hardbag Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 (edited) Ok, discussions & opininions about George Bush in here. We now know that G Bush lyid about the reasons to got to war, he was fully aware about the lyis he made but did it anyway. Bush is a man with a backround in the oil industry. in fact all main political leaders in Washington (Cheney, Rise) have a history in the oil industry. Because of Bushs greedy for money and oil, we in Europe now have terrorist-acts. First in Madrid and now in London. All this because of Bush wanted Iraq?s natural resources to be turned into US dollars and into pocets of American oil empire. It?s sad that this man whos prime interests as a president is to make his oil clan & business partners more rich, is killing thousands of innocent lives. George W Bush, is a former alcohol and cocaine addict, a party boy of an oil clan. Didn?t do anything in the army but got first class papers anyway. Bush is a total joke, and it makes American people look like idiots because they voted for him. Edited July 8, 2005 by hardbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexxan Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Amen. (agreed with most of that except all americans are stupid) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Who's stupider, do you think: the greedy alcoholic cocaine addict who went to war over oil, or you in Europe who evidently followed him into Iraq to help him make his oil clan and business partners more rich and are now paying for it in increased terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Dude, more voters that voted in 2000 supported Al Gore, not George Bush, but due to this constitutional anachronism called the "electoral college" and a ruling from our (7 out of 9 Republican appointees) Supreme Court, a loser was made into a winner. And even with a vote majority of 62 million votes last year, we are a country of an estimated 296 million people. Bush does serve as a constant source of embarrassment for me and many other people. Not just embarrasment, but displays of authoritarian streaks on his part are unbecoming in a modern and enlightened democratic republic. Why just blame Bush? His European enablers Blair, Aznar (gone), and others shouldn't escape unscathed of any criticism. Acts of violence by the kind of killers that blew up people in Spain and the U.K. were present before Bush ever came to higher office--unfortunately it's now going to spread over the world like the plague because certain world leaders are clueless as to how to combat it and defend against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waurbind Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 don't do this, it will turn into a flamewar no matter what, please, just stop this now before another massive war erupts, people have their opinions but there is no purpose to expressing them where you know it will only breed hatred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digipoi Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Why just blame Bush? His European enablers Blair, Aznar (gone), and others shouldn't escape unscathed of any criticism. Acts of violence by the kind of killers that blew up people in Spain and the U.K. were present before Bush ever came to higher office--unfortunately it's now going to spread over the world like the plague because certain world leaders are clueless as to how to combat it and defend against it. 586181329[/snapback] Do you have an answer to that problem? Its not quite that easy whomever the side you choose in our political world. Im glad we had support from Europe in this war against terror to be honest. If more countries would follow, maybe it will be greatly curbed. Someone needs to take the lead. Its not about us conservatives buying into the retort but recognize there is a problem that obviously has to be dealt with by force. How else would you control rats whom tear apart buses with bombs. Its a shameful way to attack an enemy. blah blah blah, I already know this argument to be honest. Maybe we can poison their drinking waters with Ecstasy, give us some love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardbag Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 more voters that voted in 2000 supported Al Gore, not George Bush Yes i do know that Al Gore got more votes in 2000. That election was a big mess and still is. Remember? Fox the rebublican propaganda news channel claimed Florida for Bush and then the circus that took one month after the election day. Bush 'won' in a very dubious circumstances. Whom really got more votes, you will never know. (Nice democracy! And dont just blame the voting machines..) Why just blame Bush? His European enablers Blair, Aznar (gone), and others shouldn't escape unscathed of any criticism. Acts of violence by the kind of killers that blew up people in Spain and the U.K. were present before Bush ever came to higher office--unfortunately it's now going to spread over the world like the plague because certain world leaders are clueless as to how to combat it and defend against it. 586181329[/snapback] Blair needs qritisism as well as Bush, but it was mainly USA who lyed to all the nations in Unated Nations meetings. Remember? Nations of the world didn?t bought the crap so USA didn?t got got the UN approval for the war. Plans of Iraqs invasion was in the mind of Bushs before he got elected to president. Bush is a business man from the oil industry. His profile (past) includes a lot of things why he shouldn?t