George W. Bush Like or dis.

[Koda]

Watch the movie 9-11 Ferinheidt (spelling may be off). You will discover and learn why Osama Bin Laden has not been captured. Bush is the worst President we have had since Richard Nixon. He should have been impeached the day of the attack! Guess who his family does multi-million dollar business deals with...... Bin Laden!! Watch the movie.

[Emerald620]

Originally Posted by Dead & Grateful

Do you honestly know what you're talking about?

Firstly, pick a side. Don't claim that you don't want to step on any toes, be commited. We'll respect your opinion as long as it is intelligible. Also, wars put us in depressions, please explain your logic when saying that they help out economy. Thirdly, why do you think we went to war? If you're right about war pulling us out of economic crises, is it still right that we went to war in the first place? And last of all, how much do you actually know about the Watergate Scandal and Nixon in general?

ummm...yeah i kinda do know what i was talking about and since you want me out with something that i won't step on any toes with...I'M A ****ING COMMUNIST! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....SUCK ON THEM APPLES

oh yeah since wars put us in "depressions" explain the end of the Great Depression, ummm....i believe we were'nt in a depression during World War Two...am i wrong there...NO...and as i recall, Nixon had some people go to a hotel and listen in on some crap about some other crap then he was all like "I am not a crook" then he left office...thats all i remember
end of conversation...yeah somone should tell me the rest of Watergate

[Anomaly]

I'll just say this for this topic. Are you unhappy? Do you live ANYWHERE on the globe within rnge of television, radio, internet or newspaper? Is there something wrong in your life and you're not sure who to blame?

Blame George W. Bush! Everyone else does!

Are you corrupt politician who majorily botched a crisis situation? Blame George Bush! Did your son join the army without your permission? Blame George Bush! Do you hate that gas prices are high? Blame George Bush! Do you live in another country and hate your countries leader? It's all Bush's fault! Did you slaughter hundreds of your own citizens? It's all George Bush and america's fault.

If you disagree, we have the Rosie O'Donell special of 'It's all the Christians fault'. Very popular right now and looking to be the next big thing in the coming decade.

Grow up. When is it ever an intellegent discussion if you talk about if you 'like' someone or not? It sounds like an arguement you'd get into in high school.

[Jin]

You mean as opposed to the flip side that it's either the fault of terrorists or illegal immigrants? People ALWAYS blame someone else and there's always the people that go along with it all the while not knowing what the hell they're talking about. It is hardly something unique to Dubyuh and certainly not to Christians. However, that in no way means that he hasn't done anything wrong simply because disliking him is the popular thing to do. Look past the teens with no political knowledge whatsoever and the celebrities attempting to boost their careers; you'll find that many people have completely legitimate complaints.

[Anomaly]

Legitimacy is not the issue. Playing the blame game is in and of itself ignorent. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all sides bitching about 'what is who's fault' does little more than perpetuate a level of drama that, if it were on an internet forum, would get threads closed, members banned, and accounts deleted.

Blame whatever you like, it doesn't do anything but make you feel better about a problem that you cannot solve, and in most cases, can't effect. You dislike someone or something? Great! Thats totally fine! Swearing up and down their the source of all wrong in your little world is stupid, and I don't care if you are liberal, conservative, or part of the 'Raving Loonies' Party over in great britian.

[Nin`]

Originally Posted by Anomaly

Blame George W. Bush! Everyone else does!

As true as what you say may be, this is a logical fallacy and not a very good thing to built an opinion upon. Evidence and facts are requisite else all we have are empty beliefs and fallacies, like you have just demonstrated.

Your implied fallacy is argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people") a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it.

If someone is to see the light allow them to learn it for themselves, do not impose yet more sophistry on them, to live is to learn from ones mistakes, not to make more just in a different light.


Lucifer

[Setzertrancer]

I totally dis him, he started a war and that is a good enough reason for me to lose all respect for him, He started the war for Securing oil not for defending democracy.

[Chez Daja]

setzertrancer, I'm giving you a spam warning for spamming with that short post. I suggest you read the specified rules for Intellectual Discussion before posting, to avoid breaking any of the rules.

Thanks.

[maxpower]

Okay I had better throw my hat in on this one. I am pretty much impartial on President Bush but I have to admit that I do respect the man. I think that most Americans will agree that Terrorism is a problem in the United States and that something is going to have to be done about it. I feel as if George W. Bush just picked a different place then many people would have picked to squash Terrorism.

I mean how can anyone even question if their are people that want to kill Americans after 9/11? It is pretty much impossible. So that being the case most individuals are also going to have to admit that something has to be done to stop these people that want to kill American civilians. I can think of a couple of ways to do this:
1) wait until terrorists are on American Soil and take them out.
2) Go to where the terrorists are and take them out.
Well George W. Chose the 2nd option. I myself would have not picked Iraq as the first place to invade but I would admit that area of the world is the right direction to head (maybe Iran?) So it all comes down to where the war should be fought for me. One thing I do have to admit however is that if someone would have asked me on 9/11 if I thought that we would make it another five years without terrorist attack. I would have said "No."

Sure I would like peace. Who wouldn't? Still I am also smart enough to understand that peace only works if both sides support it. I could sit and cry "Peace, peace," while people kill my children but all that accomplishes is my children dying.

Some other ideas: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

[Nin`]

Originally Posted by maxpower

I am pretty much impartial on President Bush but I have to admit that I do respect the man.

Quoting myself from page two here to emphasise the situation.

