|
What?
Mar 11, 2004 22:23:06 GMT -5
Post by Static Burn on Mar 11, 2004 22:23:06 GMT -5
I noticed Omeguz's new sig has a thing that says "Vote Bush Cheney 2004, Help Al-Qaeda Grow!" I honestly have no idea how those two are related. Is it just because you hate Bush and want people to think that by voting for him you're encouraging Al-Qaeda terrorism?
|
|
|
What?
Mar 11, 2004 22:30:46 GMT -5
Post by Elfie on Mar 11, 2004 22:30:46 GMT -5
Many believe that his stance on terrorism alienates many Muslims living in America that would not normally join Al Qaeada. It actually makes sense logically. Of course there's the other side of the coin where Bush is stomping out terrorists. Basically, he's catching the radicals, but turning some moderates against the US. Whether or not its worth it is up to you.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 12, 2004 11:20:13 GMT -5
Post by omeguz on Mar 12, 2004 11:20:13 GMT -5
The fact that the bush family regulary does business with Al-Quaeda plays into that. Shortly after 9/11, Bush had Bin Laden family members flown out of the US, when all other aircrafts were grounded - they weren't questiones, or anything.
Funny, don't you think that you might want to question the brother of the person you are trying to find? Unless! **GASP** finding that person would mean a lot less business for the president!
There ya go, Static.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 12, 2004 12:47:14 GMT -5
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 12, 2004 12:47:14 GMT -5
If i was bass iw ould give 5 points to Omeguz there
|
|
|
What?
Mar 12, 2004 15:03:33 GMT -5
Post by Static Burn on Mar 12, 2004 15:03:33 GMT -5
The reason that members of the Bin-Laden family were flown out of the US was to keep them from being needlessly assassinated, considering that they themselves didn't have anything to do with the attacks. Even if that weren't so, how would that help Al-Qaeda grow?
As for the Bush family 'regularly doing business' with the Al-Qaeda, it's pretty much known that the US used Al-Qaeda to help overthrow the USSR. The reason they attacked us was because we stopped doing business with them, like, back when the USSR fell... In Reagan's time I believe it was.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 12, 2004 20:06:19 GMT -5
Post by Elfie on Mar 12, 2004 20:06:19 GMT -5
I should point at this moment that I believe Omeguz's source is a book by Michael Moore called "Dude, Where's My Country?" which is very very left-wing and may distort facts. Moore doesn't include footnotes as he uses sources, instead saving them all for the end and grouping them into sections. I have not checked his sources, but I have noticed that virtually all of them are from secondary or tertiary sources. This doesn't mean that he's wrong, it just means that you should take what he says with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 12, 2004 22:54:09 GMT -5
Post by Static Burn on Mar 12, 2004 22:54:09 GMT -5
Haha, Michael Moore may distort facts.
-Mr. Sukaly, my American History Teacher
Pretty much, his reasoning behind that was that Michael Moore was apparently the person who started the rumor that Bush was a deserter.
And for anyone who doesn't know, Bush is not, in fact, a deserter. If anyone doubts me on that, please say so and I'll explain.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 1:30:59 GMT -5
Post by Elfie on Mar 13, 2004 1:30:59 GMT -5
Don't neccessarily trust your history teacher either. Jim Keegstra taught for twenty years that the Holocaust never happened and he got away with it because his students never questioned him. I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong here because there's no way for me to know, but in the same way I advised Omeguz against blindly listening to Michael Moore, I would suggest you do the same to your history teacher. Neither are liars in my opinion, but their views on issues could be very skewed.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 10:02:24 GMT -5
Post by omeguz on Mar 13, 2004 10:02:24 GMT -5
true - I got that from Moore, but not exclusivly. I have read up on it as well.
has anyone read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" by Al Franken? Good book.
Static - Your teacher (and you) sound very...sheepish. Let me explain: It sounds as if you are regergitating futile facts, that you pulled out of The Washington Times. Don't believe everything you hear/read. Everyone is biased - no matter what they say.
