George W. Bush

[Malcontent]

Oh yeah I almost forgot about how us Americans are jew-haters. I was too busy thinking about how better we could bomb hospitals and schools in iraq that I completely forgot about our un-dying hatred of the jews.

 

For a country that seems to be no better than the nazis as many claim, its amazing how people of every race and religion risk their lives to come and live here.

 

Interesting . . .

[SkinWalker]

Personally, I'd like to see Cjais get in here and delete all the nonesense posts that are off-topic, but knowing his sensibilities about censure, I doubt he would be interested.

 

A pity really, because this is a topic that should warrant serious discussion.

 

In fact, this is the problem with the current American regime: "you're with us or against us." That false dichotomy was issued by Pres. Bush himself.

 

The fact appears to be that our current regime lied to the American people when they claimed that Hussein had purchased significant quantities of enriched Uranium from Africa.

The claim was even made by our State Dept. that "Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."

 

It was stated that there was "evidence" that could not be disclosed to the UN Security Council because it might endanger intelligence assets on the ground in Iraq.

 

It was also stated that WMDs could be deployed within 45 min.

Another point in fact is that no evidence of WMDs (chemical, nuclear, or biological) has been discovered. One would think that if such weapons existed, they would not have been hidden so thoroughly as to not be available. One would also think that, given the current situation of survival of the fittest in Iraq, someone would come forth with a location in hopes of some sort of reward.

 

Moreover, if WMDs (particularly the nuclear question) were a genuine priority, why did the coalition forces not move to secure the nuclear sites that are now in the news for being looted of their metal drums?

 

Some say it is un-American to speak out. Some say one supports terrorism because one questions the methods of one's government. I say just the opposite is true. The Founding Fathers wished the power to be in the hands of the people and the lips of Americans, not in the egos or purses of the ruling elite. If authority is never questioned, blind servitude is the only recourse.

[C'jais]

Ok folks, enough of the off topic discussion here - if you wanna debate God or Zionist movements, there are plenty of threads to indulge yourself in.

 

As for Bush "lying" about the reasons for going to war, it's actually a very serious issue. At worst, he's been leading a nation into war based on lies - and could be impeached as a consequence (which, no doubt, some folks are trying to work out right now).

[ShockV1.89]

It's my opinion that if it's discovered that Bush knew there were no WMDs and led the country into war saying that there were... then he should be tried for war crimes.

 

Deceiving the very people who elected you... I dont like it... I dont like being lied to.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

It's my opinion that if it's discovered that Bush knew there were no WMDs and led the country into war saying that there were... then he should be tried for war crimes.

 

Deceiving the very people who elected you... I dont like it... I dont like being lied to.

i severly doubt we will see bush tried for war crimes even when extreme proof is found. jais i believe made a good post on why he/i beleive that.

[TheJackal]

i through the idea around with my activist friends.

 

 

If George Bush gives himself the right to go into a nation to remove a leader without the authority of the UN. Why not pass the idea to the UN to remove Bush as leader of the USA.

 

Lets make, for once, the US the victim of all the removal and obstruction of an international country's government and leaders.

 

I know you could swing this in different dirrections thought so this idea is flawed but think about it.

 

Bush denied the creation of the International Justice Court which would make it possible to stop and apprehand (sp?) people like Saddam Hussein and trail them as international criminels and crimes against humanity. The reason why Bush didn't want this higher order of international law is that it would probebly slow down a whole lot of the US led globalization movement (which is basicly corporates avoiding taxes by going into foreing countries to create factories without unions and under pay its workers and thus terminating the expansive costs of US workers and the unions but that's a whole other debate)

 

 

 

------

 

 

I would also like to add this. Someone earlier said that High School economics about Oil in Iraq and how it is stupid by getting more oil in Iraq which would only add to the current supply thus creating nothing.

 

WRONG!

 

By going into a foreing country and pump it dry of its natural resources costs a lot less to pump the natural resources of America (like the oil fields in Alaska)

 

By going into a country with a week monetary system you can produce more for less money. Then the oil companies will sell off the cheap oil to the market US dollar price. Creating a HUGE profit.

 

Now THAT is global economics. "High School economics" is just counting your change when you buy chips at your corner store.

