George Bush - Face Reality

[woodyloveslinkin]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--President Bush’s speech this morning at the Naval Academy is a reflection of his stubborn, narrow-vision approach to governing. More and more, what he says is devoid of reality. To listen to Bush is to enter a dreamworld.

Faced with incontrovertible facts of increasing costs ($6 billion a month), soldier deaths day after day(2,100), growing disenchantment in Congress (The Senate is demanding periodic reports on how the war is faring), the failure of the Iraqi security forces to protect the country,all signs of a coming defeat, he keeps on keeping on with pledges of total victory. He won’t set "artificial deadlines" for withdrawal. "No war has ever been won on a timetable - and neither will this one."

As for Bush’s national victory strategy, an unclassified version of the obvious, Bush breaks down the enemy into three groups: Rejectionists, mostly Sunni Arabs, whose resistance the U.S. thinks will gradually fade. Second are the Saddamists, active members of the former regime whose power the U.S. expects to decline over time until finally the Iraqi security forces can defeat them. And finally there are the terrorists, who are tied in with al Qaeda and who must be hunted down and captured or killed.

Most of all, Bush himself and his strategy statement omit oil, a major reason--if not the only reason--for invading Iraq to begin with. And here the U.S. is on the verge of executing a total takeover of the once nationalized industry, turning it instead into a privatized business to be run by the big international companies--descendants of the original oil companies that colonized Iraq to begin with.

SOURCE

[Friðbjörn]

I don't really listen to anything Bush says anymore...

 

But, I mean, they went in, and said they were after weapons of mass destruction. They lost that battle, and later took back statements of going in based on weapons of mass destruction.

If we however look at the goal of getting Saddam away, then in that case they're doing good in "winning" this "war", as people call it, which I don't get, this is an invasion. Doesn't matter, this is warfare, whether it's war or invasion, and there can be no winner in that, if you ask me.

And if they went in for the oil, as many things point to, they're certainly kicking Iraqi ass in that.

 

I don't know...I just think it's stupid, fighting wars and invading countries. And I'm not just talking about Bush's foreign affairs polocy. I mean yes, that too, but also the Yugoslavian wars, African civil wars, everything.

You'd think man was mature enough not to kill his own kind.

[azemkamikaze03]

Okay, why do people think that a war should only last 2 months? Most wars aren't short people. You know why we are apparently "Loosing" this war, becuase there are a whole bunch of liberal winers who'd never visited Iraq that want you to believe that. There have been so much good stuff happening in Iraq, but it's overshadowed by the fact that 2000 soldier dieing and shit. Okay yes It is very sad that were loosing so much soldier but you cant fully blame Bush. When a civilian goes to the recruiter and signs thoes papers to join the military, he knows what he's getting himself into. The whole point of the military is to basically go to war and fight in the name of America. The people who join the military know this. So if they truly didn't want die, then they wouldn't have taken that risk, especially that the fact that alot of the people being sent to Iraq are privates so they know whats happening.

 

Another thing. Soldiers have made so many acomplishments and yet people down them. That is just bringing down the moral, people make it so unpopular that it just ends make soldiers feel like they are just wasting thier time. We are in Iraq for the right reason. It's tough to determine what exact days they can start pulling out. It all depends on which way the wind blows. Once the Iraqi Militants get the hand of things and become fully trained then America can really start pulling out her troops, until then we need them in their. It's tough, I should know, every night I dream that tommorrow my dad's boss will come in with papers saying his going to be deployed. It's hard, but it's life. We sit here on our asses and stare at the computer screen whatching shit off ebuams world, while people in Iraq are dodgin bullets just to drop a peice of paper in a box that promises freedom. We take our rights/freedom for granted. Just becuase you may not like Bush, doesn't mean that were in Iraq for all the wrong reasons. For pete sakes even democrats like JOE LIBERMAN are seeing all the good in Iraq now! We're trying to liberate a country and give them the finer things in life. Pulling out now is like a broken leg with no crutch, they wont last without us. Give it some time, instead of complaining about how much ppl are dieing in Iraq try suppourting the troops instead. Go to the uso and pay for carepackages. Pay so that soldiers can get calling cards and be able to see their family that they haven't seen in so long. Be suppourtive.

 

I mean becuase if we didn't help Iraq..who would?

[azemkamikaze03]

You'd think man was mature enough not to kill his own kind.

