Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gill

George W Bush Wins

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

Bush did not cheat , and no ...he isn'ta monkey .

 

And no, American troops are not being chased dowm .

 

My . my , where do these misconceptions come from ? Is it wishfull thinking ?

 

Bush was elected fair and square in an election that although not perfect , but by far the fairest and cleanest of any nation on Earth . There is no doubt as to the fact that a clear majority of Americans voted to keep him in office , thereby agreeing to his policies .

 

[##][/##] There seems to be a tendency to resort to "conspiracies " when reality turns out to be something not quite desired .

The Iraqis will have their election , and the insurgents/mujahadeen /rebels /terrorists / ---whatever you choose to call them , will no doubt kill as many Iraqis and westerners that they can to prevent those elections , but they will come to pass nonetheless , and the majority of Iraqi people will express their will and have it realized by their own choice .

 

There are only a limited number of insurgents andthey will in no way prevail , but only delay the inevitable .

 

Call Bush what you like , 9/11 happened "before" the incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq , and the first attempt came during Clinton'sAdministration in '93 ,and so too the USS Kole incident and the Kobar Towers . So the dye had been set before Bush [jr.] had even taken office .

So I guess what people dont like is his reaction to conditions and events thrust upon him in his first 9 months in office .

Well , bomb the worlds biggest and most prosperous city , in the worlds most powerful country and you throw the dice as to the reaction - and that is what happened .

Didn't turn out too well for Saddam and his regime , and now Iraq is the "cause celebre " amongst the mujahadeen of the world - so be it .

The majority of Americans cast their free and legitamite vote , and Bush is in for 4 more years .

 

....so , stay tuned , it's going to be a rough ride .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess what people dont like is his reaction to conditions and events thrust upon him in his first 9 months in office .

Well , bomb the worlds biggest and most prosperous city , in the worlds most powerful country and you throw the dice as to the reaction - and that is what happened .

 

Your statement is true. But what did Iraq have to do with these "conditions and events" thrust upon Bush. To my understanding, and to the understanding of the majority of the world, abolutely nothing. But here we are in a war with over 100,000 dead iraqi's with the death count steadily rising, and the proposed justifications for the war steadily eroding under Bush's feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what did Iraq have to do with these "conditions and events" thrust upon Bush. To my understanding, and to the understanding of the majority of the world, abolutely nothing.

 

The events of 9/11 changed the way that Americans look at foreign policy. No longer were we willing to wait until we were attacked before defending ourselves.

 

Iraq had a 12 year history of refusing to cooperate with other countries, of refusing to cooperate with inspectors to show that they had no WMD's. of threatening the interests of the USA and could not account for hundreds of tons of WMD's.

 

Regardless of whether they actually had the weapons or not, they refused to allow the international community to check, while at the same time being quite open about their animosity towards the USA.

 

After 9/11 the tide changed. The US would no longer look at such threats idly. We would strike before the enemy had a chance too.

 

Saddam had 12 years to cooperate. He had plenty of oppurtunities to stop the attack, but his ego would not allow it. He pulled the tail of the tiger then cried foul when the tiger bit him.

 

After 9/11 the US has a much lower tolerance for percieved threats. That is the connection that the majority of the world, as you say, as missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Regardless of whether they actually had the weapons or not, they refused to allow the international community to check, while at the same time being quite open about their animosity towards the USA.

 

The iraqis refused??? Bush was the one who totally dismissed the work of the weapons inspectors and couldn't wait to drop bombs on Iraq.

 

Blix himself said that him and his team needed more time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The events of 9/11 changed the way that Americans look at foreign policy. No longer were we willing to wait until we were attacked before defending ourselves.

 

How can you defend yourself if you haven't been attacked? If you do this you are doing the attacking and need to be defended against. Your argument is weak because it basically entails that the US used worst case scenerio as fact which was then used as justification to start a war. Moreover, the actual concept of attacking Iraq was concieved prior to 9/11 by the Bush administration which refutes your claim of some post 9/11 ideology that justifies the war.

 

Iraq had a 12 year history of refusing to cooperate with other countries, of refusing to cooperate with inspectors to show that they had no WMD's. of threatening the interests of the USA and could not account for hundreds of tons of WMD's.

 

Regardless of whether they actually had the weapons or not, they refused to allow the international community to check, while at the same time being quite open about their animosity towards the USA.

 

Prior to the War Sadaam denied that he had any WMD. It just so happened he was telling the truth. All of the supposed "evidence" that the US had, the satelitte pictures, Sadaams attempts to obtain uranium and alluminum tubes for missiles, have all been proven to be false. Not only that but one is left to wonder how or why the US misinterpreted simple documents and pictures that they recieved and released them. I refuse to believe that the most powerful nation in world employing some of the most brilliant minds couldnt look at simple satelite pictures and differeciate between moble chemical weapons labs (aka "sadaams vans of death" as powell liked to call them) and moble food testing labs. A monkey could do that, but the worlds most powerful nation couldnt. sounds suspicious doesnt it?

