PDA

View Full Version : Something to chew on...



Phinzone
04-23-2004, 12:44 PM
First of all, I'm a registered independent, that will probably go libertarian this election. I'm not a Republican, nor a democrat, though i must admit if there's a debate, I usually fall on the republican side after doing some digging on issues.

In light of this investiation into the failures of the Bush party to stop 9/11 I thought I'd raise a few questions.

First of all.......American interests were attacked twice while Clinton was in officer. The U.S.S. Cole, and an American Embassy. Yet he did nothing, knowing full well that Osama was a terrorist threat. Yet no one is investigating his inactions? Not only did he know he was a terrorist threat, he let him conduct actions against the US and did nothing about it. Why are we focusing on the man who had only been in office a few months, and pointing fingers saying he should have known it was coming, when our president for 8 years ignored Osama? The blame should be at least as much on Clinton for failing to step up to Osama in his term as well.

Second, he's being criticized for going to war with Iraq. First of all, Iraq is a terroristic threat. I never saw them launching WMD's, and invading our shores, but Saddam is a KNOWN terrorist threat, been on the CIA and FBI radar for years. He publicly supported 9/11,a nd asked his people to join in the fight. He also pays thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers that blow themselves up killing Israeli's. This is the war on TERROR, not Osama Bin Laden. I get very tired of people saying "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 we should be there". You may be correct, he probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11, yet he's still a leader that funds and supports terrorists. Therefore we should have gone in like we did.

Now.......chew on this. People are mad that bush sat on the 9/11 information. Osama has a history of attacking US interests, so he should have seen 9/11 coming right? Enter criticisim of the attack, and the blaming of the Bush administration for not doing their part.

What would have happened if we were attacked, or a US interest were attacked by Iraqi terrorists funded by Saddam? I'll tell you what would happen. We would point fingers at Bush again. Saddam is a known terrorist after all, he's attacked other countries before, and funded terroristic acts around the globe. He had a histrory of violent behavior. Oh wow, bush fumbled the ball on this one, he should have seen it coming from a mile away.

See? He was in a no win situation with this war. If he sits on it, and Saddam lashes out he gets ALL the blame. If he goes in, he gets blame for being a war monger.

Long story short, look at what has happened, and could happen before you judge his term, and this war. He was placed in a nno win situation to say the least. What would YOU have done? Protected your country from a possible terrorist attack? Or stayed out and just hoped that what you fear didn't come true?

PhinPhan1227
04-23-2004, 01:15 PM
I respect anyones right to vote for whom they please, but as someone who is Libertarian, doesn't John Kerry scare the willy's out of you?

FSUDolphin
04-27-2004, 04:56 PM
very well put phinzone,

It def is a no win situation for bush. I was just talking about this with my roomate, who is a pretty big liberal and is totally against the war. The main argument was they havnt done anything to us. while most are lashing out against bush trying to put blame somewhere...while when he sees unrest and terroist in iraq, you get the same complaints about what are you doing...the political bull**** behind everything is very frustrating.

DeDolfan
04-28-2004, 12:41 PM
First of all, I'm a registered independent, that will probably go libertarian this election. I'm not a Republican, nor a democrat, though i must admit if there's a debate, I usually fall on the republican side after doing some digging on issues.

In light of this investiation into the failures of the Bush party to stop 9/11 I thought I'd raise a few questions.

First of all.......American interests were attacked twice while Clinton was in officer. The U.S.S. Cole, and an American Embassy. Yet he did nothing, knowing full well that Osama was a terrorist threat. Yet no one is investigating his inactions? Not only did he know he was a terrorist threat, he let him conduct actions against the US and did nothing about it. Why are we focusing on the man who had only been in office a few months, and pointing fingers saying he should have known it was coming, when our president for 8 years ignored Osama? The blame should be at least as much on Clinton for failing to step up to Osama in his term as well.

Second, he's being criticized for going to war with Iraq. First of all, Iraq is a terroristic threat. I never saw them launching WMD's, and invading our shores, but Saddam is a KNOWN terrorist threat, been on the CIA and FBI radar for years. He publicly supported 9/11,a nd asked his people to join in the fight. He also pays thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers that blow themselves up killing Israeli's. This is the war on TERROR, not Osama Bin Laden. I get very tired of people saying "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 we should be there". You may be correct, he probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11, yet he's still a leader that funds and supports terrorists. Therefore we should have gone in like we did.

Now.......chew on this. People are mad that bush sat on the 9/11 information. Osama has a history of attacking US interests, so he should have seen 9/11 coming right? Enter criticisim of the attack, and the blaming of the Bush administration for not doing their part.

What would have happened if we were attacked, or a US interest were attacked by Iraqi terrorists funded by Saddam? I'll tell you what would happen. We would point fingers at Bush again. Saddam is a known terrorist after all, he's attacked other countries before, and funded terroristic acts around the globe. He had a histrory of violent behavior. Oh wow, bush fumbled the ball on this one, he should have seen it coming from a mile away.

See? He was in a no win situation with this war. If he sits on it, and Saddam lashes out he gets ALL the blame. If he goes in, he gets blame for being a war monger.

Long story short, look at what has happened, and could happen before you judge his term, and this war. He was placed in a nno win situation to say the least. What would YOU have done? Protected your country from a possible terrorist attack? Or stayed out and just hoped that what you fear didn't come true?

