![]() |
Bush is a Goof
Did any of you guys see Bush's address about the Palestinian and Israelian war? He kept on saying that the only way peace can happen if evil and fighting is shut down. If violence escalates, or if people are doing things to escalate violence, then peace will never be a reality.
All I have to say is, What the F*ck is Bush talking about? He is saying that peace cannot be reached through violence. Yet, the United States army has bombed the hell out of the Taliban since November! Thousands of Taliban and Al Queda fighters have dies from United States aritillery. But, if what Bush says is true, then there will never be peace with the Taliban, or more importantly, terrorism. I think that Bush is one big loser, who likes to condtradict his actions with his words. Does anybody have comments on this? If so, post them here. |
Re: Bush is a Goof
Quote:
I don't get your point -- Bush said that they need to STOP the fighing in order to gain peace. See: He kept on saying that the only way peace can happen if evil and fighting is shut down. If violence escalates, or if people are doing things to escalate violence, then peace will never be a reality. Peace can happen if fighting is shut down. That's not encouraging violence, or even condoning it. Edit (3/7/02): Of course there is going to be no end to terrorism, or violence, unfortunately -- it's something that is in our world, as sad and as sorry as it is. War is a way to end something, and stop the killing of innocent people. The Taliban aren't innocent, they crashed 3 planes -- remember September 11th? They came on our soil and attacked us. Who's the good and bad there? Edit (3/7/02): I don't think Bush is doing anything wrong. He's taking the right action against the Taliban, holding them accountable for their actions. He's not encouraging fighting anywhere, he's saying that in the Middle East, the fighting needs to stop, so there CAN be peace. |
some people are so jaded...
its sad if we don't attack the taliban and other terrorist cells, they will continue to attack. destroying terrorist cells is the only way to stop terrorism, that won't even stop it because there will always be new wackos, but it will prevent a lot of attacks if we keep taking the cells out. unlike the terrorists, the US is not killing innocent people, we are taking out those who pose a threat to the world. |
Quote:
|
I dont have much of a problem with Bush, i think that killing the pakis is fine, i mean, look what they did to us. But I do wonder wtf he was talking about a couple months ago when he said that mexico was america's most important allie. That pissed me off, i mean, without Canada U.S would be a little ****ed, but so would canada without the U.S. What does mexico have to offer? some noisemakers? like wtf was he smoking when he said that.
|
What are you smoking gamer? All allies to the US are important allies, some more than others. You really can't "rate" allies.. but some are more important than others.
|
Okay... Can you guys read again what I posted, please? I said that :
Quote:
And, I was talking to Shooter on AIM. He says that the Taliban are terrorists and should be eliminated. Sure, the Taliban who carried out the plan of 9/11 are terrorists, but I cannot say that the ones in Afghanistan are, unless they took part in other terrorist acts. Now, Shooter also said that it is okay to kill terrorists. So, the violence happening in the MIddle East is wrong, which almost everybody agrees on. Now, is it okay to kill a terrorist? I think not. Terrorists are still people, still citizens of the world. I think that God has forgiven them for the wrong that they have done, so killing them is like killing innocent people, IMO. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No, your opinion counts.. everyone's does. Doesn't mean it's going to change anything though.. that's how life is :unsure:
|
So, Joeiss, are you saying that we shouldn't have gone into the war against Al Quaeda and the Taliban?