 

After 9/11 the tide changed. The US would no longer look at such threats idly. We would strike before the enemy had a chance too.

 

Saddam had 12 years to cooperate. He had plenty of oppurtunities to stop the attack, but his ego would not allow it. He pulled the tail of the tiger then cried foul when the tiger bit him.

 

After 9/11 the US has a much lower tolerance for percieved threats. That is the connection that the majority of the world, as you say, as missed.

 

Sure, this mentality sounds great on a bumper sticker but in the real world it means preemtive aggresion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blix himself said that him and his team needed more time!

 

He had 12 years. At some point you have to say enough is enough or the whole process becomes a joke.

 

Moreover, the actual concept of attacking Iraq was concieved prior to 9/11 by the Bush administration which refutes your claim of some post 9/11 ideology that justifies the war.

 

Yes, and I can guarantee you that there are many countries at the current time that there are "plans" for. The US armed forces always have battle plans ready for countries in case they are needed. The US would have been stupid not to have plans for Iraq with the situation there. The fact that we ended up using them can be blamed on Saddam who never ended his rhetoric or games with the inspectors even under the threat of invasion.

 

As for evidence, I never cared about it. The ONLY piece of evidence I needed was the obvious lack of cooperation with the UN inspectors. If he had nothing to hide then why was he acting like he did?

 

If a person who I know has has used a gun in the past tells me they don't have one now, but refuses to let me see their hands, then I sure as heck am not going to believe them. If he had nothing to hide then he should have let the UN do it's job. He didn't.

 

Sure, this mentality sounds great on a bumper sticker but in the real world it means preemtive aggresion.

 

If you want to call it preemptive aggression then so be it. If someone threatens me I am not going to wait until the crowbar hits me before I act. That would be stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He had 12 years. At some point you have to say enough is enough or the whole process becomes a joke.

 

Yes and if he continued it would have taken more than 12 years. 50 years maybe, or 100, or it never would have ended. Why? because there was nothing to find. Blix was on a goose chase. Looking for something that wasn't there to be found. It didn't matter how long he took because people simply believed it wasn't a matter of if but when he found WMD. Simply put, people wouldnt be satisfied with the inspections until they turned up WMD. WMD which werent there to be found.

 

Yes, and I can guarantee you that there are many countries at the current time that there are "plans" for. The US armed forces always have battle plans ready for countries in case they are needed. The US would have been stupid not to have plans for Iraq with the situation there. The fact that we ended up using them can be blamed on Saddam who never ended his rhetoric or games with the inspectors even under the threat of invasion.

 

No, you misunderstood me. They didnt have an invasion plan, they were persuing a military operation in Iraq. This wasn't some shelved away battle plan than they had just in case. For some reason or another they had their radar set on Iraq prior to 9/11. All they needed was a reason. Is it so far fetched that 9/11 provided them that reason? I dont think so.

 

As for evidence, I never cared about it.

 

Can you see whats wrong with this statement?

 

If you want to call it preemptive aggression then so be it. If someone threatens me I am not going to wait until the crowbar hits me before I act. That would be stupid.

 

I agree with you man. If someone threatens me I am not just going to sit around and wait. But you're missing my point completely. Iraq did not threaten US security in any way. There was no threat on American citizens coming from Iraq. No WMD, no terrorist ties, no threat, no nothing. But then we have North Korea that has verbally said that it is not afraid to use its WMD and will if it feels threatened. So while we were in Iraq, ridding it of its non existent WMD, North Korea has developed its nuclear weapon program. So was this war about national securtiy? or was it about something else?

Edited by ShirazC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadam was not really all that well loved. Not to say his cash bribes and sale of underpriced crude didn't buy him a few "friends".

 

I bet there are many who would have taken them out if they felt they could have. Bush spent the blood and treasure of the Americans and some may say risked his re-election to do so.

 

Many are happy Sadam is gone but out of their mind with the idea that it took the Americans to do it. It appears as though we are approaching the beginning of the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you see whats wrong with this statement?

 

Understand my quote in context. I am saying that if you act like you are hiding something then I will assume you are hiding something.

 

The only evidence I found pertinent was:

 

Iraq used to have WMD's.

 

Iraq was not able to prove they had destroyed their WMD's.

 

Iraq refused to cooperate with those attempting to prove they had no WMD's for 12 years.

 

 

Yes and if he continued it would have taken more than 12 years. 50 years maybe, or 100, or it never would have ended. Why? because there was nothing to find

 

And now we know that. We didn't know it then. Saddam forced us to call his bluff to find out for sure.

 

There are still plenty, also, that believe WMD's may still be hidden. Heck, we've found MIG's buried in the sand months after the invasion, and only found some of them because the fins were sticking out of the ground. If they can do that with jet fighters they could surely have done it with barrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Understand my quote in context. I am saying that if you act like you are hiding something then I will assume you are hiding something.

