Nobel Peace Prize Winner Says She Wants to Kill George W. Bush, Gets Standing Ovation

[youandwhosearmy]

People who voted for Bush were not dumb. They wanted a leader who would pursue an active foreign policy without the mildness of a democrat such as Bill Clinton. Bush seemed like the the man to get things done and the many Americans holding each others hands moments such as 9/11 only strenghted their resolve that he was the right candidate in the beginning.

Oh PLEASE, try to keep in mind he was voted in twice. Please keep in mind that people actually started to believe in his military service during that election and honestly believed he was some kind of awesome soldier(when he was a draft dodger) and John Kerry look like the scum of the earth (when he was fucking war hero). Disgusting.

Let this thread die, the arguments in here (some of which are good) belong in a better thread about general politics, not some Spodaddy/Micheal Savage inspired taking fake offense to what some old Irish lady thinks of Bush.

[icarusfall]

The only problem is they elected a total incompetent who brought croneyism to a new high. The war would have gone well had they been willing to simply wipe out any village, town, or city section that hosted the rebels. That or move quickly to restore basic services rather than focusing on oil legislation or... well it goes on.

So, we should be very interested in womens rights in America, but we should just mow down any person near a 'bad guy' in the middle east.

Right.

And don't give me that "Well that's how to get it done" bullshit - there's nothing remotely ok about what you propose.

[James]

We all knew Bush was useless before 9/11, and his post-9/11 actions before the election didn't give us any reason to believe otherwise. Giuliani was a better leader than Bush during that time, and god knows I wouldn't want him anywhere near the presidency.

Bush was useless and corrupt before, during, and after 9/11. He got back in the White House because people wanted to believe what he was saying, rather than look at what he was actually doing.

James

[nocturne]

Oh PLEASE, try to keep in mind he was voted in twice. Please keep in mind that people actually started to believe in his military service during that election and honestly believed he was some kind of awesome soldier(when he was a draft dodger) and John Kerry look like the scum of the earth (when he was fucking war hero). Disgusting.

Let this thread die, the arguments in here (some of which are good) belong in a better thread about general politics, not some Spodaddy/Micheal Savage inspired taking fake offense to what some old Irish lady thinks of Bush.

You lost all credibility when you called John Kerry a war hero. He was not a war Hero, he got honorabley discharged due to friendly fire. Kerry was no better than Bush. And if anything why should anyone care about the supposed ''War heros'' of Vietnam i mean what good did that war do for us?None. For them? None. There are no heroes in war, because wars are not noble or just.

Truth is last election was probabley the worst in recent history. Do you want to vote in Tweedle dum or tweedle dee.

I do agree with you about letting this thread die.

[Melf]

You lost all credibility when you called John Kerry a war hero. He was not a war Hero, he got honorabley discharged due to friendly fire.

I'm not going to say you're wrong on this, but all evidence I've seen has come from right-wing bloggers and such during the campaign. I can say that I've yet to see any concrete evidence that this is true.

Kerry was no better than Bush.

Well, he wasn't Bush, so that makes him better. Of course, this can be said of anyone who isn't Bush. The problem is that we shouldn't have to settle for the less shitty of two candidates. The 2004 election was simply the worst I've ever seen, with a choice between someone with no credibility about his stances on any issue versus a moron who rose to power on the coattails of his father and party cronies.

And if anything why should anyone care about the supposed ''War heros'' of Vietnam i mean what good did that war do for us?None. For them? None. There are no heroes in war, because wars are not noble or just.

This isn't fair to those who went and risked their lives for our country, especially when many were drafted. Vietnam may have been a disaster, but the U.S. has fought in conflicts that were noble and worthy, such as WWII. Each conflict is its own animal, dictated by the circumstances and politicians of its time, and you can't simply lump crass, imperialistic power plays like the Spanish-American War in with great fights for freedom like WWII. They're not all the same.

