Best Thing Pres. Bush Has Done?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Where are the wmd? The fact that they were never found is proof enough. They assured us the wmd’s were there. They assured us the UN were fools for not being able to find them.
They lied.

[/quote]

You’ve been listening to Michael Moore again: you’re leaps into fantasyland are astounding.

Wreckless — suppose you were pulled over by a cop. He asks for your driver’s license. You can’t find it. Now the cop says: “You’re lying about having a driver’s license!” You: “No, not being able to find it doesn’t mean I lied!” Cop: “Yes it does!” So you get sent to jail, where you learn the true meaning of the phrase ‘Pony Ride’.

62

[quote]John S. wrote:
70% voter turnout. That speaks more then any words ever will.[/quote]

Saddam had 100% turnout: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/

How much does that speak?

63

[quote]John S. wrote:
70% voter turnout. That speaks more then any words ever will.
[/quote]

I think you’d better reexamine your conclusions on this one.

Sure, everyone turned out, but this does not mean much with respect to the situation today.

Now, if they get good turnout, it’s so that various factions can try to outvote other factions… and not in a simple “dem” versus “rep” way.

Don’t be so simple minded about statistics and the conclusions that people want to make with them… whether it comes from the administration or somewhere else.

Seriously.

64

You did not just compair that bullshit 100% sadams to this 70% turnout, I thought you where a lot smarter then that. We had people from all partys Multiple people up for election but a good majority voted for there current government, tells me they want it, if you don’t see it I would love to hear what you think it is.

65

[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
70% voter turnout. That speaks more then any words ever will.

I think you’d better reexamine your conclusions on this one.

Sure, everyone turned out, but this does not mean much with respect to the situation today.

Now, if they get good turnout, it’s so that various factions can try to outvote other factions… and not in a simple “dem” versus “rep” way.

Don’t be so simple minded about statistics and the conclusions that people want to make with them… whether it comes from the administration or somewhere else.

Seriously.[/quote]

You mean in an election these monsters wanted to outvote another party? Holy shit, thats sounds almost like what an election should be.

66

[quote]John S. wrote:
You mean in an election these monsters wanted to outvote another party? Holy shit, thats sounds almost like what an election should be.[/quote]

Florida recount.

67

[quote]John S. wrote:
We had people from all partys Multiple people up for election[/quote]

At one time I think there were 27 parties, eventually reduced by about half. There were no debates by any of them on anything, the situation was too volatile to permit those.

The Iraqis mostly voted for their own “tribe”, so that Kurds voted for the Kurdish party, Sunnis for the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front and Shiites for the United Iraqi Alliance. Shiites being in the majority, their party won.

The elections we a nice symbolic victory; but if you think that they were that much less of a sham, politically, than those Saddam held, you’re pretty naive.

The Iraqis didn’t vote on issues or policies - with no public debates of anything else of what we consider the normal political process, how could they? - they voted for the guy they knew. Just like they did when Saddam held elections.

The Shiites majority voted in a Shiite government. Most of the Kurds and Sunnis voted against it.

That tells me that the majority of the population is composed of Shiites, little else.

68

[quote]pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
We had people from all partys Multiple people up for election

At one time I think there were 27 parties, eventually reduced by about half. There were no debates by any of them on anything, the situation was too volatile to permit those.

The Iraqis mostly voted for their own “tribe”, so that Kurds voted for the Kurdish party, Sunnis for the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front and Shiites for the United Iraqi Alliance. Shiites being in the majority, their party won.

The elections we a nice symbolic victory; but if you think that they were that much less of a sham, politically, than those Saddam held, you’re pretty naive.

The Iraqis didn’t vote on issues or policies - with no public debates of anything else of what we consider the normal political process, how could they? - they voted for the guy they knew. Just like they did when Saddam held elections.

but a good majority voted for there current government, tells me they want it, if you don’t see it I would love to hear what you think it is.

The Shiites majority voted in a Shiite government. Most of the Kurds and Sunnis voted against it.

That tells me that the majority of the population is composed of Shiites, little else.

[/quote]

It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that. And maybe im mistaken but isn’t a democracy chosen by the majority?