And BTW: Bush is a draft dodger. As soon as the US began drafting (no MTG pun intended) he signed up for the National Guard. Somehow he skipped one or two thousand people in line, and got in before them - so avoiding the draft. Now - the somehow was that his father was a pilot, and his father was important, so little rich white boy who was scared of them bad arse "gooks" (no offense anyone) found a safe place. Now, to add insult to injury, he failed to show up! Granted, he came to a med exam or two - but his superior frequently reported him AWOL. Of course, this is the national guard, its not as strict - and the fact that his father was a multimillionaire and quite important cut him more slack. Just to give you a little more food for thought, though I am not supporting these (I just read them in places like Time Magazine, etc. - he was also caught with Coke, though the record of it "dissapeared". He wrecked his car DUI. And - of course - dodged the draft.
Now, do you really want a man like that sending our soldiers into battle, maybe sending them to their death? Think about it...
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 12:37:59 GMT -5
Post by (LK) on Mar 13, 2004 12:37:59 GMT -5
Would you preffer Hitler? No nevermind, he actually served in the military .
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 15:57:49 GMT -5
Post by omeguz on Mar 13, 2004 15:57:49 GMT -5
Don't quite see the connection - but whatever
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 17:37:53 GMT -5
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 13, 2004 17:37:53 GMT -5
Wow Omeguz, you really know your stuff dont you?
*points*
You president is a drunk stoner!!!
*laughs*
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 20:30:26 GMT -5
Post by Static Burn on Mar 13, 2004 20:30:26 GMT -5
Did you complain about Clinton dodging the draft?
And, in addition, joining the National Guard doesn't necessarily guarantee that you're going to dodge the draft. First off, it's military service at the very least, which is a hell of a lot better than fleeing to England or Canada. Second, there was no guarantee that he wouldn't have been sent in. National Guard units can be consumed by the Army in case a stronger offense is needed.
Bush's coke thing and DUI were known during the 2000 election, apparently they weren't important enough to prevent people from voting for him.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 20:48:16 GMT -5
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 13, 2004 20:48:16 GMT -5
Thats probably because most people dont actually know that much about the person they are voting for. Most people probably just voted for bush because of his dad, im betting 90% of the voters didnt know about those things, but if they all did, may things have turned out differently? My personal favourite part about Bush is how he speaks in 3 word statements;D
|
|
|
What?
Mar 13, 2004 23:15:23 GMT -5
Post by Static Burn on Mar 13, 2004 23:15:23 GMT -5
By that token I could say that most of the people who voted for Gore didn't know anything about him, and that all Presidential elections are simply randomized because the majority of voters have no idea who they're actually voting for.
And the Bush coke and DUI thing was a big thing back in the 2000 election. There are people who dig up dirt on the opposing candidate and make it well known, that's how people know about that.
And, in case it's important to anyone, Bush had an alcohol problem. He got over it years before he was elected President, so it's not really an important thing, it wouldn't have affected his job as President. I do, however, remember hearing a woman saying that she wouldn't vote for Bush because she thought he would go into someone's garage and drink lighter fluid to get the alcohol out of it.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 14, 2004 1:45:14 GMT -5
Post by Elfie on Mar 14, 2004 1:45:14 GMT -5
Just to steer the topic away from the candidates' pasts and to look at the present and hopefully to help the future, I have a couple questions for Static. According to the new budget deficit, the US is losing 900,000 dollars a minute. Does this not strike you as slightly reckless?
|
|
|
What?
Mar 14, 2004 6:09:33 GMT -5
Post by omeguz on Mar 14, 2004 6:09:33 GMT -5
With all the money Dubbya put into his war, we could have saved millions of lives. Think of it this way: If we had taken the billions of dollars, and invested them in food, water and supplies - distributing it across the third world countries, we would have ALOT less enemies. We could have sent children to school, given them something to eat - given them hope that they will live another day...because they got clean water. But thats not the USA way, is it now? NO! Lets think up a reason to invade another country to A) Make it appear as if our "leader" was compitent B) Capture vast oil fields C) Finish a war the "president's" father started
It is a commonly know fact, that there was absolutely NO reason to invade Iraq. None at all. Give me ONE REASON, static, why the US should have invaded Iraw, and I can counter it - no problem. Sure, your Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that will throw out some fake, desperate reasons, but there is no reason - at all.
