Bush Speaks | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 163 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614224
Today 6
Topics 127549
  
 
Messageboard index
Bush Speaks
 

offline Westric Venther from United Kingdom on 2003-04-28 17:12 [#00675151]
Points: 36 Status: Lurker | Followup to Westric Venther: #00675149



or maybe Dennis Hopper


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-28 20:35 [#00675356]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to promo: #00675145



promo, i agree. this war was executed in a manner less
horrific than past wars.

still the SIMPLE questions remain unanswered by you or
anyone else who is in support of the war and was in support
of the war before it began:

did we have the right to make the decision to sacrifice
innocent people in the name of the cause?

because we knew full well that large numbers of innocents
would definitely be killed in the war you should be able to
state honestly something along the lines of:

"it is our right as a nation in need of security to
sacrifice the lives innocents against their will for our
security."


 

offline OK on 2003-04-28 21:37 [#00675426]
Points: 4791 Status: Lurker



it's time to revive communism


 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-28 21:42 [#00675429]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



If I recall correctly, the U.S. is beginning a revolution
called "pre-emptive war" that all started with Afghanistan.

It isn't retaliation from an attack, it isn't even
intercepting an incoming attack, it is destroying a
potential threat before it blossoms, even when the threat
hasn't been completely and positively identified or
verified.

What do we think of this new kind of war? Is it just?
Contrary to the buttloads of evidence that the US claimed it
had regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I didn't
see one convincing shred of evidence made public. Now don't
you think that in a world divided over war that Bush would
have given us some tangible evidence or intelligence that
weapons did in fact exist?

The only strategy was to abuse patriotism and sappy
speeches. If I've heard one G.W.Bush speech, I've heard
them all.

You've got N. Korea openly admitting to a nuclear program,
possession of nukes, and threats to use them, but for some
strange and peculiar reason, Osama is ignorantly forgotten,
and suddenly Saddam is prime suspect #1. What the hell is
that?


 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-28 21:46 [#00675431]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



Good point jupitah. I don't think war fans have fully
realized the truth of your statement. It's kind of a
selfish contradiction. IMO war is among the most stupid of
all human activities. It is a fast and quick solution.

"I don't mind if 10,000 innocents are killed so long as I
live."


 

offline Powli from Lawrence, KS on 2003-04-28 22:13 [#00675447]
Points: 797 Status: Regular



Catharsis I agree with you 100% and I in fact live in
America.

Touché!


 

offline Powli from Lawrence, KS on 2003-04-28 22:17 [#00675449]
Points: 797 Status: Regular



Uh...I don't know why I felt it was necessary for me to
include the "and I in fact live in America." it really has
very little to do with my opinion.


 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-28 22:20 [#00675451]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



Whatever your opinion, I'm happy that the ideas presented by
people on this board have been logical and intelligent - a
rare quality these days.
Usually (in other forums) I just get parrots reporting back
current NBC news and stuff they heard on Regis and
"whats-her-face".



 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-28 22:42 [#00675476]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to catharsis: #00675429



i think you've pinpointed the major issues here. the only
way i can imagine that one could justify this
administration's action is by ignorance, whether willful or
not. when are the serious questions regarding the
legitimacy of these attacks going to be addressed?

"I don't mind if 10,000 innocents are killed so long as I
live."

that is the undeniable implication of those in support war.


 

offline plaidzebra from so long, xlt on 2003-04-28 22:44 [#00675481]
Points: 5678 Status: Lurker



from the onion...

Tortured Ugandan Political Prisoner
Wishes Uganda Had Oil

KAMPALA, UGANDA--A day after having his hands amputated by
soldiers backing President Yoweri Museveni's brutal regime,
Ugandan political prisoner Otobo Ankole expressed regret
Monday over Uganda's lack of oil reserves. "I dream of the
U.S. one day fighting for the liberation of the oppressed
Ugandan people," said Ankole as he nursed his bloody stumps.
"But, alas, our number-one natural resource is sugar cane."
Ankole, whose wife, parents, and five children were among
the 4,000 slaughtered in Uganda's ethnic killings of 2002,
then bowed his head and said a prayer for petroleum.