Look, I wasn't happy about the war. I'm not happy with the way Bush is looking for new targets in North Korea or Iraq. But nonetheless, destroying Al Quaeda is the right thing to do. Bush said that the only way to end violence is if fighting and evil are shut down. Do you really think Al Quaeda is going to do that? Do you seriously think for one instant that Al Quaeda fighters are going to just lay down their weapons and ask for peace? If you do, you are naïve. They have shown that they are capable of incredible wrongdoing against innocent civilians and that moreover they would happily do it again if they are given the opportunity. I ask you again: do you really think Al Quaeda is going to be the one to stop the fighting? So if not them, who else to do it but us (us being the people against Al Quaeda, that is)? And how are we going to stop Al Quaeda from committing more acts of terrorism? I can only think of one way, and that is to kill them. If you've got a better idea, one that will work, I'm all ears. But I've taken a long, hard look at this, and I've come to the conclusion that there really wasn't any other way. Al Quaeda has to be wiped off the face of the earth. Otherwise, more innocent civilians will die. Do you get it? By letting Al Quaeda continue to exist in its current form, you would advocate putting thousands of innocent civilians at risk. Never mind whether God has forgiven them or not. That's between Him and the individual people. Unless people are punished for their transgressions or prevented from committing further atrocities, all of civilization will collapse. And I'm pretty certain that God wouldn't want that. gamer: if you take an economics class, you will find that the U.S. economy is intimately tied with Mexico's. Not only are there thousands of immigrants taking on jobs here that nobody else will do, but there are also billions of dollars in goods that the two countries trade. If all ties to Mexico were broken off, the American economy would go into one of the deepest recessions in history. Vicente Fox is right: the U.S. would not be able to survive the way it is without Mexico. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I believe that everyone should have good health -- doesn't mean it's going to happen. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I see a fundamental error in your thinking. To you, the battlefield consists solely of Afghanistan. That's just not true. The terrorist attacks of September 11th did not take place in Afghanistan, but they are as much a part of this war as the bombing of Kandahar. Bush didn't escalate the violence. He didn't initiate the conflict. Al Quaeda did that. Shouldn't Bush do something about that? Moreover, Afghanistan is more peaceful than it has been in years. It still has enormous problems, but most would say that it is better off now than it was last year. Has Bush really escalated the violence even in Afghanistan? Quote:
Will you idly stand by and let him do it because you don't believe in killing to prevent further violence? Let's suppose you give him the benefit of the doubt. Then he kills your father and targets one of your siblings next. Will you still take no action? Remember, Al Quaeda not only masterminded the September 11th attacks but has also bombed U.S. embassies and military bases, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Should the U.S. stand idly by and not defend itself? |
If anyone killed ANYONE that i care about they would be dead, whether its right away or later on in life, they would pay for what they had done. I beleive that bush has reason to kill terrorists and i think it is not a problem, i actually agree with it. Like Xantar said, if someone killed you mother and said they were gonna kill your father and you knew who they were would you do nothing about it? I think not.
|
Quote:
Those three reason are how Bush has escalated violence. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Joeiss: Just be glad I'm not the president of United States.
|
Quote:
Lol. |
Quote:
|
Re: Bush is a Goof
Quote:
Angrist--->:Puke::usa:<---Bush Joeiss --->:Puke::usa:<---Bush |
Quote:
|
Okay, fine. What if you couldn't get him arrested? What if you were the only one who could take direct action?
Because I don't think you seriously believe the U.S. can get Al Quaeda arrested, do you? |
Quote:
Easy there buddy. I am a Canadian too. And all I am doing is stating a fact. Canada is not powerful. America is. |
Look, you people can flame me or whatever.
After the "shock" of September 11th, i have prettty much come to a conclusion that America had it coming. After so many years of sticking there noses in other countries problems and wars to be " Peacekeeper". The Arab communities had just had enough. If i were to pick out the most horrific event in history, America would be the culprit. I say we start off in Vietnam, causing 50,000 people's deaths, sound about right? even at one point a group of AMERICAN soldiers strolled through a village and killed every single living thing in the place, Women and Children included. The incident was called the My Lai massacre. Not to mention the Brain child of an idea " Agent Orange" :rolleyes: To this day it is still causing birth defects in babies who's parents were exposed to it as kids themselves. |
I agree with Marc
America (especially BUSH) keeps on saying that it's the best country. No wonder they got Bin Laden angry! |
Quote:
The Taliban? They never did anything to kill us. They don't pose a threat to the world. They just gave Al Qeada guys money, and now we shut down the entire government, killing any member who we see. It would be like accusing a member of the mafia of murdering the president, and then killing every member of the mafia, even though most of them knew nothing. Welcome to war. We kill innocent people, we always do. Don't ever try to deny that America is killing innocent people, because we are! Every single war involves the death of innocent people. WWII, you know how many Germans we killed? Don't tell me they were guilty of anything, they were just fighting for their country, the same thing the Americans were doing. Sure, Hitler was guilty. The government people in Germany were guilty, but to solve that we went and killed thousands of German troops, who are not responsible for anything that Hitler did. War involves killing innocent people. Don't let Bush tell you that we are the good guys and only killing people that are guilty, when they struck and killed innocent people. It just ain't true. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The americans also funded a terrorist organization, a little group called the I.R.A Or Irish Repulblican Army Which has been harassing northern ireland for over 25 years. |
Quote:
Sometimes being associated to a group can make you guilty of something. When a gang kills someone and are caught, not only the person who shot the gun is in trouble with the law, but all the other people that are a part of the gang. It's not as if they were forced to be a part of this, like a couple innocent citizens of countries like Germany or Russia during WWII. They chose to be a part of it, knowing what the consequences could be. Quote:
Why do other countries that aren't as strong in certain areas get so pissed? Is it because of jealousy? Really, ask yourself what it truely is. If France was the most powerful and flaunted it, I'd be jealous and go on and on about how arogent they were. America is making a mistake by saying how great they are, but other countries would do the same if they were in the same circumstances. It's human nature to point out what you're good at. If you're good at sports, you'll try to show off whether intentional or not. If you're rich, you'll get a nice car and house to show it off to everyone. |
Well, I don't really have an awful lot to add to what Marc and gekko have said.