[Father Torque]

I would just like to point out a little George Bush fact. Since he became president in 2000. Gun control cases have been put to a minimal level. Also have you seen the seen the reduction of smoking in the US. The rates are at a substantially low level. Which inturn is good for most of you who didnt know that:p . Also what kind of lies are talking about here guys. Maybe you havent realized but the key to politics is basically to lie your way through. Im not saying its good to lie on matters such as war. But its politics thats the way the world works. I bet you every single American President have lied about issues (Besides honest Abe of course:)). Even youn peoples running for school elections lie to get voted for. Examples such as I will help the school this, or I can assure you this will happen. Its just a bunch a bunch of hooo haw, that people say to become popular. Now Irealie GWB lied on some stuff, which really doesnt make me super angry, but I feel that people have the right to know the truth. Although I dont agree with the lying part of the war. Im very happy about about why the war is happening. Because I have a bunch of friends from Iraq, whose family members were killed,tortured, or badly hurt by Sadams organization. And I think that getting rid of him was a smart choice:)

[TheJackal]

if you expect your government to LIE to you and simply wave it off as politics then I shall avoid your country for ever for fear it will implode.

 

I hope not every Americans think this way. Politics = lies = too be expected = the way things allways have been.

 

That's sad.

[Father Torque]

Originally posted by TheJackal

if you expect your government to LIE to you and simply wave it off as politics then I shall avoid your country for ever for fear it will implode.

 

I hope not every Americans think this way. Politics = lies = too be expected = the way things allways have been.

 

That's sad.

 

Let me ask you a simple question Jackal, have you ever lied. You make it sound like where you are from (Canada), that there is no lying there. Sounds like a great place, if it were true. Has the Canadian Government ever lied before, or are they perfect? Im not saing this to bash Canada, because its truly a beautiful place,but every country and its leaders lie:) . Atleast to my knowledge

[Captain Wilson]

ahhh yes we do lie, but how many of those lies take a human life?

 

The only war's that have been started on lies are those by power mad dictotor's eg. Hitler. Hitler blamed the jewish people for germanys slump, which was completly untrue. This led to germany rebuilding its navy, army and suchforth as hitler provided provided jobs that Jews had held before. These jobs had been obsalte after 1918, but hitler claimed that jews had these jods and were taking the germans money. Because of the army, navy being built germany could invade many a country and cause WWII. Many german soilder died beacause if the did not follow hitler the died. Also the Holocost were millons of Jews were slaugtered for being jews.

 

Now my rambling has gone on far to long, but i hope you see what i am saying.

[SkinWalker]

If we accept that polititians lie to their constituents, where do we draw the line? How many lies is too many? Are "white" lies okay?

 

If we simply say, "it's in the nature of a polititian to lie, so therefore we shouldn't worry about it," aren't we saying that Nixon was unjustifiably accused? Aren't we saying that the impeachment hearing of Clinton was inappropriate?

 

I, personally, am fed up with lying polititians. It's one thing to make a campaign promise that is naive or based upon ignorant understanding of the issue, such as new taxes, etc. It's another thing entirely to fabricate (or allow the acceptance of) documents to justify a war. It's another thing entirely to tell the public that a war is necessary because of WMDs when their is no hard evidence to support that.

[FunClown]

1) I can't see how The Jackal makes out Canadians don't lie

 

2) Politicians do lie.

 

3) Doesn't mean we have to accept it as reasonable.

 

4) I'm therefore not voting for the party who is in government at the moment in Australia in the next election because of all the lies we've been told. It makes you feel so used and stupid. Almost like they have contempt for you and anyone else who doesn't see things [believe] their point of view [through their lies].

[C'jais]

Torque, politicians make "promises" they cannot keep during elections. That's not illegal. The smart folks know that the simple folk wants to be promised things that aren't realistic. The smart folks know that this isn't lying, as the politicians aren't in charge of anything yet. They know that any fool can promise paradise, and vote accordingly - realistically.

 

Now, once a politician is in power, he has assumed responsibility. That means he can't lie, make up "data" or trick a population of 3 billion into war with another country. Bush has said numerous times that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction". They even had a nuclear weapons program, according to him. The government supported terrorist factions, as well.

 

It's very, very serious. In my country, some people are currently calling for an investigation on our lying PM who supported your president.

