Voting for Bush = stupid

[IDrinkaRum]

AFP - He has said he will invade Pakistan. Pakistan is a friendly country to us. Did I mishear him when he said that? Did I misunderstand? Did he mean a different Pakistan that he wants to invade to search for Al Qaeda? I thought the Democrats liked Al Qaeda. They keep Bush busy while the Democrats smear our President.

Sure, talking to our enemies is good. But Barack wants to basically go to any enemy nation, open dialog and then invite them back to the States for more meetings, more concessions, more groveling, etc.

[Slytovhand]

At least Bush has declared war on our enemies.

I'll debate that point!

Recall that Hussein got into power because of US backing... via the CIA.

Recall the it was the US government that armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets.

The (various) US governments has toppled democratically elected governments the world over, to increase its personal interests.

And there are plenty of other examples to use.

The US government (of both colours) has made enemies... not just 'declared war' on them.

Some (if not most) would not have been enemies if the US gov't had chosen to stay out of their affairs, in trying to bring 'freedom' to those lands (read... extended capitalism and secured economic interests).

Sure, you can try to use the argument that the US is actively trying to help various nations' people who are under oppression...but if you look at pretty much all of the areas the US has invaded, or helped to invade, there is always an economic interest there. As against, all those countries where there is oppression that barely rates a mention. If the gov't was as altruistic as they want to make themselves out to be, Burma would have been invaded years ago


Oh - as for this thread looking to be going OT... does it really matter? The debate has started here, may as well keep going here... for fear of repetition. This is a debating forum... let's debate ... but keep smiling


Slyt

[IDrinkaRum]

Slyt - Thank you for pointing out that both Democrats & Republicans have made "stupid" mistakes in the past and present to make the U.S. hated. Al Qaeda didn't just as soon as Bush was elected decide to bomb the World Trade Towers.

As I've said before, this country isn't perfect. The Presidents (both Democratic & Republican) aren't perfect. But I'm pretty sure there have been people throughout timme who have questioned the intelligence of the President (especially during war time). Was Lincoln hated? Heck yes. Even though FDR was beloved of the States trying to dig the States out of the Depression (even though the Democrats at the time had imposed such high taxes for items coming to the States and leaving the States that meant nothing was coming or going out of the States as commerce and the people in the States were too poor to afford the stuff, thereby making it impossible for companies to make more product and to hire more people to make said product), I'm pretty sure there were people out there that thought we shouldn't have been part of World War II.

How about the Vietnam war? We have books, movies, documentaries which detail everything we did and didn't do right (which they lean more to what we didn't do right). And please, as a friendly reminder, if you see war veterans anytime in the near future, please no spitting on them.

[Boozy]

AFP - He has said he will invade Pakistan. Pakistan is a friendly country to us. Did I mishear him when he said that?

You misunderstood. There is fairly credible evidence that your dear "friend" Pakistan is harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. (For the record, so is your other best buddy, Saudi Arabia.) If that intelligence becomes unquestionable, the US must be prepared to strike against those targets, with or without Musharraf's approval. This would not be a full-scale invasion. Here's the quote from Obama:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

I'm a pacifist, but this seems fair to me. He actually wants to go after the criminals that attacked you while keeping US imperialism and civilian casualties to a minimum. Unlike Bush, he has no interest in invading some country with no WMD's and no connection to 9/11 whatsoever.

I thought the Democrats liked Al Qaeda. They keep Bush busy while the Democrats smear our President.

Which right-wing shock jock is spouting that one?

Sure, talking to our enemies is good. But Barack wants to basically go to any enemy nation, open dialog and then invite them back to the States for more meetings, more concessions, more groveling, etc.

Are you referring to Cuba here? Because frankly, it's about time America stop behaving like a whiny little toddler about that whole thing. The US has embassies in far worse dictatorships than Cuba, and that doesn't seem to bother the Republicans much at all. Probably because those places have stuff they want.

[Rapscallion]

Sure, talking to our enemies is good. But Barack wants to basically go to any enemy nation, open dialog and then invite them back to the States for more meetings, more concessions, more groveling, etc.

Such was said about the UK government talking to the IRA. Only through genuine talks with an intent to solving problems can you stop the atrocities. Kill the leaders and they become martyrs. There are unpalatable aspects, but at some point someone has to begin talking.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

At least Bush has declared war on our enemies. Barack Obama would have no qualms about invading the nations that are friendly to us. Obama also has no qualms about actually going into hostile countries and opening a dialog with them. WTF? How is that a good thing? Especially the invading/going to war with friendly nations? Where is everyone's self-righteous anger on that? Bush might not be a "smart man", but at least he knows his enemies from his friends.

How is trying to find a peaceful resolution a bad thing? Why do you automatically assume it means we are going to grovel? Remember, the sanctions against Iraq were working, they had NO weapons of mass destruction.

What peaceful nation does Obama want to go to war with? What were his actual words regarding this issue? Not what were you told he said, what did he actually say and in what context?

I thought the Democrats liked Al Qaeda. They keep Bush busy while the Democrats smear our President.

Comments like this do not help your case here, they in fact are so ridiculous that they serve to prove our original statement.

And please, as a friendly reminder, if you see war veterans anytime in the near future, please no spitting on them.

That was an uncalled for little attempt at flame-baiting.

[IDrinkaRum]

Actually, no, the reminder to not spit on our veterans was not an attempt at flame-baiting. I have read reports in my local newspaper that some veterans have been treated with little to no respect. Where I'm at, the wounded soldiers are sent. I'm just reminding everyone not do be disrespectful towards them. My mom's father was in the Marines during WWII and was wounded. He got out, got married, had 2 children with his wife & was re-drafted when the Korean War started. He went into the Air Force as an officer (he got a college degree between WWII and Korea) and stayed in for 26 years. My father was Air Force for 23 years. I have great respect for the military. When they come into my store either active or retired, I always make a point of thanking them for their service.

As for the crack about the Democrats liking Al Qaeda. I said it with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. However, with both Clinton & Obama declaring that if they become President, the first thing they'd do is withdraw the troops, one has to make the assumption that not only do they not like the war (which Clinton did vote for before declaring it as a terrible idea and then declaring her intent to run for President, and not only did Clinton vote for it, but several key Democrats did too) but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over. If that happens, the jihad against Americans would be even worse.

[Zyanya]

Actually, no, the reminder to not spit on our veterans was not an attempt at flame-baiting. I have read reports in my local newspaper that some veterans have been treated with little to no respect.

Where?

As for the crack about the Democrats liking Al Qaeda. I said it with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

I'm not so sure of that.

However, with both Clinton & Obama declaring that if they become President, the first thing they'd do is withdraw the troops, one has to make the assumption that not only do they not like the war (which Clinton did vote for before declaring it as a terrible idea and then declaring her intent to run for President, and not only did Clinton vote for it, but several key Democrats did too) but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over. If that happens, the jihad against Americans would be even worse.

Wilfull ignorance gets annoying very fast. Perhaps you should actually research what their withdrawal plans actually are before spouting off this nonsense. I provided you with a link and a more accurate picture in the other thread.

[Boozy]

...but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over.

Worst case scenario is probably Muqtada al-Sadr, who has risen to prominence as a direct result of all the dicking around the US has done in Iraq.

The rise of the Mahdi Army should be the crown jewel in the list of embarrassments for this administration. But its not; Americans don't really pay attention to Iraqi politics. You'll hear a lot of people say they "support the war", but they have no clue what the hell they're supporting.

[aniwahya]

Denigrating people who voted for someone you think they shouldn't have voted for is stupid in my opinion. Personally I am more upset about people who don't vote at all, and I can't even speak civilly about people who don't vote and then harp on people who voted for someone they wouldn't vote for (if they had voted that is).

I view voting as trying to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils. What has always struck me as strange is that president's are held accountable for the things that happen in their term, even though the effects of a presidents term don't start effecting things like the economy until after their term is over. I believe the problems we are having with our economy area direct effect of the decisions Clinton made while in office, yet people hold Bush responsible for it.

