Democrats for Bush

Off Topic
41

MuscleRob

I hope you believe me when
tell you this and granted I
don’t claim to be the all
knowing, and I could be wrong,
but I firmly believe and this
comes from a military intelligence
background that going into Iraq had little if anything to do with the
war on terror.

You can bet your bootstraps this
foray into Iraq has created a new
generation of people that hate us to
the core and will stop at nothing to
try and hurt us.

When Bush initially went into Afghanistan
even though I am a dreaded democrat, I supported that action fully 100%, we should have kept our focus there and if we were going to look elsewhere as far as terrorists go, it should be and should have been Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Those two countries and I don’t mean their Gov. but groups within
the countries have spawned more
terrorists and money for terrorists
then Iraq ever did.I think it is a serious case of putting on
the blinders if people can’t see
how bad Bush wanted Iraq, and
9/11 even though it was a bunch
of Saudi’s who did it gave him
the opportunity to scare the
American people into giving
him the greenlight.A leader
should never send men to
die unless it is a last
and I mean last resort.
Also remember its never the
politicians doing the dying
democrat or republican, Its
the youth of America! lets hope
they are not dying in vain!

42

“My point is I don’t like people saying they’ll vote for Kerry because of stupid issues like jobs when there is something that is extremely important to the future of this country - that is, the war we are currently in. Bush is doing a great job, and I only see Kerry screwing it up. I do NOT want to see that happen.”

–>Jobs are “stupid?” How does one argue with this?

“It makes me mad that people seem to think jobs is the biggest issue in the upcomming election when the future of our country is at stake with this war!”

–>First, our year long engagement in Iraq is a war that WE started. Second, jobs are a tremendous issue! It seems like arguing that they’re important is like arguing that you need soap in the shower.

“Not to mention it isn’t the president’s job to create jobs.”

–>If you lost your job with the help of tax laws Bill Clinton wrote, would you not be pissed? If millions of people lost their jobs b/c of bills Clinton passed, would you not be justifiably angry?

43

RSU,

Oh, ok. You make so much sense. I guess you’d rather have a president that would pull out of Iraq and create a bunch of government jobs for you than one that will stop the terrorists.

Are you living in some sort of fantasy land? Do you want to wait until the terrorists get ahold of backpack nukes and take out ALL of NYC? I guess you getting some lousy government job is more important, huh?

44

Elkhntr1,

I have to disagree with you. The majority of Iraqis are glad that we’re there. I believe over 70% of Iraqis think their lives will be better one year from now. That is quite a vast majority. That’s probably more optimistic than people in America! The people that don’t want us there are the people that were in power when Sadam was there.

And as to going to Iraq…getting a democracy into the middle east will drastically change things. In fact, if the freedom is successful enough, then other countries’ people will either demand the same or will move to Iraq. This would be very good for us.

45

RSU,

I also hate to break it to you, but jobs are not much of an issue. How many jobs were created in a month? Over 300,000? And that’s the ESTABLISHED survey. What about the home survey? I’m sure the number is much higher.

5.7% (I think) is NOT high unemployment. Doesn’t Germany have 20%? That’s just about 5% lower than what we had during the Great Depression. Lots of jobs are being created by a free market (not because of some government force).

You want Kerry to create jobs for you? He’s going to do that by keeping companies in America? Guess what? Outsourcing is GOOD for the economy, and stopping it will lose jobs for Americans. He also wants to raise taxes. What’s that you say? He only wants to raise taxes on the rich? Well, tell that to the mom and pop business owners that pull in $200k, which makes them rich. The problem is, they only bring home $50k after they pay to run their business. Kerry wants to raise taxes on these people. People that HIRE people. People that create jobs and help the economy.

Have you ever had a poor person sign your paycheck?

46

"RSU,

Oh, ok. You make so much sense. I guess you’d rather have a president that would pull out of Iraq and create a bunch of government jobs for you than one that will stop the terrorists.

Are you living in some sort of fantasy land? Do you want to wait until the terrorists get ahold of backpack nukes and take out ALL of NYC? I guess you getting some lousy government job is more important, huh?"

–>Your home must be built on the slippery slope you utilize so often.

47

RSU,

What does that mean?

48

hey wrong side up, in relation to the future of our way of life as well as our country i would say yes, jobs are stupid. after you get past the issue of our extinction, jobs become quite an important issue. but it is a distant second.

49

Drago,

So now we’re nearly extict?! C’mon now, listen to yourself.

Regarding jobs, here’s a quote by GWB, himself:

“When America works, America prospers. So my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs.”
–State of the Union Address, 1.29.02…that’s right, after 9/11.

And, let us not forget that WE STARTED the war in Iraq, which I think eliminates this notion of necessity that you have in mind. We invaded and attacked unprovoked…that is apparently acceptable only to those with pants much buffer than mine!

50

"I have to disagree with you. The majority of Iraqis are glad that we’re there. I believe over 70% of Iraqis think their lives will be better one year from now. That is quite a vast majority. That’s probably more optimistic than people in America! The people that don’t want us there are the people that were in power when Sadam was there. "

Ah! What a load of crap. You managed to piss even the pro american ones so much by disrespecting their human rihts, not providing their most basic needs and you dare to post this idiotic post?

11000 civilians death, women, men and children, teenagers kidnapped and thrown in the guantanamo concentration camp with no right to a defense and no criminal charges, and the Iraquis still don’t love you. How unreasonable of them.

"And as to going to Iraq…getting a democracy into the middle east will drastically change things. In fact, if the freedom is successful enough, then other countries’ people will either demand the same or will move to Iraq. This would be very good for us. "

Imposing a democracy against a people’s will?

What a joke. Democracy has to be a product of a slow evolution in people’s mentalities, not imposed by force using lies as a pretext and killing thousands in the process. The best you can hope for is getting a pro american dictatorship in there like you did with the taliban, in Zaire and in many other countries.

Europeans did this same mistake with many African countries and this is one of the reasons of the sad state of affairs in that continent. Sad how stupid poeple are condemned to repeat history.

51

RSU,

Of course jobs are important, but the point is they are second to security of the nation.

THE job of the government is security of this nation. That trumps jobs. Hence jobs are “stupid” compared to importance of national security.

Not to mention if we get nuked or something horrific like that, I got news for you…it will make the Great Depression look minor. Tons of jobs will be lost (more importantly, millions of lives)…again, hence jobs are “stupid” in comparison to national security.

I don’t see how you can argue with this. I’m sorry, RSU, but we didn’t start this war. The terrorists did, and Sadam was a terrorist supporter (and a brutal dictator). So GW kept his word and took out a regime that supported terrorists.

52

“Of course jobs are important, but the point is they are second to security of the nation.
THE job of the government is security of this nation. That trumps jobs. Hence jobs are “stupid” compared to importance of national security.
Not to mention if we get nuked or something horrific like that, I got news for you…it will make the Great Depression look minor. Tons of jobs will be lost (more importantly, millions of lives)…again, hence jobs are “stupid” in comparison to national security.”

–>I understand your point, and agree that Bush has had to deal with many foreign affairs and has become engaged in much that has deflected his attention from domestic issues. Has it been/will it be 1. worth it? and 2. effective?

“I don’t see how you can argue with this. I’m sorry, RSU, but we didn’t start this war. The terrorists did, and Sadam was a terrorist supporter (and a brutal dictator). So GW kept his word and took out a regime that supported terrorists.”

–>Yes, MRBP, we did start the war in Iraq. Iraq did not do anything to us. Sadaam was a brutal dictator, but he cannot be shown to be a terrorist supporter. Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks of 9/11. We went after him and took out the Taliban, but suddently shifted our attention to Iraq, who, thus far, has not been shown to have anything to do with bin Laden or 9/11. Where were most of the terrorists on the flights of 9/11 from? I believe it was Saudi Arabia…are they next? Hardly.

53

RSU, Sadam would reward terrorists by giving them all kinds of stuff. I would call that “supporting” them.

54

Oh, well you shoulda said so!

LOL

55

RSU writes: “Iraq did not do anything to us. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he cannot be shown to be a terrorist supporter.”

But just the OPPOSITE is true.

(1) Iraq was the ONLY country in the world which attacked America without consequences. Iraq DAILY fired on British and American planes in violation of their armistice. (Incredibly, he also attempted to assassinate a former President, also without our retribution.)

(2) Saddam did financially support suicide terrorists in Israel, and had declared himself on the side of any Muslim who would attack the U.S.

He gave succor to terrorists who had acted against the U.S., and his government had amicable meetings over time with individuals connected to al-Quaeda (out of which no concrete plans are known to have developed).

Before 9/11, Richard Clarke even thought there was going to be a connection between Saddam and al-Quaeda. Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate:

"Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center, was picked up by the FBI, questioned, and incredibly enough released pending further interrogation as a “cooperative witness.” He went straight to Amman and thence to Baghdad, where he remained under Saddam Hussein’s protection until last year. As Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week: “The Iraqi government didn’t cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.” That’s putting it mildly, when you recall that Abu Nidal’s organization was a wing of the Baath Party, and that the late Abu Abbas of Klinghoffer fame was traveling on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. But, hold on a moment?doesn’t every smart person know that there’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and the world of terror?
…
Ah, we meant to say no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that case, how do you explain the conviction, shared by Clarke and Benjamin and Simon, that Iraq was behind Bin Laden’s deadly operation in Sudan? The Age of Sacred Terror justifies the Clinton strike on Khartoum on the grounds that “Iraqi weapons-scientists” were linked to Bin Laden’s factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was “sure” that “intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”

–from http://slate.msn.com/id/2097901/

56

Jobs are important, as well as the war in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Creating jobs is a very difficult process, as well as fighting terrorists worldwide. But neither one of them is more important than the other. The presidency as a whole is a hard, and stressful job because not everyone will be happy. Again, Saddam DID support terrorists. He might not have had a hand in directly in 9/11, but do you think that he’d have a problem with letting terrorists hide out in his country?? Of course not, because he wants the same thing the terrorists want. The fact is that terrorists did and still do have support in Iraq. After 9/11 people questioned the government’s validity by saying “How could our government let this happen?” Well, GWB is making sure that if Saddam could ever support terrorists; he can’t now. If anyone could afford the weapons to give to terrorists, it was him. Besides, the world is a better place without him. The Iraqi citizens are better off without him. Maybe they don’t have electricity now, but they sure as hell will in the near future.

Right Side Up - " Sadaam was a brutal dictator, but he cannot be shown to be a terrorist supporter."

He DID support terrorists. My insight isn’t coming from some internet site, but rather from personal experience. RLTW

-When in doubt, flip it to burst.

rangertab75

57

I still have many reservations, but might possibly be changing my perspective on the matters. I still question Bush’s intentions, but am also considering what options there are to optimally lessen the liklihood that another attack occurs against Americans.

I just worry about what we’re doing. What will it mean, where will it leave us? What alternatives we have is certainly another matter.

58

RSU,

I still have many reservations, but might possibly be changing my perspective on the matters. I still question Bush’s intentions, but am also considering what options there are to optimally lessen the liklihood that another attack occurs against Americans.

I just worry about what we’re doing. What will it mean, where will it leave us? What alternatives we have is certainly another matter.

Hey, there you go! You do have to sit and consider everything for a while before you come to a conclusion. It’s important to think of what happened, who did it, who you’re dealing with (the kind of people, that is), what is being done, and what could possibly be done better.

Sometimes these things can be tough, but you just have to learn and consider it. I know I have a tough time with some environmental things “conservatives” say, since I do consider myself to be concerned with the environment. But I just listen, see if it makes sense, and then try to come to a conclusion.

59

MRBP,

I’m always engaged in that process. There is always new info. and new perspectives to be had. History is a funny endeavor, as I think it is inherently weak - and history reports can be twisted in many directions. Are scholars even free of bias? It’s scary to think we never know what’s REALLY going on.

While my opinions on our foreign engagement maybe entering a state of limbo, I’m still currently certain that my politics remain the same. I’m also still a steadfast, dreamy, pacifist.

60

if we continue to let terrorist prosper and develop there plans of attack as well as horrific weapons then yes at some point we will be extinct. at the least, tens of millions of us will be dead in a nuclear attack. we know these guys would love nothing more then the ultimate weapon. they have sought it out. look at libya, iraq, north korea, and iran. does anyone honestly think these fuckers wouldnt use them in a heart beat on us if given the chance? of course they would. dont be so foolish right side up. we are indeed in a war for our survival. on a side note,
i wouldnt be surprised if north korea is our next war.