To say that there are no heroes in war means that those who sacrificed everything for American independence, the maintaining of the union, and to stop Fascism did so in vain. I can't accept that. War is not pretty, but there are times when it's necessary and a noble undertaking. It should always be a last recourse, but one should always remember that America, for one, wouldn't exist today if not for the belief that some things are worth fighting for.

[nocturne]

I'm not going to say you're wrong on this, but all evidence I've seen has come from right-wing bloggers and such during the campaign. I can say that I've yet to see any concrete evidence that this is true.

Well, he wasn't Bush, so that makes him better. Of course, this can be said of anyone who isn't Bush. The problem is that we shouldn't have to settle for the less shitty of two candidates. The 2004 election was simply the worst I've ever seen, with a choice between someone with no credibility about his stances on any issue versus a moron who rose to power on the coattails of his father and party cronies.

This isn't fair to those who went and risked their lives for our country, especially when many were drafted. Vietnam may have been a disaster, but the U.S. has fought in conflicts that were noble and worthy, such as WWII. Each conflict is its own animal, dictated by the circumstances and politicians of its time, and you can't simply lump crass, imperialistic power plays like the Spanish-American War in with great fights for freedom like WWII. They're not all the same.

To say that there are no heroes in war means that those who sacrificed everything for American independence, the maintaining of the union, and to stop Fascism did so in vain. I can't accept that. War is not pretty, but there are times when it's necessary and a noble undertaking. It should always be a last recourse, but one should always remember that America, for one, wouldn't exist today if not for the belief that some things are worth fighting for.

I will admit that saying there sacrifices were useless is quite cold and me being an ass hole so i take that back. But i still believe there are no heroes.

Maybe in an ideal world or the world of the average person who dosent recognize the bare truth that we are being manipulated on every front would think that War itself is noble, but as Bertrand Russel once stated- ''War does not determine who is right- only who is left.''
The only true fascists were the U.S. during the Cold War and even today. Stopping Fascism? Fuck that, we are the ones who go to every other country trying to force our democratic ideals down their throats. If they resist? Then we have what is called the War on Terror. We are the ones bred to distrust communism and socialism when anybody with half a brain can see that it would be better for all of society.

I'll start a political thread to continue this.

[Fe 26]

People who voted for Bush were not dumb. They wanted a leader who would pursue an active foreign policy without the mildness of a democrat such as Bill Clinton. Bush seemed like the the man to get things done and the many Americans holding each others hands moments such as 9/11 only strenghted their resolve that he was the right candidate in the beginning.

don't lie to yourself. It was because kerry was a sad sack of cow poo compared to Bill and Republicans are scared of gay men in wedding dresses.

[Grey's Anatomy]

What a stupid comment to make.

WTF? Why is that stupid?

[Fe 26]

because the US has taken it upon itself in the past 50 years to partake in things that have a large impact on the rest of the world.

Therefor, the rest of the world has some right to an opinion about us and our leaders.

[MarsKitten]

So, we should be very interested in womens rights in America, but we should just mow down any person near a 'bad guy' in the middle east.

Right.

And don't give me that "Well that's how to get it done" bullshit - there's nothing remotely ok about what you propose.

Where did I say "bad guys," when I mean wipe out a town, I mean ever man woman or child, guilty or not. The town is passive enough, or non-American enough to side with our enemies, they too are our enemies. Fear works, if they're so afraid that everyone they know and love, themselves included will be wiped out if a terrorist is in town, the towns people will be the first ones to kill them and hand them over.

What the difference? The Middle East is NOT America, they are not Americans and have not signed up for the social contract that is America. That is how nations work. If we goto war, we kill people, if towns ally or favor the rebels over the Americans, the town is our enemy, thats how it works. You make an example of them, and no one else will want to risk their towns where they grew up, lived, loved and their family lives over politics.

I believe we should hold a similar policy to deter suicide bombers, if we can identify them, we should wipe out their entire family in the region if possible. We're at war, and because this is what is necessary this is why I detest war, because to win, you've got slaughter the innocent and guilty alike, there is no justice in war, only victory or defeat. Everything in between is anarchy.