An Irish Re-Elect "George W" Canpaign

dahamsta

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
Make no mistake, this is a war were in.

War my arse. In the traditional sense, this is not a "war", it's something completely different. Bush just likes to call it a "war" because he knows many Americans will back him blindly, and because it means he gets to call himself a "war president". Which would probably be an embarassment to the real war presidents. Or did they spend most of their administrations on holiday too? Somehow I reckon they had more important things to do with their time.

Originally posted by User45701
what gives those ****ers the right to mess with my day

Last I looked, "your day" (a fitting me-me-me remark, par for the course from conservatives) isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. What gives you the right to mess with their constitutionally protected right to protest, "f*cker"?

Originally posted by User45701
to bloack my roads and MY busses!

By the same token, they could say the same thing. Their roads. THEIR buses.

adam

Sleipnir

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
However I commend the indiviual american soldiers who are putting their own lives on the line to help protect civilisiation and the West. America must not and will not fail in Iraq. The knock on effects to our Nation at home would be diasterous.

My stance is on pragmatic reasons. Im currently 1/2 way through picking the bones by geoffrey regan and agree with many of this points. However in reality, the Americans are the new Romans, you are either with them or against them.

First of all, it's not a war. There is no opposing army (at least in the official sense)

Secondly, what threat did Iraq pose to the West before the war?
If your reply is terrorism then tell me about the last terrorist attacks by Iraqis.
Tell me about specific threats while accepting the fact that they did not have WMD's and even if it is proven that such weapons existed at the time of this war, they had no delivery mechanisms which with to attack the west.

What was the knock-on effect our Nation was experiencing from Iraq before America invaded? Was there one?
The only knock-on effect that is having a direct impact on me is that it petrol costs me alot more now then it did before the war.
Do I feel safer now that Saddam is gone? No. I was just as safe when he was in power.

bobbyjoe

Please don't ever argue in support of a free press.

I support a free press!!

thejollyrodger

War my arse

yes it is a war, you idiot !! go look the word up in a dictionary.

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
what gives those ****ers the right to mess with my day

quote:Originally posted by thejollyrodger
to bloack my roads and MY busses!

I NEVER POSTED THE ABOVE COMMENTS YOU LIAR !!!


who ever is the next president has to deal with the fact that the US IS IN A WAR .... you can stick your head in the sand and hope it will go away....

IF the next US president pulls troops out of Iraq then all hell is going to break loose. and iraq will no longer exist as a country.. the whole region will be put into chaos !!!

lynchie

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
yes it is a war, you idiot !! go look the word up in a dictionary.

War
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties

War requires more than one nation or state to be in confrontation against one another. I dont see an active government / state force in opposition to the USA. I see a bunch of normal Iraqis (granted some foreign militia) opposing the US. Think thats called occupation... not war??

dahamsta

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
yes it is a war

No, it's not.

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
you idiot

Lovely. Presumably Lesson One in "How To Break The Rules To The Letter", by thejollyrimmer:

"Never attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)"

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
I NEVER POSTED THE ABOVE COMMENTS YOU LIAR !!!

It was User45701, my mistake. Thank you for being so tolerant.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by lynchie
War
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties

War requires more than one nation or state to be in confrontation against one another.

No. E.g. civil war.

I dont see an active government / state force in opposition to the USA. I see a bunch of normal Iraqis (granted some foreign militia) opposing the US. Think thats called occupation... not war??

It doesn't really matter whether you call it war or something else.

Anyway as far as the topic is concerned, I don't see many marching in support of Bush. What would be the point? I doubt if American voters would be swayed by a few people on the streets in support of him in the unlikely event that that would happen.

If for some reason you support bush you would probably help him more by contributing to his campaign fund, though not by much.

thejollyrodger

I wont be bullied into submission

LegacyUser

anyone ever seen bush do an interview where he isnt smirking like an imbecile, be it talk of 9/11, war on terrorism/ invading iraq etc etc, the guy has a permanent 'i don't know what the hell im im talking about so ill hide my extreme discomfort by smirkin' look on his face, even when talking about terrible events hes smirkin away, IMBECILE

User45701

You avoided my question about what gives them the right to bloack my roads MY BUSSES by saying their roads and their busses.

If they want to march fuine they can but why not do it in single file along the path or something where it dosent **** with MY day
One day i will just snap, get a car and drive it into a protest at 80mph, like to see them bloack other ppls roads and busses after that.

BuffyBot

Yeah, that's a convincing argument :rolleyes:

Sarsfield

If GWB wanted a war on terrorism, why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia instead? That's where most of them (including OBL) come from.

Iraq was a secular Muslim country, so it doesn't even fit into the category of a fanatical Muslim state. Saddam Hussein is evil, and his removal from power was required but the approach taken was very unwise.

The US has seriously upset the balance of power in the region. They can't leave until Iraq is fully under the control of a new Iraqi Government AND it returns to being a regional power. Otherwise, its neighbours (including the much more scary state of Iran) will start eyeing up new territory. An Iranian superstate would be a real threat to the West.

George W Bush has caused this. He has put the West in peril, not rescued it. His judgement is very poor. His understanding of international affairs is very poor. His track record of successes is dismal. Anyone in command of the US army could overrun Iraq so he can't claim to have achieved anything there.

I accept the right of people to express their views so I would have no objection to a march to re-elect GWB. I suspect it would be small and not newsworthy in itself. Of course the anti-war/Bush/America protests would guarantee worldwide press attention (for the pro-Bush march) by turning up in their thousands to object :rolleyes:

Flukey

First of all, how can we have a re-elect Bush campaign, when he was never elected in the first place?

Anyone with commonsense looking at America's track record and the inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocracies in their foreign policy could see the flaws of the war last year. Those against the war were told they were pro-Saddam, which of course was rubbish. They wanted him gone as much as anyone else, but one man, one gun and one bullet could have achieved that not a wholescale invasion. Iraqis have been liberated, but as predicted they have predominantly being liberated of their mortal existence! They were called anti-American, which again for the majority against the war was not true. I am not anti-American. What I am and what the majority of the anti-war people are is anti-American foreign policy. That does not make me anti-American. Let me put it this way: has there ever been any one single policy in any area whatsoever of your government that you have disagreed with? Of course there are, probably a lot of them. Does the fact that you have disagreed with some policy or other past or present make you anti-your country? Of course it doesn't. I am Irish and there are plenty of policies of governments here that I have not agreed with, but that does not make me anti-Irish. There are many Americans who do not agree with this war, but they are not anti-American. So the fact that the anti-war people, at home and abroad, disagree with facets of American foreign policy, does not make them anti-American. Those supporting the war call those against it pro-terrorism and anti-democratic and pro-Saddam and anti-American and all sorts of things, instead of actually dealing with the points they are raising against the war, because not one of them can be refuted.

Instead of just lambasting terrorists I look at the reasons that have caused terrorism. To tackle terrorism you have to tackle the causes not the perpatrators. The insurgents are painted as all being nasty bad people out to kill Americans and destroy democracy etc. A few weeks or months ago, many of those insurgents were ordinary peace-loving people going about their daily business. Then all of a sudden their friends and/or family, who were also just going about their peaceful business, were blown away by allied bombs or guns. Naturally a lot of those people decided to fight back. Every bomb dropped just adds more recruits to the terrorist fold. Terrorism works the same all over the world. It is created by circumstance. People often join legitimate armies for the same reasons. The ranks of an army grow when a war begins and many that had no intention joining change their mind when their families suffer. People joining a struggle, whether with a legitimate army or terrorist groups, join them through circumstance. As I keep on saying they way to stop terrorists is not to keep attacking them and the people around them, as that just makes more people join, but the tackle the initial causes of the terrorism. Here in Ireland the British army spent 25 years trying to defeat the IRA. The might of the British army could not do it, as all their actions created more and more recruits. It was only when they sat down and started to address the underlying issues, that the terrorism began to abate. The same has happened in other conflicts.

