The Case Against George W. Bush

I stopped reading this forum, I dunno why. There used to be some really good discussion here, and probably still is. I read this and thought of a lot of the 'conservative' people that back Bush, no matter what...I hope you take the time to read it, and look at the author when you do....

http://www.esquire.com/features/arti..._reagan_1.html

~edit, I was going to refrain from posting part of the article in hopes more people would read it, but I can't help myself....

Quote:

---

During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more "humble" foreign policy. "I would take the use of force very seriously," he said. "I would be guarded in my approach." Other countries would resent us "if we're an arrogant nation." He sniffed at the notion of "nation building." "Our military is meant to fight and win wars. . . . And when it gets overextended, morale drops." International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration's approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush's remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.

---

As I hate politics and politions with a passion, I was just going to skim parts of that artical to justify my farther dislike of all things political.

Damn, I read the whole thing twice. It was an interesting read and even if I will not go so far as saying I agree with it, I found more than a few points that need more of an explaination.

I'm sure our resident 'Super Right Wingers' will clash with our resident 'Super Left' and every one will be shoveling more bulls*** down our throats as they justify their positions, but the one point I really agree with is the bumper sticker he quoted at the end of the artical.

What the left doesn't get is the Right Wingers dislike Bush for many reasons. Bush said a lot of things before New York and the Pentagon was almost destroy. That seems to elude some opinions and not everyone wants him to go weak on national policy concerning several key issues. So that is what it comes down to; issues facing the US and what each Candidate will do and what we the people believe they will do. "No Matter what" I'lll choose the one who will do the things I desire of them. That happens to be Bush and now after weeks of campaigning Kerry says he will do most of the same things - completely going against his past records. So I wonder, will Kerry keep his word? And if Bush is doing the same thing already why go through a change? The left says a change is necessary to make the world like us better. bah. Nothing we do will do that, look now we basically are permanately removing 70,000 troops from Erope and Asia, does the world like that? Probably not but it makes sense to place troops were they are needed, even the left has always said that in critisism of events in Afgan. and Iraq. Only the idiotic follow blindly.

most of this article is mere retoric and really not woth debating. ill take some exception with "the big brother jargan". while this is true to some extant and causes me some concern, we are at war.

i would like to point out, only so you can see, what the right to decent means to the left. you've seen the protestors in boston...oh you haven't? well that's because there's no news in peaceful demonstration but this is what the right to decent is all about. now watch what happens in NY.


right now "pin wheel ronnie" as president regan is reffered to in heaven, must be rolling over in his grave.

Quote:

---

i would like to point out, only so you can see, what the right to decent means to the left. you've seen the protestors in boston...oh you haven't? well that's because there's no news in peaceful demonstration but this is what the right to decent is all about. now watch what happens in NY.

---

Not much happened expect for a few outbursts...

The trafic wasn't even that bad...although businesses in the area suffered. They only made 1/10th of what the dems predicted for them. The Boston PD was well prepared for them as well, and was very organized.


Here's something to expect:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections...20113609990016
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129368,00.html


Unfortunately the NY mayor has no clue about how bad it will get, so expect some disturbing headlines

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bludgeon
The Case Against George W. Bush

---

*sigh* Don’t worry buddy because “Belgium Drops War Crimes Cases”

Yeah, ok, the :brickwall World Court in Belgium is the equivalent of Judge Judy to the US :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Former United States President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will no longer have to appear in a Belgium court to answer to charges of crimes against humanity.

---

:rolleyes:

And they say the US and Bush is arrogant...

Are we talking about the same Bush here?

The idea behind the law was a good one (to be able to file complaints for crimes that nobody else seemed to care about: genocides and war crimes in Sabra/Shatila, Rwanda, Congo,...). The practical implication of that law isn't that unusual (it happens in almost every country, afaik). Think about the Russian hacker being tricked into coming to the US, where he was promptly arrested: that's the exact same principle: someone files a case against a foreigner, and if the case is accepted, no action is taken until the subject enters the country, where he then gets a fair trial. The case of the Russian hacker is even "worse", since he was tricked. If the court would have accepted a case against Bush, he would've gotten a nice letter in the mail: "Next time you come to Belgium, please let us know and we'll set up a nice courtroom for you". I never understood the fuss about that law: every other country has them. Only difference is that victims didn't have to be Belgian to file a case (although the law got amended pretty fast to change that).

At least it got the UN to finally do something about Rwanda, and drew some attention to other forgotten cases in countries where there is no fair judicial system (and that's what the law was originally for - countries with fair judicial systems got excluded by amendment even before the US knew about the law... Bush could never have been sued using that law).

While we're kinda on the subject of the U.N, I think the U.N is a worthless crap of countries that we need to drop out of.

All the U.N does is sit on their assess and issue remprimands to countries.

If it wasnt' for us, we'd still be telling Iraq that unless they give up their weapons, we're gonna stop buying from them :0