EndZoneCrew Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 For the last four years...George Bush has done his best to protect the homeland from terrorism. I think that he has done a marvelous job doing that...Security is where it needs to be and our rights are not being "violated" as badly as all of these liberals make it sound. The job market has been hurt, not by President Bush, but from outside influences (strong asian economies/backlash from 9/11). Goint to Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and for the most part we have done a great job there. But the one thing that still bothers me is that we got involved in a "meaningless" war. By no means do I think Saddam was a "fair + balanced" leader. He was a tyrant who ruled with an "iron fist". Nonetheless, is that a reason to go to war. We have spent over 130 Billion dollars, suffered over 1000 deaths in our military, and what have we got out of it...nothing...he put us in a no-win situation...history has proven that people in the Middle East DO NOT like to be occupied PERIOD...no matter what their purpose is...did Bush think that was going to change???? I know everyone will say that they threatened our security, do we really believe that...and if something did happen...I think it would have been better to unleash our entire arsenal on them in that fashion...not this hide and seek war that we have going with those animals...We have made ourselves look like oil wanting war nuts and not to mention the Middle East trusts us even less than before (if thats possible)...unbelievable...thats all I have to say...Usually I do not get into politics but I had to speak my mind...oh yeah...Go Bills!
EndZoneCrew Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 ...and that is too big of "negative" from the leader of our country...a mistake like that cannot be made again...period!
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 That is the biggest mistake for me. Given everything else, I would have voted to keep him in office for the next 4 years. The IRAQ war is just too over-the-top. We need someone in office that will "mop" up this mess. I won't be Bush, his ill planning proves that. Be real. At this time, only one other person CAN win.
MichFan Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 This should be renamed the "I'm not really a liberal -- I just play one on the Internet" thread. So let me get this straight -- we should throw someone out of office who in your mind has handled many things well but ultimately made one unforgivable mistake on an extremely complex issue. Then we should overlook another candidate's past which involves committing war crimes and discrediting the entire military upon returning from Vietnam. Then we should overlook this candidates atrocious Senate voting record on the issues you've creditied Bush as succeeding with. Then we should overlook the 16 different positions this candidate has taken on Iraq and the fact that the only difference between his 4-point plan and what is happening today is the involvement of France and Germany ( ). Then we should make this person president and just trust that he'll continue to do a good job with the things Bush is doing well, will clean up Iraq, and won't make any other mistakes. Me thinks you're either a bit confused or you're being a tad bit disingenuine with your post. That is the biggest mistake for me. Given everything else, I would have voted to keep him in office for the next 4 years. The IRAQ war is just too over-the-top. Yeah, right, Exiled. You would have voted for Bush if he would have just stayed out of Iraq, huh? Unless we got attacked again and Sadam had his hands in it, right? Interesting that libs all of a sudden are backing off on attacking Bush over anything and everything and are focusing their attacks on Iraq "like a laser". We'll see how long this kinder, gentler strategy lasts. Given Alawi's comments to Congress today, it will be a lot more difficult making the case against Iraq.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 This should be renamed the "I'm not really a liberal -- I just play one on the Internet" thread. So let me get this straight -- we should throw someone out of office who in your mind has handled many things well but ultimately made one unforgivable mistake on an extremely complex issue. Then we should overlook another candidate's past which involves committing war crimes and discrediting the entire military upon returning from Vietnam. Then we should overlook this candidates atrocious Senate voting record on the issues you've creditied Bush as succeeding with. Then we should overlook the 16 different positions this candidate has taken on Iraq and the fact that the only difference between his 4-point plan and what is happening today is the involvement of France and Germany ( ). Then we should make this person president and just trust that he'll continue to do a good job with the things Bush is doing well, will clean up Iraq, and won't make any other mistakes. Me thinks you're either a bit confused or you're being a tad bit disingenuine with your post. Yeah, right, Exiled. You would have voted for Bush if he would have just stayed out of Iraq, huh? Unless we got attacked again and Sadam had his hands in it, right? Interesting that libs all of a sudden are backing off on attacking Bush over anything and everything and are focusing their attacks on Iraq "like a laser". We'll see how long this kinder, gentler strategy lasts. Given Alawi's comments to Congress today, it will be a lot more difficult making the case against Iraq. 42977[/snapback] Ya! He was doing everything right (I cringe) up until he got obsessive about Iraq. As mush as I disagree with him on other issues, I would have towed the line and not stuck with the "fringe." It was HIS JOB and place in history after the 2000 election to unify the country through POLITICS, not WAR. He failed. Exit stage left.... I think they say in the theater???
EndZoneCrew Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 This should be renamed the "I'm not really a liberal -- I just play one on the Internet" thread. So let me get this straight -- we should throw someone out of office who in your mind has handled many things well but ultimately made one unforgivable mistake on an extremely complex issue. Then we should overlook another candidate's past which involves committing war crimes and discrediting the entire military upon returning from Vietnam. Then we should overlook this candidates atrocious Senate voting record on the issues you've creditied Bush as succeeding with. Then we should overlook the 16 different positions this candidate has taken on Iraq and the fact that the only difference between his 4-point plan and what is happening today is the involvement of France and Germany ( ). Then we should make this person president and just trust that he'll continue to do a good job with the things Bush is doing well, will clean up Iraq, and won't make any other mistakes. Me thinks you're either a bit confused or you're being a tad bit disingenuine with your post. Yeah, right, Exiled. You would have voted for Bush if he would have just stayed out of Iraq, huh? Unless we got attacked again and Sadam had his hands in it, right? Interesting that libs all of a sudden are backing off on attacking Bush over anything and everything and are focusing their attacks on Iraq "like a laser". We'll see how long this kinder, gentler strategy lasts. Given Alawi's comments to Congress today, it will be a lot more difficult making the case against Iraq. 42977[/snapback] Think of it this way O'Reilly.....if I were a banker....and I did everything that was asked from me....I did a great job for my company....but, I made one mistake, I stole some money from the bank....just once..would I be fired? I feel like he is stealing money from the American public....the amount of money we are spending over there is insane...and for what?