As a pacifist, I am opposed to violence in all forms, yet I do realise that it is, at times, neccesary in order to protect others. However, I see the reaction of America to the whole 11/9 thing as just a teensy weency bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Like gekko says, most of the Taliban had/have no part in the 11/9 attacks, and yet America happily charges in guns blazing killing every member of the Taliban it can find. If the US were only trying to find the culprits, why would they need a whole army? A small stike force could have done it. But no, the states went at it like an angry bull in a china shop and sent in a not inconsiderable force to weed them out. And, quelle suprise, the Taliban saw it as an attack on their territory and they all rallied around to try and fight america off. America didn't make this a mission to seek out the culprits. They did it to eliminate the Taliban (who, as I've said before, were empowered by the US in the first place). They're either trying to get rid of their embarrassing mistake or they're they've appointde themselves the moral guardians of a country they should have nothing to do with. If it were a colony or some other place where American citizens resided in large numbers, then such actions might be rendered more acceptable. But this is not the case. The government just wanted to be seen to be Getting Something Done. And if this involves lots of guns, tanks and an excuse to wave a flag about even better. The american public were begging for blood, and by jove they got it. I just don't believe America had the right to make such a meal of the whole thing (cue: flame, flame, flame). Sure, I think the elimination of the Taliban is a good thing - as a whoe, they're a "government" who preach bigotry and hatred to everyone who doesn't agree with them. If they take enough of a dislike to you (or if you happen to be female) then it's really quite easy to find yourself getting stoned to death as you walk down the street. I for one was pretty chuffed that they have (eventually) lost their position of power over Afghanistan, at least for the most part, even if their idealogy still lives on to an extent. But what for one minute gave the Americans the right to do that? I can understand America giving Afghan soldiers money, weapons and training to fight off the soviets with (though I still can't understand why they knowingly funded a group renowned to be a bunch of psycho bampots who were itching to be given money, weapons and training to take over the country), but i can't understand why America thinks it has the right to invade a country on the pretext of finding a small bunch of terrorists and kill them all. Maybe the "America got them into that mess, therefore we'll get them out of it whilst pretending to do something else" aspect of it. And why is it that america only realises terrorism exists when it actually happens to them? Other countries have been sufferring terrorism for decades, centuries - and yet it only seems to exist when the WTC goes the big firework? Is it that all previous acts of terrorism were OK cos they were only say 50 people dying at once? Or is it that America feels the need to assert its superiority over others? Or even that America thinks it's done nothing wrong that could have made all these people resort to terrorism? I wonder. I don't condone terrorism by any means (quite the opposite) but to me America has taken such a "holier than thou, we have done and can do no wrong" attitude that it makes me sick. Terrorism kills innocent people. The backlash also kills innocent people. Another retaliation occurs. Go to line 1 and repeat. Where does it all end? You'll have to excuse my incoherence. I am tired. Expect a more flameworthy post soon. |
Don't quote me on this... But I think that I heard CNN say that the anti-aircraft rockets that the Taliban are using were given to the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union back in the day. So, America f*cked themselves over with that if this is true.
|
I know Bush is a goof, I knew that the second he gave the go ahead to dig up Alaska for crude oil and natural gas instead of trying to sort out this planets pollution problems, and they say he's the most powerfull man in the world, scary.
EDIT: Yesss 1984 posts. |
Quote:
|
Bush was never ready to handle all this 9-11 crap. Who was?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:hmm: |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern