Bush supporters give me a break!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Bush supporters give me a break!
239
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 2:17pm
I have just read through some of the info on the GOP thread and this will be my first time posting a discussion, so here it goes:

I truly feel like whenever I hear a Bush supporter speak, it is like listening to someone with Stolkholm syndrome, THEY ARE COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED!!! I mean, honestly, unless you are living in a cave (without internet, mind you) there is no way that the Bush supporters do not intake the same news that I do.

HE LIED!!! HE LIED!!! Let this serve as a newsflash to anyone who did not know. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IF THERE ARE, HIS DAD SUPPLIED THEM. This is something that they were aware of befor the sent us into Iraq. That is unethical manipulation of your position of power.

For those of you who were just about to argue that we went in for "humanitarian" reasons to collapse the tyranical reign of Saddam, let me just halt you in your tracks. Why are we not in any country in Africa, in which there are civil wars, AIDs epidemics, and feminist repression running rampant due to governmental proceedings? Why are we not in China? Why are we not in Palestine (oh wait, I forgot, we are, sponsering their killing by the Israelis)? Becaus they do not benefit us? So what's the deal, we fight for humanity contigent on how much money we gain from it? Give me a break!

I read another posting about how Republicans are frustrated with the Democrats focus on how George Bush cannot speak. A couple interesting points: It worries us that he cannot speak because you'd think that after a couple years at Yale, the University rated number one on the recently released Princenton Review, that he would be able to process a few words. I guess the fact that he graduated with like a D average just does not count. Additionally, I would just like to call to attention the fact that over and over again science has come to the conclusion that the major difference between humans and the animal kingdom is our ability to speak, and our advanced methods of communication which in turn lead to organization and technology, thus the advancement of the human race. If he cannot speak, then he is getting closer and closer to the animal, right?

Finally, on the GOP thread several posters commented on how although Dems were calling them nervous, they were actually unwaveringly confident. Yeah, I would be too if my party had just rigged the last election!!

People, women, get to the polls!!

Let's make it like father, like son, one term!

Lani

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 9:40am
When the CIA doesn't have ONE HUMAN BEING on the ground gathering Intelligence on WMD for over 5 years before the war, you can't call it INTELLIGENCE.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 9:44am
--

Wrong again. The UN had been demanding action on the part of Iraq for a decade, and Iraq refused to comply with it's demands. The US merely undertook enforcement of the conditions the UN put into place at the end of the Gulf War.

--

Action yes, Invasion no.

I am curious, what INACTION was happening in early 2003? I don't remember how Iraq fell out of compliance with UNSC 1441, I only know that Bush would not call 'Action' by military force to a vote in the UNSC.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:03am


Are you sure about this? Becuase of this "intelligence" we invaded or as others say used a preemptive strike, on another country.

It is so hard to hear Bush say even though there were no WMD's we were right to help the Iraqi people free themselves of such a tyrant, becuase of all the screams and deaths happening in the Sudan.......

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:38am
Again, there were no nuclear bombs for which to wait.

Additionally, the 9/11 commission clearly reports that there are no signifigant ties between Saddam Husein's Iraq and Osama Bin-Landen. In fact, people in Arabic nations attest that Saddam was hated while Osama would probably be welcomed into many homes.

The fact that the CIA Leader was appointed by Clinton is irrelevant. He was not helping Clinton, he was helping Bush.

Anyway, we were attacked by Al-Queida and the terror network and not by the Country of Iraq. The weapons that they used were AMERICAN PLANES and they did their training on AMERICAN SOIL in AMERICAN FLIGHT SCHOOLS. Therefore, we cannot even blame Iraq for supplying weapons or training. So why did we attack them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:39am
But it was beneath our superior intelligence to recognize the capibility of or potential of the precursors to be developed into biological warheads?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:44am
First of all, I said "If" because "If there were, we did". If is a conditional statement, which means on the condition or in the situation that there were, we did.

But I am not going to argue the meaning of the word "if" . . .

In reply to your comment on the UN, like I said, if the UN was calling for action in Iraq then why did not the UN act on it? Because the United States felt like we had to enforce, as you said below, the conditions not met by Iraq on the part of the UN? Once again, if we are going to police the world, why are we not policing it everywhere?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:52am
Okay, so first of all, there are no weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, if there were then ok. We have weapons of mass destruction and after the Cold War, refused sign into a pact with the former Soviet to dispose of them. So, why are we allowed to be potentially the destroyers of the world but no one else is allowed to keep the same weapons that may defend their countries in the event that we get a hair up our butts and decide to drop one?

Secondly, a President should speak well, he represents our country in other nations and in international forums. If all he can do is stutter and make up words, than I guess he is the perfect representation of the public education system that his party has managed to screw.

Finally, the election was not one but decided. How is it that someone won the popular vote but lost the election? Bush may have had more electoral votes, but the POPULAR vote went to Gore. Is it not more telling that more Americans voted for Gore? Additionally, the vote may have been even pushed even more towards Gore if hundreds of Black Americans in Florida were not blacklisted and kept from voting on election day.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:54am
The United States was the third major weapons component supplier, right up there with France, China, and Russia. Just as Mark, we supplied biological weapon pre-cursors.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:54am
Thank you so much!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:58am
Once again, why did we have to enforce those conditions if they were put in place by the UN? Is it not the job of the UNITED NATIONS to police the NATIONS? Or is it America's position by self-appointing to police and enforce rules set out by the UN? And if it is, then why do we only enforce rules on Iraq?

Israel has been ordered by the UN and by the World Court to remove the wall on the West Bank, but we are not there, "enforcing" UN rules, because we like Israel and their money.

Pages