Crosswords2 mins ago
What the hell...Bush again?
14 Answers
Will someone please tell me how on earth the 'educated world' still sits by and watches in forced silence as Bush is again placed in a position of utmost power?!? Does he and our own government (who will undoubtedly stick their nose up his redneck arse once again) have any idea what the majority think...do they care? How can we as individuals get heared and put right something that has been based upon lies since the very beginning? Any ideas guys? My frustration has no channel and its making me more and more angry! Careful goverment it only takes a single 'crank' to make a 'revolution'! Everybody discuss and lets make our voices heared...together!
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willprentice. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To be a leader in any country must be the hardest thing anyone can take on(but somebody has to do it). What really infuriates me is that press and television publish a small portion of what has actually been said or done, because it makes for a better story. Then everybody latches on to this whether it be a slip of the tongue, wrong clothes etc and all you get is the ridiculing of that person. I do not for a minute believe either one of them (Blair or Bush) is a lapdog to the other both are very intelligent people and have no need to do this. Why cant we just leave them alone and get on with the job in hand and pray that a peace solution can be found as soon as possible. Would anybody here want their job is anybody here capable of doing their job if it comes that. What they have to contend with is on a much much larger scale than everyday folk have to do. Yes we can all teach our kids not to fight and argue but can you teach your street not to. Well a nation to teach is more than I would care to take on and I expect anyone here. Just ask yourself this if we had not invaded Iraq and Saddam died do you think we would have been safe with his sons in power, I think not. We only have to back to WW2 and what the germans did to the Jews to see we cannot let that happen again no matter race they are. Ans as for weapons of mass destruction Iraq was given plenty of warning about UN visits to check to see if there was any, do you think they would still have been there when they went in, I think not. I feel for all the troops in Iraq and around the world fighting in anothers country. But soldiers dont join the army to play paintball games. So please leave our leaders alone to get on with their jobs without all this backstabbing all the time. Then come election time we can vote on who we want and it is pretty obvious America wants Bush.
okay, whilst I would love to agree with a revolution, the US is a democracy, more people votred than before and Bush won - probably fairly.
Personally I hate Tony Blair, but I do appreciate the fact that more poeple in this country seem to like him for some strange reason. (though not many people seem to say that they voted for him).
I do feel sorry for people like Jennymac though, who seem to think that whatever the leaders say must be true! - "Just ask yourself this if we had not invaded Iraq and Saddam died do you think we would have been safe with his sons in power, I think not" - yes, I believe we would be safe with his sons in power, just as there was no threat to the UK since Sadaam has been in power.
"We only have to back to WW2 and what the germans did to the Jews to see we cannot let that happen again no matter race they are" - like we are doiing in the 'poor' African states - oh no we aren't doing anything about Zimbabwe are we? The government can't even tell our cricket team to boycott that country. You may also not know or not care that we armed Iraq when they were at war with Iran.
"as for weapons of mass destruction Iraq was given plenty of warning about UN visits to check to see if there was any, do you think they would still have been there when they went in, I think not" - not sure what you are saying here - You think he destroyed them when the weapon inspectors went? If so thats not really a problem - or did he hide them where no one would ever find them? - not an easy thing to do - especially if you are offering a reward for them to be found - lets face it they can capture Sadaam why not the weapons?
And as a final thought:- "So please leave our leaders alone to get on with their jobs without all this backstabbing all the time" - do you think the population of Germany said this in 1939?
I would have to agree with jennymac on this one, I agree with every point you have made so far! Especially the one about feeling for the troops, my boyfriends brother is going out to Iraq for the third time next week and the second time over christmas and I am sick of people protesting and not supporting what has already been done. However angry it makes you feel, Bush is in power and Blair too so you may aswell support the decisions that are made. I would like to know why it is so terrible that Bush has this power?
Oneeyedvic - Have you ever read anything about Saddams sons I think you need to read about the atrocities they committed, just one instance is about the one that was in charge of their football team and if they did not play well he shot them or tortued them with electric wire and then shot them. As for Zimbabwe I agree more should be done but shall we do it all at once? I think prioritising a situation and then acting on it is called for. And as for the Germans in 1939 I dont follow what you are trying to say.