We saw it again this week. 40 killed at a wedding in Iraq by allied bombs, similar to an event in Afghanistan a couple of years ago. Large amounts of casualties in the Gaza Strip with another Israeli incursion. This was condemned by countries around the world and all countries in the security council except one, which abstained on a motion condemning it. You don't have to guess which country that was. If an Israeli soldier strapped a load of explosives around his waist and went into a crowd, onto a bus or into a restaurant in Gaza City and blew himself up, GWB would probably want to award a posthumous medal of bravery to him!!!! It is events like this that create terrorism, not terrorists. The terrorists carry out the acts but others create the conditions that turn ordinary peace-loving people into terrorists. I am not condoning the terrorists actions, but I can see why they feel that this is an option. Remove the reasons for terrorism and that will remove the terrorists.

All their interference in the Middle East always come back to haunt them. What is their solution? To go in and interfere even more and then they wonder why people attack them. Bush tells us he is on a war against terror. If he ever starts one, I would fully support him. What he is actually waging is a war for terror, because this war is creating terrorism, not eradicating it. There were no insurgents in Iraq a year ago. They have been created by this war. The longer it goes on, the more of they are going to get. Every bullet fired and bomb dropped by America is like Manna from Heaven for the terrorists, because it creates more and more reasons for their ranks to swell. If innocent Iraqis continue to be killed by America, and the majority being killed are innocent, it will continue to create more and more resentment towards America and Al Q'aida and other such organisations will have their ranks swelled. Bush and Rumsfeld are the best recruitment officers Al Q'aida have ever had. Until America starts to address the problems in Iraq and beyond, which will remove resentment towards them and cut the ground from under Al Q'aida, the terrorism will not only continue but grow. After 9/11 the USA should indeed have bombed Afghanistan, with food parcels. That would have undermined Al Q'aida a lot more than dropping bombs on the people. After 9/11, why didn't America bomb Sweden? After all, like Afghanistan, they had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11 either!

America is a great country. It has the power and influence to do a huge amount of good in the world and it has regularly done so. But until they start doing the positive things in the Middle East, which I don't think is killing innocent people, the terrorism threat will not abate and if anything will only grow. America has brought many positive things like jobs and investments here too, but does that mean we should just turn a blind eye to what they are doing in Iraq? Of course not. Some people seem to think that as long as they are bringing investment and jobs here, they don't care how many innocent people are killed in the Middle-East! Any right-thinking person would not agree.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Originally posted by User45701
If they want to march fuine they can but why not do it in single file along the path or something where it dosent **** with MY day

Why is your single day more important that the collective day of all the people wanting to march

By the same logic I could say I don't want anyone else to go to work because it distrupts my day

Flukey

Daveirl, it is very debateable as to whether he got elected. In most democracies, the one with the most votes wins. Yes, I know about the Electoral College and how it operates, but it did show its flaws in the last election. He was in the end effectively appointed by the Supreme Court rather than the electorate. It is ironic that the two greatest democracies in the world both have heads of state that were not elected and both of whom only got the job because their dads had it before them.

User45701

Originally posted by Wicknight
Why is your single day more important that the collective day of all the people wanting to march

By the same logic I could say I don't want anyone else to go to work because it distrupts my day

why cant they just march in single file along the path?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by daveirl
What other democracy?

I had to think about that one for a good five minutes before half-guessing that he may well mean the UK. (not that being head of state in the UK gives you any more than a rather large and expensive council house with an attached staff)

TomF

There is a good examination of the raid that is being described as an attack on a wedding party from 20,000 feet at <http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/>.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Incorrect. He was elected

Wrong- he was appointed, not elected. The Supreme Court held a hanging chad on the election, and the ruling went to the Bush campaign. Incidentally, he isn't the first president to be so appointed, a similar chad was held for Teddy Roosevelt's first term. Now if only this president was half the man he was :P

Oh and an aside- why in the HELL would anyone march for the leader of ANOTHER country to get re-elected? I find it hard enough to deal with the politics of one country, never mind cheerleading another nation's political fanatics.

