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
You may want to check out the movie "Outfoxed" (on DVD, although also currently playing at a theater where I live) for a different take on Fox News. Also, I wouldn't call NBC liberal, necessarily, they are owned by GE, a giant defense contractor and big contributor to Republican causes.....
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=7172.1&ctx=0
Bev
I'm so concerned with the Iraqis that I'm upset over 10 thousand died in the process of liberating them, got that straight? Horrible of me huh? Somehow I thought liberating them would NOT lead to that many dead, it disappoints me, it's counter productive. How many dead Iraqi civilians are OK with you? How many is too many? Do you have a limit? I do, & we have exceeded it.
No, we aren't worse than Hussein, how silly of you to say that. But at the rate things are going, the Iraqis aren't going to think we are any better than Hussein. And that leads to more of our soldiers getting killed. See how that works? I'm concerned about Iraqis & I'm really really concerned about our soldiers. I'm sure you are too. Why not try to find common ground instead of throwing anger & sarcasmm around?
Listing all the things Hussein did while in power (with our support) won't change whats going on now. You shouldn't assume that "if I had my way" it would all still be going on. If I had my way, things would be a whole lot different, but it wouldn't be the way you assume I would want it. Don't throw you preconcieved notions at me OK?
I don't think any deaths are OK, but I also understand that people die during war. We lost 500,000 soldiers in World War II. Does that mean we shouldn't have fought it? Is the world better off now, having lost all those soldiers even to take out Germany and Japan, or should we have stayed out of it? MY limit of Iraqis killed was reached long before we went to war - I think Hussein should never have been allowed to stay in power long enough to become the monster he was. So what would have been your limit of Iraqis tortured, raped, maimed, and murdered under Hussein before action would have been justified? It's already been established that he murdered around 3 million people. How many more millions would it have taken to make it okay in your view to do something about it?
<>
I got my notion of what "your way" would have been from what YOU have posted all over this board, and your position has been very clear: you think it was WRONG of us to go to war in Iraq. If you wouldn't have gone to war, then pray tell how would you have proposed solving the problem?
By the way, you shouldn't mistake disagreement and debate for anger.
As for going to war with Iraq because Hussein murdered his own people, I thought we went to war because of WMD, or was it WMD program related activities, or was it to get the terrorists, (or was it for OIL), or was it to free the Iraqi people? The shifting explanation leaves me feeling very uncomfortable. Did you ever catch someone in a lie & have to endure their shifting explanations of why they lied? It feels like that to me.
OK, Hussein is a really bad guy. No doubt. What about all the other bad guys out there? Are you willing to evaluate each & every dictator around the world for degree of evilness, & then invade if they don't meet our standards? Why not Korea next? Their guy is nuts & brutal too. Or do we only do that if the country just coincidentally has oil? That's gonna be a lot of wars, well, unless we leave out the countries without oil. American's need to start making more babies now so we will have enough soldiers. See, I just don't think we should take that approach to world affairs.
You do sound angry to me. Maybe I'm reading your messages incorrectly, but that's how you come across. You are now sounding smug while we discuss the numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths. It makes me ill. Again, maybe I'm reading incorrectly, & you are simply posting your position, but I do get that feeling.....
As for how I would have done things, how far back can I go? Lots of people go back to Clinton, but I don't want to stop there. We never should have assisted Hussein in the first place. We never should have given him weapons. We shouldn't have bombed Iraq continously during Clinton's administration, & we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. After we invaded, we shouldn't have dismissed all the ordinary soldiers, leaving them with nothing to do all day, no money, & wounded pride, they should have been assigned the task of patrolling the streets. We shouldn't be sending in foreign workers to do reconstruction, leaving the Iraqis unemployed & more & more pissed off.
Why was Iraq our problem to solve? They aren't next door to us, they were not in a position to attack us. Why wasn't Iraq a problem for the Saudi's or Kuwait or Turkey or for them to form a coalition, & not the USA? Hmmm, mabe they know more about Iraq than we do. Could it be oil? Oh no, couldn't be. Remember they named the war "Operation Iraqi Liberation" at first? Then somebody noticed that spelled OIL, & they quickly changed it.
Pages