World Wants Bush Out!

So Saddam had no links with Al Qaeda, there were no terrorist camps in Iraq training these bastards to learn how to highjack passenger aircraft, among other things and Iraq did not have banned rockets, and parts which he used in the past with wmd?

We went to Iraq under resolution 1441 which was accepted by the UN.

Can I ask why is it that the world does not speak against the war the Russians have been waging against the Chechen rebels, for far longer than any US war, which they call "terrorists".... (and i agree partly with this because of the actions of at least some of these rebels) still the Russians have committed attrocities against Chechen civilians and tells the world to stay away from this conflict...

Russia is supposedly defending itself against Chechen terrorists, the US was attacked by Al Qaeda, we went to attack those terrorists under a UN accepted resolution, even if it later wasn't liked very much. The President said we would go not only after terrorists but after those nations that were supporting and aiding terrorists, Afgahnistan and Iraq are two of those nations....

As for the wmd, the debate is still on...there was more than sufficient proof that Saddam still had and was trying to acquire wmd....why in the world would his people have tons of information and banned materials that were part of wmd programs. Why in the heck would he hide from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC that he destroyed all his wmd? what did he have to gain by hiding this and making the world think there were unnacounted for wmd as the 1999 UNSCOM report says?.....

Well, clearly it would be nice if all of our governments felt that the other was great and all of our people liked them as well. But in the real world that isn't going to happen.

I mean, if you ask a lot of Americns, they would change a lot of other nations governments as well.

And of course we have to believe a news-source, one at least i have never heard about, and which probably has a bias against Republicans in general and more so against Bush... If we were to care what the world though about us we would become socialists like Spain did... and I am sure many people including some Americans would like this to happen....

Kerry would be a far worse president than Bush, and his health program would not only bankrup the US but Canada as well, as it is many Canadians have to cross the border to buy medicines they cannot find in their own country because of their socialist health program.... and that's just one point...

Now Edwards is claiming that if Kerry wins people like Reeves will walk again, and the blind would see....the bastard is trying to profit from the death of a good man...and not to say he is making the most stupid promises, unless he and Kerry are proclaiming to be the Anti-Christs....


[edit on 15-10-2004 by Muaddib]

The difference is the rest of the world will voice its opinion but leave the USA to decide for itself being a soveriegn state and all... The USA would just go in and invade and install a puppet government... your probably lucky the rest of the world isnt as war crazy as bush... otherwise you guys would probably have ben invaded by now

I'm very happy to hear that you have to be an American citizen to cast your vote. I wonder why....

Muadib...

If you can show me evidence to suggest contrary to this new source (the sydney morning herald) then we can discuss it... but so far i have not seen anything to suggest an international popular opinion towards bush (note the article does say he image of the US isnt as bad so you guys still have hope)

As for 'socialist' healt programs... i'm assuming you mean universal healthcare and subsidised medication... I fail to see how anyone with even a fraction of a heart can be against everyone having basic health care... to let people be sick because they cant afford help is just encouraging the poverty cycle... but i guess the poor and needy in your country should just be forgotten about... coz i mean, if you leave them sick, then they'll die one day and you wont have to worry anymore.

That is probably the best description of Dubya's action that I have ever read.
Thanks for that, SA - hopefully your words will make others think about what will happen if GWB gets back in power in November.

The way I see it, the world needs the US.

The US is the only nation that can take on these terrorists.

Like it or not, our involvment in the ME is a positive mid term and long term event.

In the long run every free nation will see the fruits of our labor.

You can already see the positive results in Afghan - they just had an election with 75% voter turn out. That shows that thes people WANT AND CRAVE freedom, which will make for a safer world.

Regardless, you live in Aus, and wasn't Howard - an avid Bush suporter - reelected? I would say that makes you our ally for another few years.

The UK will probably follow suit.

The fact is that mainland Europe has become soft - but lucky for them, good old American boys will go and protect the world for them - yet again.

Acutally like always you are leaving the part of where Canadians have to cross the border to the US and buy some prescription drugs down here which their health program doesn't allow in Canada...how is that for letting your poor people die?

The reasons presented by the US Administration for attacking Iraq were that there were 'overwhealming evidence' that Saddam, at the time of the attack, was harboring WMD's. There were also alleged evidence of Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda. To this date the vast preponderance of evidence simply does not support these claims. In light of what we now know it makes the fact that the US Aministration didn't let the weapons inspectors finish their job even more disturbing.


[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]

Its no surprise the rest of the world wants bush out. He does what he thinks is best for the American people, not the world community. Whether what he thinks is best really is best is a matter of opinion. For too many years IMHO our presidents did what was best for the world. I really dont think Bush cares what happens to the rest of the world as long as the American people are doing well, and that is the atttude want from a president. I think Badnarik said t best in his ATS interview (to paraphrase) The candidates are not running for the position of "leader of the free world" they are running for President of the United States of America.
Don't get me wrong cooperaton on the world stage is a good thing, but only as long as it does not conflict with Amercan interests. During the clinton years "the world" was more important thn America. From selling weapons systems to china, to faling to make a real effort to stop Al queda, our leaders cared mre about the world than Americans. All that stopped the day W was sworn into office.
People worldwide seem to think that because the US has the abillity to project influence on the world stage they have some type f right to influence US internl politics. Just yesterday I was watching CNN europe and a guy in Germany was complaining how "unfair" it is that though the US had massive influence on world events, Non Americans have no say in the US political process. Though I can understand these peoples frustration with US policy what they forget is that it is US policy. Not world policy.
Many here say that if Bush is reelected our allies will abandon US. I say if they abandon us for doing what is best for us, then they weren't really allies to bwgin with. If they are only allies so long as we do what is best for them to the detriment of ourselves then I say we are better off without them. There will always be nations willing to ally themselves wth us.

