Archive through September 13, 2002
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Bush must stop:
Archive through September 13, 2002
Fluff | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:08 pm     All of these countries have nukes, and we're just picking one to go after. I find it outrageous. |
Crossfire | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:16 pm     All what countries? Countries with Nuclear weapons would be Russia, the United States, France, China, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Are you suggesting we attack all of them? I don't see any on that list that need a good attacking. |
Rabbit | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:27 pm     Well, the French rub me wrong sometimes. |
Crossfire | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:29 pm     ooOOOOo, you did it! I was chewing on my tongue to stifle that one. |
Allietex | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:46 pm     Why are you so sure America does not have proof? Do you really believe Bush is going to lay our all the proof, maps, pictures, etc. at a U.N. speech or that he even should? He will lay out the proof to the invidivual governments just as he did the proof that al queada was responsible for 9-11. I remember the same words then. Oh, we shouldn't go into Afganastan because we don't have proof that al quaeda or Ben Lauden was responsible. Time has proven him right. It would be totally irresponsible to publically tell all. I am sorry, we as the public do not have the "right to know everything." That is why we elect leaders, to make those decisions on the information they have. If God forbid Saddam should acutally obtain a nuclear weapon and use it on the United States or anywhere else in the world, the first thing people would be asking would be, "well what I would like to know is what exactly did the President know and when did he know it?" Then he would be blasted for not stopping it. It is strange to me to hear people say about an issue, "Well I am not looking at it in a political way. I am not considering Democrat or Republican. I am not biased," then procede to follow the party line whichever side they are on." I read this post this morning and saw people saying they were going to listen to Bush's speech and then decide if they agreed with him. I laughed to myself and reminded myself to come back tonight and read the posts. I would have bet a fortune that very few people would change their minds in the least. It appears I was corrct. No one really listens to what a person says, they hear what they want to hear, whether the person says it or not. As far as timing, every president that has ever sent troops into another country has been accused of using it to futher his political agenda. There is never a good time. There is always an election, a scandal, or something else going on that his opponents can point to to say he is just using this to win an election, or deflect a scandal. If Bush had done this a few months ago, he would have been accused of trying to deflect attention from the Enron scandal. If he waits until next year there will be something else he is using it for. And starting a war is always risky politically, especially if it is not a popular one. It sure did not keep his father in office. Many people will question his taking on Saddam. Look at history. Even though President's are not often changed in the midst of a war, what usually happens following one? Just go back to World War II After World War II - went from democrat to republican after Korea - went from democrat to republican after Vietnam - went from democrat to republican after Desert Storm - went from republican to democrat Nope, starting wars is risky politically. Have any of you ever considered even once that Bush knows exactily what he is doing, that he has information that he can not share with the public, because it is sensitive intelligence wise? Nope, didn't think so. It is just easier to believe the worst of him because you don't like him. I am sure many of you will come up with brilliant rebuttals, and so be it. That is the American way, but consider this, Freedom is not cheap. Sometimes it must be paid for in blood. And evil is real. We have seen it too many times in history to doubt it exists. Europe did not see Hitler's evil until too late. They paid dearly for it. I just hope we don't do the same. And saying all that, I pray every day that Bush and our government can find a way to settle things without war. I believe he wants to also. And just in case you are interested, I am a life long democrat, but I am with Bush on this one. |
Max | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:47 pm     Crossfire, Perhaps Fluff was suggesting that it is outrageous to pick one country to go after while leaving the others who might pose threats alone. (Not to imply that Fluff would advocate attacking any of those other countries, either, mind you.) Of course, I can't really speak for Fluff, but that's the way I interpreted the post.
 |
Kat | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:55 pm     "See this is the problem I have... Sept 11th was a tragedy and yes... something needed to be done about it, but to use it as an excuse to further your own agenda and instill fear into the hearts of your own people and others internationally.. well... frankly I consider THAT evil! " I would like some factual data to support the statement that our government is using the deaths of nearly 4 thousand citizens to further its agenda. I am not interested in rhetoric, some facts would be appreciated. Why is it easier to believe that our Government is evil but you need absolute proof that Sadam is worse than sweetness and light. I dont understand how in good conscience you can accuse someone of of such a vile thing as to capitalize on the deaths and pain of so many of your fellow citizens. |
Allietex | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 04:56 pm     I was not aware that William Shakespeare waa a military or political genius. He was a brilliant playwite, but since when does being a great writer make a great politician? |
Fluff | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:06 pm     Thanks Max. You knew what I was saying. What I was saying Crossfire is that all of those other countries have nukes, but why pick one to go after? Because we don't like him? That's the only impression that I get, because there is no exact proof besides the same stuff I've heard already. Either way, it is still starting something. And I assume that Iraq needs a "good attacking." Nope. I mean, at least they could've waited till after they caught the other guy. Grief! I still think it's bullying and embarrassing. |
Gentoo | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:12 pm     Kat, nobody has suggested attacking and destroying George Bush. Just removing him from office and declaring him a moron. That is the difference. That is why people defend the "evil" of Sadam and push the "evil" of Bush. Defending Sadam may save lives, displacing Bush may too. |
Fluff | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:16 pm     LOL!!! I know it wasn't meant to be funny, but it was.... |