[The Count]

Originally posted by Father Torque

And DT, what about the man in your avatar lets talk about him for a while, o woops cant sorry youre banned, Maybe next time you should about making a thread about people being in the KKK, you jerk. Never ever say that to anyone again. And you say I have no clue beacuse im 13, well what kind of immature person says crap like that about people they met on the internet.

 

I hope I never hear that from anyone again. And Clown Boy if you wanna talk crap about Colonel Sanders go cry to your mom and tell her that a guy had a picture of Colonel Sanders because colonel sanders created KFC which the guy on the forum. And perhaps next time think before you post because you get people like DT hiped up and banned. I am not even having fun debating anymore, im tired of people telling me my religion is wrong, and making threads that are like do you think FT is in the KKK:mad:

 

Maybe that thread was abit extreme or nasty and I appologise for that however I would not like you to debate on my threads anymore, you are far too single minded and offensive and therefore unsuitable to participate for my debates, so please unless you are able to accept alternative points of view and RESPECT them please do not post here, thats all you will hear from me on the matter.

 

Also do something about your spelling and grammer; its atrocious.

 

Anyway back to topic Bush is getting funding by big rich capitalist Financers, I wonder why *cough* he's their tool *cough*

[TheJackal]

I didn't say Canada is a land where lies dont exists.

 

Its just normal procedure for the media and the public to backlash and critisize the government/politician that lies to us.

 

The way Father Torque said its normal for politicians to lie and its to be expected. Thats what i was talking about.

 

Political promisses and etc happen all the time. They do it to win elections. I'm just happy my governement didn't make a habit to covering the truth and lying. I'm sure there is something that we should be aware of that hasnt been told. Thats normal. Its the downfall on having a media system that only covers murders and car chases and repetitive loops of videos of horific thing. Media tends to ignore things that they judge wouldnt keep the audience's (read nation) attention. They think they need a plot line for everything and keep the suspence high just like a damn TV show.

 

 

----------------

 

Back to Bush. Darth Tyranus mentiond corporate funding for government. The Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, is trying to pass a law which would prohibit private corporates companies to donate money for any kind of to a political party. only personnal donations from the population is acceptable. I am 100% behind this idea. Why? Say the Big Tobaco industries decides to donate a big fat check to a man running for President in the States. Presient X will be very happy of the generous donation from the rich corporation, thus will most likely end up scrathing his back. Favors for money.

 

Its called buying votes and favors.

 

Like the government has no affairs in the beds of the nation (look at Texas), i think corporates should have no affair in running the government.

 

on a side note: In Canada same sex mariage is now legal. A great step in my opinion.

[TheHobGoblin]

I don't like it that people say U.S wants to make a base or whatever to take over Iraq. 1 that be stupid (the U.S is not a idiot country, they just don't like one person so to them everyone is dumb really childesh) 2 It will put America in a bad position making other major countries not too pleased. 3 Our mission has nothing to do at all in any way with oil. It's liberation of Iraq. Bush had very good reasons for war. I know Iraq was sheltering Terrorist. Bush had to attemp to mess up Terroist operations badly. I don't like calling Bush nuts or something. He has reasons to do the actions he has done also the rights. Hitler was just a nutball to begin with.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

I don't like it that people say U.S wants to make a base or whatever to take over Iraq. 1 that be stupid (the U.S is not a idiot country, they just don't like one person so to them everyone is dumb really childesh)

 

It would be very prudent. A base of operations or, at the very least, a significant interest, in Iraq would be very beneficial to the United States, which has been attempting such a thing for over 50 years. Our closest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, has been very naughty of late....

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

2 It will put America in a bad position making other major countries not too pleased.

 

You got that right... part of the reason why we are hated in the Middle East.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

3 Our mission has nothing to do at all in any way with oil. It's liberation of Iraq.

 

It has everything to do with oil and to say otherwise by the Bush Admin is offensive in that it is assumed that the rest of the world is blind. Iraq has one of the largest oil fields (based on old exploration data) in the world. New exploration technology, if implemented, could show it to be the largest, particularly if new extraction methods (such as what are being used in some of the fields in Texas, California, etc. that were once thought depleted) are utilized.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Bush had very good reasons for war.

 

If you call prestige, oil, and tyrranical power good reasons. Bush is quite possibly one of the most dangerous Presidents we've ever had.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

I know Iraq was sheltering Terrorist.

 

No you don't. You want to know Iraq was sheltering terrorists... so do I. But the evidence doesn't bear this out. It never did.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Bush had to attemp to mess up Terroist operations badly.

 

The so-called 'war on terrorism' is going very badly. Our voluteer military has lost more people in the aftermath of the "war" than during it. Untold thousands of civilians in Iraq lost their lives. We went in there with absolutely no plan for reconstruction. FDR had a very detailed plan, 22 pages long, outlining reconstruction of Germany. This is a precedent that should have been followed. Yet we blunder through it.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

I don't like calling Bush nuts or something. He has reasons to do the actions he has done also the rights.

 

Blind faith in a leader doesn't make him a good leader.

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Hitler was just a nutball to begin with.

 

But we have to remember, Hitler was an immensely popular figure in his country through the 1930's. As a leader, the German people looked up to him, trusted him, and expected that he would not lead them inappropriately. I've seen many people compare Saddam to Hitler in this forum.... but an equally apt comparison might lie closer to home.

[Jah Warrior]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Blind faith in a leader doesn't make him a good leader.

 

But we have to remember, Hitler was an immensely popular figure in his country through the 1930's. As a leader, the German people looked up to him, trusted him, and expected that he would not lead them inappropriately. I've seen many people compare Saddam to Hitler in this forum.... but an equally apt comparison might lie closer to home.

 

Couldnt say it better myself.

 

besides bush can't even pronounce "Nuclear" correctly, what makes everyone think he is smart enough to have his finger on the trigger?

 

Nucular weapons LMFAO simpleton.

 

The only other person that regularly calls Nuclear weapons "nucular weapons" is Homer Simpson. NUFF SAID!

 

Seriously bush is a far scarier prospect than Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden rolled into one. He's utterly neglected the economy during his reign and all it will take is one more large scale terrorist strike to send the u.s. into an economic quagmire that only a democratic government will be able to fix. Its a shame because the knock on effect will cause job losses and chaos at a global level.

 

Impeach the monkey-faced gimp!

[TheHobGoblin]

Originally posted by Jah Warrior

Couldnt say it better myself.

 

besides bush can't even pronounce "Nuclear" correctly, what makes everyone think he is smart enough to have his finger on the trigger?

 

Nucular weapons LMFAO simpleton.

 

The only other person that regularly calls Nuclear weapons "nucular weapons" is Homer Simpson. NUFF SAID!

 

This isn't about how he can't pronounce things, stay on topic Enough said.

 

If you call prestige, oil, and tyrranical power good reasons. Bush is quite possibly one of the most dangerous Presidents we've ever had.

 

Well sorry for not stating the reasons. Yet these people have rights strip from them, dignity and other very important gifts. We got the chance to let these people have those gifts. The oil is just a stupid thing people want to use to make Bush look like a power hunger person. Well just to let you know some people have some compasion in them.

 

The so-called 'war on terrorism' is going very badly. Our voluteer military has lost more people in the aftermath of the "war" than during it. Untold thousands of civilians in Iraq lost their lives. We went in there with absolutely no plan for reconstruction. FDR had a very detailed plan, 22 pages long, outlining reconstruction of Germany. This is a precedent that should have been followed. Yet we blunder through it.

 

Going badly I'm not going to argue this one again. Everyone knows whats wrong with this saying.

[TheJackal]

Okay. Bush has taken a lot of things away from the United States and stop avoiding it.

 

Bush is ignoring the failing economie and the crumbling education system. Instead in spending on social programs (as houses for poor, wellfare, education, health and safety, etc) he spends on mini-nukes and the StarWars defense shield.

 

I do agree with TheHobGoblin however on the speech issue. The PrimeMinister of Canada has a small speach problem too. He has a muscles on the side of his mouth that doesn't work like it used to. I dont know the details but when you see videos of him of his earlier years its obvious it wasnt there. Anyways... he has trouble speaking in both French and English (both the official language of Canada). Sure comedians make fun of him for it, its how people identify him in comedic sketches, but it does not make him stupid.

 

As for the War on Terrorism comment: <sarcasmt> let's just hope it goes as great as the War on Drugs did. Because of that war, no drugs circulate in the streets of the states</end sarcasm>

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

This isn't about how he can't pronounce things, stay on topic Enough said.

 

Strictly speaking, the topic is "George W. Bush," so any aspect about the man is "on topic," including his speech deficiancies (assuming that they exist).

 

 

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Yet these people have rights strip from them, dignity and other very important gifts.

 

I won't dispute that. I also will not dispute that Saddam was a bad person. I do, however, hold issue to the fact that this war was about human rights. The United States has quite literally demonstrated its callous disregard for human rights on many occasions, most notably and uncontroversially, the Nicaraguan civil war of the 1980's.

 

Uncontroversial because Nicaragua responded to the U.S. backed, funded, and assisted aggression by going through the proper channels, namely the U.N. Security council and the U.N. General Assembly. Nicaragua, wisely, chose this route rather than violence toward American interests. The U.N. voted twice to impose hefty monetary penalties on the U.S. and instructed the United States to cease terrorist activities in Nicaragua. We refused all instructions. Thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives.

 

We created the monster we consider Saddam Hussein and gave him the ability to kill his people in mass numbers via chemicals, chemical production equipment, education of personnel, weapons, etc. We supported him through much of the worst acts of terror he inflicted upon his people. Up until he took Kuwait.

 

The Kuwait question really was his big mistake. We ensured that he would not back down by creating a situation on the world stage where we had to go in an squash him. The real danger was that he would pull out of Kuwait before we got troops in the area and leave behind a puppet government that would answer to the Iraqi beckon-call.

 

Nothing about Middle East politics is as it seems on the surface. The underlying commonalities with it all is oil. That might seem to simple, but it really isn't simple at all. Think about the effect that the OPEC embargo had upon western economy back in the 1970's... I can recall the stigma even though I was young. EVERY thing about consumer goods was dependent upon petroleum... plastics, packaging, fuel, lubrication for machinery in manufacturing, and many, many other aspects.

 

The "rebuilding" of Iraq already involves several major American petroleum industry corporations, including Haliburton Oil and one or more of it's subsidiaries. The Iraqi oil fields may turn out to be the largest in the world and its extraction industry is a shambles: old equipment, poorly maintained pumping apparatuses, broken/incomplete/non-existant pipelines, and refinary capabilities that are non-existant by modern standards.

 

The money is to be had from more than a few billion barrels, I assure you.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Jah Warrior

Impeach the monkey-faced gimp!

 

I thought this to be a relevant link.... Considering the "joker's wild" in this administration's case.

 

http://tvnewslies.org/assets/images/db_images/db_Joker2.jpg

[SkinWalker]

I'm not discounting the validity of some of the points that the right makes, I'm only trying to ensure that the other side is shown:

 

Threatening to nuke people:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html

 

Attacking sovereign nations:

http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html

http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/

 

Using chemical/biological weapons against its own people:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TET210A.html

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/10/10/37987.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65162,00.html

 

Killing its own citizens:

http://www.aclu.org/action/dpinnocence107.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoc.html

 

Killing other civilians:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/7/30418

http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/EUR700691999

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

http://www.cursor.org/stories/appendix5.htm

http://www.cursor.org/stories/casualty_count.htm

http://www.cursor.org/stories/ontarget.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/suren1.html]Counterpunch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,622000,00.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/36/12/ogwar.html

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12525

http://www.counterpunch.org/blumcasualties.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/15/international/asia/15BOMB.html

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/800/

http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1210-01.htm

 

Starts wars for profit, not peace:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5883827%255E421,00.html

http://www.mike-warren.com/links/iraq-oil-war.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney0922.html

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/1publications-briefings-Iraq.htm

http://www.msnbc.com/news/819220.asp

http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?0cb=-315114700

http://www.presentdanger.org/pdf/gac/0209oil.pdf

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,825105,00.html

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

 

Now, who is the "terror" in this supposed war?

[Jah Warrior]

good god, thats a shed load of links!!!!

 

Strictly speaking, the topic is "George W. Bush," so any aspect about the man is "on topic," including his speech deficiancies (assuming that they exist).

 

thanks skin

 

 

In the UK making fun of our leaders is nigh on compulsory, in fact those that don't question their leaders are thought to be weird. Its amazing that people spring to george bush's defence even though its clear that he's a reallyt nasty piece of work. its a great example of brainwashing and extreme blinkeredness. "NUFF said"

[The Count]

Damn my anti Bush views aren't dead yet, hmmm better get posting.