Leave Bush Alone

Hobbes

narommy you are still dodging the issue.

With regards to the first gulf war Iraq started it by invading Kuwait (along with US diplomat stupidy saying it was ok to do it). The resolution was to remove him from Kuwait.

Now you still have not answered my previous points so let me repeat so you can give me your thoughts on each area so I can better understand why you think Bush is the better president.

1. What is your views on Bush not doing anything about OBL when he was warned beforehand about 9/11?

2. What is your opinon on the fact that there is no WMD in Iraq and no links of AQ to Saddam. These being the major factors for going to war.

3. Now that Bush has removed Saddam, what are your views on Order 37, 39 and 40 of the Iraqi constitution (written by the US). Do you think these orders are not in fact causing more insurgents and attacks on contracters as is reported? How do you think they will stabilise the country based on these.

I have a strong feeling you don't know what these are so here is details on it (PDF1 PDF2). The document is pro-USA, I thought you would like that so as to not bias your opinion. But I would like to know how those Orders can help Iraq.

4. Do you think the president and its administration personally profiting from the taxpayers is a good thing? Can you expand why.

5. What are your views on a company that Cheny worked for also has a base of operations in Iran despite Bush claiming it is an axis of evil. Do you not see some form of doube standards here?

6. Bush has said there will be no draft (ignoring the backdoor draft for a moment). Do you still believe this? If so how do you think he will do this? You also seem to be suggesting that the US should stay in there for the long haul. How do you think he will maintain the troop numbers?

I could go on with more questions but I want to understand better your opinon on these. Feel free to ask me any questions about anything your not sure about.

narommy

PaddyjDunne wrote:

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 Pro-Bush side. (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:

The Pro Bush side name calling??

I agree that they were both equally bad. But one of the best reasons that democrats wanted people to vote for Kerry was that he wasn't Bush.

OfflerCrocGod

narommy wrote:

one of the best reasons that democrats wanted people to vote for Kerry was that he wasn't Bush.

You needed another one :eek: ?

SprostonGreen

narommy wrote:

But one of the best reasons that democrats wanted people to vote for Kerry was that he wasn't Bush.

A viable reason.

PaddyjDunne

narommy wrote:

The Pro Bush side name calling??

I agree that they were both equally bad. But one of the best reasons that democrats wanted people to vote for Kerry was that he wasn't Bush.

I'm sorry I completely f***ed up that statement. What I meant was the people who are ANTI-Bush on here at the minute. Sorry lads, I'm having one of those mornings!

narommy

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

You needed another one :eek: ?

The American people obviously did

Carpo

PaddyjDunne wrote:

Sorry lads, I'm having one of those mornings!

You and most of the free world.

Memnoch

narommy wrote:

The American people obviously did

because they are clueless?

Sleipnir

PaddyjDunne wrote:

I'm sorry I completely f***ed up that statement. What I meant was the people who are ANTI-Bush on here at the minute. Sorry lads, I'm having one of those mornings!

Well, the majority of europeans are anti-bush.
Therefore the majority of Irish people are anti-bush
As this is an Irish website with mostly Irish people posting, the majority of people here are anti-bush.

Scruff

Memnoch wrote:

because they are clueless?

thats one possibility. The other is that the majority or them are conservative christians who dont care what the rest of the world thinks of them because they dont think of it. Or a combination of both.

OfflerCrocGod

Scruff wrote:

The other is that the majority or them are conservative christians who dont care what the rest of the world thinks of them because they dont think of it. Or a combination of both.

There's a difference between the two?

narommy

Hobbes wrote:

1. What is your views on Bush not doing anything about OBL when he was warned beforehand about 9/11?

2. What is your opinon on the fact that there is no WMD in Iraq and no links of AQ to Saddam. These being the major factors for going to war.

3. Now that Bush has removed Saddam, what are your views on Order 37, 39 and 40 of the Iraqi constitution (written by the US). Do you think these orders are not in fact causing more insurgents and attacks on contracters as is reported? How do you think they will stabilise the country based on these.