69

[quote]John S. wrote:
A haven for terrorists? hardly.[/quote]

I see people blown up everyday by terrorists on the news. I don’t seem to recall that was the case pre-2003.

I read intelligence reports attesting that there are a LOT of terrorists in Iraq nowadays. There was almost none before the invasion.

I can’t dismiss the possibility of Bush doing that intentionally. Think about it; If he knew there was little chance of finding WMD, he must have had a fall-back plan: Enters Al-Qaeda in Iraq!

The whole world was warning of the consequences. A kid could have predicted the ensuing chaos and that invading Iraq would create ever more terrorists. Then we’re supposed to believe that the world’s sole superpower couldn’t see that coming?

I don’t buy into the “blunder” and “honest mistake” theory. The outcome of the Iraqi invasion (i.e: the creation of a terrorist haven) suits perfectly the agenda of the neo-cons. They got to keep the troops in Iraq.

I hope you can see why I question Bush’s motives.

70

[quote]pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
We had people from all partys Multiple people up for election

At one time I think there were 27 parties, eventually reduced by about half. There were no debates by any of them on anything, the situation was too volatile to permit those.

The Iraqis mostly voted for their own “tribe”, so that Kurds voted for the Kurdish party, Sunnis for the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front and Shiites for the United Iraqi Alliance. Shiites being in the majority, their party won.

The elections we a nice symbolic victory; but if you think that they were that much less of a sham, politically, than those Saddam held, you’re pretty naive.

The Iraqis didn’t vote on issues or policies - with no public debates of anything else of what we consider the normal political process, how could they? - they voted for the guy they knew. Just like they did when Saddam held elections.

but a good majority voted for there current government, tells me they want it, if you don’t see it I would love to hear what you think it is.

The Shiites majority voted in a Shiite government. Most of the Kurds and Sunnis voted against it.

That tells me that the majority of the population is composed of Shiites, little else.

[/quote]

pookie,

Sorry. You’re wrong. The elections were a stunning success.

Even the u.n. had to admit they were fair and legitimate.

Oh, if you want links, let me know.

Nice try.

JeffR

71

[quote]JeffR wrote:
As usual, I think you are wrong about nearly everything. I am fully aware of your goals. [/quote]

My goals?

Are you going down the “cyber-Jihadist” path again?

So…? He/She probably has better stuff to do.

You didn’t answer my questions either.

And we are all used to your baseless name-calling.

72

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless — suppose you were pulled over by a cop. He asks for your driver’s license. You can’t find it. Now the cop says: “You’re lying about having a driver’s license!” You: “No, not being able to find it doesn’t mean I lied!” Cop: “Yes it does!” So you get sent to jail, where you learn the true meaning of the phrase ‘Pony Ride’. [/quote]

WTF? How does losing a driver’s license relate to invading a country on false pretense?

The cop can check your identity back at the station and confirm that you indeed hold a valid license. You didn’t end up killing anyone because of you forgot your license at home. The license [/b]exists[b] and the question is where it is.

In the case of Iraq, the WMDs didn’t exist at all. Add that to the millions of skeptics who demanded proof that the WMDs exist and you end up with the worse analogy I have yet to come across on this forum.

The crimes Bush and Blair are prosecuted for isn’t simply lying. It’s about the thousands dead, millions of refugees and chaotic mess that resulted from the invasion.

73

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
A haven for terrorists? hardly.

I see people blown up everyday by terrorists on the news. I don’t seem to recall that was the case pre-2003.

I read intelligence reports attesting that there are a LOT of terrorists in Iraq nowadays. There was almost none before the invasion.

I can’t dismiss the possibility of Bush doing that intentionally. Think about it; If he knew there was little chance of finding WMD, he must have had a fall-back plan: Enters Al-Qaeda in Iraq!

The whole world was warning of the consequences. A kid could have predicted the ensuing chaos and that invading Iraq would create ever more terrorists. Then we’re supposed to believe that the world’s sole superpower couldn’t see that coming?

I don’t buy into the “blunder” and “honest mistake” theory. The outcome of the Iraqi invasion (i.e: the creation of a terrorist haven) suits perfectly the agenda of the neo-cons. They got to keep the troops in Iraq.

