Bad Bush

[Oggie505]

I just go thhis from CNN websitePresident Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location."Absolutely," Bush told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview scheduled for air Wednesday afternoon. Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."But Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory."We wouldn't like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves," he said.Jeez, I hope Bush does not bring us into war with Pakistan now

[Claytron]

He uses the US military for his personal goals - this has long been established - I don't see why this is news - OF COURSE he would send troups wherever bin Laden is if they could find him. They need him because they've made him into the leader of all things evil - they've failed to catch him so they have failed on principles they've establsied. They need to catch him to 'make good' on their promises.

[Macho555]

Oh balls, here we go again.To be honest, I'm not so sure if its because of "personal goals" that he acts, or rather that he is doing what he believes to be correct, and now has the playthings that will make certain they are done. I suppose that in the end those are the same thing though. At any rate, I agree with Claytron, Osama just became a thorn in his side, and he can't sleep over his obsession. Or perhaps, its jus

[Sonthert]

How about...Bush has exercised piss-poor judgement. His presidency has been one long slide of making decisions, most of which are not in the best interest, long or short-term of the majority of the American People, and then glossed over it by laughing and nottaking things seriously. He has no business being the president of the U.S..

[Skimo]

but last night you said you didnt have a problem with him lol

[MilqueToast]

On this specific Bush action: I don't think he's acting on his personal goals. If you all remember correctly, the US has a bit of a bone to pick with Osama. Should he invade Pakistan to do this? Grey area. Since Pakistan wants him in custody as well, no. If they wanted to ensure Osama's safety, sure.

Just to clear up, Bush is an idiot. I just don't see him making the big blunder of invasion (again) YET. We'll see.

[moosepotatoes]

So many people are begging for another September 11th. Osama bin Laden is a bad guy....remember? He killed over 3000 innocent americans, remember? He also killed 17 sailors on the USS Coal, remember? He's a terrorist, remember? Stop giving the guy a break, seriously he doesnt deserve it. People like Michael Moore turn him into a victim for attention. Yeah there is propoganda on both sides. Maybe we shouldn't go to war with Pakistan, but personally, if they dont take care of Osama, who will? The US should stay out for a while until it is obvious Pakistan is harboring a terrorist.

[Skimo]

ive seen some interesting videos on 9/11 so im not to sure what to belive

[Claytron]

There are lots of bad guys. We are often the 'bad guy' sometimes too - and I don't mean from our oppontents perspective, the US does some bad things on occasion. No more innocent soldiers need to die to capture one man who isn't really very important in the scheme of things - except to make good on a lame presidents lame promises. Pakistan doesn't WANT us in their country. We have no right to go there under any pretenses unless they ask us to come. That's precisely why the international community doesn't care for us much. That's what America doesn't seem to understand - we were founded in the face of imperialism and now we have leaders who seem hell bent on bringing back imperialism. Imperialism makes the world crazy. Just because we are rich doesn't mean we can go wherever we want. Every country has their own rights and the US should respect them. Claiming a 'war' against an ambiguous entity is merely a political strategy that provides false justification for imperialism. Claiming a war against one man hiding in caves is absurd - he's not a country or an organization, he's an extremist minority - though we're doing an awfully good job of encouraging people to join his cause. He may be a very guilty man who is behind very bad activities but we have no right to commit crimes, waste money, and waste lives to capture him for a president's political agenda. He's a face. A face for an entity that has no face. That's why they want him. He is the Lee Harvey Oswald. He is the Tim McVey. A face to bring to justice to make the people feel safe in a world that is still dangerous.

[Skimo]

I totally agree. I think we should stay in our own country unless it is inevitable(sp?). I don't think the Us will be the leading country 50 years from now. If it does it won't be the leading country long after that. In history im starting to see the pattern of countrys rising and falling with power but that's a totally different topic.

[Claytron]

Yeah - we don't like history very much here because it tells us we need an economic windfall FAST to save us from falling behind. We're importing more than we're exporting - either VERY soon or already - I forget. We'll still have military might - but we will loose the budget to support it and it's all downhill from there - that's why this short-sighted imperialistic bullshit is going to be our undoing in the long run. The less our peers are on our side - the sooner we stumble and fall. We need to keep international policy at the forefront of our priorities. China is on it's way to being superior to us and we can't do much about it. America is good at making comebacks, and I hope we have that windfall for the sake of our people - but part of me thinks we need a reality check. If September 11th can't do it - I don't know what will. There is a great spirit and foundation behind the US - that's what made it what it is, but we're burning our freedoms and our economy and the long term future may not be very bright. : Here's hoping I'm wrong.

[Sonthert]

Skimo: Yeah, but he's only in the bottom quarter...there have been worse presidents in the last hundred years, but not with as much power for destruction as he has. I don't have a real problem with him, just whats hes stood behind to have done.

[benny]

The only thing i cant get my head around, wit u yankees is why so little vote?

I mean you're the 'last remaining superpower' and look what voting in a jerkoff has done (i was going for al gore)?

In aus, its compulsory to vote. Thats democracy

[PersianPride]

In general I don't think the US should firing missiles across Pakistan's border without telling them. Next thing you know they'll think it is an Indian nuclear missile and who knows.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='benny']The only thing i cant get my head around, wit u yankees is why so little vote?

I mean you're the 'last remaining superpower' and look what voting in a jerkoff has done (i was going for al gore)?

In aus, its compulsory to vote. Thats democracy[/quote]

Democracy is not forcing people to choose between two awful choices. Standard parliamentary practice holds that a "no vote", better known as not voting, is the protected privilege of every voting member of a society. This dates back to England and the late 17th century, the foundations of democratic government.

"While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he can not be compelled to vote."
-Robert's Rules of Order

This is one of the protected rights in a democracy, expressing disinterest or lack of information by not voting. Invariably, at the local bridge club district elections, if six seats are open, the first six people on the ballot get elected, with a hundred fifty votes or so each, while the later candidates on the ballot rarely get more than a dozen votes. If people are compelled to vote, then the most qualified candidates are often not voted in because of external factors, like position on a ballot. If only the concerned, well educated people of a society vote, then, the best candidate wins more frequently. Making people vote doesn't make them informed. If you could make and enforce a law that forces people to be informed, that might work wonders.

Forcing people to vote is severing one of the thin fiber-like roots of democracy. If you cut enough roots, then the tree withers and dies.

[moosepotatoes]

CLAYTON: Soldiers aren't innocent, no soldier fighting in Iraq didn't know what they were getting into. It took months and months of training for them to train to go to iraq. The soldiers knew EXACTLY what they were doing and they WANTED to be there. In comparison, more people die in tobacco related deaths a day than the total amount of our soldiers killed in Iraq currently. Secondly, you say Osama doesn't matter? What the hell. He is the one guy without a shadow of a doubt that should matter. Saddam Hussein was the one that wasn't directly related to 9/11. Osama was the big man on campus. He's the fuck tard that hates you and makes threats against the USA everyday. And yes, he does hate you, he hates all americans and is "in the midst" of planning worse attacks on our soil than we've ever seen. He IS the face. This isn't for a political agenda, if your little John Kerry pussy would've backed out of Iraq and stopped looking for Osama bin Laden we probably wouldn't be here right now. Of course the world is still dangerous, that's stating the obvious. It always will be... but if we hadn't brought Hitler to justice, or atleast tried, the world would be a mess. You call it a political strategy because youwant to to think that because it's the rockstar way. To rebel. WASTING MONEY?! How material are you? Can you put a price on your own life, what about your families life? Money shouldn't even be an issue here. What lives have we WASTED? Tell a soldier that we are WASTING lives and I guarantee he would kick the living shit out of you. Those soldiers are giving there lives for you whether you like it or not. ALSO. Do you think Timothy McVey wasn't responsible for those killed in Oklahoma City? HE ADMITTED TO IT! HE WASNT A POLITICAL AGENDA! I dont really know shit about lee harvey oswald so I cant talk. Okay next, the US HAS RIGHTS TOO! Shit heads like Osama bin Laden and Saddam hussein should respect ours as well. Dont pretend Saddam Hussein was innocent. Do you not think not letting UN inspectors into certain parts of his bases wasn't really shifty and messed up? Whatever, the things I say wont change your mind anyways.