MichFan Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Think of it this way O'Reilly.....if I were a banker....and I did everything that was asked from me....I did a great job for my company....but, I made one mistake, I stole some money from the bank....just once..would I be fired? I feel like he is stealing money from the American public....the amount of money we are spending over there is insane...and for what? Think of it this way, Koffi ... freedom, democracy, and long-term security are well worth the investment.
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 For the last four years...George Bush has done his best to protect the homeland from terrorism. I think that he has done a marvelous job doing that...Security is where it needs to be and our rights are not being "violated" as badly as all of these liberals make it sound. The job market has been hurt, not by President Bush, but from outside influences (strong asian economies/backlash from 9/11). Goint to Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and for the most part we have done a great job there. But the one thing that still bothers me is that we got involved in a "meaningless" war. By no means do I think Saddam was a "fair + balanced" leader. He was a tyrant who ruled with an "iron fist". Nonetheless, is that a reason to go to war. We have spent over 130 Billion dollars, suffered over 1000 deaths in our military, and what have we got out of it...nothing...he put us in a no-win situation...history has proven that people in the Middle East DO NOT like to be occupied PERIOD...no matter what their purpose is...did Bush think that was going to change???? I know everyone will say that they threatened our security, do we really believe that...and if something did happen...I think it would have been better to unleash our entire arsenal on them in that fashion...not this hide and seek war that we have going with those animals...We have made ourselves look like oil wanting war nuts and not to mention the Middle East trusts us even less than before (if thats possible)...unbelievable...thats all I have to say...Usually I do not get into politics but I had to speak my mind...oh yeah...Go Bills! 42894[/snapback] So your preference would have been to wait until Iraq was an imminent threat? BTW, despite the attacks, Bush did not say that, rather that the time to act is before that occured - just so you won't try to bring it up. See also the 1934 incursion into the Rheinland by the Nazis for some insight into appeasement and the throwing up of hands. So let them live and furthur embolden themselves, eh? They really just are misunderstood - a different culture, special in it's own way. But we just have to sit back and accept their bellicosity, eh? Nothing to be done. Sad that the Europeans and Russians armed them to the teeth, but hey it's just commerce and the brie, wurst, and vodka has to flow. I'm sure those who have repeatedly vowed to kill you and me will welcome your outstretched hand. That it is sliced off a second later will be quite a surprise to you, I should think.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 So your preference would have been to wait until Iraq was an imminent threat? BTW, despite the attacks, Bush did not say that, rather that the time to act is before that occured - just so you won't try to bring it up. See also the 1934 incursion into the Rheinland by the Nazis for some insight into appeasement and the throwing up of hands. So let them live and furthur embolden themselves, eh? They really just are misunderstood - a different culture, special in it's own way. But we just have to sit back and accept their bellicosity, eh? Nothing to be done. Sad that the Europeans and Russians armed them to the teeth, but hey it's just commerce and the brie, wurst, and vodka has to flow. I'm sure those who have repeatedly vowed to kill you and me will welcome your outstretched hand. That it is sliced off a second later will be quite a surprise to you, I should think. 43380[/snapback] Kind of ironic that we went to the dirty guys, Stalin and Saddam, to go after the dirty guys, Hitler and Khomeini.
EndZoneCrew Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 Think of it this way, Koffi ... freedom, democracy, and long-term security are well worth the investment. 43346[/snapback] How did Iraq threaten Freedom or Democracy?
MichFan Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 How did Iraq threaten Freedom or Democracy? Hmmmm ... a country led by an oppressive dictator who ruled with an iron fist, invaded neighboring countries, funded terrorism in Israel, and threatened stability across the entire Middle East. Nose -- meet face, face -- this is nose. . I'm sure you'll come back with some remark about how that is the Iraqi's freedom and democracy and not ours, blah, blah, blah. There are several threads on this board where I and others have clearly laid out the implications of Iraq continuing under Saddam and how that was incompatible with the broader war on terror.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Kind of ironic that we went to the dirty guys, Stalin and Saddam, to go after the dirty guys, Hitler and Khomeini. 43408[/snapback] Ironic...but common. Every powerful country in the world's probably done that at some point. BUT...it kind of has to make you wonder about the horses we're backing right now...who knows how those relationships are going to turn out in a decade?
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 Ironic...but common. Every powerful country in the world's probably done that at some point. BUT...it kind of has to make you wonder about the horses we're backing right now...who knows how those relationships are going to turn out in a decade? 43567[/snapback] France once alligned themselves with us against England, for similar reasons.
Flight Suit Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 Hmmmm ... a country led by an oppressive dictator who ruled with an iron fist, invaded neighboring countries, funded terrorism in Israel, and threatened stability across the entire Middle East. Nose -- meet face, face -- this is nose. . I'm sure you'll come back with some remark about how that is the Iraqi's freedom and democracy and not ours, blah, blah, blah. There are several threads on this board where I and others have clearly laid out the implications of Iraq continuing under Saddam and how that was incompatible with the broader war on terror. 43518[/snapback] But Saddam wasn't all bad. He didn't dance around in a flight suit singing "Mission Accomplished"!
Recommended Posts