 

You cant start a war on assumptions. People are going to die and lives are going to be changed forever in a war. You need evidence. And not just circumstantiol evidence like you have given below. You need material evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that war is absoloutly necessary. Peoples lives are a stake.

 

The only evidence I found pertinent was:

 

Iraq used to have WMD's.

 

Iraq was not able to prove they had destroyed their WMD's.

 

Iraq refused to cooperate with those attempting to prove they had no WMD's for 12 years.

 

Sadaam said he didn't have WMD, and it turns out he didnt

 

Colin Powell said himself months prior to 9/11 that Sadaam posed no threat to US security.

 

Donald Rumsfield said himself that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the US.

 

Sadaam allowed weapon inspectors into Iraq. They took so long because they were essentially looking for something that wasn't there.

 

And now we know that. We didn't know it then. Saddam forced us to call his bluff to find out for sure.

 

And now 100,000 + people are dead because we didnt take the time to find out for ourselves whether our claims were true or not. And we found out the hard way that we were wrong.

 

There are still plenty, also, that believe WMD's may still be hidden. Heck, we've found MIG's buried in the sand months after the invasion, and only found some of them because the fins were sticking out of the ground. If they can do that with jet fighters they could surely have done it with barrels.

 

A jet fighter is different from chemical, biological or nuclear agents. Unstable chemical agents can be detected for years after they have been in contact with an area. We have no evidence that any dangerous chemical materials have been inside Iraq within the recent past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can any of you say that this Bush victory is a sad day for anyone??? Come On! Dear God :P I wish some people just had the common sense to open their eyes and not listen so much to people to Dan Rather. Have mercy on my soul! :D So many people are afraid of a Christian in the White House. The people who voted for Kerry knew he does not live out his Catholic faith but Bush does live out his faith. B) :P If anyone voted for the John- John ticket, you've got to have been somking something! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can any of you say that this Bush victory is a sad day for anyone??? Come On! Dear God  I wish some people just had the common sense to open their eyes and not listen so much to people to Dan Rather. Have mercy on my soul!  So many people are afraid of a Christian in the White House. The people who voted for Kerry knew he does not live out his Catholic faith but Bush does live out his faith. If anyone voted for the John- John ticket, you've got to have been somking something! 

 

What the hell are you talking about buddy? Dan Rahters is a senile old attention whore and doesn't influence mine or any persons political views. Im not afraid of a Christian in the White House. Im afraid of a semi literate spoilt little daddies boy who looks and acts like a chimpanzee in the White House. I didn't vote for John Kerry because he is somehow UnCatholic. I voted for John Kerry because he is a better man that Bush and he can at least form a coherent sentence. Seriously man, lay of on the lysol sniffing.

Edited by ShirazC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush has an MBA from Harvard.

 

Hardly a monkey, but then again, people will go to any lenghts to make fun of the people they do not like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that hard to get into Harvard when your dads the president. Ivy league schools are always looking to get a more prestige name among universities. Having the presidents son in their school is a pretty good way of doing that. Seriously, I could easily list tons of famous Bush qoutes of him massacring the English languange and messing up geographical facts. Harvard graduate or not he is not well-spoken nor does he have alot of knowledge of the world he lives in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The people who voted for Kerry knew he does not live out his Catholic faith but Bush does live out his faith.

 

First of all, America was founded on the separation of Church and State. What does faith have to do with anything?

 

Secondly, whether Bush lives out his faith is questionable. Is it "Christian" to cozy up on the DL with people who serve your purposes (Saudis), but bomb the tar out of those who get in your way (Iraqis)? For money? Because we KNOW that he didn't go into Iraq to save the children from Saddam... he obviously doesn't feel that bad for the children in areas that have no importance to US interests, such as North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, etc.

 

Oh, and maybe Bush could teach his daughters to be a bit more "Christian:" stop walking around half-naked, getting fake IDs and boozing it up about town.

 

Bush has an MBA from Harvard.

 

Bush also had a C average at Yale, and got in merely because he was a legacy. I personally know a legacy with a C average who got into my school. Instead of looking at where he went to school, let's look at his performance.

 

And he DOES look like a monkey, in every photograph I have seen of him.

 

But ladies and gentlemen, this is hardly the point! Let's look at more important things, like his foreign policy (a failure), his record of honesty with the American public and the international community about important issues such as evidence of WMDs (dismal), his fiscal policy and how it has affected the American economy, and thus the world economy (pitiful), the state of education and the affordability of decent health care in America under his administration (wretched)....

 

In the most important areas, whether domestic or foreign, Bush has failed (not surprising, since he never COULD keep any of his own businesses afloat).

 

Four more years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush didnt win in a landslide. The end result was as follows,

 

Bush-51%

Kerry-48%

 

Unfourtantely the American culture is largely based around fear which Bush used to his advantage. Not to mention the Bin Laden video only helped Bush get more votes.

 

Also as was stated before a lot of people are to concerned with Gay Rights, and Abortions so Bush took all the bible belt states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

This topic had nothing to do with Islam, and therefore has been moved to Political Front.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×