16 Jan 05
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaBecause we had your British intelligence agencies telling us the same thing about WMD's. I voted for Bush and even if i didn't I sure wouldn't want your apology. I think you have been "hoodwinked" by the BBC into believing the crap you are spitting out.
speaking from a standpoint outside of being American, (apologies to those Americans who did see through the deceptions of the Bush administration) it was hilarious to us that so many Americans could be so easily 'hood winked' into believing Bush??!!.🙄
The next process will be for lackey American historians to write school text books, to rewr ...[text shortened]... war.
Will any American step up to the plate and explain why they believed the WMD tall tales?
17 Jan 05
Originally posted by slimjimapologies, so there ARE WMD, silly me 😉
Because we had your British intelligence agencies telling us the same thing about WMD's. I voted for Bush and even if i didn't I sure wouldn't want your apology. I think you have been "hoodwinked" by the BBC into believing the crap you are spitting out.
17 Jan 05
Originally posted by slimjimslim, our administration still accepted the information even after it was shown to be plagerized from a grad student's paper. ABC news even reported on it. Admit it. Bush and his advisors really wanted to hit Iraq (except Powell). They took advantage of the post-911 nationalism and paranoia of terrorism to pressure Congress into supporting them. They made a million excuses to justify their invasion which have been or are being shown to be bogus. I would use "failure" instead of "bogus" to describe the Iraq campaign but that is a bit too strong a word since the neocon's who never gave a rat's ass about WMD or liberating the Iraqi people have succeded in obtaining their goal.
Because we had your British intelligence agencies telling us the same thing about WMD's. I voted for Bush and even if i didn't I sure wouldn't want your apology. I think you have been "hoodwinked" by the BBC into believing the crap you are spitting out.
Now, despite the lessons that should have been learned by invading Iraq, the administration unabashedly continues with the neoconservative agenda, preparing to attack Iran, with the eventual goal of spreading pro-US governments through the Middle East.
If the US people tolerate attacking Iran, look for Bush to try and sneak in an attack on Syria as well before his term is up.
17 Jan 05
lol, I have a friend who knows Bush personaly, and I here storys about him and why he does stuff, Hes not the kind of guy you have in your mind, He really wants the best for us americans, and wants to protect our country. Who knows, if you was president and you got false information about WMD's from ppl you trusted you may have done the same thing ( I know you will deny that, lol )
17 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flyUnityOf course George W. wants the best for the U.S. He really is a nice guy.
lol, I have a friend who knows Bush personaly, and I here storys about him and why he does stuff, Hes not the kind of guy you have in your mind, He really wants the best for us americans, and wants to protect our country. Who knows, if yo ...[text shortened]... ou may have done the same thing ( I know you will deny that, lol )
There is no problem with his motives. Rather, there is a problem with his perspective. He believes his goals are in the best interests of the U.S., and even the world, even though most of the world disagrees.
Some of his advisors are less naive than he is, and they are not as nice.
17 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnitySee Wul's post above. This is what I'm saying. Let's consider what you're saying. If advisors that I trusted were telling me that Iraq had nuclear weapons that could hit the united states in under an hour. I'd take that very seriously, seriously enough perhaps to start a war. Of course, I would want to get some alternative perspectives. I'd want to know why so many experts outside of the department and the Pentagon are against it. I'd want to know why former head weapons inspector Scott Ritter (a former marine and I believe a Republican) is speaking out against it. I'd ask why members of the CIA who are reponsible for monitoring Iraq have objections. I'd ask why many senior officers in the military are asking, "Why Iraq?"
lol, I have a friend who knows Bush personaly, and I here storys about him and why he does stuff, Hes not the kind of guy you have in your mind, He really wants the best for us americans, and wants to protect our country. Who knows, if you was president and you got false information about WMD's from ppl you trusted you may have done the same thing ( I know you will deny that, lol )
And after the fact I sure as hell wouldn't give the major advisors, who screwed up and/or mislead me, medals for their service!
I don't think Bush hates America. I don't think Bush was motivated entirely by oil. I think he had appointed radical neoconservative hawks as advisors who have a plan to reshape the entire Middle East. I think he has big campaign contributers who are very much interested in the oil who gave him the thumbs up. I think he had a recessionary economy with poor job creation. I think he had a strong personal aversion to Sadaam and Iraq (understandably). These things combined led him to the Iraq debacle. In the end, I don't think he has the critical reasoning skills for his post. He trusts too much and questions too little. This is a president who admits he doesn't read much.