I have a strong feeling you don't know what these are so here is details on it (PDF1 PDF2). The document is pro-USA, I thought you would like that so as to not bias your opinion. But I would like to know how those Orders can help Iraq.

4. Do you think the president and its administration personally profiting from the taxpayers is a good thing? Can you expand why.

5. What are your views on a company that Cheny worked for also has a base of operations in Iran despite Bush claiming it is an axis of evil. Do you not see some form of doube standards here?

6. Bush has said there will be no draft (ignoring the backdoor draft for a moment). Do you still believe this? If so how do you think he will do this? You also seem to be suggesting that the US should stay in there for the long haul. How do you think he will maintain the troop numbers?

I could go on with more questions but I want to understand better your opinon on these. Feel free to ask me any questions about anything your not sure about.

1.
Of course he should have done something about him. But I think the problem is bigger tha OBL.
I thought Clinton was great for trying to bomb parts of afganistan but he(nor europe) did nothing to help the oppressed there while the activities of the Talaban was well reported there.

irrc there was a breakdown in intelligence that lead to them not working to prevent 9 11 (I don't thinnk they could have prevented a 9 11 type attack if iit wasn't OBL it would be somebody else)

2.
It was fairly obvious to all that there were very little if any WMD. It was an excuse to invade and set up a base in Iraq. Which i think was a good idea to keep other Arab nations in line.
Bush had to say it to get the war going. He manipulated the situation to try and get the support he wanted from Europe. His electorate were in favout of it at the time (and seem to have endorsed is decision)

3.
How could those orders could contribute to insurgancy. Are they not about investment and taxation.(did i miss the point?) They were probably inserted to attract investment and development to the country. Which is necessary to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. I guess that most regular Iraqi people would like fr things to settle down and for america to pull out and then get on with life.
The insurgants could be people with a bee in their bonnet over foreigners but i'd say the main cause is conflict between the various religious groups. and scumbags like those who captured Margaret Hassann who don't want their country fixed up so that they can run riot and take control themselves.

4.
I.m not an American tax payer and corruption is a fact of life.

5.
What is this about. What has it got to do with Bush as president. Cheny's company is in Iran, what's the problem. It's like a property developer saying he didn't like ballymun and leaving it there to rot. Bush mightn'y like Iran but I can't see what's wrong with American company's operatin there. Might give somebody a job.

6.
Again what has that got to do with you??????
It's for Americans to decide and they will if needs be. I don't think they are running out of troops that fast either.

seamus

Narommy, you say you're trying to present the view of the American people, then brush off questions because you're "not an American Taxpayer". WTF?

Answer the questions.

2.It was fairly obvious to all that there were very little if any WMD. It was an excuse to invade and set up a base in Iraq. Which i think was a good idea to keep other Arab nations in line.

Ah. So it's OK to attack, invade and seize a country, unprovoked, in order to *scare* its neighbours into co-operating? Diplomacy is no use at all is it? Sure diplomacy worked in Europe, but it could never work anywhere else, could it?

Bush had to say it to get the war going. He manipulated the situation to try and get the support he wanted from Europe. His electorate were in favout of it at the time (and seem to have endorsed is decision)

How do you know he *had* to say it. Frankly, if the Bush administration had come straight out, had a plan and said to Europe, "Listen guys, Saddam is a prick. He's torturing people, murdering people, oppressing people, all in the name of maintaining his control through fear. We want to go in and free the Iraqi people by capturing Saddam, putting him on trial for crimes against humanity, and attempting to install a democratic Government", then I personally would have supported him. And many other people I've spoken to feel the same. Who's to say Europe wouldn't have supported him if he'd been honest? How do you know that lying to get his way was Bush's only option?

Of course, we all know why he lied, then went ahead anyway - So Bush could call the shots, and Bush could plunder all the resources for himself.

Hobbes

narommy wrote:

1.
Of course he should have done something about him. But I think the problem is bigger tha OBL.

So you think he did wrong but that is ok? He had three reports that warned him and did nothing and you think that is ok?

I thought Clinton was great for trying to bomb parts of afganistan but he(nor europe) did nothing to help the oppressed there while the activities of the Talaban was well reported there.

The US was one of the 3 (? Maybe 1 more or less) countries that reconised the Taliban as the legal rulers of Afganistan. This is Bushes administration I am talking about. The taliban also got into power because the people they replaced were actually worse then the taliban. Guess who is in power now again.

irrc there was a breakdown in intelligence that lead to them not working to prevent 9 11 (I don't thinnk they could have prevented a 9 11 type attack if iit wasn't OBL it would be somebody else)

A breakdown in intelligence? He was handed three reports! He was warned by numerous countries beforehand that an attack was coming soon and even Rice testified before the 9/11 commision (available on video btw) that Bush recieved a report called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" just months before he attacked. Heck Israel even had a mossad team in the US on the day filming it.

Do you not see this as total dereliction of duty? And on the day when only the president could order the grounding of all US flights he sat there and read to children (incidently I have "The Pet Goat" book at home. The story is less then 2 pages long in really big letters), when his location was publically known and he was a target on that day.

He even stayed there for a photo-op before leaving. At that point the planes had not been grounded. Do you not see this as a person who did not do their job?

2.
It was fairly obvious to all that there were very little if any WMD. It was an excuse to invade and set up a base in Iraq.

So you believe that lying to go to war is acceptable?! That it is acceptable to kill people and put your own population (army) into harms way on the basis of a lie?

His electorate were in favout of it at the time (and seem to have endorsed is decision)

Because they actually believed his lie!

How could those orders could contribute to insurgancy. Are they not about investment and taxation.(did i miss the point?)

Yes you did miss the point. Order 39 for example allows a non-iraq company to set up in Iraq and own 100% of iraq assets as well removing those assets and 100% profits from the country without being taxed on it. No other country in the world has such a law (not even the US). This basically allows the theft of Iraq resources, not just oil.

The Orders are also putting numerous of Iraqis out of business. For example Iraq has more then enough cement companies in its own country to cover all contracts required for rebuilding yet not one Iraq company was allowed tender on the contracts. All outsourced.

Nothing pushes a person to terrorism then desperation. If you were in that position of having your job, livelyhood taken away from you, you can't afford to eat and there is no basic resources in your country. Then you see foriegn contractors taking all this what do you think any person would do? What would you do?

I already linked to a report on more details on it earlier but it seems you didn't bother to read it. It has been documented that a lot of the insurgents and increase in violence is due to these orders put in place.

Your other comments on it appear to be speculation.

4.
I.m not an American tax payer and corruption is a fact of life.

True. But generally if you are caught in corruption you go to jail do you not? So why are they not going to jail?

5.
What is this about. What has it got to do with Bush as president. Cheny's company is in Iran, what's the problem.

Iran according to Bush is part of the "Axis of Evil". It is the most probable country that the US may go into next. It also has a US trade embargo which means no US company can do business with it (to do so can mean jail time). Yet due to a loophole Halliburton has an office there.

6.
Again what has that got to do with you??????
It's for Americans to decide and they will if needs be. I don't think they are running out of troops that fast either.

I was asking for your opinon on it, "none of your business" is hardly acceptable. I wanted to know how Bush plans to make up the quota of extra soliders, you appeared to know how. What has it to do with me? My cousin has done 3 months in Iraq so far. He isn't there now but there is a good chance he will be there again.

narommy

seamus wrote:

Narommy, you say you're trying to present the view of the American people, then brush off questions because you're "not an American Taxpayer". WTF?

Answer the questions.
Ah. So it's OK to attack, invade and seize a country, unprovoked, in order to *scare* its neighbours into co-operating? Diplomacy is no use at all is it? Sure diplomacy worked in Europe, but it could never work anywhere else, could it?
How do you know he *had* to say it. Frankly, if the Bush administration had come straight out, had a plan and said to Europe, "Listen guys, Saddam is a prick. He's torturing people, murdering people, oppressing people, all in the name of maintaining his control through fear. We want to go in and free the Iraqi people by capturing Saddam, putting him on trial for crimes against humanity, and attempting to install a democratic Government", then I personally would have supported him. And many other people I've spoken to feel the same. Who's to say Europe wouldn't have supported him if he'd been honest? How do you know that lying to get his way was Bush's only option?