[Claytron]

hehehe... you make me giggle. You drank the koolaid.

Soldiers choose to serve in the army. I respect them. There are innocent. They choose to serve a duty. Some of them are warmongers themselves. Certainly not all. Many soldiers join the service with the intention of helping. Soldiers have that power - but it's not always up to them. The job of a soldier is to follow orderst that flow down from a corrupt crown.

And yes. Osama doesn't matter except to Bush. Yes he COULD do something again, so could any number of terrorist organizations. He's just one we have a face to. Certainly he should be brought to justice if viable - but the fact is we don't know where he is and we shouldn't waste money or lives to pull cowboy american shit to get him by breaking international laws.

And calling John Kerry a pussy... that's rich. You're so fucking partisan it's rediculous. The man was a war hero in a terrible war and attacking him is a cop out.

[quote]if your little John Kerry pussy would've backed out of Iraq and stopped looking for Osama bin Laden we probably wouldn't be here right now[/quote]

You're right. We wouldn't be where we are right now if Kerry were president.

You can't compare bin Laden to Hitler. That's a false dichotomy. Hitler was the leader of a very powerful country. He was brought to power by subversive, but legitimate means by feeding upon the concerns of a post WWI Germany. Hitler cause millions of deaths. Bin Laden killed a few thousand innocents. Bin Laden isn't capable of the power Hitler had. He's a wanted fugative with no cohesive body of power. He's just a face used to give a face to a faceless enemy. And money is an issue. We don't have it. The war in Iraq costs us $2 BILLION dollars a week. BILLION. We don't have the capital or manpower to go off chasing a ghost. And yes. It's a waste. I'm no safer today then I was 6 years ago. I imagine I'm actually less safe thanks to our actions. I'm less welcome in other countries. We have more enemies. We are wasting their lives. I'm sorry that we're doing it. I'm sorry if your hypothetical soldier doesn't agree with me. I never once said I don't respect or appreciate soldiers.

I'm sorry my next examples went over your head. Tim McVey certainly did what he said. But the reality is that he very likely was not a 'lone gunman'. He had help - and we don't care about them. We caught the 'face' of terror - at that time it was McVey. America was shown his image and told that it was the face to fear. And we caught the face and executed him. Oswald was the same situation. Oswald didn't act alone but he was the 'face'. We put the blame on him. That isn't to say the 'faces' aren't guilty. They usually are, but they aren't the problem. They're cogs. Bin Laden is a cog. He's one man in an evergrowing body of people who are slowly but surely making headway in their goals. Each act of even potential terror brings about more and more rights restrictions of average civilians.