[ebonyknight]

I view voting as trying to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils. What has always struck me as strange is that president's are held accountable for the things that happen in their term, even though the effects of a presidents term don't start effecting things like the economy until after their term is over. I believe the problems we are having with our economy area direct effect of the decisions Clinton made while in office, yet people hold Bush responsible for it.

Wow...just wow. We spend 2 billion per week, on Iraq and the economic problems are Clinton's fault?

I just don't know what to say to that.

[Slytovhand]

but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over. If that happens, the jihad against Americans would be even worse.

No... that just says that they have a different set of priorities. And the presumption that the jihad would be worse needs corroborating.

What has always struck me as strange is that president's are held accountable for the things that happen in their term, even though the effects of a presidents term don't start effecting things like the economy until after their term is over. I believe the problems we are having with our economy area direct effect of the decisions Clinton made while in office, yet people hold Bush responsible for it.

No Ebony, I see the validity in that.

Yes, you're right about the billions being spent on it, but usually the long-term effects won't be seen for some. But... that also means that sometimes it won't be Clinton's stuff anyway...

Besides - although people want to name the specific president at fault, it's really the 'fault' of those who voted them in


Slyt


(and that's also why we have compulsory voting in Aus )

[ebonyknight]

No Ebony, I see the validity in that.

Yes, you're right about the billions being spent on it, but usually the long-term effects won't be seen for some. But... that also means that sometimes it won't be Clinton's stuff anyway...

Normally that is true. But not in this case. That is what makes this thread topic so controversial.

We've spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq over the past 5 years. Also this President (until recently) never met a spending bill he didn't like.

I am sorry, but putting this current economic crisis solely on Clinton, is idiotic. About his only contribution is not increasing our oil refining capacity. That is partially responsible, but little else.

[Slytovhand]

Normally that is true. But not in this case. That is what makes this thread topic so controversial.

We've spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq over the past 5 years. Also this President (until recently) never met a spending bill he didn't like.

I am sorry, but putting this current economic crisis solely on Clinton, is idiotic. About his only contribution is not increasing our oil refining capacity. That is partially responsible, but little else.

No no.. you're cool. I was merely generalising.

To be clearer, I should have said that I agree with about all but the last line of Aniwahya's paragraph...(I didn't take enough note of that last sentence... my bad).

More specifically... I pretty much knew that Jnr was going to be bad because I saw what Snr did to the world...perhaps that's one of his long-term policies coming home to roost?? Although... we could go further back to the original helping of Saddam to power.

[aniwahya]

Wow...just wow. We spend 2 billion per week, on Iraq and the economic problems are Clinton's fault?

I just don't know what to say to that.

I was tired when I posted so I didn't express myself as well as I thought I did.

I do beleive that some of the problems we have been experiencing since Bush took office are a direct result of previous administrations. The Clinton administration, for instance, enacted free trade policies that I think we are just feeling the fallout from. Lead coated toys you say? Shocking!
What I am trying to say, is that America is a fickle bitch, who based on political peer pressure commends people for merely being in office, and vilifies others for likewise being in office, when things that would have happened anyway take place. I am tired of blind; tired of seeing people jump on the bush hating bandwagon just to be with the "in" crowd (I am not referring to a specific, or non specific, poster on this board, but rather people in general).
Specifically what burns me up are people who call people stupid solely based on the candidate they voted for. Especially, when as, I said above, they simply jump on the bandwagon they feel is least likely to make them look bad. Then, depending on whether their candidate won or lost, they spend the next 4 - 8 years commending of vilifying the President for things, economic or environmental, that happen(ed) during their term that took longer than one presidential term of office to form.

"We've spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq over the past 5 years. Also this President (until recently) never met a spending bill he didn't like."

I agree that this contributes to our declining economy, but I do not feel that it is solely responsible for the state of the US economy. That is what I was trying to say, but was not clear about. Rephrasing the sentence that everyone has their knickers in a twist over, to be more in line with my beliefs:

I believe the problems we are having with our economy are directly effected by the decisions and policies enacted by the Clinton presidency and the presidencies preceding even him, Yet people hold Bush solely accountable for things that he contributed too during his term of office, but was not responsible for setting in motion in the first place.