President Bush - about bush

soph · 2003-01-02 18:42:34

Like ive said before, the man has said he would use WMDs against israel, inspectors have reported biological weapons in Iraq, hes thrown out inspectors before, he was wishy washy this time.

ive read reports that have said we have information but have not released it, from what i deem to be reliable sources. the guy used biological weapons on his own people. he condems the US in every speech. the guy prides himself on being stalinist, and a military dictator. theres no logic to my argument?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 19:06:00

Well, I don't recall a report with him saying he would use WMDs against Israel. The only thing I recall is something about him having nothing to lose if he were to do so after an unprovoked attack by the US. Then he would he his so called biological weapons. Which is actually a good argument to not attack. He'd send his foot army right up towards Israel. They'd be oblibrated, of course. But it's possible.

Saddam also didn't throw anyone out. They were withdrawn due to Desert Fox. And I can't recall another time where he threw out inspectors (though I do recall an incident where he didn't want Israeli inspectors in there... they got in anyway).

I've read the same reports. And I think that if there was anything substantial within them, we would have attacked already. Knowing how this stuff works, I would garner that most of it, if not all, is speculation. It's not like we have photographs of a nuclear facility. If we did, obviously we'd blow it up. Iraq, is, after all, our ?biggest enemy.? Think about it, though. The Bush admin. has criticized the inspectors for ?not finding anything?, as if it's their job to successfully ?find something!? Can you imagine? The inspectors job is to inspect and report. If they're not finding anything, yet are rigorously inspecting, they are still doing their damn job, and deserve no criticism.

I'm not about to defend his using weapons against his own people, of course. But that doesn't make him outright insane, wanting to blow up Israel or some other country on a whim.

He's, like I said, sitting on an abundance of natural wealth. He wants to first surround himself with people, and get on the good side of the international community (ie, he wants the sanctions removed), he has no rational reason to go about blowing people up. The only justification for such actions would be that he's insane, and no one has thus proven that he is. Iraq, with sanctions removed, would be much like Saudi Arabia from a wealth perspective. The US doesn't want that.

AltToWar · 2003-01-02 23:07:07

See? You already have decided that Iraq has WMDs... ?he used the months when bush was blustering around to hide the weapons somewhere else,? and you clearly can't take another position, or at least a middle of the road position, even when you've been given common sense arguments. You pretend like you can't trust media sources, yet you clearly trust the mainstream, because that's the drivel that's being fed to you.
Cheney did ?have a beer? with Saddam, though (not literally). Which I'm sure we'd find funny. In fact, I bet we can show that Cheney actually had connections with Iraqi weapon deals back in the day (which could explain why the recent Iraq weapon admission was dumbed down from 10k pages to some 3k if I recall correctly).

There is a lot of talk, especially in Israel by Isaelies, that the accusation that saddam hid his WMD in Lebanon was nothing more that Israel tring to encite the US towards it's enemies.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-03 02:03:15

I don't think military parades and shooting a rifle off of the balcony of your palace comes off as being very peaceful.

soph · 2003-01-03 05:49:11

Alt, youre very naive.

AltToWar · 2003-01-03 13:18:20

Which propoganda machine would you prefer I listen to?

soph · 2003-01-03 14:09:24

how about the vast majority that said that the blast in lebanon was a failed missile?

AltToWar · 2003-01-03 20:21:18

how about the vast majority that said that the blast in lebanon was a failed missile?

so not only is saddam hiding WMD in Lebanon, but he is also test firing them there? While the whole worlds watching. And lebanon is just groovy with this you say?

soph · 2003-01-03 20:22:41

No, youre completely off. Saddam sold missles to hezbollah, in lebanon, who tried to fire the missle. the missle malfunctioned, causing civilian casualties and destruction, which theyve done a good job of keeping hushed up. they couldnt conceal the blast though.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-03 23:14:58

Should we start a new thread about Iraq and keep this one clear for Bush administration talk, or is this war too integral to the discussion of his Presidency?

Auqakah · 2003-01-04 16:13:30

I find it so interesting that people have so much to say about a man who clearly thinks so little.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 00:42:53

I guess to the lazy liberal eye, traditional values come off as stupid and uneducated. I mean, the man sticks to his word all of the time. He makes promises and keeps them (ie SDI, Axis of Evil, etc.) I can't wait for his second term, because I can feel his promised economic and social security reforms coming...

soph · 2003-01-06 05:40:22

Riiight. honest hahahah. Liberal lazy eye? Try your own blind eye. Bush is stupid, and he hasnt even delivered 25% of the promised funds to New York after 9/11. It's what, a year and a half later? Hmmmm. There are too many lies to point out.