The US engaged in a non-sanctioned preemptive strike, this war of aggression by the USA can be determined to be illegal, and GW Bush can be determined to be guilty of "Crimes against Humanity" and "Crimes against Peace", both of which were established by America after WW II and used to charge, try, sentence and execute military and civilian Axis leaders. On what ethical basis should we regard the leaders of the USA as not subject to these same laws?

Subsequent to the invasion, the US has clearly failed in its duty to protect, feed and sustain the population (and its opponents) of Iraq, has illegally and, or, negligently attacked civilians and infrastructure, has allegedly used illegal weapon systems, has undeniably used illegal tactics and methods including coercion, torture and hostage taking as well as collective punishment, has illegally spoliated the infrastructure of Iraq and has illegally held an election intended to alter the system of government of Iraq. None of this is justifiable. None of this is ethical, and sure as hell, none of this is legal.

Bush and Cheney are now falling over themselves to point out that they didn't say that Iraq and al Quaeda are linked (and so make liars of themselves yet again).

We executed Germans and Japanese for lesser crimes than Bush and his wackos are guilty of. In other words, we are talking about "capital crimes". In addition, American presidents take an oath to serve the constitution. The founders and authors of the American constitution rightfully placed International Law and treaties as being equal in weight to American law. This was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court when they rejected Bush's proposed use of tribunals and secret evidence to try the people being held in Guantanamo in contravention of International law as being unconstitutional. So Bush acted unconstitutionally and broke his oath to defend the constitution. This appears to me to fall firmly into the category of "High Crimes" rather than "Misdemeanors." If members of the government who also take an oath to defend the constitution see this as I suggest, but don't, for whatever reason, attempt to act upon it, then they too are guilty of a "High Crime". This is why impeachment, as a first step to a really important trial, would in my opinion be appropriate.

As far as terrorism goes, I know of no reputable intelligence, police or security organization that imagines that the "Bush War" (against terror or his battles against Islam, Arabs and the Middle East) has made anybody or thing in America safer. My estimate is that the probability of the much more dangerous internal variety has increased by several hundred times - and that of external acts of terrorism several thousand times - but that both of these are insignificant compared to the massive harm done to individual freedom, the economy and most any hope for a particularly significant future for mankind. Perhaps this should be Bush's epitaph.

Far from being worthy of rational respect Bush deserves nothing less then impeachment, and likely more.


Lucifer

[maxpower]

Originally Posted by Lucifer`

Bush and Cheney are now falling over themselves to point out that they didn't say that Iraq and al Quaeda are linked (and so make liars of themselves yet again).

Can we also impeach the many Democrates that voted for the war? I think if you look at how the country is run you will find that bush is the President not the king. He can't decide to start a war all by himself. It's called checks and balances.

Originally Posted by CNN Thursday, October 10, 2002

The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction. Across the Capitol, a companion measure cleared a procedural vote by a wide margin earlier Thursday and drew the support of the chamber's Democratic leader.

Originally Posted by CNN October 11, 2002

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

It is also interesting to note that no one questions if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the past.

Originally Posted by wikipedia Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started feeding intelligence to the Iraqi army. This included assistance in targeting chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and U.N. expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[citation needed] Most of these occurred during the Iran-Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings of 1991. While chemical weapons were used extensively, there is no proof that Iraq ever employed biological weapons in combat.

With more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[16] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by mustard gas. Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western companies (West Germany, France) that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[citation needed]

On March 23, 1988 western media sources reported from Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days before Iraq had launched a large scale chemical assault on the town. Later estimates were that 7000 people had been killed and 20000 wounded. The Halabja poison gas attack caused an international outcry against the Iraqis. Later that year the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act", cutting off all U.S. assistance to Iraq and stopping U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. The Reagan administration opposed the bill, calling it premature, and eventually prevented it from taking effect, partly due to a mistaken DIA assessment which blamed Iran for the attack. At the time of the attack the town was held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran.[17]

The United States and Britain, along with many intelligence experts, believed that Saddam Hussein possessed hidden stockpiles of WMDs, and must be prevented from building anymore. Hussein denied having any such weapons while at the same time refused to allow weapons inspectors unrestricted access to his country's various facilities. The United States and the United Nations came into conflict as a majority of members of the Security Council refused to support a military approach to the issue, and the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.

Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm."[40] He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.[41] [42] In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.[43] Those include:

50 deployed Al Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totalling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

The weapons were there at one time and Saddam was not following UN resolutions (which really the UN should have been following up on, but that is a whole different argument.) The US knew that they had weapons of mass destruction because we had given them a lot of it. So the question is "where did it go?"

It is easy to say "oh Bush lied and people died." But did you ever think that perhaps Bush really did believe that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction?

Would it have been better to gamble and hope that they did not? Perhaps now that you can look back at the situation and say well they didn't have Weapons of Mass destruction it is easy to answer yes. But five years ago most of the world believed that Iraq did have those weapons. Would you have been happier if Bush just sat back and said "oh well I am going to guess that terrorists don't really want to kill us." And many other American civilians died?

It sucks to be a leader when it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is way better to be the guy who sits at home and says "oh man that guy is a dummy because his plan didn't work."

My question for you what would you have done in Bush's shoes?

[Emerald620]

you guys like long posts, but not to dis the american government but if everyone doesn't like what Bush is doing with gas prices and what not...we should all move to Canada...it's great, you know free health care and what not...i'm just saying, if Bush is a bother to everyone, i suggest go somwhere that most americans hate