So - the Republicans string up a story (assisted by right wing media) and invade Iraq, more than half the polled population were opposed to the invasion, with a president who was not legally elected. Well - not the greatest image and circumstances to invade another country with, but heck! Bush is in power! Its his turn to have some fun! Ok - he has his fun, and then it's all over. Yup, that's right! We come in, annihilate the whole country, flattening everything as we march in. We kill more civilians than actual terrorist (but that's ok - were' the US). And now that we have gotten rid of our imaginary enemy - we leave. We pull out, because we got in too deep - and we can't get out again. So, we organize the media to throw around some big numbers (thats what we will be giving in aid) and leave.
So now we have a devastated country, with a leader that WE put up (since we saw that worked with all the other leaders we establish...), we push some cash in their hands (if they still have hands...), say "your welcome" - and leave.
Of course - we keep 200 troups there, so that we can say that we haven't TOTALLY abandoned them...
God bless the USA - though I honestly can't think of a single reason why he would...
|
|
|
What?
Mar 14, 2004 12:31:03 GMT -5
Post by Static Burn on Mar 14, 2004 12:31:03 GMT -5
Ugh... I still have to doubt the intelligence of anyone who actually thinks that Bush was not in fact the winner of the election, and that the United States government just put him in office for the hell of it.
Hussein and his regeim were a threat to the US and its allies, as well as the people of Iraq. I'm sure you've heard stories about Saddam killing citizens of his own country. Yea.
I have not heard of the US capturing oil fields. If we wanted oil that badly, we would have just gone in and stole it, without bothering to overthrow Saddam, rebuild Iraq, etc.
As for killing more civilians that soldiers, I haven't heard anything about that. However, it does make some sense if you consider the fact that there are civilians who attack US troops, and those God damned bastard motherforking Americans, being the horrible, merciless monsters that they are, decide to fight back instead just standing there and getting shot.
Most of the money for the war is going into rebuilding Iraq, seeing as it is being spent over 10 years. If you take that same amount of money, though, and distribute it to the poorest 25% of the world over that time period, you're giving each of those people $6 a year. Yea... that'll pay for anything.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 14, 2004 13:49:04 GMT -5
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 14, 2004 13:49:04 GMT -5
I have not heard of the US capturing oil fields. If we wanted oil that badly, we would have just gone in and stole it, without bothering to overthrow Saddam, rebuild Iraq, etc. Static gimme a break, everyone knows the answer to that question? How would it look if the US just strolled into Iraq and stole their oil, without doing anything to help them? Thats political suicide and you know it. And @ omeguz, i believe the Iraq was was[/b] just, but Bush did it for the wrong reasons. #1 - Saddam was commiting genocide. Saddam Hussein killed more of his own people than Slabodan Milosivich did, yet no one argued when we went to war with them. If Bush would have focused on the tyranny of the leader instead of focusing on the non-existant WMD, i think things would have turned out differently. #2 - There were al qaeda terrorists in Iraq. They found numerous training camps throughout the country. So if Bush would have included this as one of his main arguments to go to war, then there may have been more support for it. However, I do commend Bush for attempting to get the UN's approval, and he got it to, the predicted that he would receive the majority of the vote, but the French and Germans kept on vetoing it. The French only did that because they have invested millions of dollars into Iraq over the last 10 years, and they didnt want to lose that investment. That is why the UN is worthless. A single country with another agenda can overrule the decision of every other country on the council. Now im not saying i like Bush, i hate the guy. But, i think hes gotten the short end of the stick on the war.
|
|
|
What?
Mar 14, 2004 17:53:14 GMT -5
Post by omeguz on Mar 14, 2004 17:53:14 GMT -5
Oh static, static...I think you watch too much FOX "News".
I don't see this discussion going anywhere... oh well - no hard feelings. All in the good spirit of debate.
|
|