 

Funny, becuase war ironically achieves peice. WWII achieved the fall of Hitler and a whole lotta other dictators. If you are a religious person, in many cases there have been 'holy wars' in the name of a god in order to achieve peace. You can hardly ever be passive and achieve anything. America kicked British tail in the revolution and now we are a super power and have like one of the most free countries in the world (beside the nuetral countries) There must be bwar(in the smallest form or largest) in order to progress, it's sad but it's true.

 

sry for the doub. post

[Friðbjörn]

First off, was the first post targeted at me?

 

Now second, that has little to do with what I said, and what I meant.

If man was mature enough not to kill his own kind, we wouldn't need any peace bringing wars. There would be no thing to fight over, cause man would be mature enough not to kill his own kind, and mature enough not to steal or do anything wrong to other people.

 

Now, yes, I'm pretty religious, but I'm way more liberal in my faith than most.

Plus, even though I am religious, does that make me agree with religious wars? No.

and does me being religious mean that I thereby support those wars? No. Wars, religious or not are tools of man, have nothing to do with what they believe in, they're just using it then, as an excuse to go to war, or are ignorant enough to want to kill because people won't take up the same religion.

[woodyloveslinkin]

Funny, becuase war ironically achieves peice.

 

 

have you learnt about what the americans did in vietnam? and they didnt achieve peace they achieved capitalism.

[LPGotLinkinPark]

For the record, we're not in there for the oil. If we were, we would've taken over it already.

 

I personally am completely against the war and have been from the beginning, and you probably won't change my mind. In my eyes, I think it is pointless. Even if it's the "War on Terrorism," it's not like we're gonna stop it all. I do have a problem with the US going into so many countries, just because we believe our ways are the best. I don't think we should go to war with any country unless they attack us first (and the actual country, not a terrorist attack from a group of people) or they ask for our help or another good reason. I wouldn't even mind if we just had spies and assassins over there for people like Osama Bin Ladin and Sadaam Husane and others. But a whole war? Why? It's unnecessary.

 

As for the comment of religious wars, those are even more dumb. Most religions teach to accept everyone who believes in God (as in the God of Abraham, which includes Jews, Christians, & Muslims). Religious was made to teach people to be better people and solve things peacefully, not fight......This part might be a little biased from my part seeing as how I'm not a religious person. I believe in God, but I have my own views on religion.

[Brkng_Th_Hbt]

Marianne, I agree with you on some aspects, but I also agree with a lot of what Azem said. I'm not going to argue and state my opinion about this because I don't know that much about what's going on, and I don't think anybody really cares what I think, lol. I really don't have anything else to say except that I hope this thread does not turn into a big fight. But who says political debating isn't fun?

[majinkamahl]

GotLinkinPark?']For the record' date=' we're not in there for the oil. If we were, we would've taken over it already.[/quote']

 

 

Yes, you are. Oh, and one word on the subject: PIPELINE.

[Hybrid Soldier]

GotLinkinPark?']For the record' date=' we're not in there for the oil. If we were, we would've taken over it already.[/quote']

Proof? None, exactly.

 

And Azem, it makes em glad to see someone of my age that sees things for how they are like you.

 

And Fribby, are you mature enough not to do all of those things?

[Friðbjörn]

are you mature enough not to do all of those things?

That's actually a very good question.

I can at least say I'm mature enough not to kill, and not to physically hurt people, unless that means saving lives. I'll agree killing can be necessary, but only to save lives.

On the other things, if I have ever stolen anything, then I can't recall it. Very possible though.

I've done wrong to people many times, that's true, so maybe that's hippocracy of me to wish that man was mature enough not to do wrong things. But, in wishing for the moral improvement of man, I of course include myself. I want to better my own behaviour, just as much as I want violence to stop.

I've been improving myself lately, partly so that I can expect the same from others. But for the most part so that I can sleep at night.

 

But I realize the fact though that man does really not have free will. We can only give in to our urges. It's only up to our judgement to decide which urges we do not find appropriate to give in to.

So I guess it is a lost battle.

[azemkamikaze03]

Okay no one is mature enough not kill. Maturity does not decided wether or not a man kills. Its a phsycological thing. If pushed to the edge anyone will kill. We can have peace and harmony between contries but there will always be that kid who was neglected and abused and literally pushed over the egde into a pool of spikes that decide to hurt more just becuase its him. And that kid will grow up and remeber who exactly those spikes are and destroy them. Can you blame him. No. Is it that he's not Mature enough? No. So the fact that peace and non violence will come through maturity is false. Hitler was a kid very similar to that, and he ended up killing an assload more than he really should have been entitled to. And in order to stop his menance and basically save the jews and german we had to kill.

 

Um Woody, Vietnam would have been much more succesful if we didn't have half of America bashing the very people that protect their asses. See thats the problem with Americans, they dont want war and yet whenever the fire gets to heated they immediatley want the Military to do something.

[Friðbjörn]

Maybe that's true, especially with kids that are abused and treated like shit.

But I'm talking mostly about premeditated murders, killing for someone's car, or out of jealousy.

 

But then again every murder is bad, so I guess that doesn't matter...

 

But as far as maturity goes, it counts in killing for wordly possessions, like oil, or power over something.

If it's not maturity, what is it? Are we really that mature? Think again. We only care about naive, stupid things. I do myself. We all do. We all have to get the newest fashion item, or something else unimportant that we crave.

I guess we just can't resist our urges, as goes for murders.

 

Now look, I'm not pointing any fingers here, I'm not saying yeah your country is bad, they invade countries and shit, or that another country is bad for stealing something from the one next to them, and so on

I'm just tired of killings.

Yeah, maybe I should face the reality, but do you really find it bad of me to wish that people wouldn't kill each other?

 

Oh hell, this is getting off-topic, I'll stop my peace rant here.

[azemkamikaze03]

Not at all I just don't agree when people say that we dont need war and that George Bush stupid, and I especially hate the people who make america look like were run by a bunch of retards. Becuase basically all the ppl who say are idiots. Bush probably has more education than that person or their mother/father. Plus, no war is good, I wish we could all just be happy and agree, but I mean that not how it is.

 

We dont get in wars for oil. I mean no matter how evil you think bush may be its a given hes not in their for the oil If we were then Bush wouldnt be wasting all of our God dang time trying to get Iraq back on its two feet. We would just go take oil ship it back here and voila. Bush wouldnt have risked so many lives just for oil. He knows soon enough oil will be worthless. It will. With hydrogen, veggie oil, solar, electricity, and water becoming increasingly popular ways of being used for energy oil will becom obsolete. Before you know it we will all be using hybrid cars.(not that im thrilled about it ) I mean so he knows better than that.

 

And I mean these liberal people are getting on my nerves the most. in Sanfrancisco, oka now brace yourselves, they VOTED to TAKE OUT recruiting booths from school grounds. Now think about that for a second. Recruiting booths just like advertise and allow ppl to sign up to join the army.(in other words it for ppl to sign up to Protect america) Why would you do that? They want to be protected and but they dont wanna have ppl sign up to protect them. And then thoes same ppl go and say oh the government is the devil and they are soo dumb and blah blah blah blah.

 

So yeah

[Friðbjörn]

"Plus, no war is good, I wish we could all just be happy and agree, but I mean that not how it is."

Exactly.

 

Now, okay, you will have to accept the fact that people are going to dislike US foreign matters polocy, you have to admit that sometimes it's a little...how do you say it...ah hell I don't know the word, anyway...

I mean Bush would never have invaded Iraq if Hussein wasn't such a mean dictator. Still I have to say it's a little divious to me, those Halliburton suspicions...don't know if they're true though.

 

What I don't get is why they use phosphorus weapons. Ok, US did not sign this agreement, but still, we all saw how terrible this thing is, and that to innocent civilians...civilians. Bush can invade and take on dictators, but the whole point is to better civilian lives. And these weapons, I mean no enemy base can be worthy of killing innocent people, so many of them, not to mention in such a horrible way.

 

It is however true, that before the invasion, Western Countries didn't give a shit about Iraqis. We only started caring when Bush invaded. Now that's just hippocracy, maybe we're jealous of US army power or something, I really don't know...

[woodyloveslinkin]

Bush wants the publicity... good or bad... either way he's a jerk. please don't get me started on him.

[Hybrid Soldier]

Bush wants the publicity... good or bad... either way he's a jerk. please don't get me started on him.

Please continue, I'd like to see your obviously uninformed and biased views on him.

[woodyloveslinkin]

nah i think im happy.

[Clogz]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--President Bush’s speech this morning at the Naval Academy is a reflection of his stubborn, narrow-vision approach to governing. More and more, what he says is devoid of reality. To listen to Bush is to enter a dreamworld.

Faced with incontrovertible facts of increasing costs ($6 billion a month), soldier deaths day after day(2,100), growing disenchantment in Congress (The Senate is demanding periodic reports on how the war is faring), the failure of the Iraqi security forces to protect the country,all signs of a coming defeat, he keeps on keeping on with pledges of total victory. He won’t set "artificial deadlines" for withdrawal. "No war has ever been won on a timetable - and neither will this one."

As for Bush’s national victory strategy, an unclassified version of the obvious, Bush breaks down the enemy into three groups: Rejectionists, mostly Sunni Arabs, whose resistance the U.S. thinks will gradually fade. Second are the Saddamists, active members of the former regime whose power the U.S. expects to decline over time until finally the Iraqi security forces can defeat them. And finally there are the terrorists, who are tied in with al Qaeda and who must be hunted down and captured or killed.

Most of all, Bush himself and his strategy statement omit oil, a major reason--if not the only reason--for invading Iraq to begin with. And here the U.S. is on the verge of executing a total takeover of the once nationalized industry, turning it instead into a privatized business to be run by the big international companies--descendants of the original oil companies that colonized Iraq to begin with.

SOURCE

 

All this is really just liberal propoganda. I checked the source site and read several other articles...and I'm sorry but most of this is baseless. Just because you don't agree with the war doesn't mean we aren't winning. We are doing a fine job. In fact, Democratic (and liberal) Senetor Joe Lieberman just returned from Iraq and has said that things are going much better there.

 

I won't go into why we started this war, because that would digress from the topic. But, most of that above is just selectivly written. Like all liberal and anti-Bush media, they refuse to give the whole story and only tell a certain part.

 

For example, no war has been won on a timetable, this is correct. I doubt we had the exact day picked out for when the American civil war would end, or WWII. The Iraqi security forces are out in greater number everyday. Some 5,000 are already serving with American forces and more will join them in the coming year.

 

And 2,100 deaths is not as bad as it could be. Considering the type of enemy they face, the enviroments and situations they fight in, plus all your regular stress with war, its actually a low number.

 

I'm not saying things have been perfect (and believe me, they haven't), but thats no reason to believe this bias article or the site its posted on. I think The Onion is more reliable then this.

 

http://www.theonion.com

[LPGotLinkinPark]

And I mean these liberal people are getting on my nerves the most. in Sanfrancisco, oka now brace yourselves, they VOTED to TAKE OUT recruiting booths from school grounds. Now think about that for a second. Recruiting booths just like advertise and allow ppl to sign up to join the army.(in other words it for ppl to sign up to Protect america) Why would you do that? They want to be protected and but they dont wanna have ppl sign up to protect them. And then thoes same ppl go and say oh the government is the devil and they are soo dumb and blah blah blah blah.

 

So yeah

You said to take out of school grounds. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I'd believe that even the army would want boys to finish high school before joining the army because when they get out of the service with no high school diploma, their life is basicly nothing at that point.

 

And Clogz, I was going to mention that the article was biased, but I thought it was obvious enough. I mean, if it was a ligitimat (so?) article, there would have to be no biased. A journalist is supposed to just give facts with a few opinions as long as it's not completely against it like this article.

 

However, I still don't agree with sending them there in the first place. I just don't like wars at all. If we absolutely have to fight, I understand, but otherwise I'm completely against any war.

[azemkamikaze03]

Yeah, they do but mainly its there to like advertise. They hand out little brochures and sometimes free watches. They are virtually harmless. I mean it's for a good cuase, if you don't like it ignore it. We have them in my school and it doesn't bother me. I just wave hello to the guys and im on my way. But for the kids who are curious these guys can give them information on what they could do.

[Clogz]

Yes' date=' you are. Oh, and one word on the subject: PIPELINE.[/quote']

 

Oh no, we aren't. Its called an economic takeover. We secretly bargain off with Saddam, our big companies move in and start pumping it out. Bush sends out some news about cooperation with Iraq, we get more oil, and everyone is all smiles. And no one dies.

 

But of course, a war would do that so much better, huh?

[atreyu]

Bush wants the publicity... good or bad... either way he's a jerk. please don't get me started on him.

well then do something about him instead of just whining. if you hate him so much either leave or do something about it. just saying things is going to get you nowhere. it's annoying how people whine and cry and carry on with things, but then they dont do anything about it

[Clogz]

well then do something about him instead of just whining. if you hate him so much either leave or do something about it. just saying things is going to get you nowhere. it's annoying how people whine and cry and carry on with things' date=' but then they dont do anything about it[/quote']

 

Well, she lives in Australia so technically she can't do anything about it.

[atreyu]

Well' date=' she lives in Australia so technically she [u']can't[/u] do anything about it.

then she shouldnt be saying anything in the first place about the american president if she doesnt even live here.