 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-29 06:38 [#00675849]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



Conversely, there is no question that Saddam is one twisted
and evil bastard. Still - atrocities of that scale happen
elsewhere and continue to happen elsewhere. It is the
rightful duty of the civilized world to change them?

Look at Rwanda - millions of people died from ethnic
cleansing. I don't seem to recall anyone intervening.
Perhaps it was because our western lives were secure.
Perhaps it was because there appeared to be no fringe
benefits (i.e. oil). There is some inconsistency this time
around.


 

offline far-east monkey from psychiatry hospital in osaka on 2003-04-29 07:11 [#00675903]
Points: 1663 Status: Lurker



Dancing BUSSH BUSSU BUSSHU FUCCKKU SHAME ON YOU BUSH


 

offline promo from United Kingdom on 2003-04-29 07:13 [#00675911]
Points: 4227 Status: Addict



catharsis,

Loser, for me the war was never about National Security (I'm
British). It was always about the moral issue. From day one
even before the whole Sept 11th thing I believed that the
Iraqi people needed to be rid of that piece of shit. And
they weren't ever gonna be able to do it themselves. So wake
up you selfish loser!


 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-29 07:29 [#00675946]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



What are you talking about? I was being sarcastic about
security. I don't think my life is worth the deaths of
1,000's of innocents.

Do you have the right to remove this wicked dictator. If
you decide that you do, you better finish what you started
and make a global trip. If you don't, there are some
underlying issues. It was the British and the Americans who
installed Saddam in the 80's. Maybe they feel its their
responsibiltiy to take him out before he blows his top?

Your statements indicate that you should join the army and
perform regime changes around the world and risk your life
while doing it. No? - okay.

In regards to 9/11. Have you seen any tangible evidence
connection Saddam with Osama? I wouldn't bet the bank on
it.

Name calling isn't appreciated.


 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-29 07:34 [#00675956]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but it's
obvious that you didn't read the part about Rwanda.


 

offline promo from United Kingdom on 2003-04-29 08:53 [#00676082]
Points: 4227 Status: Addict



catharsis,

Rwanda is landlocked so thats make an invasion extremely
difficult but not impossible. You'd have to seek the
permission of a country close by to set up a military base
from where an invasion could be mounted. Yes Rwanda and
countless other African countries could and should be
assisted where democracy can be established.

On the subject of Saddam Hussein, he came into power because
at the time they felt he was the good guy. This is an old
and baseless argument to suggest that somehow we decided to
put a nutcase into power, we didn't. We felt he was the
right guy and the West felt they could handle him. Its been
a long time coming but finally we've dealt with him. Its
exactly the same for Mugabe, he was some who seemed a very
positive leader at the time. He was big on talk of democracy
and friendly relations with the white man etc etc. Now look
how he has turned out. You see what you're not appreciating
is that you have to take people on trust to start with, if
then they become untrustworthy and go against their word,
then of course you have to deal with them. You see in life
you have to take people on trust initially, otherwise
nothing will ever get done.


 

offline promo from United Kingdom on 2003-04-29 08:57 [#00676090]
Points: 4227 Status: Addict



The country that would be used as a military base, would
probably have to be Tanzania, which is on the East Coast of
Africa.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-29 09:14 [#00676114]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker



promo, why am i not surprised you sidesteped the issue i
brought up?


 

offline promo from United Kingdom on 2003-04-29 09:15 [#00676116]
Points: 4227 Status: Addict



I answered the question.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-29 09:27 [#00676144]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker



my ultimate question is simply:

did we have the right to make the to knowingly sacrifice
innocent people against their will in the name of the
cause(be it for us ot other iraqis)?


 

offline promo from United Kingdom on 2003-04-29 09:51 [#00676172]
Points: 4227 Status: Addict



Absolutely.


 

offline catharsis from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-04-29 09:58 [#00676182]
Points: 836 Status: Regular



K. Point taken promo. I disagree however that Rwanda was
an exception to to its geographical location. The miliatary
presence would have scarecly been a threat to .....
hell..... perhaps even the Canadian army ;)


 


Messageboard index