagree with the President or his administration, you embolden the terrorists. I thought this line of thinking stopped when Rumsfeld retired.


Terrorist Enabler!



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Gee, what a compatriot...

What with all the comments of "change and hope" being bandied around, I wonder if Ahmadinejad is running for President...All the same buzz words...

Speaking of "buzz words", you're basically saying that "If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists!".

Your doing the same thing, Semper.

I don't think that anyone is saying that Iran is a friendly nation with the US, I would even say they could be a threat in the future, but they are not the imminent threat that Bush says they are. Just as Iraq was not the threat we were mislead to believe.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Rogue Element
 


I would really like to see the proof that President Bush agrees....

To everyone else...

HEY!! It's just a thread...

You don't have to agree, that's ok...

Semper



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
From the Source article .



Mottaki said he was not concerned by the snub, noting that "usually, we as Muslims do not shake hands with the ladies, I am sorry, but we do respect the ladies a lot.


Other then the above contradictory statement the article doesn't really contain anything new. Hopefully the improving security situation in Iraq will allow the underlying issues to be dealt with which are the poor quality of the local security forces , lack of screening and if a central government can work in Iraq .

IMO the government fears Iraq becoming a democracy because they fear the spread of ideas much like the Soviet Union did during the Cold War .



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Point. Maybe I should have replaced that with Cheney, just to be safe

But still, you see what I'm getting at. Its a pretty underhand way of arguing. I've lurked, and you've come across as a smart guy Semperfortis, regardless of any political differences I may have with you. You can do better than that.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I posted a thread similar to this, basically identifying the fact that this guy basically endorses Obama, seeing as "he is the candidate of change" (I wonder if Mccain gets money for that trademark every time Obama rehashes 2000) You are not alone Semper. They can't beat us all down!



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
The main point that everybody is missing is that foreign leaders have no business in lending there support for any of the US presidential candidates. I do hope that I am proved wrong and McCain wins the election because he is more likely to suit New Zealand interests . But Helen Clark or any one else has no business putting her nose in US domestic politics any more then Bush should meddle in the up coming New Zealand election .

However judging from Clark comments and the fact our foreign minster Winston Peters has meet with McCain its not hard to figure who her preference would be .

Clark comments

[edit on 9-6-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


the US activily supports forign parties that run again the leaders they dont like.

so what gives the US that right but not other countries to do so in viceversa?

[edit on 10-6-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Bodrul I am not quiet sure what your getting at the US does take a public stance against organisations it considers to be terrorist rather then legit political body's.

Is that what you are referring to ?

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


No

i am getting at the United states supports oppasition political parties in others countries (so called promote democaracy) As in provide funds and support

i am asking

if the United states can do this then other countries have every right to mingle in the affairs of the US

also my first post seems to very clear on the question i am asking now
so where did u get terrorist sponsors

hopefully its more clear now

edit: im not going into terrorist sponsors
as its a well known fact the US does and supported terrorists.





[edit on 11-6-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Bodrul I think I get what your point is now . While it is true that the US is very selective in the regimes it opposes I myself see a difference between interfering in the affairs of a democratic state and opposing rogue regimes or rather there treatment of there own people . By terrorist groups I was referring to the likes of Hamas(SP?) which the US and most of the world regards as being a terrorist group rather then a legit political party or body .

[edit on 12-6-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


just to qualify, i am a 55yr old white guy, who got lucky in the 1971 draft lottery NOT to be shipped off to vietnam. and i will say, if you talk to a nationalist Iranian, there is still animosity over the CIA overthrow in 1953. Iran had a constitutional government then and thought the U.S. was the apex of freedom and admired america, they then kicked out british petroleum because BP was keeping all the profits from oil for themselves while the people of Iran were in poverty. the iranian government changed that, BP got pissed as well as britian, england asked america for help and the CIA overthrew the government and installed the shah of iran. the Iranians have a long memory, and if something like that happened in this country, all of us would have a long memory too. all actions have consequences, and our leaders still don't get it, or they simply don't care.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I have a question. Are you suggesting that you know why exactly Iran is an enemy of the US? i would really like to hear the reasoning.

From where I see it this can mean 1 of 2 things. Either Iran has some crazy thought that having a democrat as a president is going to make it easier for them to abuse/attack us and it seems as though you might agree. Or Perhaps Iran feels that it may just be easier to come to terms with people who are actually willing to compromise and come to terms with our differences rather then jumping in gung-ho.

No matter what you think you can not force your ideals on another people by any means. And just because you agree with a perceived enemy or even an outright fascist about a couple ideals doesn't mean you or your associates are fascist as you seem to imply with this crap. I am sure even the Jews could find something to agree with in Hitlers beliefs.



[edit on 12-6-2008 by AnOldFriend]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
LOL semper,
that ain't gonna play.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't really cut it in this case.

As far as Bush goes (and I hope it's a long way
) I firmly believe that he has done more to damage the reputation and image of the US than anyone else I can think of - but of course he doesn't care as he and his corporate fat-cat buddies have already got their pile of billions to keep them going in the manner they have become accustomed to.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join