I hope you can see why I question Bush’s motives.[/quote]

You want to bet I didn’t hear everyday bout some terrorist asshole blowing himself up, im pretty sure they where blowing there ass up in Israel.

74

“When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.”

– Late Pope John Paul II, March 22, 2003

I’m curious how you Christian guys reconcile this with your support of the war? John S.? Haney1? Anyone?

75

[quote]John S. wrote:
It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that. And maybe im mistaken but isn’t a democracy chosen by the majority?[/quote]

Sure, a majority is the out come of voting but voting isn’t really what makes a democracy. Democracy simply means that the “people” rule. Its really more about self-governance than a simple election.

We have a process to elect our ruling officials and that is a democracy. Voting is the only sane way to self govern but is has its flaws. Allow me elaborate:

Imagine if the US had 10 parties that were roughly evenly divided instead of the two we have. Now, imagine an election that is evenly split except one party has a slight majority. We’ll say the majority party received 11% of the popular vote.

This leaves 89% of the population that are extremely unhappy. So yes they got to choose but none would feel that it is ‘fair’. In a country that divided power is best given to someone strong enough to take it. At least that way there is rule and control.

The situation in Iraq can hardly be called a democracy on a national level. There are too many opposing factions and what has happened is that the government has become a “tyrannical majority”. Democracy really only works in small populations with “common ground” or in a completely bi-party system.

A multi-party system could work but the election process would have to change to support it. Ranked choice voting or run-off elections might suffice.

76

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that. And maybe im mistaken but isn’t a democracy chosen by the majority?

Sure, a majority is the out come of voting but voting isn’t really what makes a democracy. Democracy simply means that the “people” rule. Its really more about self-governance than a simple election.

We have a process to elect our ruling officials and that is a democracy. Voting is the only sane way to self govern but is has its flaws. Allow me elaborate:

Imagine if the US had 10 parties that were roughly evenly divided instead of the two we have. Now, imagine an election that is evenly split except one party has a slight majority. We’ll say the majority party received 11% of the popular vote.

This leaves 89% of the population that are extremely unhappy. So yes they got to choose but none would feel that it is ‘fair’. In a country that divided power is best given to someone strong enough to take it. At least that way there is rule and control.

The situation in Iraq can hardly be called a democracy on a national level. There are too many opposing factions and what has happened is that the government has become a “tyrannical majority”. Democracy really only works in small populations with “common ground” or in a completely bi-party system.

A multi-party system could work but the election process would have to change to support it. Ranked choice voting or run-off elections might suffice.[/quote]

Like I said its a start. You don’t start off perfect. give it a few more and you will see partys start to wither down, You will start to see more come together. UN states it was a good thing.

77

[quote]lixy wrote:
“When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.”

– Late Pope John Paul II, March 22, 2003

I’m curious how you Christian guys reconcile this with your support of the war? John S.? Haney1? Anyone?[/quote]

The pope to me is just another man, Im not catholic. And really Violence and arms can’t solve problems? Why not tell that to the Jews who were saved from concentration camps by America using Violence and arms.

78

[quote]lixy wrote:
“When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.”

– Late Pope John Paul II, March 22, 2003

I’m curious how you Christian guys reconcile this with your support of the war? John S.? Haney1? Anyone?[/quote]

I’m not Catholic, and most Americans aren’t - so, well, so what? How would “Christian guys” reconcile anything with the statement of the Pope when there is no need to? What a sloppy show of ignorance.

And since when does the Pope make American foreign policy?

Lixy, do you get anything right?

79

I can’t stand W…BUT I will give him credit for one thing…

He does not seem to be a coward…

Even with many/most in the U.S. turning against him…lowest rated president…blah blah blah…he sticks to his guns. Even when the majority of people think he’s DUM, stoopid or otherwise…he has this “I don’t care what everyone else thinks…I’m gonna do what I want to do”

Again…I’m not saying any of this is right…and if ONLY we could have gotten him to use that stubbornness for good…he COULD have done a LOT of good…

but didn’t.

80

[quote]John S. wrote:
The pope to me is just another man, Im not catholic. [/quote]

It wasn’t evident.

Why do you Yanks always have to bring up WWII?

We get it! You saved the world from a bad fate. For that, we are eternally grateful. Now, can we focus on post-WWII please?