It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anti Bush, Anti War

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:18 AM
That's it, I've heard enough of your whining.

What exactly do all of you Anti-war/Anti-Bush people propose we do? All I've heard is "Oh! We need to keep inspections going".

HELLO! The inspectors are there to watch Saddam destroy his weapons, not to find them. Saddam has had 12 years to disarm, and he has only destroyed a few missiles to buy time.

Instead of saying Bush is dumb or the US is dumb, try to come up with a better way to solve the problem. The only way I see anything getting done is by force. Diplomacy hasn't worked, we've asked nicely, what else are we supposed to do? Let a man who vowed to kill as many Americans as possible run free with weapons of mass destruction? I don't think so.

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:27 AM
I despise Bush.

I'm reluctant for war.

But I agree it's likely to be the only thing that works.

I feel Bush's performance in last night's scripted and practiced "Press Show" was horrible. I attribute 95% of the anti-war sentiment directly to Bush's lack of leadership ability, and his inability to step up and speak decisively to the world. People follow strong leaders, people listen to straight talk that doesn't beat around the bush (nice pun there).

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Theyre Here]

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:44 AM
I have to say that I agree with everything TH just said.

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:47 AM
Read my signature. You'll know what I think.

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:50 AM
Funny, none of the anti-war posters responded yet...

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:54 AM
... or else we'd be flooded with foolishness.

I'm against Bush, cause well, he's screwing over our country. One has to admit that he has done nothing for our economy. But I am all for war. I say we kick the crap outta the Middle Eastern nutcase known as Saddam Hussein and be done with it o we can focus on impeaching the Bush Admin.(or maybe attacking N.K. or France

[Edited on 3/7/03 by High_Lord_Warrior]

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 11:59 AM
I am very pro-war, we are left with no options. I also support Bush and respect the opinions of those who oppose him and dont think he is a good leader. Who do you guys think would be better suited as President right now? I'm not lashing back, I'm just curiuos what you think. I don't think he's our best Pres. ever but also think he is far from the worst. I've been watching this UN hearing all morning. They want to give Saddam more time and toughen the inspections. If he needs time and wont disclose all his weapons so that tougher inspections are needed, doesn't that mean the same thing as not complying? More time?Its' been 12 years!!! If we have to look for these weapons then that is non-compliance!!

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:11 PM
He's intelligent, a good public speaker...knows foreign affairs, and of good moral character from all appearances...

He very well could've been the first African-American president, but he decided not to run...alas.

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:14 PM
I agree Gaz, Mr Powell seems to be a very intelligent man and he appears to be very respected.

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:54 PM
I would have liked Powell as well. I would have voted for him... I didn't vote for any presidential candidate.

(I also believe that an "abstain" vote from a registered voter should count somehow... anyway...)

Also, after seeing him more recently, I'm not so sure Gore would be doing any worse than Bush, and perhaps even a bit better on a personal level. Gore's persona I believe would have an edge in this current situation. However, I doubt Gore would have assembled a national security team capable of giving him the right advice.

In this era of media and saturation of news, our president must be someone capable of getting on camera at a moments notice, and speaking from the hip with intelligence and decisiveness. And people follow someone who tells it like it is... good or bad, just give it to us. In my opinion, no one does that better than Rudi Giuliani. Regardless of your opinion of his politics, his leadership ability (calm, rational, "I'm in charge" demenor) is what is needed.

Rudi 2004

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Theyre Here]

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 01:05 PM
I'm against the war.

I think Bush should turn around and look at the collapsing economy he's creating, and take a look at how far our military resources are stretched.

Then I think he needs to ask himself "Where's Osama" and after that, he needs to take a good hard look at Korea.

We've had a history of tossing out regiems and installing new people in power. Ayatollah Khomeini was one of those we put into power because he'd be better and more pro-democracy. We helped Osama. We helped a lot of other people into changing the leadership of their countries.

Our track record has been disastrous.

We haven't stayed focused on our enemies. It wasn't Iraq who flew planes into the WTC. Iraq wasn't one of the major funders of Al Qaida. Things are still a mess in Afghanistan and we may need troops there for another 20 years. Meanwhile, we ate up all the budget surplus from the Clinton administration (when he left office we were finally in the black) and are currently 3 billion dollars in debt -- more than his daddy cost us. The war will heap more debt on that.

Every company that Bush owned or managed failed in bankruptcy.

He's made a lot of enemies around the world.

Yes, if Iraq came rolling out of The Homeland and cruised its huge warships toward America, carrying fleets of warplanes and followed by a flotilla of subs, I'd be the first to say "go get them."

He hasn't. He can't.

Who's he gonna attack? Kuait? Our armies are there. We'll pound him. Israel? He can't stand up to their army. Afghanistan? Palestine? Saudi Arabia? He's a trivial little idiot.

The most disastrous decision a general can make is to go after the wrong target. Saddam is the wrong target.

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 03:38 AM
As much as I wouldn't mind Powell as pres. I think because of the Civil War we'll never be able to have a black president.

There will always be some nut from the south who'll shoot the first black president, no matter how great a man he is. Hell someone (not sure who duh heh) killed Kennedy, and he was white and a great man.

So if a Great White man can be killed....doesn't look good for blacks

Bummers too, because I think Powell would be just the guy to put the UN in their place, our latrine.

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 03:40 AM
You said, that the "I'm in charge demenor in what is needed." That is exactly what the Babylonian Brotherhood and the New World Order mind controlled contollers want you to think. Don't become their slave, think for yourself and for the human race. Not Americans or Iraqis or Germans, but for all. All for one and one for all. You See?????????????

[Edited on 10-3-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 04:24 AM
Possible ideas:

1. Political Assassination: Small, highly mobile, covert hit-squads...take out Saddam and his closest henchmen, remove the head from the snake and at the very least you will disorientate it enough that the US/Allied Forces would likely take control of the area with minimal casualties (of them and of civilians). But Saddam has scores of 'doubles' I hear people say...funny...didn't Saddam just give a press interview to a Western reporter a while ago?? Why wasn't a tomahawk or some such missile bursting through that buildings window mid-interview??

2. Bounty: How much will this War cost?? How long do you really think Saddam would last if say a bounty of 5 billion US dollars was placed on his head?? His own family would smoke him for less...

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 05:43 AM
I pose this Question to all Bu#es and Pro-Warites.


posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 05:57 AM
If you haven't grasped that concept by now, you are either extremely slow-witted (which, in your case, I know isn't the case) or ignoring the situation in which the U.S. finds herself.

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by xaos
I pose this Question to all Bu#es and Pro-Warites.

I am against Bush.

I am generally against war.

I am reluctantly in favor of an attack on Iraq to force compliance with 12 year old resolutions... and as I've said before, those resolutions are de facto terms of surrender.

However, I find the conservative v. liberal mindless banter increasingly tedious. This country has become so divided by a difficult, divisive, and ultimately questionable (on both fronts) election that it seems impossible to remove the near-religious fervor of political persuasion from discussions of national defense. Liberals fall into a knee-jerk reaction against conservatives and visa versa... despite what is really correct for this nation.

What is correct you may ask?

1- Bush to emerge as a leader, take decisive action on the world stage and go to the U.N. security council and organized unified opinion.

2- Use #1 to begin with strategic "shots across the bow" at key Iraqi targets.

3- Combine with visible, concerted efforts to bring together the Israeli and Palestinian factions for discussions of peaceful coexistence.

4- Bring war to Iraq if #2 doesn't work.

5- Stop aid to all middle eastern countries of #3 doesn't work.

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 07:22 AM
Thomas is right about the bickering. I blame this on the people like Bush who bring us the constant bickering due to their war-mongering, population manipulating, brainwash, [Yes sir] methods of "Patroitism". This is such a hypocrisy that I would be a hypocrite to even say anything, so I won't.

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 08:45 AM
I am generally anti-Bush and anti-war but the more I read about this issue from an ideological point of view the more I grow in favor of swift decisive action.
- Bush claims that this is part of the war on terror. It isn't, at least not withe the proof provided so far.
- Sept. 11, changed America, you could could argue for the good or the bad, but it did change us. We had been so geographically isolated for so long that when we got attacked we collectively said "OH SH#*, we've ignored alot for too long. Let's try to fix it."
- For Bush, I think Sept 11 has made him more liberal, in the philosophical sense. Especially if you look at the other reaon Bush has given as to why we are going to go to war on Saddam.. this I think is THE MOST IMPORTANT reason... he says he wants democracy in Iraq, to use it as a pivot point to try to create a democratic Middle East. Sept 11 forced Bush to relinquish is semi-isolationist leanings and made him realize that if the whole of the planet is not safe for democracy then none of the planet is safe for democracy. He has become a Wilsonian liberal (remember the 14 points of Wilson?).
- Iraq used to boast the highest rates of education among both men AND women in the Middle East. They still have pretty good education there. If democracy can get a foothold in the region and it works (this is the main sticking point... it HAS to work) then moderate arab countries such as Qatar will go in that direction.

I consider myself a liberal, but I am not afraid to use the strength that we have to create a better planet. The old worn out liberal arguement against the war is that any use of force that allows us a gain is wrong. That's why liberal doves were fine with the U.S. bombing Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo because there was nothing for us to "gain" (I argue that we gained alot, by stopping the slaughter of innocents). But is we go into Iraq they yell "No blood for Oil", gimmie a break... will we gain monetarily? Maybe. Will this war cost us American lives, money sweat and tears? YES. COuld we maybe, just maybe give the Iraqi people a better form of government, where they can heard without being killed for disagreeing, where they can make decisions as a group instead of being dictated too? We hope. Is it worth a try? I think... yes.

a liberal hawk

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 08:56 AM
(Byrd, Winston, and Observer) Byrd, interesting note about our track record in installing governments...abysmal would be an understatement.

Like Winston, I agree that forcing Iraq to comply with 12 year old terms of surrender should be the main reason for war with Iraq. Citing it as a war against terror is a horribly carried out smokescreen, and an unecessary one at that.

Observer, nice to see some turn-around views towards a war, but for the right reasons... Let's hope it's quick and decisive (and I'm betting that it will be).

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in