Maris | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:31 pm     "Kat, nobody has suggested attacking and destroying George Bush. Just removing him from office and declaring him a moron. That is the difference. That is why people defend the "evil" of Sadam and push the "evil" of Bush." I was amazed at this when I read it. I am happy I dont view the world that way. Is that what the majority of people in this thread really believe? I have faith in my government and I would never even compare Bush and Hussein. I will give you this as an example of the difference, if this had been a message board in Iraq, a good many people here would have been put before a firing squad. |
Kat | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:39 pm     I am just asking for some facts Gentoo. Can anyone give me facts to prove that the US government is using the death of 4000 of its citizens to further its agenda. |
Kapow | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:44 pm     A recommendation to remove Bush from office and declare him a moron? Hmmmm...when our former president acted quite inappropriately and taught my 5 y/o about oral sex, we let him stay. Bush makes an effort to defend freedom and safety and we want him out? What country am I living in? Even my children knew that Clinton was a suspect man due to his behaviors (Lewinsky, pardons, China, etc). So far from Bush they have seen a strong president who takes strong actions. In my opinion, that is not a bad thing. I'd rather joke about speech blunders than moral blunders. |
Costacat | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 05:46 pm     Peeking in, realizing don't even wanna get in to this discussion, madly dashing back out... <grin> |
Rissa | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 07:01 pm     Costacat, Hold that door... I'm right behind you. LOL Just letting any interested parties know that Primetime Thursday is interviewing Hussein's mistress tonight. Alritey Costacat, let's make a break for it. {G} |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 07:11 pm     I never said I was against a war. I am against Bush acting like a hot-shot Texan cowboy and trying to go it alone against the world. This is not the way to world peace. It's a very bad maneuver and will lead to more problems. The Clinton haters are living in the past. Get over it. |
Margie | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 07:23 pm     Kapow, If you didn't want your five year old to learn the details of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, you should have changed the channel. I live and breathe politics, I have it on t.v. all day, subscribe to various message boards and breaking news. I also live and breathe for my children. When any details about the affair came on I would flip the radio station, close the email or change the t.v. channel. It is the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's viewing, not the governments. It wasn't Clinton who was running around kissing and telling, it was the house republicans who were chomping at the bit for details. Kenneth Starr's report read almost like Hustler for heaven's sake. Gingrich, Livingston, Hyde and more, were all screaming family values while all messing around on the side. Your five year old should have learned the term hypocrisy from that bunch. We all are very aware of Clinton's relationship with Monica - more aware than we ever wanted to be. If he were the only one who ever had an affair, you may have a leg to stand on, but don't hold him out as an example of moral turpitude until you take a look at the rest of the leaders of our country. |
Babyruth | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 07:42 pm     Bravo, Margie!! |
Margie | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 07:56 pm     Thanks Babyruth, I meant every word I said, but after re-reading it, I think I phrased it a bit harshly. I probably should practice some deep breathing technicques or even primal scream therapy instead of hitting the post button so quickly sometimes. ;) |
Loppes | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:10 pm     I think its stretching it some to accuse Clinton of teaching 5 year olds about oral sex. Show me a five year old who enjoys watching CNN over Sesame Street. I don't think the government uses the death of 3000 people on 911 to further its agenda consciously. One should stop and see what Bush's main agenda was on Sept 10, 2001 and then compare it to after Sept 11, 2001. I think the USA definitely had to go after Bin Laden, but I wonder why suddenly, Bush built an Axis of Evil before even the WTC Towers were rebuilt, let alone the Pentagon. Countries, such as Canada, fully supported the US government to go after Bin Laden. As far as Saddamn Hussein, I would like to see what facts there are on what he has done directly to the American people? People can argue about the fact that Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people, but is it any different than Agent Orange or Anthrax? I 100% support going after Bin Laden, I 0% support going into Iraq. That said, if the USA wants to go after Iraq but it self so be it. Just keep our country out of it, we've already sacrificed 4 of our finest, in Afghanistan, for no justified reason. I don't want to see our soldiers go and support a personal vendetta the Bushes, both junior and senior have to fulfill. The clear majority of Canadians firmly don't support going into Iraq, and I'm proud of our Prime Minister for not caving in to our good neighbors. Sometimes we have to do as Nancy Reagan said and "Just Say No!". Lon |
Loppes | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:13 pm     I forgot to add, while I'm on a horse, Canadians are in a precarious position. If some other enemy of USA sends a nuke to the mainland, the sad reality is Canada geographically is joined to the USA, and the one thing all the Border/Customs Agents in world can't stop, is the nuclear fallout from drifting into Canada. That frightens me when I have a 7 year old little girl sleeping down the hall from me. Lon |
Nightcrawler | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 09:24 pm     THANK YOU CROSSFIRE for standing up for me today while I was gone. Thank you. I WILL SAY IT AGAIN THE USA IS NOTHING LIKE IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I find it hard to belive that anyone in this post would think this and live in the USA!!! I still think we would NEVER use nukes like Iraq would. I still think we should go in and take hussan out be for he shows all of you the proff you need to see. and no matter what is posted in here I will not chang my mind. I'm with Bush all the way!! and yes I know the rest of you will not chang your mind ether. and with that said I do like seeing the other side even if I think you all are nuts |
Loppes | Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:23 pm     Nightcrawler, USA may not use nukes, but let's not forget who tested the first mushroom bomb on Hiroshima. Those folks were innocent too. By the way, if there's no need for nukes, why did Bush and Putin sign a treaty to only eliminate some and not all? Lon |
Fluff | Friday, September 13, 2002 - 06:48 am     Margie, thanks for setting it straight. I can't believe that someone said that Clinton "taught" their child about oral sex. Pullleeeaasseee!!!! This is a new era, and to keep putting Clinton into the today's politics is just plain ole' tired. |
|