I guess lining your pockets with oil money while squashing any opposition is a good, honest virtue.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:11:25

Riiight. honest hahahah. Liberal lazy eye? Try your own blind eye. Bush is stupid, and he hasnt even delivered 25% of the promised funds to New York after 9/11. It's what, a year and a half later? Hmmmm. There are too many lies to point out.
I guess lining your pockets with oil money while squashing any opposition is a good, honest virtue.

Yeah. And the Concert for New York and the Celebrity Fund Raiser didn't deliver 10% of their funds. Good call... ???

soph · 2003-01-06 15:18:28

Id think that we hold the president up to a higher standard. After all, we spent $200 million, well, at least the republican congress did, to prove Clinton was unfaithful to his wife. And Bush did stand on the WTC site promising the city $20 billion on national TV. He can spend $100 billion on a war, but not $20 billion on the world's economic capital.

Lies:
1) Business connections with Enron. Bush and Cheney have their hands very dirty. Unfortunately, Democrats are too timid at this point to show the country how corrupt they really are. This would be a far better use of $200 million than Ken Starr.

2) Oil is clean. Do I have to elaborate?

3) $20 billion to NYC

4) Saddam Hussein is tied to Al-Qaeda.

5) He didn't know the mic was on when he called a reporter an asshole. real honesty.

should i keep going?

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:30:09

1) Business connections with Enron. Bush and Cheney have their hands very dirty. Unfortunately, Democrats are too timid at this point to show the country how corrupt they really are. This would be a far better use of $200 million than Ken Starr.

What can you expect when you've been a past CEO? Of course you're going to have ties all over the place. It's an accepted part of being a former businessman.

2) Oil is clean. Do I have to elaborate?

Who said that? The man promised to build more nuclear plants than ever before across our nation during the 2000 power shortages in California, and many are underway right now.

3) $20 billion to NYC

Be patient, my friend...

4) Saddam Hussein is tied to Al-Qaeda.

Do you know he doesn't have links to al-qaeda? Do you have access to the privilaged information of the American president? Do you have insight into the mind of an Iraq dictator?

5) He didn't know the mic was on when he called a reporter an asshole. real honesty.

So what? He called a reporter an asshole (it was "prick", actually). Why is that a lie? If you were getting some smart ass questions from a reporter while you were campaigning, wouldn't you say something nasty, too?

should i keep going?

Please do...

soph · 2003-01-06 15:38:09

no, not just ties. he was just as corrupt as anyone. his pockets are lined with dirty money.

go to the doe website. how deep do you have to dig to find out the nasty realities of fossil fuel? the guy cut funding to fuel cell and electric car research. he can build all the nuclear plants he wants, and i support that, he intends to keep our cars running on gas. not signing the kyoto treaty. why?

yes, how long am i going to have to be patient? if he draws it out long enough, it will be an obligation for the next president to fill. at this rate, he will only pay $10 billion during this term. The money was emergency relief. Next term, he will say the emergency relief is over and the money is no longer needed.

his tax cuts benefit the wealthy exponentially more than the average person. the average person receives a tax break of $300. A person making $100k+ receives around $10k+. explain how this helps the economy. People are more likely to stick the $300 in a bank than spend it on anything.

And yes, I do know this. Iraq has never mentioned Al-Qaeda, and vice versa. It's funny, Iraq is one of the few countries Bin Laden never talks about. I think bin laden views saddam as a secular guy, and a threat to his muslim supremacy.

if i were running for president...i would have a little self-control with regards to the media. At least wait until you get out of the room.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:43:45

go to the doe website. how deep do you have to dig to find out the nasty realities of fossil fuel? the guy cut funding to fuel cell and electric car research. he can build all the nuclear plants he wants, and i support that, he intends to keep our cars running on gas. not signing the kyoto treaty. why?

Because PRIVATE INDUSTRY will develop fuel cells if they get into a bind, and they Kyoto treaty would have stopped our already stalling economy from progressing.

his tax cuts benefit the wealthy exponentially more than the average person. the average person receives a tax break of $300. A person making $100k+ receives around $10k+. explain how this helps the economy. People are more likely to stick the $300 in a bank than spend it on anything.

It's a Harvard rule of thumb that 20% of the people do 80% of the business. While giving money back to the lower class is good for small consumer industry perks, it's the folks with the deep pockets who invest and keep the money flowing.

if i were running for president...i would have a little self-control with regards to the media. At least wait until you get out of the room.

What's your problem with it? As far as we're concerned, that's his own fault. Don't say it's an out-and-out lie if it was just a stupid mistake on his part.

should i keep going?

I dare you to...

clark · 2003-01-06 15:58:47

VooDoo Economics....

It's a Harvard Rule of thumb that certain business models shouldn't work.

It's a Reality Check when they do.

Cal, explain something for me- the President and many of our leaders focused on getting the "consumer" out their spending- buying- getting the economy going. Christmas shopping accounts for most of the profits realized in any given year- again, becuase of consumer spending.