PZ, my only question to you is.......... are you SURE you're independent?? ;)

Just wondering !! :lol:

Phinzone
04-29-2004, 04:22 AM
PZ, my only question to you is.......... are you SURE you're independent?? ;)

Just wondering !! :lol:

I get that a lot :) I often fall on the side of the Republicans, but rarely for their reasons. I try very hard to be objective, and question everything I can. I approach "facts' from either party with a LOT of caution. like...

I agree wtih bush on gay rights, and abortion, though for VASTLY different reasons. You won't hear me saying this and that, repeating bush's opinion's on the matter. I've done a good bit of research, on both subjects, and draw my own conclusions.

I also have sever issues with bush and the FCC getting out of hand. it will cost him my vote this year. I gotta shoot libertarian...big gov't is getting way out of hand.

Phinzone
04-29-2004, 04:26 AM
very well put phinzone,

It def is a no win situation for bush. I was just talking about this with my roomate, who is a pretty big liberal and is totally against the war. The main argument was they havnt done anything to us. while most are lashing out against bush trying to put blame somewhere...while when he sees unrest and terroist in iraq, you get the same complaints about what are you doing...the political bull**** behind everything is very frustrating.

You need to point this out to your room mate...


This is the war on terrorism., NOT the war on Osama Bin Laden. The point is to snuff, or at least attempt to snuff TERRORISTS. Many times people confuse this with Osama Bin Laden...as if he's the only terrorist, so throw a few facts his way.

Saddam is a terrorst because...

1. He practices genocide. He broke UN sanctions, and breached no-fly zones that were in place to protect the kurds. Entire villages were hit with mustard gas, and wiped out.

2. He publicly praised the 9/11 attacks, and asked his people to help join the fight against america

3. He is VERY anti-israel, and supports the families of suicide bombers. He actually pays the families of the bombers something like 3,000 to kill themselves in attacks against Israel.

There's more, but I just can't list them, it's late and I need to get ready for physics. But hes a terrorist. make sure he gets that point. I think that's what the bush administration needed to say in the first place. Prove that he's a terrorst (not hard) and then call him on it.

Kamikaze
04-29-2004, 06:34 AM
You need to point this out to your room mate...


This is the war on terrorism., NOT the war on Osama Bin Laden. The point is to snuff, or at least attempt to snuff TERRORISTS. Many times people confuse this with Osama Bin Laden...as if he's the only terrorist, so throw a few facts his way.

Saddam is a terrorst because...

1. He practices genocide. He broke UN sanctions, and breached no-fly zones that were in place to protect the kurds. Entire villages were hit with mustard gas, and wiped out.

2. He publicly praised the 9/11 attacks, and asked his people to help join the fight against america

3. He is VERY anti-israel, and supports the families of suicide bombers. He actually pays the families of the bombers something like 3,000 to kill themselves in attacks against Israel.

There's more, but I just can't list them, it's late and I need to get ready for physics. But hes a terrorist. make sure he gets that point. I think that's what the bush administration needed to say in the first place. Prove that he's a terrorst (not hard) and then call him on it.

Call me a grammar nazi, but you should be using the past tense. That's not the only thing in your post that needs correcting, but debating the same old **** with different people is a bore.

DeDolfan
04-29-2004, 05:52 PM
I get that a lot :) I often fall on the side of the Republicans, but rarely for their reasons. I try very hard to be objective, and question everything I can. I approach "facts' from either party with a LOT of caution. like...

I agree wtih bush on gay rights, and abortion, though for VASTLY different reasons. You won't hear me saying this and that, repeating bush's opinion's on the matter. I've done a good bit of research, on both subjects, and draw my own conclusions.

I also have sever issues with bush and the FCC getting out of hand. it will cost him my vote this year. I gotta shoot libertarian...big gov't is getting way out of hand.

Just so everyone knows, I am a registered Dem [no surprise, nyuk, nyuk], HOWVER, I feel I am about as middle of the road/moderate as there are. if I had my way, EVERYONE should be allowed to vote in every primary election they care to. But, that won't ever happen as long as there are the Teddy Ks and ronny Rayguns around !! :D I agree alot with Bush. With him on abortion but against him on gay rights and big time against him on Iraq. I've drawn my own conclusions as well and mostly for personal reasons as most do [no. I'm not gay, either!!]. What will make him or break him is Iraq. No question there and if I were Bush, I would dump Cheney AND Bumsfeld in a NY minit. He does that, and Kerry is toast! Those 2, IMO, is Bush's biggest hindrance. They got him in a pickle and somewhere along the line, THEY won't let him [Bush} admit to using the false intel and making a mistake in the war thing. Point is, that if he would only fess up and admit that he ****ed up, his approval rating would jump to at least 75%. but this is just a dumb old opinion from a vet that didn't have the "way" to opt out!! ;) [if ya know what I mean] but I don't hold a grudge with him, cuz i think he's doing the right thing, just has some pretty BAD advice from some of his "trusted" ones.

BigFinFan
04-29-2004, 06:24 PM
The problem with this and everything else in the WOT is that you - Average Joe Citizen - only sees what the press is releasing. I guarantee you that you have not or will not see everything IRT WMD's, OBL, OEF, and OIF

DeDolfan
05-01-2004, 12:01 PM
ain't much difference, today or 35 years ago. Different war, alot of the same politics.