You know, I voted for Kerry and while I was very disappointed (Ohio, you MotherF-ers!) I guess somebody must like Bush? Personally I think he was up to his shennanigans somehow and I really feel for kerry after such a great campaign. Both of them have their good and bad points though. I do understand some of bush's logic, and I find his jokes amusing. There's no such thing as good democracy, as the Majority wins and usually the majority doesn't even know what's good for them. No revolution will happen because it takes a zillion single cranks and then some, think about russian revolution in 1905: all that revolting and bloodshed and for what? everything to return to normal a year later. Even if kerry had won, I wonder if things really would be that different. Like the old saying goes "All the man on bottom wants is to be the man on top, and all the man on top wants is the status quo"
Jennymac - the point about Germany in 39 is - both you and ulaboola both say that you should stand by the government regardless - I assume the majority of Germans did the same for Hitler. A lot of Germans would not have agreed with his policies but gone along with them saying "well I can't change anything".
I am sorry for the troops that are out in Iraq - but the fact of the matter is that our Prime Minsiter DELIBERATELY misled the British people into letting our troops go out. A lot of MPs did not support the war and I believe many more would not have supported had they known that WMDs did not exist (as has now been proven).
We (unlike the US) did not go in for a 'regime chanage' but went in as they were a threat and had weapons that could be mobilised in 45 minutes.. Some threat.
With regard points of Sadaams' son - I agree they are brutal people and IF I did beleive in regime changes thn it was a good ida to go in. Howvere 2 points: (1) 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the last year (since being 'free' - what is the price of freedom? (2) Where do you draw the line? If I knew (or even suspected) that a local person was going to commit a serious crime (eg murder) could i pre-emptively kill them and say things like "would you prefer a world with him" and "its for the better good"?
We let our PM do the same though.
I do agree with Bernado though - there ouldn't be much difference between Kerry & Bush getting in - just as there would be little differnc between Blair & Howard.
Same sh1t - different day
I am an American, and I am ashamed. I wish that Jennymac�s faith was warranted, but it is not. George Bush is just as dumb as he is rumored to be. As for the press �latching on� to his bumbling, it is incorrect to assume that these episodes are the exception. He has given fewer press conferences (13) than any president in U.S. history. Even so, there are countless instances of him doing or saying stupid things to the press.
Unfortunately, America is still a very puritanical, religiously intolerant, backward place. We should not have the kind of power that we have, because we cannot be trusted to use it responsibly. Make no mistake about it, the reelection of George Bush by the American people is a global tragedy.
Unfortunately, America is still a very puritanical, religiously intolerant, backward place. We should not have the kind of power that we have, because we cannot be trusted to use it responsibly. Make no mistake about it, the reelection of George Bush by the American people is a global tragedy.
As for George�s education, his family has been attending Yale University for generations. He is what we refer to as a �legacy� student. He did not have the academic qualifications required to attend Yale, and he does not possess the intelligence required to graduate form Yale, but he did both. That is what wealth and power gets you in the U.S.
I'm a native Texan. Born and raised here and over 50 years old. I was surprised Bush won...but after talking to people who voted for him, I believe it comes down to two things...
1) Religious fundamentalist issues
2) A nation of fraidy cats
Both of these begs an explanation.
I've heard person after person say that they believe Bush is a good man, he is God fearing, he is against abortion, he is against gay marriage.
Bush, despite his pretenses to the contrary, is not FROM Texas...he was born in Connecticut. He is NOT a good old boy..he is educated in Ivy League schools.
He certainly does not respect life. As governor of Texas, he aggressively took part in record numbers of executions. He expresses his interest in "killing the terrorists"...and believes abortion should be available in rape and incest cases.
He is a puppet and an idiot. He cannot even speak correctly...and hence, has spawned numerous lawsuits full of Bushisms, which quote him correctly, and monitor his bizarre thought processes. He is a foul mouth jerk who has a history of using the term "motherf*cker".
The notion that he can't be that bad or he wouldn't be president is ludicrous. Hitler was elected, and Hussein was re-elected prior to being deposed with 100 percent of the vote.
Now, it looks like the religious right is expanding its agenda due to this crazy idea that they have a mandate.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1203
Texas textbooks to reflect anti-gay, anti-safe sex attitudes
Bob Herbert, in the New York Times, yesterday pointed out the following poll results:
(1) Over 70% of Bush voters believed that there was clear and convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda. (In fact, there was clear and convincing evidence that he wasn't.)
(2) About a third of Bush voters thought that the US had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (We didn't.)
(3) Over a third of Bush voters thought that the invasion of Iraq was generally supported by world opinion. (Of course, it wasn't.)
In other words, Bush won because of the ignorant and the misinformed; the people who believed the lies.
Perhaps the only defence is to spread the FACTS as widely as possible.
--An American with a clue
1 to 14 of 14