Anyone who questions my use of the word fanatic, should go to this link (political thinktank called Project for New American Century). They wrote an open letter to President Clinton in January 1998, read that letter and then read the signatures at the bottom

Six years on and none the wiser for intelligent policy change- I'd call that fanatical

halkar

User45701, stay at home and watch Simpsons, you will enjoy YOUR day better. I am anti-Bush and co. and I will march, if you want to support Bush, come along. I have no problem with that but it is not only YOUR day!

bonkey

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
I wont be bullied into submission

Good, but if you think that this gives you some license to be offensive to other posters, then you're in for a sharp surprise.

Oh - and be careful calling people a liar. You're expected to prove or retract your allegation, and given that Adam has already claimed it was a genuine mistake, proving that he intentionally attempted to deceive others might be tough.

Originally posted by halkar
User45701, stay at home and watch Simpsons, you will enjoy YOUR day better.

No personal attacks from anyone either.

Is it that hard for you people to remain civil? Good god...if this is how worked up you all get over a conversation, its priceless that you expect anyone else to be able to actually get anything done in the world when faced with real conflict.

jc

Sleipnir

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
I wont be bullied into submission

I'd say innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib use that phrase on a daily basis.

Morpheus

He's got my vote...

altogether now..

And a one and a two and a one two three...

[BRASS BAND]
OH-oh say can't you see,
By the Dawns early light....
[/BRASS BAND]

dangerman

If they want to march fuine they can but why not do it in single file along the path or something where it dosent **** with MY day

How come you get to post and f*ck with my day?

why cant they just march in single file along the path?

Why can't you be only allowed post in one forum once a day?

Oh that's right. It's all about expressing opinion. The freedom of expression. Choice. All that's good in the world. If people wish to march, then they will do so thank god. If you don't feel the free expression of opinion on a mass scale is important enough to cause you inconvenience then I feel sorry for you. I don't always agree with protests/marches that happen, but I am so happy that we live somewhere where they can.

User45701

so, just skip my question.
ill ask it again

Why dont they just march in single file along the path?

BuffyBot

Why dont they just march in single file along the path?

I'd imagine it was skipped because as questions go, it doesn't seem a very good one.

I suppose there are a couple of responses to this one. The first the come to mind are a) because they don't have to and b) someone would undoubtedly complain about the entire footpath being taken up and c) it's rather impractical when dealing with large numbers of people

Apart from anything else a single file march down path doesn't have a lot of impact does it?

dahamsta

Heh, I just noticed "Canpaign". Has it been like that all along?

thejollyrodger

Oh - and be careful calling people a liar. You're expected to prove or retract your allegation, and given that Adam has already claimed it was a genuine mistake, proving that he intentionally attempted to deceive others might be tough.

He was making false allegations against me!! Sorry Adam. And no one on this board is an idiot.

No one can detract from the magnificent job the brave US forces are doing in Iraq. Bringing peace and security for ordinary Iraqis and liberation them from an ugly regime where the world choose to forget.

The hand over is scheduled for the end of June, then Iraqis can finally have their country returned and be officially liberated. History won’t record the small percentage of individual (evil) crimes against the Iraqis but a new dawning for a Nation.

History will record the strong minded president of the United States who cast aside the whinging French and Germans who were hell bent on keeping the evil regime in place. Those countries also putting pressure on the 10 new EU states to keep the evil dictator in place (or jokingly remove him peacefully). Remember that the French have sold €10bn in military equipment to Saddam, so who are they to talk about ethics. Also of note is their pathetic showing in wars in the last 100 years, I wont care to mention Germany.


God Bless America, I have a US Flag and will be cheering President Bush when he arrives. No other single nation has done so much for our tiny country. The inward investment of Billions of €uro has helped this tiny island stand on its own feet, and without the US, the peace process would have long be dead with the pathetic UK government’s policy dictated by a hard line fundamentalist Northern Unionist.