be in power and capable of invading other regions of the planet. You must stop terrorizing the world for gaining power and profits because of your hedonistic reasons. USA and Bush needs to be criticized and punished so that you wont elect Bushes kind of a horror man again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 American people look like idiots because they voted for him. 586181292[/snapback] uhm, you forget the fact that NOT ALL americans voted for him? Way to generalize there Einstein, my iq dropped 50 points just reading that little part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 8, 2005 This doesn't belong in Area 51... Moved to RWI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Because of Bushs greedy for money and oil, we in Europe now have terrorist-acts. 586181292[/snapback] I was about to argue against that until I remembered that whole "You're either with us or against us" statement Bush made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 And even with a vote majority of 62 million votes last year, we are a country of an estimated 296 million people.? Bush does serve as a constant source of embarrassment for me and many other people.? Not just embarrasment, but displays of authoritarian streaks on his part are unbecoming in a modern and enlightened democratic republic. 586181329[/snapback] Clinton would have loved to get so many votes in either of his elections... 1992 -- Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 (43.0%) 1996 -- Pop. Vote: 47,401,898 (49.2%) Even if you add 100% of Perot's votes, only in 1992 does he come close (just over 1 million votes more) to what Bush got in his second election. Plus your numbers are totally skewed. There may be 296 Million people in the US, but only 173 million can vote. More people came out to vote in this election than many many recent elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Clinton would have loved to get so many votes in either of his elections...1992 -- Pop. Vote: 44,909,326 (43.0%) 1996 -- Pop. Vote: 47,401,898 (49.2%) Even if you add 100% of Perot's votes, only in 1992 does he come close (just over 1 million votes more) to what Bush got in his second election. Plus your numbers are totally skewed. There may be 296 Million people in the US, but only 173 million can vote. 586183806[/snapback] Of course not all citizens are eligible voters, whether they are too young or were convicted of felonies or didn't register to vote; that wasn't the point. He insulted all Americans (that is now missing since he edited his post), and not all Americans have a hand in George Bush getting anywhere in politics. More people came out to vote in this election than many many recent elections.586183806[/snapback] Aware of that (scroll down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted July 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 8, 2005 There are 8 typos and grammatical errors in your original post. Not counting the misspelling in the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Actually, since you mentioned it, there are more like twenty spelling and grammar errors in the original post, not counting the misspelling in the topic. 8/20, that's like 40%. Failing grade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 This thread is so ridiculous it almost doesn't deserve a response. Where do I even start? We now know that G Bush lyid about the reasons to got to war, he was fully aware about the lyis he made but did it anyway. Yeah, and I guess the rest of the world 'lyid' too. Hasn't this been addressed a million times now?Bush is a man with a backround in the oil industry. in fact all main political leaders in Washington (Cheney, Rise) have a history in the oil industry.Another angle Dem's have beaten to death. This war was never about oil. It has always been economically impossible to derive a benefit from Iraq's oil greater than the cost of the war. Bush knew that. His advisors knew that. Congress knew that. The liberal leftist media obviously needs to take Econ 101. The whole concept is so ridiculous it should make people chuckle. Unfortunately it seems to be one of the only things the average American believes to be true about Iraq, Where and when does the 'government' and Bush derive a benefit even if U.S. companies were given contracts on Iraqi oil? When do they get to reclaim the hundreds of billions they had to set aside in the budget? The only way this would be possible is if we had power to tax / fee in Iraq - and we DON'T. even with a vote majority of 62 million votes last year, we are a country of an estimated 296 million people. not all Americans have a hand in George Bush getting anywhere in politics.Is that Bush's fault? I see Democrats pandering minorities of all types. MTV and other pop culture campaigns to get young people to vote are thinly veiled ways of saying 'vote Democrat'. I guess P. Diddy couldn't get the job done.Fox the rebublican propaganda news channel claimed Florida for Bush and then the circus that took one month after the election day. How much exposure have you even had to Fox News? I find more often than not its critics have never even watched the network. It may approach stories from a more conservative angle, but rarely strays far from the middle of the isle. It's the right's equivalent of CBS or CNN. Lord only knows what sort of 'propaganda' you are being spoon-fed in 'Scandinavia'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zh3n Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 You must stop terrorizing the world for gaining power and profits because of your hedonistic reasons. USA and Bush needs to be criticized and punished so that you wont elect Bushes kind of a horror man again. 