Bush should have listened to Powell and the UN inspectors and basically the rest of the world (minus Britain and a number of tiny, ambitious countries).
17 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by flyUnityThere is a huge difference between listening to the leaders of other countries, and letting them make our decisions. Until the current administration, the opinions of world leaders was part of the assumed audience for our foreign policy decisions. We sometimes shunned their advice, but when we did we attempted to explain our rationale, while maintaining the front that world opinion was critical to our goals.
I mostly agree with you on your last post, Except I wouldnt listen to other countries and have them make our desicions,
Just be thankfull you dont have somone like Kerry who makes all of his decisions based on public opionion
The Bush administration has set a new course; we are now willing to go it alone. I fear the consequences will harm the U.S. in ways we can dimly anticipate.
Kerry argued for a return to our traditional commitments; Bush successfully painted this argument as a dangerous new direction. The rest of the world cannot be duped as easily as those of us who are trapped in the bubble.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, an immensely popular Republican President worked in the oval office. He read a book every day, and he preferred thick ones. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Republican President was immensely popular through much of his first term, and remained popular enough to win reelection. But there are serious doubts regarding whether he has read even the book he will place his left hand upon when he is swears again to uphold and defend another text he dimly understands--the Constitution.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." -- Teddy Roosevelt
"F--- it, ese; just hit 'em with the stick" -- George W. Bush
17 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flyUnityI never said other countries should make our decisions.
I mostly agree with you on your last post, Except I wouldnt listen to other countries and have them make our desicions,
Just be thankfull you dont have somone like Kerry who makes all of his decisions based on public opionion
I did say that the overwhelming dissent from the majority of our allies would give me pause.
Not consulting the international community before starting an unprovoked war is foolish. Key words: starting, unprovoked.
Edit: Hey, Wul. Is that quote you attribute to Bush, real?
17 Jan 05
I think Bush is homophobic.
Hussein accused Blair of being Bush's "bitch".
So there was a lot of bad blood.
Bush hit back with a bigger lie, that Hussein had WMDs.
It was just the result of an accumulation of insults, except that Bush had the last laugh.
I could be wrong, maybe Hussein will have the last laugh if there does happen to be a sex scandal revalation about Bush & Blair?
18 Jan 05
Originally posted by Rahisex scandal revalation about Bush & Blair? Where do you get your info? why do you even post stuff like that? just curious, cause you know how rumers go,
I think Bush is homophobic.
Hussein accused Blair of being Bush's "bitch".
So there was a lot of bad blood.
Bush hit back with a bigger lie, that Hussein had WMDs.
It was just the result of an accumulation of insults, except that Bush had the last laugh.
I could be wrong, maybe Hussein will have the last laugh if there does happen to be a sex scandal revalation about Bush & Blair?
If I tell everything I here at these forums, I would be a disgrace
18 Jan 05
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaWell, how bout an attack on Iran? Nothing gets peoples minds off a balls-up like another war.
Now that Bush succesfully hoodwinked most Americans into illegally attacking Iraq, patriotism is a sure vote catcher! how will he now detract Americans (again!) from the ballsup of the Iraq invasion?
whatever it is will have to be some show!
SYW: Actually, the last thing Bush/Powell need is for the House of Saud to come under attack. If the Saudi regime falls, lots of the wealth that floats around the US will vanish, and a new regime will come into place slightly peeved at the US support of the dictatorship that is currently running the country.
So we will have an Iranian revolution type event take place in Saudi Arabia, only major problem is that Saudi Arabia sits on a large bit of oil and has a pretty modern military.
So you don't have a problem with a world leader lying and misusing sources to push across his own agenda?
18 Jan 05
Originally posted by builderLets have free and fair elections in Saudi and see what happens. Democracy is the key to world security is it not?
Well, how bout an attack on Iran? Nothing gets peoples minds off a balls-up like another war.
SYW: Actually, the last thing Bush/Powell need is for the House of Saud to come under attack. If the Saudi regime falls, lots of the wealth that floats around the US will vanish, and a new regime will come into place slightly peeved at the US support of the di ...[text shortened]... 't have a problem with a world leader lying and misusing sources to push across his own agenda?