Of course, we all know why he lied, then went ahead anyway - So Bush could call the shots, and Bush could plunder all the resources for himself.

Ok, I'm trying to see it from the view of the American voter/taxpayer.

There are bigger issues than some corruption.
Status as superpower?
Continuing Energy Supplies?
National Security?
Terrorism?
Social and Moral Issues?



Yip. Ok to invade Iraq. I'm sure they will hand back Iraq once they get a return. I don't think that diplomacy would work in middle east tbh. Europe is a Christian continent for the main part. Fundamental muslims don't really come from the same background. Is it not a stated aim of theirs for Islam to Conquer the world? How can you deal with that??


Yes he had to. He might have talked the Europeans (france wa doing well out of Iraq during the sanctions) around eventually and then he would have to deal with the UN which let the situation go on for years. Also he would not have been able to recoup the resources spent on te war if he went through the UN.

As if the American people would like their leader to call the shots. I'm shocked at the thought?

User45701

bush does do some good so to me the ends justify the means i wanted bush to win

Hobbes

narommy wrote:

*snip*

Your lack of knowledge of the middle east appears to be second only to your lack of knowledge of what Bush has gotten up to.

France profit from Sanctions? You do know that the US made more money from the sanctions and increased the oil-for-food quota just prior to going to war as they would not have to pay it.

Also the oil for food program was basically a ticket system that allowed oil companies to buy Iraq oil for next to nothing. Those french companies that profitted... shock horror some of them have Halliburton connections when Cheny was running Haliburton. (Reference)

seamus

narommy wrote:

Yip. Ok to invade Iraq. I'm sure they will hand back Iraq once they get a return. I don't think that diplomacy would work in middle east tbh. Europe is a Christian continent for the main part. Fundamental muslims don't really come from the same background. Is it not a stated aim of theirs for Islam to Conquer the world? How can you deal with that??

So, let's not bother? Besides, Saudi Arabia seems quite happy to co-operate with the US. Are they not 100% Muslim? I don't see the Bush administration threatening them to keep them in line, far from it.

Also he would not have been able to recoup the resources spent on te war if he went through the UN.

Heaven forbid a war costs somebody money.

As if the American people would like their leader to call the shots. I'm shocked at the thought?

I wasn't talking about the American people.

narommy

OK hobbes.

I'll have to reassess my position on some of the issues you have raised.
You have raised many good points and some others that we could agreed to disagree on.


As a matter of interest what is your background or why have you such a well researched interest in the topic? This is not for me to start a new arguement cos I have to do some work.

Hobbes

narommy wrote:

You have raised many good points and some others that we could agreed to disagree on.

Certainly, even with the facts on the table there are some things we are not going to agree on.

As a matter of interest what is your background or why have you such a well researched interest in the topic? This is not for me to start a new arguement cos I have to do some work.

I have bonkey and gandalf to thank. We have a rule that you back everything up with a source. So generally when a topic comes up I research it.

claidheamh

narommy wrote:

Sympathetic countries will clean up their act and the world will be a better place (out of fear)

terrorism-(noun)-the systematic use of fear, especially as a means of coercion.
violence (as bombing), committed by groups in order to coerce a population or government into granting their demands.

coerce-(verb)-to bring about by force or threat, "Coerce the compliance of the rest of the community." -- Scott Buchanan

So using your rationale: by being better terrorists, the US government will make the world a better place?

So, by your admission, the US harbours terrorists (those who commit acts to cause nationalistic fear) -Correct?

The US also has loads of WMD-Right?

Iraq didn't have terrorists causing US fear.

Iraq didn't have WMD.

I'm confused???

sceptre

BolBill wrote:

Hey Narommy, So you'd have voted for Bush. You must be deep south inbred trailer trash so

Nice. Take a week's holiday from the forum for breaking the charter and abusing another poster.

gandalf

Jaysus sceptre its like shooting fish in a barrel today. Only bagged one myself I believe we have to do some catching up with bonkey !!!!

:rolleyes:

bonkey

No no. I only bagged one as well. Equality I say. Equality.