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
The more people on each side complain, the more proof there is that he is a tough, but fair news / political analyst.
ITA! Most of the people I hear criticizing him ARE liberals ... but as an occasional listener of Rush Limbaugh's show, I have heard him exhorting his listeners to "ignore, ignore, ignore" what O'Reilly says. Why? Gee, could the fact that O'Reilly criticizes Limbaugh on a semi-regular basis have anything to do with it?
Bev
Actually, Bush used ALL of those as justifications, and he did so from the beginning - he did not change his justification as time went on. I refer you to the speech he gave at the UN on 09/12/2002. He actually did not use the WMDs as the main reason; his #1 reason, as he stated to the UN, was that Hussein had not complied with the 16 UNSC resolutions that required him to, among other things, account for the WMDs everyone knew he had in the past.
<>
It's not that hard to tell whether or not a regime is evil. And no, I wouldn't have a problem doing whatever was necessary to stop brutal dicatators from slaughtering their own people. Whether or not we invade would have to be determined by the situation, but I believe that we have a moral OBLIGATION to stand up to and stop evil, not just express sadness and condemnation of it while we stand around and do nothing to stop it.
<>
I don't feel "smug" about Iraqi deaths. I'm sorry if I made you ill, but if you think my attitude makes you ill, do some reading on some of the truly sick and horrific things that Hussein did to his people while he was in power. That makes ME ill. I don't think that people are expendable, or that the ends always justifies the means, but I also know that you can't have a bloodless war, either.
<>
Do you really think that Hussein wouldn't have found weapons from somewhere else? He would have been the same man regardless of our involvement. The Soviet Union also supplied him with weapons.
<>
Yes, I suppose we could just take the "it's not our problem attitude" toward world affairs. If it doesn't directly impact us today, then don't think about it. We've TRIED that before. We tried it before WWII - Hitler was Europe's problem, not ours. After all, Hitler wasn't planning on invading the U.S. Why did we get involved in someone else's problem? As a result, Hitler was able to run practically unchecked through Eastern Europe. What might have happened had we taken Hitler out pre-emptively in 1936? or 1939? How many millions of lives would have been saved?
The Taliban took power in 1996 and installed one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world, but it wasn't our problem, so we did nothing. After all, the Taliban couldn't attack us. Yet what might have been if we HAD taken the Taliban out on nothing more than humanitarian justification? Would 9/11 have been prevented? We'll never know now, because it wasn't our problem.
Hussein was an admitted, public supporter of terrorism, especially Hamas. Regimes like Hussein's are nothing but trouble for the rest of world, and they are nothing but trouble for us, even if we don't see the direct threat right now. I prefer acting BEFORE they become "our problem," because they will usually become our problem sooner or later.
Care to elaborate, or are these just the DNC talking points?
Pages