Saddam Hussein is guilty of war crimes and will be dealt with. As is bin laden. But Hussein didn't do anything to us to provoke us this time around. The best you can do is, he didn't let "UN inspectors into certain parts of his bases". Yeah. Great. You know why? Because he didn't want the world to know he wasn't packing. He wanted the illusion of power. However, he did commit genocidal acts. Yes. That is most certainly terrible. But we didn't act because of that. We went there because of oil and the financial wellbeing of certain key party members and financial ties. He was no threat to us. He had no weapons of mass destruction. He wasn't planning anything. We went their and destoyed their country and we'll likely plunge their country into civil war if we aren't very careful. We murdered his sons and put their corpses on the front page of our newpapers. Should we have gone there? No - it's not our business unless the international community asks for our assistance - and even then if we know what's best for us we should stay out of international affairs. Even if things 'stabilize' in Iraq - it's probably only temporary. Manufactured governments don't usually work. Look at what we did to Russia - slowly but surely Putin is becoming a dictator. We can't go off and 'protect' the world - we don't have the international support because we do whatever we want and don't respect the rights of other nations. We also don't have enough money to 'protect' the world by ourselves. Even at the time before the war in Iraq, North Korea was a much large threat than Iraq has ever been. What have we done about that? Nada. And now they have nuclear weapons. We went to war in Iraq only because of a greedy political agenda that you choose not to see.

[Lakemonster]

Thing is......

We have already used military force in Pakistan. We missiled a buiilding..... they found parts from the missle afterward and identified it as ours.

WE use the Predator UAV's over Pakistani airspace.

Areas of Pakistan have become the HQ for Al Qaida... Pakistan has shown a plenty of innaction already on the matter... to the point where the Paki military is suspected to have under the table arrangements concerning the Al Qaida establishments

I personally get the feeling that Pakistan is "whats behind my back? Oh, nothing" game.

Im not a fan of Bush. I am not a fan of the Iraq war. But by gawd, Im a fan of huntin down AQ with extreme predjudice. If anyone out there wants to feed and clothe the bastards, then they cant just get run the fuck over for getting in the way.

IMHO

[Claytron]

Yeah, they are bastard fuckholes. But they're not centralized. We can't 'get them' all in one swoop. They're not a traditional enemy and the traditional tactic of swooping in and taking them out doesn't work and our disreguard for international politics in such matters is a part of our problem. If we want to go after Al Queda we need the support of the international community - we may be the main target but we are all aftected and we can't 'just do it' because we feel like going after them. The world is not our playground. Militaries can't barge onto our soil and we have no right to do the same elsewhere.

[Sonthert]

Other people's lives. Iraqii, Afghanii, to a lesser extent. When it used to be a two party system, the USSR and us (the US, ha!). People didn't like one, they could support the other or go neutral. Now, the balance of power is much more dangerous. Being pro-USSR doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-US. When all there is is the US, everyone not pro-US is anti-US. We have to address our interfering in other country's affairs more seriously. If we are going to stay on top, we need to work with other people to achieve that goal. If we decide to be autocratic and put our goals as the only concern in our policy making we will begin to see the "bully" fallacy come to light. All the little kids go and beat up the bully on the school playground. It doesn't matter how big we are and how small they are...if ther is enough of them, we will be royally fucked. You can keep them afraid for only so long and then they attack with a viciousness and frustration unparalleled. I see the declining respect and burgeoning antipathy towards the US in the world as our single, largest medium-term obstacle to being free. Followed by cocksuckers who pass patriot acts and want to take power from the people.

[German]

America cannot act in PArkistan without the ok of the Prime, sometimes i think bush forgets america is not the only country with nuclear weapons. The Camshmir Conflict has shown that PArkistan is a Nuklear Power and you cant act there like in Afganistan.

But anyway this is just again a trick of the populist Bush to get some more votes for the republican, like he always does and in the end nothing happens.

[Joseph]

Bush is not a populist

[German]

Tell me why do you think he is not a populist? He shows America what they want to see. An example is New Orleans when he was talking about a fast help but after more then one year hardly nothing happend or when he attacked Irak he was talking about Democratie and weapons of mass Destruction but not about the oil he needs for the economy.

America voted Bush in spite of Kerry (although you cant talk about a real vote when 40000 votes from Blacks didnt count) not because he had the better ideas for AMerica they voted him beause he shows himself as a Patriot and this is what the voters want. (very simpliefied)

[Joseph]

Bush is an elitest, his policies favor those already in power and the very rich. His policies have destroyed the middle class and the poor.