viciousKnid
Monitor Tanned
Registered: 02/20/05
Posts: 3936
Loc: "the SP Corner" Bar
Quote: *attempts to incite a riot*
As far as this poll goes, it's no surprise at all that people believe that Bush is ...yada yada yada
I like when you throw opinions out there, especially when the possibility for riots exists, DLH. Just for fun, can you argue the other side for a while now? They seem to need some help making their points.
btw, Bush is a very bad President in so many ways beyond the war there really isn't an adequate choice on the survey to describe it. Still, demacracy as we know it will live on. It's just GW. Proud, free, celeb-loving Americans will easily climb out of any hole he digs.
Quote: Much to your surprise I voted for Jessica Alba.
A laudable vote indeed!
Quote: Even if you stand for the war in Iraq and not withdrawing the troops; to say that "Bush has been incredibly precise about what needs to be done in Iraq – militarily, economically and politically. He has laid out a comprehensive strategy outlining just what military, political and economic objectives are being sought." Is LAUGHABLE at best.
I see that you’ve not read the document I referenced, nor have you been following the actual events on the ground. This must be the case if you believe my statement is “laughable at best.”
Quote: Let us see the soaring U.S. economy and the minimal death toll of the war, then. 2000 soldiers killed! 200,000+ iraqis dead! I'm sorry, but I for one count precision in blood, not USD($$).
Well, you got the soaring economy and minimal death toll right.
Seriously, you are clearly not a student of economics (or observation) if you feel that the US economy is not soaring. And to make this feat all the more impressive, Bush accomplished this after having been handed an economy in recession, further devastated by the catastrophic attacks on 9/11 which had an enormous negative impact on the economy.
You are also clearly not a student of history if you think that 2000 soldiers killed after three years of combat is a high number! I just can’t fathom how anyone, no matter how biased, could see this figure as high! This rate of death was even lower than that of the first Gulf War.
You say 200,000+ Iraqis dead, a figure 2 times higher than the highest estimate by liberal sources. Where did you get your figures – the Workers World Daily?
You destroy your own credibility when you make claims you cannot backup. Especially when they are such outrageous claims. And how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks? What about that?
Quote: It is ridiculous that when Bin Laden targets the Twin Towers he gets them hit, twice. But when the US Army targets an insurgent hideout they bomb a wedding, or a school. To hell with "precise".
This analogy is ridiculous on its face. I think even I could hit something that was over 100 stories tall! It takes incredible precision to hit a small group of people in the middle of an urban setting. And despite your protestations that all we’re hitting is weddings and schools, that is, in fact, not the case. Our ability to execute precision military air strikes borders on surgical – we have the most precise military force in history. Do innocent people still die? Of course they do, they don’t say “war is hell” for nothing. But FAR fewer die these days than at any point in the history of warfare.
And the fact that the enemy uses schools, hospitals and mosques to conduct their battles from doesn’t help keep civilian casualties down.
Quote: If you wanted to avenge the deaths of U.S. civilians, that's only logical. But how many more need to die??? You are close to 1000% retaliation in Iraqi lives taken. Its human lives we're talking about, if that even means anything to Americans nowadays.
Collateral Iraqi deaths are not revenge for US deaths on 9/11, they are an unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of war. But, if you listen to what the Iraqi people themselves are saying (and not what some liberal mainstream media outlet is telling us), they are very happy indeed that we are there kicking ass and taking names and they do NOT want us to leave until either a. all the ass needing kicked is kicked or, b. they are finally in a position to do all the ass kicking themselves.
The response after 9-11 would be to go after the people involved in 9-11. That's bin Laden and his gang. We went into Afghanistan, but we let the ringleader escape.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. It was important to make sure that Saddam wasn't developing a nuclear program, but that's why you have inspectors... and anyway, it's clear that Clinton had taken care of his WMD back in 1998.
Okay, we're in Iraq. We take over Baghdad. Then, Bush declares an end to major combat operations-- that is, victory. Two thousand more of our troops have died after we declared victory. That's a stupidity unparalleled in modern history.
Then there are all of the failures in his domestic policies, and the erosion of our civil liberties.
Quote: The response after 9-11 would be to go after the people involved in 9-11. That's bin Laden and his gang. We went into Afghanistan, but we let the ringleader escape.
Actually, the correct response after 9/11 was to recognize that bin Laden represented a new kind of enemy for the US – an enemy that did not swear allegiance to any country or political ideology. Rather, this enemy represented an orthodox adherence to, and practice of, a religious ideology that was anathema to all the values Western civilizations hold dear. And this enemy was willing to kill, by any means it could, any and all who opposed it – man, woman and child. This religious ideology is not isolated to al Qaeda – it is a rampant, widespread, worldwide ideology. And wherever adherents to this ideology come into to contact with rogue nations with even potential access to WMD’s, then these nations need to be dealt with. This is what happened in Iraq.
You see, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the fact that our new enemy are those who adopt an extremely literal and orthodox adherence to the Qur'an and the aHadith. It is those practitioners of orthodox Islam that are the enemy of the West, not just al-Qaeda. And any one of them would not hesitate for a second to launch a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against the West if only they could.
Quote: Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. It was important to make sure that Saddam wasn't developing a nuclear program, but that's why you have inspectors... and anyway, it's clear that Clinton had taken care of his WMD back in 1998.
Sanctions and the UNSCOM inspections were completely ineffective and by the time of the invasion of Iraq, had all but disintegrated. The Oil-for-Food scandal exposed just how ineffective UN actions in Iraq were. Inspections were a joke and if you had done any serious study of these UN regimes, you would know this. You would also know that Clinton had not taken care of the WMD’s back in ’98 – and you would also know that there is very good chance that his WMD stockpiles had been transferred to Syria before the start of the war (after he had kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors again).