Our economy and great fortune is built on a pile of small, cheap electronics- on consumables. The wealthy are few- they only need to buy so much. The rest of us non-wealthy types though, we number much more, and we all need the same stuff to buy.

Who would spend more, 100 wealthy people who buy a boat each, or 10,000 middle class and working poor buying groceries, presents, or paying for education?

The whole idea behinf givinh the rich tax cuts is the idea that they would buy luxary items (like boats) that equal higher paying jobs- or they take that money and invest it back into the system to create more jobs and the like- however, our economy is predicated on spending- on consumer spending- I don't think helping the rich helps anyoen but the rich.

All it does is make it easier for the wealthy to become more wealthy- how does this improve the lot of the average american?

soph · 2003-01-06 19:17:22

cal, thats not harvard economics, thats reaganomics. yes, it created millionares, but it made our poor poorer, and it created a lot more of them. it hurt our economy much more than it hurt.

PaganToris · 2003-01-06 20:09:11

DAMN! i didnt thnx tis post i started would have this many post i jusyt started it to see what people would say i guess its all a serious debate
WHY DONT WE ALLL JUST BECOME ANARCHIST AND FOR GET THE GOVERNMENT!

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 22:14:03

VooDoo Economics....
It's a Harvard Rule of thumb that certain business models shouldn't work.
It's a Reality Check when they do.
Cal, explain something for me- the President and many of our leaders focused on getting the "consumer" out their spending- buying- getting the economy going. Christmas shopping accounts for most of the profits realized in any given year- again, becuase of consumer spending.
Our economy and great fortune is built on a pile of small, cheap electronics- on consumables. The wealthy are few- they only need to buy so much. The rest of us non-wealthy types though, we number much more, and we all need the same stuff to buy.
Who would spend more, 100 wealthy people who buy a boat each, or 10,000 middle class and working poor buying groceries, presents, or paying for education?
The whole idea behinf givinh the rich tax cuts is the idea that they would buy luxary items (like boats) that equal higher paying jobs- or they take that money and invest it back into the system to create more jobs and the like- however, our economy is predicated on spending- on consumer spending- I don't think helping the rich helps anyoen but the rich.
All it does is make it easier for the wealthy to become more wealthy- how does this improve the lot of the average american?

Remember back in 1986 when Congress passed the legislation that took away the tax benefits of investing in real estate? Sure, the rich just took their money somewhere else... but all of those construction workers and others working to improve those properties were left up shit creek. The richest 1% invest in MANY things that ultimately create jobs for everyone else, and the eventual money returned to everyone involved is much more than anything the government could ever provide in a tax break.

Even still, the government does provide a generous amount in our tax breaks (no, my family had more than enough to buy a diet coke... we bought a TV, as you mentioned about cheap electronics).

soph · 2003-01-07 05:35:30

How come it didnt work for Raegan and Bush Sr. Cal? Why hasnt it done anything for our economy now? It just doesnt work. How many times does trickle down economics have to fail before we stop trying it?

And the vast percentage of businesses in this country are small business, not money fat corporations like enron, who the bush tax cuts help.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-07 15:54:18

Answer my question, soph. Didn't all of those constuction workers loose their lucrative jobs when the wealthiest 1% lost their incentive for investing in real estate?

Face it. The investments of the wealthiest Americans affect us ALL. And it DID work for Regan, if you recall. People who miss the haydays of the 80's are a dime-a-dozen.

soph · 2003-01-07 17:30:07

nobody I know misses the 80's. i just remember my grandfather yelling at the very mention of reagan, who cost him his job because of his porking of the rich.

no, the wealthiest 1% doesnt control the economy. stock investments dont help the average joe. the real estate industry is fueled by the middle class, not the upper class.

You really should take an economics class.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#401 2003-01-02 18:42:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#402 2003-01-02 19:06:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#403 2003-01-02 23:07:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#404 2003-01-03 02:03:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#405 2003-01-03 05:49:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#406 2003-01-03 13:18:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#407 2003-01-03 14:09:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#408 2003-01-03 20:21:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#409 2003-01-03 20:22:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#410 2003-01-03 23:14:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#411 2003-01-04 16:13:30

Re: President Bush - about bush

#412 2003-01-06 00:42:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#413 2003-01-06 05:40:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#414 2003-01-06 15:11:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#415 2003-01-06 15:18:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#416 2003-01-06 15:30:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#417 2003-01-06 15:38:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#418 2003-01-06 15:43:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#419 2003-01-06 15:58:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#420 2003-01-06 19:17:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#421 2003-01-06 20:09:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#422 2003-01-06 22:14:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#423 2003-01-07 05:35:30

Re: President Bush - about bush

#424 2003-01-07 15:54:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#425 2003-01-07 17:30:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer