BUSH IS EVIL
Find a Conversation
BUSH IS EVIL
| Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:51am |
After reading all these posts, its seems fruitless to even argue with eachother. Bush is just plain evil. That's it. He will be remembered in 100 years (if he doesn't destroy the world before then) as a terrible person, like Pinnochet, Stalin, etc. There is no arguing. He is causing misery and heartache to too many people to ignore this fact.
Bush just wants to start a holy war. And the fundamentalist Muslims want to keep him in power so the war can begin.

Pages
I think you should have said in effect, not in fact.
Again we are back to the matter of subjective interpretation which you and I have discussed before.
The fact is Bush moved American military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.
“hey I don't agree with your invading Iraq etc., but ok I will fill up the void here so you can pursue what I principally disagree with"?” is your interpretation .
An equally valid interpretation could be “hey I don't agree with your invading Iraq etc., but ok I will try to fill up the void here because you have placed civilians and foreign troops in danger by leaving a job unfinished in your pursuit of a political agenda"
>>I really don't get this "double talk", maybe you can explain that to me?<<
Money is often put before principles in the political arena.
Perhaps that explains some of the “double talk” that is causing you confusion.
>>do you actually believe that ány country would send troops if they didn't agree on what was needed to be done? Just in blind faith or something? <<
I remember the chocolates and flowers that American troops were promised in Iraq by the neocons.
The American public in large measure put their blind faith in the Bush administration .
Invading and occupying Iraq would be a cakewalk and was absolutely necessary to avoid mushroom clouds over American cities. Immediate action was necessary to find the WMDs they assured the trusting public Saddam possessed and could deploy on short notice.
>>I meant to say is that Kerry c.s. dismiss the allies that ARE and always háve been there, each and every time he says that "we are going it alone". Fences need maintenance, or they will break. He condemns existing allies for "collaborating" with Bush, each and every time he says "we are going it alone"..."I wouldn't have done what Bush did"...etc.<<
The fact is that despite Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing' the lions share of the costs in terms of dead, wounded and maimed soldiers, and extensive financial expense (4 billion a month) is being paid by the citizens of the United States.
If the US is not going it alone in the strictest sense of the term, it is in effect going it alone in terms of the large outlay of American blood and cash to support Bush’s invasion and occupation compared to Bush’s coalition partners in Iraq.
SH ignored the 48-hour-warning, because he simply did not count on the Coalition to actually act.
He ignored it because there was nothing to produce. I just read (and don't remember where) that the guy in charge of these weapons said they had all been destroyed in 1993-1995 (forget which but either is long ago). Blix himself says they did not expect to find any WMD but they wanted to complete the search to verify no WMD rather than go to war an assumption and no evidence.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=3963.77
Hmmm able to say enough? What is that about? If they are classified, then that means any and all parts of the document are not to be leaked out, given to a summarization to anyone, and not ever referred to. You think this is not in any way jepordizing our security??? Your way of thinking and my way of thinking what is pertanant to national security obviously are miles apart.
So lets move on...
So this "close friend" gives you information about one of the volitale places on earth? This also doesn't worry you? If this friend tells you, who else could he be telling? Now he is working for homeland security and still you tell us that he is not jepordizing our security? WOW!!
It is not exactly what you say here but what you imply that you know. Especially since you have said you can not reveal names, that means you know good and well that you should not be told of anything in the first place or repeating what you have heard. The point is you are trying to say how "important" you are by knowing things others do not, at the cost of classified documents which you should know nothing about. Hence at the cost of our national security. Hmmmm sounds kind of fishy...
Now from another post by you...
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=3963.149
Why should there be links, when he have people like your brother and your friend to tell you and who knows who else these things? What they may think is nothing, can be very useful to others. How do you think terrorists learn information?
Joe Elliott
http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm
not agree on every one thing, but I do consider us to be on the same "side" if you will. SO, when I read that you agreed with the person who was making the assumtions about the other persons wages, etc... I had to say something because it surprised me and I think you and several posters are better than that. I was not saying it is unpleasant to be called a liberal, only that liberals are seen in a bad light by conservatives, and is that fair? no. It is not. I work hard too, very hard. I am not trying to offend you, I am trying to tell you that I think you are above that type of thing. No, it was not what you wrote, but that you agreed, and supported that persons statements.
Oh well.
I try to think of great things about liberals and one that I come up with is that we are informed, and tolerant, not assumptive and we don't think we are perfect.
So, I apologise if I came down on you and not the poster I should have, but it was because you impressed me before so much. That was not cool of me to be condescending and preachy. I see that now.
Sorry
Oh my god. Okay, here is what was said:
Other poster said: "Rich people, for the most part, don't do much for making money. Stock traders, financial analysts, company CEOs. They jsut sit on their asses letting other people do the real work! "
I said: "And don't forget the inherited rich like Bush. Now those guys work especially hard"
You don't know me so you don't realize that I was being sarcastic. I was not agreeing with them at all! I apologize for being unclear and I am glad you took the time to explain to me why you commented as you did.
Bev
Edited 9/12/2004 10:48 pm ET ET by bgs3
Edited 9/12/2004 11:20 pm ET ET by jma927
Pages