Quote: Okay, we're in Iraq. We take over Baghdad. Then, Bush declares an end to major combat operations-- that is, victory. Two thousand more of our troops have died after we declared victory. That's a stupidity unparalleled in modern history.
No, Carter is a stupidity unparalleled in modern history. And we had ceased major combat operations when Bush announced it – we were no longer running regular bombing sorties, conducting major tank and infantry maneuvers and so on. We were in mop up mode and we still are. And I, for one, am only too happy to continue to see our troops kill these Islamic militants over there for as long as they wish to present themselves.
Quote: Then there are all of the failures in his domestic policies, and the erosion of our civil liberties.
Yes, Bush has had his share domestic policy failures – failure to reform Social Security by giving American’s the chance to invest some of their hard-earned SS taxes, rather than pissing it away to the federal government, passing the prescription drug plan (more billions the govt can piss away, failure to deal effectively with illegal immigration, failure to get school vouchers passed – these are among his most notable failures.
But then he did get tax cuts through and that alone did more to boost the economy out of its recession and drop unemployment to levels that were once held, by Democrats no less, as “full employment.”
As for the erosion of our civil liberties, which of your have been eroded? Can you even say?
#203574 - 01/27/0608:00 PMRe: A Bush Presidency Poll
[Re: dblboggie]
greengunner
Banned
Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 1359
Loc: Walking in a Wenger wonderland...
I love the "economy sucks" argument. I'm a small businessman and I'm absolutely inundated with work to such an extent I often have to turn some down. The people that cry about the economy are usually the ones that go out and spend $5000 on a plasma TV then [censored] about how they have no money
_________________________
If you make it idiot proof, someone will build a better idiot.
Quote: I love the "economy sucks" argument. I'm a small businessman and I'm absolutely inundated with work to such an extent I often have to turn some down. The people that cry about the economy are usually the ones that go out and spend $5000 on a plasma TV then [censored] about how they have no money
Hear hear greengunner!!! I’m self-employed – living in LA, CA no less – and I’m not hurting. In fact, my industry has seen a real resurgence after the dot-com debacle and 2000 recession.
Quote: I love the "economy sucks" argument. I'm a small businessman and I'm absolutely inundated with work to such an extent I often have to turn some down. The people that cry about the economy are usually the ones that go out and spend $5000 on a plasma TV then [censored] about how they have no money
Ain't the economy just the pits? Man oh man. That IS one of the silliest things i hear these days. The company i work for has work coming out it's ears. Thus, i'm on a roll!
Quote: As far as this poll goes, it's no surprise at all that people believe that Bush is the end to Democracy. We have a lot of extreme leftists registered here.
Well in all fairness, there weren't a lot of options to choose from Most of us, I suspect, just think he is a horrible president who is causing a lot of damage that will take a long time to heal.. I don't think he will actually cause the end of democracy.
Quote:
It's no wonder that the one president willing to stand up to radical muslims is the target of criticism by those that think that 'live and let live' is the best policy.
Funny, one of my main problems with Bush is that he kisses the Saudis feet... you remember the Saudis, right? The people most responsible for 9-11? Eh, I bet you don't concern yourself with them... Keep drinking the kool-aid, friend. With any luck this War on Terror (tm) will be as hugely successful as the War on Drugs (tm).
Quote:
I suppose we should ignore the fact that radical muslims are the ones who started this war by such trivial acts as bombing the USS Cole, Bombing our embasssies in Kenya and Tanzania, and twice bombing our world trade center buildings.
Which is why most people don't mind us going after al-Qaida... refresh my memory - what does that have to do with installing democracy in Iraq again?
Quote:
But why should we retaliate, I mean it's only Dead American's right? There expendable in the liberal mind.
Your thinking is extremely simple... I must keep this in mind when formulating a response.
Quote:
Even if we do nothing, the radical factions of the world will keep doing what they're best at until someone stops them. Today Hamas gained control of Palestine. Do you think they're going to plant gardens and cure cancer with their new found power? Hell no. They're warmongers.
Hamas was democratically elected. So you're saying we shouldn't be supporting democracies in the Middle East? Remind me once more why are soldiers are dying in Iraq?
Quote:
It's funny that the liberals want everyone to live in peace and harmony, but think that this can be achieved passively. Every long period of peace in human history has immediately followed a war. Protests and picket signs will not stop terrorists from strapping bombs on their bodies and stepping onto a bus in Israel or building bombs in Baghdad. If we leave Iraq (as the liberals want) without finishing the job, we will only be abandoning 30 million Iraquis that currently have a chance at a peaceful future. If you want peace, we have to remove those people willing to prevent it. But I guess since most leftists could care less about thousands of dead americans, it only stands to reason that they could give a **** less about millions of dead Iraquis.
For someone who has so much to say about "what liberals want", it's amazing how far off you are. Let me guess... you listen to a lot of Bill O'Reilly?
#203579 - 01/27/0611:19 PMRe: A Bush Presidency Poll
[Re: WesMordine]
greengunner
Banned
Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 1359
Loc: Walking in a Wenger wonderland...
Quote: Since this was a poll, go check the democratic results of it.
Thank you and goodnight.
Oh okay thanks for clearing that up, democracy is finished in America and thats why you are still on the internet. Its funny you should mention the results of the poll since there is a battalion of Tiger tanks driving past my house.
_________________________
If you make it idiot proof, someone will build a better idiot.
Most of us, I suspect, just think he is a horrible president who is causing a lot of damage that will take a long time to heal.. I don't think he will actually cause the end of democracy.
Previous Topic
Index