Thank pisky, i was getting sick of the word terrorist and Iraq so i thought i'd just use some metaphors...

BTW your originally from the UK right, what are your views on the article?

I would think that Bush could - or would - spin this as a positive. If the rest of the world wants him out, then he must be putting America first.

Granted that is not a genuinely logical statement. Bad for the rest of the world is not nescessarily good for America. It is possible to be bad for both, or good for both.

Truly though, I dont think the electorate cares at all what who the rest of the world thinks who should be president.

American Mad Man

Seeing as most of Afghanistan isnt in control of the government and Karzai rarely leave Kabulm i wouldnt claim success there yet... then there was also the election scandal there... I agree with the Afghan war, because it was actually part of the Waor on Terror after terrorists, not after someone bushhas a vendetta against...

And yeah Howards was voted in, because he was smart enough to avoid talking about the war in Iraq, our Relationship with the USA, and our foreign policy i the election campaign... instead he focused on domestic issues because he knows the people arent comfortable with him being so chummy with dubya

Muadib,

I dont know anything about the canadians crossing the border for medication so i didnt comment, but i'm sure there would be adequete substitutes available within the country itself, or the meds they needed may come at a cost... free meds all around is unrealistic because they arent free to make and costs need to be met, but subsidised meds if definately a preferable option to full pricing thus ruling out the poor from getting care.

Right.


Right again, we taught them to fly right here in the US in flight schools that have been shown to have ties with our CIA. We failed to investigate them while they were training, and after they killed thousands on 9-11. Cheney was calling people telling them to 'back off' investigations.

Wow man, your on a roll. The first gulf war, according to our own esitmates as well as international inspection, wiped upt over 80% of Iraqi military capability. 12 years of harsh ecomnomic sanctions after that war adn 12 years of UN inspections were to proove that the only WMD's they had were the ones we sold them to use against Iran in the eighties. Most Neocons forget the eighties when it comes to foriegn policy matters... wonder why.
We went to Iraq under resolution 1441 which was accepted by the UN.

Not only is this totally irrelevant, but it makes me wonder why we are bombing Iraq when Russia is such a terrorist nation. Maybe you should study up on US foriegn policy regarding South American interests, we have done some atrocities of our own. Depleted Uranium is going to be killing Iraqis for thousands of years, but we are righteous warriors so it don't matter.

Can you name one instance when afghanistan or Iraq has ever attacked the United States prior to 9-11? A UN accepted resolution? LOL Dude if we wen't after every nation that sponsors terrorism, we would be bombing every nation from Scotland to Vatican City. Did you know Israel got busted setting upa fake alqeda network in the west bank? Did you know that Israel duped us into attacking Lybia? Why aren't we bombing Israel if fighting terrorism is such a noble cause, or are we selectively only bombing and invading the countries that UNOCAL and Halliburton wanted us to bomb?

yeah and I have the plans for an h-bomb on cd-rom. Get real man, the WMD is what they call here in Western NC BULL CRAP. The only WMD's they had were the one's your hero's sold them back in 80's. You remeber when WE were sponsoring terrorism on both sides of the Iran Iraq war.

What I find frustrating is this antagonistic and paranoid attitude, shown by some of the US members here, towards the rest of the world.

At least to my knowledge, this is not about a general illwill against the US. This is not the reason why most of the non-US citizens would rather see a change in US leadership.

Basically coz they know everyone else has just about had enough of the current administration. But there are some very very extremly conservative people on this site, who get really defensive when anyone attacks their opinion or their president...

In fact i think Edsinger might be paid by the republicans, coz half the political posts on the board is him attacking Kerry (no offense edsinger, just noticed that then)

I'm not really pro kerry either, but seeing as he has the best chance of beating bush, i'm backing him in a grudging sorta way

Twitchy this is one of the ignorant claims that quite a few Americans and other people in the world don't seem to have gotten straight....

First, the 9/11 comission and every other agency that investigated this connection have said that there were links between Iraq/Saddam and Al qaeda, but that there was no direct evidence linking Ira/Saddam with the attacks on 9/11....still Iraq was aiding Al Qaeda members and training them and other terrorists...

Ok let me give you excerpts and see if you can understand the difference...which many people don't seem to understand....



Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

And if you read the 9/11 comission report you will se clearly that they do say there was an Al Qaeda and Saddam/Iraq link...but no evidence seemed to point that Iraq/Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda on the attacks on 9/11...

Do you understand the difference?

Now about no terrorsit camps in Iraq...perhaps you should read the following...that is if you want to get informed.



Excerpted from.
www.intelmessages.org...

Let me see what other rubbish you posted...

Oh except that you "partially" got some of your info right. The terrorists involved in 9/11, or some of them since there were others that decided not to proceed with the plan, used schools in the US to train..now you would have to post credible evidence about the other rubbish you posted.




[edit on 15-10-2004 by Muaddib]

If this is true special, then you too are either been paid off by communists, or socialists, or liberals...since all your posts are only at bashing the US and the administration...

Just to be sure I understand your views correctly. Is it your opinion that all who disagrees with the actions of the Bush Administration are either communists or socialists, or paid off by any of those groups?

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]