Leave Bush Alone

pork99

I think this swung it for Bush

Memnoch

PaddyjDunne wrote:

So what would you all do if you could fight this war against terrorism then? Pull all the troops out? Or perhaps you'd all do nothing except a Michael Moore style propoganda/documentary about how it is just one mans fault? Seriously, if you could do anything what would you do to sort out the mess?

there are pleanty of peaceful solutions to the problem of terrorism that don't involve butchering innocent people.

Take a look at northern-ireland. Did the terrorism there end because britain dropped endless amounts of bombs on it and killed 100,000 people? Did measures like that END the terrorism and restored peace?

No it didn't, it was intelligent peaceful discussion that has improved the situatino there.

The problem is people who think solutions to every problem are at the blunt of the knife.

let me educate you on, one basic simple fact.

The more people you bomb and kill in muslim countries, the more terrorists there will be, and the worse terrorism will become, unless off course you decide to commit mass genocide and wipe out every muslim man, woman and child.

People who support the butchering of innocents are the real terrorists. Bush and anyone who supports his murders included.

A Dub in Glasgo

narommy wrote:

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

Democracy in countries outside the US is all about who is in power with US interests at heart. It has got Sweet FA about what the people of the country want if it is against US interests.

narommy

Sleipnir wrote:

Ah ferchrissakes.
THE WAR IN IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Geddit?

Show me when Iraqi terrorists attacked the U.S. warranting a war?

Probably right, Only possibility would be the instillin of fear into Arab Nations. Probably not best approach.


Also
Who said he was succeeding

Carpo

narommy wrote:

the world will be a better place (out of fear)

I think Ive gone right through anger and despair and come out the otherside. I couldnt stop laughing when I read that.

Hobbes

narommy, your view is somewhat flawed.

Certainly each country should make sure its interests are looked after. However doing it at the expense of others is not on.

Lets say it is right then. The US was right to invade Iraq and install its puppet government. It is only looking after its own interests? So by that extension 9/11 is justifed as they were only looking after their own interests? So other attacks on the US will be allowed because the US is allowed do it?

narommy

seamus wrote:

Stop trolling narommy please. America is not better than the rest of the world, period.

I don't think I am trolling. More like viewing it like the US voters did.

Illkillya

and poor oul Hitler was just looking for a bit of lebensraum

bonkey

narommy wrote:

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

And you make this assumption on what basis? That thousands of years of "peace through superior firepower" have actually worked???

If history supported this theory, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

Yes, but it would be nice if the average voter put even as much effort into informing themselves prior to choosing a President as they do into informing themselves prior to choosing a car.

Then again...who was it who said that democracy gives a nation the leader it deserves?

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

Why? The Americans cried out in outrage when Austria legitimately and unequivocably elected Haider....so obviously democracy to them is only acceptable when the candidate is. WHy should European citizens treat the US any different in return?

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

narommy wrote:

I don't think I am trolling. More like viewing it like the US voters did.

Is that your view or are you somehow trying to play devils advocate?

Gizzard

narommy wrote:

None! That being the point. Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

Democracy is about having the choice to vote. If they decide that they want to keep their old governments but they should have the choice.

I think that if it is a bit rough for Europeans to be lecturing on democracy and then lambasting Us for voting for Bush

seriously are you a retard or something?

RuggieBear

Illkillya wrote:

and poor oul Hitler was just looking for a bit of lebensraum

Could this be Goodwin's law already

In my mind, Bush won the popular vote fair and square (well besides all the dirty tricks, but sure both sides were at that).....just show's you what a strange place america is......

sharkman

narommy = my m(ind) naro

I think he is baiting everyone into a flame war !

narommy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that your view or are you somehow trying to play devils advocate?

Both,

Most of my arguments have been put forward by somebody at some time over the last few years. I happen to agree with most of them and have problems reconciling others.

Bluntly, Bush would have had my vote.


( did troll a bit because of the stuckup/ superior nature of many Boardsie members and their lack of respect for the choice of the US people)

BolBill

Hey Narommy, So you'd have voted for Bush. You must be deep south inbred trailer trash so because any states with HALF A BRAIN voted for Kerry, and yes if that means I'm saying that more than half the Americans are dense well so be it.

The world is an unsafe place for another FOUR F**KIN' YEARS now, thanks USA !!!!!! (Assholes)

Memnoch

sharkman wrote:

narommy = my m(ind) naro

I think he is baiting everyone into a flame war !

if you believe he/she is trolling then report em. I already did as that is the impression i'm getting

sharkman

Memnoch wrote:

if you believe he/she is trolling then report em. I already did as that is the impression i'm getting

Report me or narommy ??

Far from trolling , I heve been reading this thread and posting on many others all morning ..

narommy

sharkman wrote:

narommy = my m(ind) naro

I think he is baiting everyone into a flame war !

If boards is not for debate, then what is it for? It seems like everybody just wants to agree they don't like Bush without trying to understand the US view point?

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

Both,

Most of my arguments have been put forward by somebody at some time over the last few years. I happen to agree with most of them and have problems reconciling others.

Bluntly, Bush would have had my vote.


( did troll a bit because of the stuckup/ superior nature of many Boardsie members and their lack of respect for the choice of the US people)

You're right, I have a total lack of respect for any idiot who voted for that terrorist.
I can have an opinion on the election, just not a vote.

Hobbes

narommy wrote:

( did troll a bit because of the stuckup/ superior nature of many Boardsie members and their lack of respect for the choice of the US people)

And you don't actually put anything forward to say why Bush should win.

seamus

narommy wrote:

If boards is not for debate, then what is it for? It seems like everybody just wants to agree they don't like Bush without trying to understand the US view point?

Actually, I would have thought that some want to just come on and agree that they don't like Bush, whereas others wish to debate the wisdom of voting him in again, and perhaps counter/discuss any points made by his supporters.

The problem when you are so outnumbered is that you tend to see persecution where none exists.

sharkman

narommy wrote:

It seems like everybody just wants to agree they don't like Bush without trying to understand the US view point?

Sharkman scratches chin for a moment ...........

EVERYONE IS AGREED , WE DONT LIKE BUSH

pickarooney

seamus wrote:

The problem when you are so outnumbered is that you tend to see persecution where none exists.

Apart from the retard/troll/trailer-trash comments you mean?

Hobbes wrote:

And you don't actually put anything forward to say why Bush should win.

He put several points forward. Just 'cause you don't find them plausible...

Hobbes

pickarooney wrote:

He put several points forward. Just 'cause you don't find them plausible...

Correct. I don't find them plausible and when I asked him to expand on it there is no response. That is what a troll is.

narommy

pickarooney wrote:

Apart from the retard/troll/trailer-trash comments you mean?



He put several points forward. Just 'cause you don't find them plausible...

Thanks. Thought it was just me imagining it.

The political contributors here do seem a little fixed in their views. I'm just looking at it from an Ameican point of view. Perhaps they should try and understand that view.

I've another good insight.
Americans like being a/the superpower. The like flexing their muscles. Also to elect Kerry and suffer the humiliation of an early withhdrawal/defeat if he did finish up quickly (which i don't think he would have) would be too much for them. They still haven't gotten over Vietnam.
Also, Many commentators lambasted USA for pulling out of Iraq too quickly last time and leaving the job unfinished.

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

Also to elect Kerry and suffer the humiliation of an early withhdrawal/defeat if he did finish up quickly (which i don't think he would have) would be too much for them. They still haven't gotten over Vietnam.
Also, Many commentators lambasted USA for pulling out of Iraq too quickly last time and leaving the job unfinished.

In the same post you say that
A.) if Kerry got into power and pulled out of Iraq Americans wouldn't like it.
B.) Point A wouldn't happen.

How flawed is that?
You nullified you're own point in the same sentence!

SprostonGreen

narommy wrote:

Also, America needed a new base in Middle East, Suadi could go at any time.

It is also about trying to spread democracy in the region (hopefully the majority of Arabs don't turn out to be fundamentalists.)

Oh, thats ok then, Uncle Sam wants its war machine in a new country, ergo, blow it to bits and then move in.

Spreading democracy???, ignoring the UN and not signing up to Kyoto agreement, arming loads or groups worldwide, sure they are the pillar of democracy.

narommy

Sleipnir wrote:

In the same post you say that
A.) if Kerry got into power and pulled out of Iraq Americans wouldn't like it.
B.) Point A wouldn't happen.

How flawed is that?
You nullified you're own point in the same sentence!

I beg to differ.

I don't think he would have. But i do think that that americans weren't sure what he would do so thay voted Bush

PaddyjDunne

Lads the reason I put up this topic was for DEBATE not a slagging match. I don't like bush but I don't think that Kerry was any better. my god people, can you not have a civilised conversation? And to be fair most of the ranting and name calling has been done by the ANTI-Bush side on here. (Funny how SOME people can critisise people for being stupid when they are unable to get their own point across without resorting to petty name-calling) :rolleyes:

koneko

You didn't answer my point though... If you put something up for debate at least debate it. A debate is no good if you don't offer up reasons why you've formed a certain opinion, or address people's questions to you.