BUSH IS EVIL

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2004
BUSH IS EVIL
247
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 7:14pm
>>.I used the word "slight" for a reason. Don't you think it is quite consequential that when a country in fact says: "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"? <<

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 7:41pm

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.

Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 7:45pm
Here is your post:

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?



iVillage Member
Registered: 10-04-2003
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 8:25pm
This wild-eyed stuff about Bush just diverts attention away from the stuff that is true at this point. Bush is not another Stalin or Hitler. True, the idealogy is in place for the right wing nuts to wage a holy war, but that is not happening at this point. Afganistan is not murder. Iraq is not murder. Al queda was based in Afganistan. Iraq was justified because Saddam invaded Kuwait and never abided by the cease fire agreement. WMD's or not, the war is justified. By calling this murder when it is not is just pushing people to the other side. You look like raving lunatics. Like I said, the building blocks are in place for a right wing rampage throughout the world. But other things must happen to cause the American people to accept it. Say a suitcase nuke attack or something of that magnitude. People would accept martial law in a second after that. Barring that, it won't happen.

Joe Elliott

http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 8:42pm
I am proud as anything to be liberal as well. I should elaborate. I have read a lot of your posts with a good deal of interest and respect. I think you are probably a very intelligent and thoughtful person who I would like a lot in real life. I am sure we do

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
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 9:07pm
The survivors of 12000 to 13000 civilian Iraqi dead would probably disagree with you, they would probably say dead innocent civilians were murdered. But it all depends on your point of view.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 9:19pm
Yup!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 10:09pm

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.

Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2001
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 10:39pm
This is so silly it doesn't even deserve a response, but I'll respond just to say (1) I never said or even implied that I was anyone "important"; that was an inference made by another poster, and (2) without knowing what was told to me (which I never specified) you have no way of knowing whether it was information of a nature that would jeopardize national security. Let's just give it up, shall we? Nothing either of us says is going to change the other person's mind.

Bev


Edited 9/12/2004 10:48 pm ET ET by bgs3

girl in chair
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2004
In reply to: nisa77
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 10:49pm
I feel it is necessary to point out that many of the dead Iraqis are from car bombs, suicide bombers and other terrorists attacks by terrorists from other countries. Then of course you have the insurgent nutjobs like al-Sadr and his followers who are hurting and killing their own people. These terrorists are cowards by launching attacks on Coalition forces where there are many civilians around. If these insurgents and outside terrorists would stop purposely targeting the Iraqi civilians, the death count wouldn't be so high.




Edited 9/12/2004 11:20 pm ET ET by jma927

Pages