586183644[/snapback] So wait,let me get this right?Besides the fact you just lumped all Americans in with the reason why terrorist attacks that happened in London and elsewhere are basically,our fault....you think we must all be terrorized and possibily attacked again?? tsk..tsk..that finger-pointing. You briefly mention other nations are to blame as well,but the US is mostly to blame. Should we have not done anything after 9/11?Should we have showed those terrorists that we can be attacked and kill thousands and not respond? Not saying war is the answer,war never solves anything. But the fact that you find it soo easy to jump on the US and it's people solely,is a little ridiculous. Actually, since you mentioned it, there are more like twenty spelling and grammar errors in the original post, not counting the misspelling in the topic. 8/20, that's like 40%. Failing grade! 586184041[/snapback] Oops... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 8, 2005 Another angle Dem's have beaten to death. This war was never about oil. It has always been economically impossible to derive a benefit from Iraq's oil greater than the cost of the war. Bush knew that. His advisors knew that. Congress knew that. The liberal leftist media obviously needs to take Econ 101. The whole concept is so ridiculous it should make people chuckle. Unfortunately it seems to be one of the only things the average American believes to be true about Iraq, Where and when does the 'government' and Bush derive a benefit even if U.S. companies were given contracts on Iraqi oil? When do they get to reclaim the hundreds of billions they had to set aside in the budget? The only way this would be possible is if we had power to tax / fee in Iraq - and we DON'T. 586184632[/snapback] You are oversimplying the "oil" issue. The War in Iraq was seen to be good for defence contractors, the oil refining industry and Halliburton. It was seen by some to be a government handout to Republican loyal industries. It was never suggested that a war for oil would be profitable for the government itself. Clearly the Bush Administration is not particularly concerned with government coffers or the long-term fiscal health of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 (edited) Cheney was sued years ago by a group known as Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club into revealing documents pertaining to his energy taskforce. What was marked on some of those documents obtained from 2001 (the plaintiffs didn't get everything they wanted)? Why, that the divvying up Iraq to oil corporation suitors was being monitored. EDIT: Fixed the post, so read it again if confused. Edited July 9, 2005 by Fotix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I can't decide when I was more amused, reading the (misspelled) title of the post or the post itself. I'm sorry dude, but if you want to make a legitimate argument, seriously, don't base it on a "we all know" assumption. That's going to get you nowhere. Assume we don't know and then explain! Anyways, enough said, and I'm not going to turn this into a flame war by responding to the various allegations. Mabye another time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadkins555 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Dude, more voters that voted in 2000 supported Al Gore, not George Bush, but due to this constitutional anachronism called the "electoral college" and a ruling from our (7 out of 9 Republican appointees) Supreme Court, a loser was made into a winner. That quote bleeds ignorance. Fact of the matter is, if the tables were turned, you wouldn't be complaining about the system at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 You are oversimplying the "oil" issue. The War in Iraq was seen to be good for defence contractors, the oil refining industry and Halliburton. It was seen by some to be a government handout to Republican loyal industries. It was never suggested that a war for oil would be profitable for the government itself. Clearly the Bush Administration is not particularly concerned with government coffers or the long-term fiscal health of the United States. 586184689[/snapback] I'd like to see proof or any sort of evidence that oil played a major factor in justifying sending troops to Iraq. I don't see what the big deal is even if Halliburton got the contract. They were immediately available and have a good reputation. With the decay of the oil industry in America over past decades, there aren't many 'big players' besides Halliburton. It had everything to do with availability and meeting requirements and nothing to do with Dick Cheney's prior involvement with the company. The whole "oil issue" just doesn't square up with the facts when you sit down and rationalize. Such accusations are nothing less than absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted July 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 9, 2005 Gotta say that a post already this prejudiced and intentionally inciteful will not end well, so I am closing this as flame fodder. That said, the original poster is invited to hang around RWI for a bit and I am sure he will learn much more about these issues than he could have imagined - yes we are all (on both sides) that good. ;) Thread Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts